Yes, one more recommendation. No one, other than the military trained or law enforcement, should purchase a firearm without an NRA approved gun safety course certificate. If any of those recommendations flies in the face of the second ammendment, then it is time to revise the second ammendment. It can be done and it should be done!

Most of the measures you suggest are not just unconstitutional as per the Supreme Court, they are contrary to the philosophy of inalienable rights. Yet you continue to promote those measures.

So what are you suggesting here, Marc? Do you think a representative republic is no longer relevant in today's society and we need a dictatorial government? Are you suggesting an overthrow of our current political system?

Or do you believe in working outside the law? There are many people within every government who would like nothing more than to dictate what we may and may not do “for our own good”. Politicians who know they cannot achieve their goals legally circumvent the law and balance of power all the time through executive orders and midnight legislative sessions, they militarize the police to control the population and threaten private businesses. The more control they exert over us, the less control we have of them. Do you believe in maintaining a farce of democracy while attaining your goals through extra-legal means and coercion?

I just don't know why you continue to promote ideas that have already been shot down by the highest court in the land.

Marc, Rights are not dependent on the Constitution. The Constitution limits what the Federal Government can do.

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 551 (1876) "The right there specified [Second Amendment] is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

Repeal the 2nd. Tear up the entire Constitution. The Right of the People to bear arms will STILL exist.

The Supreme Court also says the individual has the Right to own and carry weapons. This is not a privilege, like driving a car or operating a tattoo parlor which can be regulated and licensed by rules written by the State. It is a Right that shall not be infringed. The Supreme Court also says we may own any weapon that is commonly used by a militia - ie, any defensive weapon. The Department of Homeland Security says the AR-15 is suitable for self defense and has ordered 7000 of them for their own use.

You may want to read the comments from law enforcement officers who will be asked to enforce those unconstitutional laws that are being pushed by the current administration: http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/news/2013/01/28/obama-asks-police-to-help-pass-gun-legislation.aspx?utm_campaign=OnTarget-Monday-20130128&utm_source=Email&utm_medium=Enewsletter

You know the irony in all of this, Marc - The CDC ( http://americangunfacts.com/ ) says that for every death by gun there were eighty instances where a gun was used for self defense.

Imagine that, Marc. In another thread you said you treated gunshot wounds in the ER. If you had your way, instead of pulling the sheet over one gunshot victim you would be faced with eighty – EIGHTY for each and every gunshot death - beds in your ER filled with a victim of a violent crime – people who were murdered, raped, viciously beaten because they could not effectively defend themselves.

Is replacing gun suicides and gang homicides with hundreds of thousands of innocent crime victims your idea of Public Health and Community Safety?

Mary: I appreciate your comments. I would first state that we are not in agreement as the the interpretation of the constitution. I could find no statement that would suggest that sensible gun regulation is prohibited. I see nothing there that allows assault style weapons and guarentees 30 or 100 round magazines. That aside my recommendations do not take guns aways, they simply require safety courses and background checks to minimize guns in the hands of dangerous or disturbed individuals and allow for aautorized dsales. I see nothing in the constitution prohibiting that.. You like others with a bunker mentality will fight any reasonable effort to make communities safer. More guns will lead to more not less vioence.

You should be aware that you have more of a chance of being struck by lightning than the victim of a home invasion. The best defense weapons within a household are a 12 gauge shotgun and a .38 special snub nose revolver. An AR15 or similar weapon would properly be distributed by an armory to trained citizens (militia) in the event of an invasion of foreign forces. Irrational fears such as yours that make it so difficult to deal with community safety are simply nonsense. The second amendment is an amendment to the constitution and a part of but not in the original document. They allow the constitution to evolve and address evolving society needs. Such amendments can be revisited if they no longer serve the public good. I would suggest that this particular amendment needs to be revisited and is being used by people like you to allow continued chaos and violence in our communities. All that said, I might mention Dale Carnegie's words, "No matter how right you think you are, you could be wrong!" It would serve you well to give that comment some thought. I do all the time. With respect. MJY

Marc, I am quoting Supreme Court rulings so the "we" who are not in agreement is not you and I. It is you and the Supreme Court.

Sensible gun regulation is NOT prohibited. Just as the First Amendment does not protect child pornography, the Second Amendment allows bans on gun ownership by felons and those adjudicated mentally ill, and permits restrictions on carry in government buildings, airplanes and other places. But Courts have repeatedly struck down restrictive and prohibitive arms law as unconstitutional when they infringed the individual right to keep and bear arms.

The Supreme Court ruled in Heller that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

The Supreme Court ruled in Miller, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm "the sorts of weapons protected are those 'in common use at the time'" Miller described 'militia' as "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense". Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 15 of the Constitution states the functions of the militia are: "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions...." Those firearms which are "arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment are those which could be used to fulfill any of these functions.

Amendments do allow the Constitution to meet the changing needs of society. But as I stated above, the Supreme Court ruled in Cruikshank, the Right to bear arms is not dependent on the Constitution because it is not a Right granted by the Constitution.

The Court said the Second Amendment only guaranteed the Right to bear arms would not be infringed by Congress.

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) addresses the limits of State government when it comes to the right to bear arms. Presser says, "the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, as so to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."

Again, this is not MY opinion. I am quoting Supreme Court rulings.

The law is very clear here, Marc. What you want to happen can only occur two ways - 1, by changing our form of government to some type of dictatorship where Rights come from the seat of government, or 2, by ignoring and circumventing existing law in order to promote an unconstitutional agenda.

I appreciate your point of view. I can only sate more guns mean more violence along with the 30,000+ dead each year. I do not know the number of badly injured. Gun regulation is needed, if we do not implement such regulation and shore up mental health services, the carnage will continue. Laws and amendments that do not serve our society need to be revisited. That does not mean a dictatorship, that is the bunker mentality I talk about. I like our form of Government it works, I do not fear our government and as I have already done willingly accept a call to protect our way of life. That does not translate into people having guns who are not trained to use them, criminals, or the mentally ill. The carnage must stop and the madness of perceived threats must also stop and rational thinking must be the order of the day.

Marc, more than 19,000 of those 30,000 gun deaths are suicides and more than 8,000 are gang related. A further 1000 are killings by law enforcement and self defense.

If you are not suicidal or a gang member, your chance of being killed with a gun is statistically equal to accidentally drowning - one in 100,000.

I agree we need to keep guns out of the hands of people who are suicidal. I agree that we need to keep guns out of the hands of felons and gang members. There are laws on the books meant to do just that. Unfortunately, our mental health system is abysmal, and possession of a gun is one of the first charges to be plea bargained away by prosecutors. Laws that are not enforced are ineffective laws.

Laws and Amendments that do not serve our society DO need to be revisited because heaping ineffective law upon ineffective law is about as rational as ripping out indoor plumbing to stop accidental drownings.

We have 20,000 gun laws on the books, some of them dating back to the early 1800's. We know what works and we know what does not work.

Knee jerk emotional reactions that ignore statistics, social factors, and the rights of every American citizen, are not rational. Mindless reaction by politicians pressured to "do Something" only creates more problems.

Mary: We have a number of areas of agreement. Political solutions often do not work and are too often window dressing and the result of posturing. Knee jerk reactions rarely solve problems. Both sides are guilty. We have no argument on the rights of people to be armed. I support the second amendment but differ strongly on the interpretation. Your stats on gun deaths are accurate. I don't know what the latest round of gun talks will bring in the way of policy. I would suspect there will be some trial and error in an effort to get it right. As there are already 300 million guns out there, I doubt that will change. I would be very pleased to see discussions less charged with a focus on the tragedies of victims their friends and families. I fully support a trained civilian militia where military hardware would be made available from an armory when needed. I have little fear that we have to be concerned about our government. Even at my age, if a local commander needed me to join forces to protect our country, I would be there. We definitely need more rational discussion relating to delusional fears that motivate people to own weapons they are not properly trained to have. I have been trained on a number of military weapons, yet I would be reluctant to operate a number of those weapons without being retrained. The mental health issues we seem to be in agreement. So, sit back and watch the show.

Marc, the Supreme Court has gifted itself with the power of judicial review. That is, the Supreme Court determines whether or not a law is Constitutional. In order to do so it must interpret the Constitution.

So you and I can argue until we're blue in the face. It is what the Supreme Court says that matters. I have quoted the pertinent information, and further explained that Rights are extra-constitutional. The core political philosophy of our nation rests in the belief every human has inalienable, natural, or God-given (call it what you will) Rghts that exist whether or not we write them down. The reason there was a disagreement over adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution was because the Constitution limits the powers of the government. If the government does not have the power to restrict speech, then we have freedom of speech. If the government does not have the power to restrict the ownership of arms, then we have no need to make an Amendment to that effect. Anti-federalists felt so strongly that our government would slide towards tyranny they immortalized the most vital rights as the Bill of Rights, so there would never be any question that the Federal Government had absolutely no authority to limit the people in these areas.

...more

The defense of our country rests with our military, and our National Guard, and our various law enforcement agencies, and with the "militia". The militia is you and me. It is our neighbors. It is anyone able to pick up a weapon and defend their country against enemies foreign and domestic. Again, not MY definition. The Supreme Court defined "militia".

There is a big hole in a Pennsylvania farm where American citizens forced a plane down after they learned it was headed to DC with terrorists in the cockpit.

Have you read the headlines recently? "A jihadist website posted a new threat by al Qaeda to commit attacks that are "“strong, serious, alarming, earth-shattering, shocking and terrifying" and these attacks will occur "deep within the United States". Jihadists are required by their religion to warn their attack is coming.

You may be needed to guard your country.

Power rests in the people, Marc. It is up to you to buy a gun. It is up to you to get training in its use. The government will not order you to do so - and neither should it prevent you, as it is your Right, and your Duty.

To conclude and respond : When what makes sense conflicts with what is law - We have to look to change the law. A lot of so called constitutional rights as bleated by those fearful of gun regulation need to be revisited with saner policy so that our communities and families are safer. As I have repeated: more unrestricted gun access and more firepower in the hands of the untrained and unstable mean more violence and horrific incidents like Newtown and so many others we have suffered through and will continue to endure.

Mary: Unfortunately You are up against a Very Liberal Marc , who Has Not a Clue about what our Rights mean to Us Americans.
He like Many other Liberals will continue to Give our Country Away piece by piece..

No Law can Prevent a Madman from committing Mass Murders...
There are over 20,000 Gun Laws and They Haven't Prevented a Single Gun Crime.
Criminals are such because they don't abide by Laws....
Banning Every Gun in America Will Not Prevent Mass Murderers from committing Mass Murder,,, Bad People Will Always Find a Way.

Mary: I respect your arguments and I have commented on them People like Michael have to reduce their arguments to name calling to make a point. .

Marc, You have Shown yourself well.....I have not called you any names.
You act like you are so above others...
We all have a Right to our Opinion's.... Just because you disagree that doesn't mean you are being called names.

Tagging people as conservatives, liberals or whatever, takes away from the conversation and makes it difficult to find consensus and solutions. We have our opinions. I respect yours - you respect mine. Mary helped me rethink a number of my opinions based on logical arguments. Although, overall my views still call for sensible gun control and resources to mental health, I can understand that such policy must come from what will work not what is politically expedient. You don't know me or what by background is to put a label on me any more than it would be appropriate for me to label you. I may argue your position but I would do it with how I see the issues, not how I categorize you. That's name calling. You don't like what I say, do what Mary did - make your argument. She made effective ones. My best, MJY.

Marc, I am very upset that the Patch even entertained giving you a forum to preach your beliefs. I have seen your profile and you are a hard left progressive who should really stick to what you alleged know and that is the medical field. I am in agreement on background checks. It just helps those that are legitimate gun owners. You are not qualified to preach on Constitutional Gun Rights. Perhaps others of my opinion should complain to the editor. keli.sipperley@patch.com.

There you go again Billy Martin. Name Calling. I am glad we agree on background checks. Maybe we agree on Mental health resources. As for the second amendment. Time will tell. My best. MJY

Sorry Billy Martin - I meant "right toe" who makes anonymous comments.

Marc.

Look up the Definition of Liberal....You will find that I am Correct in Saying you are Very Liberal.....Just Own it and stop being defensive....You will be much happier...

I would agree, I am more to the left than the right, not the extreme left. . My point is that those labels have paralized important discussions. Perhaps, I'll write an editorial on the importance of putting labels aside and for everyone to roll up their sleeves and find common ground. There is plenty in the areas of agreement. Mary's right, how you or I feel means little in the scheme of things; in the end the courts will sort it out. That is the way it should be. I will respect those decisions as I have past decisions. However, we are a great country in that we can argue our points of view in a forum that allows changes we may need to do things better. "Right Toe" thinks I'm preaching. I am just giving my opinion and I appreciate those who give theirs. That should not make us enemies but should allow us to either accept or reject another's point of view. "Right Toe" would like my point of view silenced. That is a stark example of fascism. Let "Right Toe" argue his issues, with respect, as I do. Anyway we are getting away from the issues in this blog. My best to everyone for the input - even "Right Toe"

Marc, I appreciate the civil nature of our discussion.

You're confusing Rights with laws. Rights are fundamental principles of freedom. Rights are the foundation for laws because they provide us with moral and ethical guidelines, but they are not laws. Rights exist, while laws can be created, modified, and eliminated.

Government has no power or authority over our Rights, because they are not the government's to give or take. The purpose of government is to protect our Rights from those who would attempt to deny us.

Our Constitution specifies the Right to bear arms - the right of the individual to own, carry, and use weapons - because such a right is essential to maintain freedom.

Any law that is made that infringes on that Right is therefore "unconstitutional".

Unfortunately a lot of people, not the least of which are those warming the chairs in Washington DC and State Capitols across the nation, are as confused as you are when it comes to political theory.

While I can accept this in someone whose career is a different field, it is unconscionable in our legislators and law enforcement.

Mary :No argument on those comments. My best. Marc

Democide (being killed by government) cost 260,000,000 lives in the 20th Century. That's more than 250 Sandy Hook shootings every day for a hundred years.

Can anyone point out an instance of democide perpetrated against a population that had not been first disarmed by the regime in question?

The victims of Democide will not be found bleeding out in emergency rooms. They are far too numerous than emergency rooms could ever hope to handle, and they are in muddy pits, covered over by bulldozers.

Mark: You bring bunker mentality to a new level. Get real!