| 
            
              | 
 | 
                
                
                  
                    | 
                              
                                   
                                        | 
                              
                              
                              NOTE! 
                               
                              This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
                      free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
                      Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
                      reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
                      any other living person besides the one who posted them.
                      Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
                              comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
                              Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
                              bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
                              other small-minded people.  Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
                              
                              
                                         |  
                         
                         The
                      Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
                         
                                       
                                            
                      
     
  
    | NY: Right to bear arms is not absolute Submitted by: 
			
Mark A. Taff
 Website: http://www.marktaff.com
 | 
			There 
				are 3  comments 
			 	on this storyPost Comments | Read Comments
 |  
    | Kim DiScala’s letter titled “Government is taking away our constitutional rights” in the Dec. 19-20 edition of the Star is virtually devoid of facts.
 
 She asserts that “It’s not a privilege to own a firearm, it is a right ... without restriction or stipulation, that is not to be infringed.” While throughout our country’s history, the Second Amendment has provoked much debate and controversy, there was virtually no clear resolution by the courts what rights exactly the amendment protects before our era.
 |  
 
 
     
  
    | Comment by: 
     MarkHamTownsend
     (1/7/2021) |  
    | It's ONE sentence.   It's meaning is CLEAR.  I'm sorry to all the linguini livered loonies who insist on over-thinking it and thus turned 1st grade math into quantum string theory,  but it really is pretty straight forward. |  
 
 
     
  
    | Comment by: 
     PHORTO
     (1/7/2021) |  
    | "[T]here was virtually no clear resolution by the courts what rights exactly the amendment protects before our era." 
 "The right there specified 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." -- U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875)
 
 Do your homework.
 |  
 
 
     
  
    | Comment by: 
     MarkHamTownsend
     (1/7/2021) |  
    | It's hard to do homework effectively when all you have is a library of comic books ........ |  
 
 |  |  
              | QUOTES
                TO REMEMBER |  
              | 
                    
                      | Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.  — Noah Webster in "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution," 1787, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at p. 56 (New York, 1888). |  |  |