Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

Why just "bear arms" when the right is "to keep AND bear arms"?

Why is the right discussed under "Meaning of bear arms" just about "bearing arms" and no mention made on the "keeping of arms"?

Looks like someone is trying to keep reference to civilian usage of arms for self defense as minimal as possible and accentuate the military aspects of the right. That's straight out of the gun control playbook.

The second amendment protects both civilian and military use of arms. 98.118.22.23 (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't "keep arms" implied in "bear arms"? Anytime you can "bear arms" you have to be able to "keep" (i.e. possess) it. Whoever can legally "bear arms" must necessarily be able to legally "keep arms". SMP0328. (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not at all clear that "keep" necessarily meant "possess" in 18th Century English. Keep also meant "to maintain" as with the expression "keep up", or "tavern keeper", etc.. Or, for instance a militia could keep an arsenal, maintaining public arms in an armory versus the possession of private arms. The people of Concord collectively kept a public armory for the purpose of bearing arms which the British troops raided. This is described in reliable sources. For instance Article 6 of the Articles of Confederation says "...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed ..." a contemporaneous usage of "keep" that does not mean "possess". SaltyBoatr (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The gun control playbook is to focus on the "militia" portion of the Second Amendment and try to convince people that the Second Amendment was only about the militia. The "keep" portion of the Amendment shows that it includes the right to "keep" arms a home, which could then be "borne" when needed, whether for self defense or defense of the state.98.118.22.23 (talk) 12:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

How about the the people of Concord individually kept their private arms at home so as to be ready should the British raid the town, defending themselves from criminals, possible Indian raids, and for killing the ocassional wild turkey they ran across.

I can just see it, Isaac sees a wild turkey in his back pasture, runs over to armory, yells to guard Hi Nat! I need to get my musket to get that wild turkey I just say in my back yard. Nat replies: Sorry! You need to file the withdrawal form in triplicate fist, file one set with the commander office, keep one for your records and one gets filed here for our records. We wouldn't want those muskets taken out and resold on the black market. Isaac quickly fills out forms (being one of those lucky enough to have enough schooling to be able to read and write), guard gets his musket, and then Isaac runs to his back pasture to find that the turkey has LONG SINCE departed.

Just out of curiosity, has ANY historian found ANY musket withdrawal slips at Any Revolutionary war armory in ANY of the 13 original colonies? I haven't heard of any such find.98.118.22.23 (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

By that logic, everything you have not heard to be false must be true. Can we instead discuss what you have been reading which forms the basis for your ideas? Please take a moment to read the Wikipedia:Five pillars. For editors with different personal opinions to coexist we must avoid discussion of editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions. Instead we should discuss the opinions we read in reliable third party sources, and not primary sources. What third party sources have you been reading? I would like a chance to read it too. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that with all the "scholarship" done on the Second Amendment, SOMEONE should have found all those armory withdrawal slips which the members of the militia (per gun control nuts) needed when they decided to go turkey hunting. If they haven't found any yet, then they don't exist! 98.118.22.23 (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Your failure to respond to constructive questions is counterproductive to the talk page. Your continued name calling is also counterproductive. Can we redirect this talk page discussion towards a discussion of what we read in reliable sources on this topic? Attempting to answer your question: A solid example of militiamen using weapons from the federal armory instead of their personal weapons is described in Alexander DeConde's book, page 40. Right after Second Amendment was adopted, and following the Militia Act of 1792 General Knox prepared an estimate of militia preparedness and found that only 20% of the militiamen owned personal weapons, and the remainder used weapons provided from the federal armory. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Unlike some who act as censors for the article, I'm more interested in being constructive and improving it then using a scorched earth policy on opposing viewpoints.

BTW: I believe the reference you gave to back up the "hastily written" quote doesn't not seem to match any of the references used in the article, does not give the authors name, same for the books title (or article title if it was an article).98.118.22.23 (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Your reference to General Knox does not help your case as it was post revolutionary war and post moving the power to arms the militia to the central government through the US Constitution. Your previous argument was about Revolutionary War era Concord and not post Revolutionary War Unknown city. You said The people of Concord collectively kept a public armory for the purpose of bearing arms which the British troops raided.. I say you are full of it.98.118.22.23 (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Per you link above 450,000 men belonged to the various militias of which 1 in 5 "possessed their own firearms". That's over 100,000 weapons. The government on the other hand had only 44,000 muskets, half of which were damaged. Per your own link, it looks like the vast majority of militia weapons were personal weapons and not armory weapons. There is NOTHING on that linked page about the use of government weapons "instead of" personal weapons as you allege. The author is talking about the availability (mostly the lack of it) of government weapons to supplement personal weapons. Armory weapons were to be used to arm those militiamen who did not HAVE any personal weapons. Did I mention you are full of it!98.118.22.23 (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

On a followup page the author quotes Knox as stating that fewer then a third of the militia "owned arms" as required by the Militia act of 1792 due to the fact that the Act provided no way to enforce the "self arming" of citizen-soldiers. Pokes a hole in your The people of Concord collectively kept a public armory for the purpose of bearing arms which the British troops raided. so big that even an idiot would be shamed back into his hole to hide until the incident was forgotten (aka wiped off this talk page).98.118.22.23 (talk) 03:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

On page 43 the author comments that in the next year (1808) the government started distributing arms to the militias eliminating the need for citizens in the compulsory militias to "pay for their own guns". Another hole in the The people of Concord collectively kept a public armory for the purpose of bearing arms which the British troops raided.' Do you even read what you post to support your misguide views, or do you just assume that no one will ever check up on you? 98.118.22.23 (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

added material under "to keep and bear arms" directly from another wiki article of that same name - from here - http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms

This should HOPEFULLY avoid argument from a certain censor who seems to think he owns the article.98.118.13.212 (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Uviller and Merkel - clean sweep or not?

The following is a cite (now deleted) which GREATLY differs from accepted historical fact - see material about Robert Whitehill above, also see previous comments that the Library of Congress states that of the 23 dissenters 21 of them signed the Minorty Report

^ H. Richard Uviller & William G. Merkel, The Second Amendment in Context: The Case of the Vanishing Predicate, Chicago-Kent Law Review, Symposium on the Second Amendment, vol. 76, 2000: 403. See Section 4 (page 485-486), and fn's 345, 346, 347, 348, 349: "The Antifederalist Critique of the Federal Military Power and the Crusade for a Bill of Rights". "In Pennsylvania, as several commentators have pointed out, an address favoring a personal right to arms was circulated by a disaffected "minority" after that state's convention concluded its affairs. Yet this "minority report" turns out, on closer inspection, to reflect no more than the ramblings of a single embittered eccentric who departed the convention in disgust when he was unable to scuttle ratification. As such, the failure of Pennsylvania's one man "minority" merely accentuates the fact that opinion favoring a personal right to arms independent of the militia remained highly marginal in state conventions outside of New Hampshire."

The Library of Congress has the text of Minority Report here http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/bdsdcc:@field(DOCID+@lit(bdsdccc0401)) the end of which lists 21 names of those who signed, followed by the names of those in favor and those opposed to the Constitution. One does not need even TWO brain cells to notice that the names of the signers match the names of those opposed.

The Library of Congress also provides a pictures of the document so one can look at who signed it - see page 3 for signatures

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=bdsdcc&fileName=c0401/bdsdccc0401.db&recNum=2&itemLink=r?ammem/bdsdcc:@field(DOCID+@lit(bdsdccc0401))%23c04010001&linkText=1

BTW: In a fit of historical revisionism and POV push Kenoss/Salty Boart stated that there is NO evidence that those who signed the document were actually convention delegates. A picture of the document should be evidence enough.

As Uviller and Markel have destroyed an evidence that they know what they are talking about with the above quote, and at best are LOW QUALITY sources, I belelieve that all references to them need to be removed so as to improve the quality of the article.

Does anyone other then Kenosis/Salty Boatr object to this removal? 98.118.13.212 (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy, per WP:SOURCES the quality of the source is based more on the reputation of the publisher than the opinion of the editors about views of the author. We generally are looking for the best sources which are "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". In this case which you question the publisher is the Chicago-Kent Law Review, which is a high quality source. If you disagree, feel free to seek other opinions at the WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The text of "The Address and reasons of dissent of the minority of the convention, of the state of Pennsylvania, to their constituents" (the so-called "Pennsylvania Minority report") is indeed the document published by anti-federalist Samuel Bryan (who published psuedonymously as "Centinel" and who wasn't at the convention). The publication includes the material written by fellow anti-federalist Robert Whitehill, who was at the convention as a leader of the vehement anti-Constitution minority. So what? It advocates giving the federal government even less power than already existed in the Articles of Confederation, which, as already pointed out in multiple reliable sources, was an extremely marginal position even back in 1787 prior to the adoption of the US Constitution. Whatever its historical value as a curiosity that some argue had in it seeds of the Bill of Rights, this article is not the place for a detailed presentation of such a highly marginal position of 1787 which proposed to take away the power of the federal government to conduct national defense and give that right back to the states to decide where and when troops from each state would willingly fight in the national defense. I'm sorry, but it's ridiculous and it has no legitimate place in this article unless properly qualified to the reader as an extreme anti-federalist position of its day. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The document in question is the first written proposal for amendments to the US Constitution. 3 of those amendments have to do with arms and the militia. It is therefor a significant document with respect to both the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment.

Your statement that a desire to have a Bill of Rights as part of the US Constitution was a "marginal" opinion is at best a delusion. You are aware that the US Constitution has a Bill of Rights are you not?

RE:Your statement that Robert Bryant PUBLISHED the document has no bearing on who WROTE it. From all the evidence Robert Whitehill was the author.

Also: Are you AGAIN stating that the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS is not a good source?96.237.129.194 (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Kenosis/SaltyBoatr: Having come to the conclusion that I can't trust a single word you write, please provide evidence that Samuel Bryan published the document in question. Historic records show that the document was published in newspapers throughout the "former colonies" and not by a singe person.96.237.129.194 (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

We're obliged to follow third party reliable sources, not to do our own WP:Original research from primary sources. As to sources w.r.t. Bryan, I already gave a couple at Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#"Pennsylvania_minority" several sections above. Below I've provided a few more of the many reliable secondary sources which base their conclusions on historical evidence that Samuel Bryan, when he took credit for being the anti-federalist author "Centinel" also took credit for publishing the "Pennsylvania dissent" on which he placed the names of 23 dissenters of the PA convention. It is the consensus among scholars in this area that Bryan's taking of credit for this should be taken as fact, and that the evidence in its totality is consistent with Bryan's subsequent self-admitting that he was the one. A minority of academic sources say that it might have been Samuel Bryan's father, Judge George Bryan, with some holding that the father likely collaborated with him on the project as they did on numerous other anti-federalist activities. In this document which was cobbled together with various dissenting materials produced by the anti-Federalists in 1787 Pennsylvania, he included Whitehill's 13-article "bill of rights" which never reached the floor of the PA convention.
..... But either way it doesn't belong in this article in any depth, or even as a quote, because it is an extreme anti-federalist view which, as I noted just above, proposed to take away the power of the federal government to conduct national defense and give that right back to the states to decide where and when troops from each state would willingly fight in the national defense. The position advocated by Whitehill, which never reached the floor of the convention, actually advocates giving the federal government even less power w.r.t. national defense than already then existed in the Articles of Confederation. Again, there's no place for it in this article, unless carefully qualified for the reader as the extreme anti-federalist view that it actually is. Both SaltyBoatr and I think it's way too far afield to give it a proper NPOV perspective if included in the article.

*David J. Siemers (2003) The antifederalists: men of great faith and forbearance, p91.
*David Wootton (2003) The essential Federalist and anti-Federalist papers, p xi.
*Maeva Marcus, James R. Perry (1985) The Documentary history of the Supreme Court of the United States ..., Volume 4, 1789-1800, p503-504, fn1
*Stephen P. Halbrook, "The Right of the People or the Power of the State: Bearing Arms, arming Militias, and the Second Amendment", Valparaiso University Law Review, 1991.
*Saul Cornell (1999) The other founders: Anti-Federalism and the dissenting tradition in America, p 117.

... Kenosis (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And, as I have said before, this 'Pennsylvanian minority' historical issue is interesting, but it is too far off topic to be included in this article. Given proper WP:V and WP:NOR it does deserve coverage elsewhere in Wikipedia. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Look like we are back to an edit war

Kenosis has reverted my changes back to his historical revisionist and slanderous POV98.118.13.212 (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Much has already been written about the 'Pennsylvanian minority', see above and I will not repeat it here now. In addition, I see policy problems with the recent AnonIP addition relating to policy []WP:SYN]] and I have removed the passage until that, and the other problems (see above) are resolved. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This is precisely this same issue discussed a week or two ago. As noted above, this material on a "minority report" was drafted by a single individual and the material itself was never actually part of the Pennsylvania constitutional convention, but rather was published afterward by vehement anti-federalist Samuel Bryan .
..... IP 98.118.13.212, you appear to also have been using IP addresses 71.184.177.11, 98.118.22.23, 96.237.123.191 (and 96.237.129.194 as of 20:26, 31 October 2009), all in the Quincy/Cambridge area of Massachusetts. If I'm not mistaken, you appear to have already been blocked twice (User_talk:96.237.123.191) for edit warring and incivility, and are now again attempting to impose your POV, editing style, personal interpretation of WP policy and personal interpretation how the literature might relate to this topic.
..... May I recommend getting a WP username so it's easier to keep track of who's who. In the future, whatever username or IP address(es) you choose to use, kindly do not remove reliably sourced content without gaining consensus for such removals on the talk page, and please endeavor to respect other WP policies rather than gaming them to advance a particular POV with extremely little WP:WEIGHT in the context of this particular article. Also please see WP:AGF, WP:BRD and WP:Civility, as there's definitely some flexibility in the accepted WP conventions about how aggressive one should be in editing and discussing. But I believe you're a good bit out of bounds at this stage, both substantively and behaviorally.
..... For now, I'll just revert the removal of reliably sourced material, leaving the three "PA minority" paragraphs in, until this can get sorted out further by a broader set of participants in this article. ... 15:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC) ... ... I see SaltyBoatr has reverted back to essentially the last version by Razorflame via my last revert. Fine by me. Bye for now. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have again removed historical revisionist POV push and SLANDER of a noted historical figure added to the article by Kenosis/SaltyBatr.96.237.129.194 (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Kenosis/SaltyBoatr has restored slanderous material on Robert Whitehill for the third time and I have now reported them for engaging in an edit war.96.237.129.194 (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

AFAICT Kenosis has yet to master Googling

This revert http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=323214046&oldid=323213470 uses the excuse that "AFAICK there's no valid cause to think the "James Wilson" who wrote this book in 1888 was ever a Supreme Court justice."

First of all the book in question was REPRINTED in 1888 for the Pennsylvania Historical Society and was not written that year.

Second of all, a google search of "James Wilson" and "Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution 1787-1788" turns up this wiki article http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/James_Wilson showing that not only was Jame Wilson an Associate US Supreme Court Justice, but also a member of the Pennsylvania ratification convention and a member of the group that drafted the original version of the US Constitution, to be later revised at the Constitutional Convention.

That wiki article features a section on Mr Wilson's "Supreme Court Appointment". Since Mr. Wilson passed away in 1798 it is HIGHLY unlikely that he wrote that book in 1888.

Per above I am restoring the reference to Mr Wilson as an Associate Supreme Court Justice, deleted by Kenosis.

To cut off Kenosis/Salty Boatr from at least one possible obstructionist tract, I point out that JOHN BACH McMASTER and FREDERICK D. STONE were the editors and not the authors of the book "Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution 1787-1788"71.174.135.195 (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

i commented about this above at this section. It's not a reliable source for anything relating to this article. I've removed it from the citations per WP:PSTS and WP:V#Reliable_sources. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Kenosis/SaltyBoatr trying to have it both ways

From above comments they seem to think that "Centinel" authored the Penn Minority Report They also state that "Centinel" was not a member of the Penn Ratification Convention. Whether that is true or not is open to question as other sources consider Robert Whitehill the author, going so far as to call him "father of the Bill of Rights" http://explorepahistory.com/hmarker.php?markerId=851

Robert Whitehill (1735-1813) is not very well known today, but it is not too much of an exaggeration to call him the father of the Bill of Rights.

Yet they keep on adding back to the article the following slanderous quote by Uviller and Merkel in the citations.

no more than the ramblings of a single embittered eccentric who departed the convention in disgust when he was unable to scuttle ratification. As such, the failure of Pennsylvania's one man "minority

As Kenosis/SaltyBoatr pointed out the "Centinel" was not a member of the Convention, he could not have been a one man minority.

I am yet again deleting that particular Uviller and Merkel quote (now showing twice in the citations) for SLANDER of a historical figure, being a "tiny minority opinion", which has no place in a wiki article, and being "historical revisionism, which also as no place in a wiki article, and for being self published "paid propaganda" - see below.71.174.135.195 (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Kent Law Review

Having a bit of time on my hands, I took a look at references to the Chicago Kent Law Review and found that the article from which the SLANDEROUS (and historical revisionist and tiny minority opinion) disputed comment by Uviller and Merkel originated from, was from an issue "lavishly funded by the Joyce Foundation" which controlled the content of that issue.

Here http://www.barackbook.com/Profiles/TheJoyceFoundation.htm I found the following

The NAS Study Will Receive $109,000 From The Prohibitionist Joyce Foundation, Which Lavishly Funded The Chicago-Kent Law Review’s One-Sided Anti-Second Amendment Symposium Last Year [2000], And Which Has Contributed Generously To Gun-Prohibition Groups.” (David Kopel and Glen Reynolds, Op-Ed, “Political Science,” National Review, 8/29/01)

from here http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Joyce_Foundation

The Joyce Foundation has sponsored symposium issues of some law reviews, generally offering to pay for the symposium if an external editor is selected. The editor carefully solicits and chooses the articles to appear in the symposium. The Joyce Foundation then pays for the cost of copies to be distributed to judges and legislators. Law reviews that have cooperated in this manner include:
* Chicago-Kent Law Review (Vol. 76 No. 1, 2000, edited by Carl T. Bogus) * Fordham Law Review (Vol. 73 No. 2, November 2004) * Stanford Law and Policy Review (Vol. 17:3, Spring 2006, editorial contributions by Saul Cornell)

And here http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/joyce_foundatio.php

Why would I say Joyce is at it again? Well, in 2000 Chicago-Kent Law Review issued a similar symposium issue. A bit of inquiry found ... well, let me give you background first. Law reviews are run on a shoestring. They're edited by students themselves, and very proud of that tradition. Editors get paid a pittance (I got $600 a year back in 1975), and authors of articles never, never, get paid.

A bit of inquiry showed that Joyce had done some serious bankrolling. The law review consented to having an outside editor for that issue, who surprisingly was anti-Second Amendment. (And when pro-Second Amendment law professors volunteered to write, he refused to allow it). He got paid $30,000. Authors of the articles in it got $5,000 each for their time. The rest of the grant went for buying a load of reprints to be sent to judges. So Joyce had essentially bought a issue of the review, stacked the deck of authors, and then mailed a load of copies to judges.

BTW: The outside editor was Carl T. Bogus, a well known Joyce Foundation talking head. In wiki terms Carl T. Bogus is a "meatpuppet".

Instead of being a "good source" of material, ALL articles in that particular issue should be taken with a grain of salt as they are in effect "self published material" by the anti-gun Joyce Foundation.71.174.135.195 (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This link http://www.potowmack.org/resource.html provides the titles of the article in the suspect Chicago Kent Law Review issue - However the links to the articles themselves are dead. The text of those articles need to be found elsewhere. Besides Uviller and Merkel, the Second Amendment article contains a couple of citations to Ravoke's article in that suspect issue. Those two citations should be checked for "historical accuracy". 71.174.135.195 (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Penn Minoriy Report- the REAL story - No POV - No lies - No revisonist history - and most certainly no SLANDER

Unlike the lies and POV propaganda spouted by Kenosis/Salty Boatr here are some actual facts on who presented and authored the Penn Minority Report. His name was Robert Whitehill and his bio can be founds here http://explorepahistory.com/hmarker.php?markerId=851

Not only was he NOT a looney as Kenosis/Salty Boatr portray him but history considers him "arguably the father of the Bill of Rights" to the US Constitution. No less then 8 of his proposed Amendments in the Penn Minority Report made their way into the US Bill of Rights.

Not only did he not hurry to prepare the Minority Report, he already had portions of it written 10 years previously when he either AUTHORED or helped author the Penn Constitution of 1776. Portion of the Minority Report are verbatum Penn Constitution of 1776.

Not only was he not "relieved of the burden of his employment" after the Convention as Kenosis/Salty Boar alleged but he served till the day of his death, holding among other things the position of Speaker of the Pennsylvania State Senate and serving as a US Representative till the day he died in 1813, over 20 years after the Convention.

Quote from the above link

A drafter of the 1776 state constitution,

Robert Whitehill (1735-1813) is not very well known today, but it is not too much of an exaggeration to call him the father of the Bill of Rights.

A comparison of Whitehill's 14 points to the Constitution, the nation's "Bill of Rights," shows that eight originated from his proposals.

Throughout his forty-year political career Whitehall represented the considerable number of Pennsylvania farmers who favored local government and mistrusted the concentration of power in the state and federal governments. Today, many of his arguments still make sense to those who fear that the federal government - especially the president and judiciary - have usurped too much power from the American people.

His bio here (pages 756 and 757) agrees with the above http://www.archive.org/stream/pennsylvaniafede00hist/pennsylvaniafede00hist_djvu.txt

Whitehill, Robert, of Cumberland county, was born July 24, 1735, in Salisbury township, Lancaster county, Pennsylvania. He was the son of James Whitehill and his wife, Rachel Cresswell, and younger brother of the subject of the preceding sketch. He was educated in the school of the Rev. Francis Allison. In the spring of 1771 he removed to Cumberland county, locating on a farm two miles west of Harrisburg. His entire public life was a successful and bril- liant one. He was a member of the County Committee of 1774-75; of the convention of July 15, 1776; of the Assembly, 1776-8; Council of Safety from October to December, 1777; member of the Supreme Executive Council, December 28, 1779 to November, 30, 1781; of the Assembly, 1784-7; under the constitution of 1790, member of the House of Represen- tatives from 1797 to 1801, and of the Senate from 1801 to 1804. During his term as Senator he was speaker of that body, and presided at the celebrated impeachment of the Su- preme Court of Pennsylvania. In 1805 he was elected to Congress, and continued to be a member thereof until his death. From 1774 to the time of his death he filled almost every position in the gift of the people. In the Pennsylvania convention to ratify the federal constitution of 1787 he was one of the leaders in opposing the ratification, and it is to be regretted that his remarks were not fully reported. He died at his residence in Cumberland county, two miles west of the Susquehanna, on the 7tli of April, 1813, while a member of Congress.

Yet another Bio - http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=W000404

and another http://books.google.com/books?id=d7_akH9VO_cC&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=%22Robert+Whitehill%22+Pennsylvania&source=bl&ots=skjjODcmtG&sig=OHbb_Yswd_-LkNvwY_wha3Xq7hs&hl=en&ei=e6TrSu3SGcKelAevo7T_BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CCIQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=%22Robert%20Whitehill%22%20Pennsylvania&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.13.212 (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough point about Whitehill's later political career. On this issue I'm inclined to take at face value the assertion of the "Explore PA History" website:

"Throughout his forty-year political career Whitehall [sic] represented the considerable number of Pennsylvania farmers who favored local government and mistrusted the concentration of power in the state and federal governments. Today, many of his arguments still make sense to those who fear that the federal government - especially the president and judiciary - have usurped too much power from the American people."

I'm also inclined to take at face value what appears to be Judge Wilson's assertion that the voters of Cumberland County voted him out after the convention (at p6 of Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 1787-1788). And, one might indeed wonder how James Wilson, who who died in 1798 and who is implied in writing by the "editors" to be the author of this work (see the title page), knew anything about Whitehill's later political career through 1813? Well, a more thorough NPOV reading of this source indicates that although the bulk of it consists of James Wilson's writings, it is said by its editors to have been cobbled together from Judge Wilson's "squibs and essays", along with opinion and commentary added by editors John Bach McMaster and Frederick Stone, and first published in 1888 by the Pennsylvania Historical Society. In other words, it's not James Wilson's book. Among the commentary added by the editors is the following:

"From the squibs and essays, many exceedingly unwise and dry, but all showing forth the popular views of the Constitution, such a selection has been made as seems to fairly represent both the Federal and Antifederal side. Much has been omitted, but whatever has been omitted has generally been said somewhere else in better form."

Note carefully that the editors of this selection of Judge Wilson's squibs and essays say that "many [of them are] exceedingly unwise". This is, of course, serious reason to question the reliability of this source, in part because Wilson was then, and is today, regarded as a mainstream federalist who among other things served as a justice on the Supreme Court. More importantly to us as WP editors, this sort of thing is among the countless reasons for why WP policy instructs us not to do original research and/or original synthesis that advances a position, and to rely on reliable, secondary sources. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Your sources, that told you, Whitehill had 13 proposed Amendments are better? ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.19.104 (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Kenosis and Salty Boatr the same person - you decide

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=321208025&oldid=321206918

As shown on the link above, I post a message (bottom of page) to Kenosis asking

Aren't you capable of clicking on a link and LOOKING?

Salty Boatr, who was not a part of the thread before this responds with

I am capable of looking, and I looked

Now why would SaltyBoatr respond to a question directed at Kenosis as if he was Kenosis?

Am I dreaming or does it look like he was a bit confused which sockpuppet he was using at the time?98.118.13.212 (talk) 03:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr and Kenosis continue to act like two faces of the same person. The term two faced occurs.98.118.19.104 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC).

Back to my original complaint of 3 weeks ago

When I first showed up here I was uncomfortable with this sentence in the article

The meaning of the Pennsylvania dissent of the minority is even more hotly disputed. Historians have also noted that this text, written by the Anti-Federalist minority of a single state, was hastily written and never emulated by any other ratification convention.

and particularly the phrase "hastily written".

Since it is uncertain WHO wrote the Minority Report, with some historians citing "Centinel" and other citing Robert Whitehill, I can't see how one can know whether that unknown author wrote it "in haste".

As to whether the text of the Penn Minority Report was emulated, that should be plain. The Minority Report was a proposal for a number of Constitutional Amendments including a Bill of Rights. A number of states ratified the Constitution only under the condition that it contain a Bill of Rights and those states did so AFTER the Penn Minority Report was printed. Many of those states included proposed amendments as part of that ratification. Other states flatly refused to even consider ratification unless a Bill of Rights was included.

Pennsylvania was only the second state to ratify the US Constitution.

This report was therefore "emulated" and that emulation consisted of Constitutional Amendments and a requirement for a Bill of Rights.

Instead of removing the term "hastily written" which I originally complained about, I will be deleting that whole sentence.71.174.135.195 (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That sentence is reliably sourced and is necessary to comply with our obligation to present a proper balance of points of views. We must include both the points of view we believe in and the points of view we disagree with. Your complaint appears to be personal, and not based on what you are reading in the balance of reliable sourcing on this topic. This article cannot become a soap box for your personal hypothesis. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Elliot's Debates shows that Robert Whitehill and over 30 other delegates worked on Amendments to the US Constitution as early as Sept 3, 1788. The final version of the Penn Minority Report was finalized after 3 months. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(ed0028)) see pages 542 and onwards. Amendmentsstart at page 545.

Elliot's Debates vol 2 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(ed0028))

PROCEEDINGS OF THE MEETING AT HARRISBURG, IN PENNSYLVANIA.

Harrisburg, Sept. 3, 1788.

Agreeably to a Circular letter which originated in the county of Cumberland, inviting to a conference such of the citizens of this state who conceive that a revision of the federal system, lately proposed for the government of these United States, is necessary,--a number of gentlemen from the city of Philadelphia, and counties of Philadelphia, Bucks, Chester, Lancaster, Cumberland, Berks, Northumberland, Bedford, Fayette, Washington, Franklin, Dauphin, and Huntingdon, assembled at this place for the said purpose, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.19.104 (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

AFAICT Kenosis can't count.

The Penn Minority Report contains FOURTEEN proposed amendments to the US Constitution.

Not 13 as his citations cite an not a 15 point bill of rights as he himself states.

Why is it that those who favor gun control can't seem to count?

All of those proposed amendments are even numbered for easy reference - here is number 14. There is no number 15.

Fourteenth. That the judiciary power of the United States shall be confined to cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more states--between a state and citizens of different states --between citizens claiming lands under grants of different states; and between a state or the citizens thereof and foreign states; and in criminal cases to such only as are expressly enumerated in the constitution, and that the United States in Congress assembled, shall not have power to enact laws, which shall alter the laws of descents and distribution of the effects of deceased persons, the titles of land or goods, or the regulation of contracts in the individual states.71.184.183.9 (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Whitehill's proposed Amendment 15:

"That the sovereignty, freedom and independency of the several States shall be retained, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not by this constitution expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

The whole 15-amendment "bill of rights" was denied by a 2/3 majority to be read into the minutes, though it's recorded in other reliable sources of the day and in a number of reliable secondary sources. Even the avowed anti-federalist Samuel Bryan omitted this one when he published the "Dissent" (the reason for which might be evident upon reading it closely), which is why there are 14 in that publication. The "13" I mentioned earlier was a typo. But whatever the number was, it's wholly irrelevant to this topic and vastly beyond the scope of this article. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

YOU originally said the number of Amendments was 13. Remember when you added THIS to the article and REPEATEDLY fought to keep it in

Whitehill's thirteen-article "bill of rights" was published by fellow anti-federalist Samuel Bryan as part of a compilation of dissenting material which never reached the convention floor in Pennsylvania.

and it's' FUNNY how it is always irrelevant when YOU are wrong.96.237.133.195 (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My mistake in transcribing from my accumulation of talk page material to the article space after I submitted to repeated insistences to include the three "Dissent" paragraphs verbatim in the article. As you should also have noted here were you not so bent on cherrypicking data to advance your position, after introducing it here with material from the talk page, I proceeded to make a long series of minor corrections and copyedits, correcting this issue later the same day here, with an intentional note of acknowledgment to you in the edit summary (hopping IPs as you are in the Boston area it's pretty obvious you're presently blocked user 71.174.135.195 (talk). Unfortunately this sort of mistake upon a mistake very easily happens when we're not able to copy and paste directly from scanned sources such as in Google books (e.g. the Wills source and others) but rather typing it out as was the case early in this unexpected little background research project here. Which is why we proceed to try to correct it when we or someone else notices such an error.
..... In the event you or anyone else was planning on using the material in a paper or website or some such thing, here's an arguably more important talk-page mistake I made that I haven't yet corrected: The original proposed Amendment 15 turns out to have been incorporated into Amendment 11 in Bryan's "Dissent". Which explains why some sources say 15 and others say 14. So Bryan evidently merely incorporated it into an already existing article proposing to reduce the federal government's power to less than that in the Articles of Confederation, and being faithful to Whitehill's intent and/or every bit as radical anti-federalist as Whitehill, included it instead in his amendment 11 (partly reproduced in the WP article at present because it pertains to guns). The unfortunate thing about this Amendment 15 turned latter-part-of-Amendment-11 is that it proposes, when taken together with the other part of Amendment 11, to essentially invalidate the Constitution and to keep the 13 colonies as sovereign states, like 13 little countries. Imagine that.
..... Again, this is yet another of countless reasons why we're directed by WP policy not to be doing original research and original synthesis that advances a position, and to rely on secondary reliable sources. It's been interesting researching this to sort through some of the misinformation widely seen on the web, but again, it's also significantly outside the relevant scope of this article, as at least one other established WP user has also pointed out on this page. Offhand I'd think we ought be pretty much done with this issue for the present. Take care, OK? ... Kenosis (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of removal of Virginia paragraph

I recently removed[1] the "Virginia" paragraph because it was entirely sourced to primary documents, and included several synthesized statements of what these men meant. With all the editorial interpreted statements leaning towards one side of the POV, "arms are required to secure rights and freedoms" etc.. This synthesis is a form of original research and is not allowed. The paragraph may be revised and restored as long as it complies with policy, by using third party reliable sourcing and as long as it conforms with the WP:NPOV policy by including both sides of the POV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that Trasel reverted[2] without any discussion. Could we discuss this please instead of unexplained reverts? I am sure there is a compromise to be found here, my concerns are that the selective quotations from speeches by Patrick Henry are WP:SYN carefully chosen to push one POV. The balanced way, required per policy, would be to include discussions from both antifederalists and federalists, and to use third party sourcing. Indeed this whole subsection gives undue weight to the opinions of antifederalists. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have restored that material. I have no objection to a compromise being found, but I don't like such a large amount of material being removed from the article. If you feel wording changes are needed, propose them. It's simply excessive to remove all of that material. SMP0328. (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I see SatyBoatr deleted without any discussion. Can you say two faced loser?98.118.19.104 (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand SaltyBoatr's concerns about WP:PSTS and WP:SYN, since there were a broad range of demands for a bill of rights ranging from moderate to radical anti-federalist, with the Virginia paragraph having picked out only some of the more vehement objections. IMO it's reasonable and quite prudent to briefly mention Patrick Henry and George Mason, as their insistence on a bill of rights is legendary and was quite influential. I think what's lacking here is that an inline WP template hasn't yet been developed calling for secondary sources (Elliot's Debates being essentially a primary source in this context from which one could pick and choose any of a wide variety of quotes from the voluminous debates). Don't have any secondary cites handy at the moment, but with a bit of patience I imagine there's a fairly expedient way through this issue. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you add one or more Madison's comments that a Bill of Rights was not needed instead of deleting comments from two of Virginia's foremost Founding Fathers.98.118.19.104 (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Madison's role is already concisely stated in the article text leading up to the subsection on state ratification convention debates (Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Drafting_and_adoption). ... Kenosis (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"Big picture" w.r.t. ratification-debate subsection

Can we discuss the big picture problem with this subsection? It only discussed the opposition, the anti-federalist POV. Where if we were balanced, we would not favor this one POV over the opposite POV. We are required by policy to give a balance to the various POV's. Here the minority POV is given emphasis and the majority POV held by the federalists is ignored. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

True, there's presently a substantial WP:WEIGHT issue in that section. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This entire section seems written in context (and for the purpose) of the modern advocacy of gun politics favoring originalism & insurrectionist theory, and then by selecting quotes from anti-federalists and framing these quotes with reverence for founding fathers. This mirrors the structure of innumerable pro-gun blogs. Objectively, the political power of the anti-federalists were in serious decline during that decade and they were quite marginalized in 1788. At the least, this subsection should lead with that line of thought. Though I favor deleting the subsection in its entirety. Or, we must remove the WP:SYN and rewrite to correct the illusion that the thought of the anti-federalists were popular at the time, and by implication carry more weight that they deserve. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we continue discussion of this problem? Presently this section has WP:UNDUE and WP:SYN problems, both of which are policy, which are "non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors". SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It is also worth mentioning the other problems with this subsection. It opens with a statement about the opinions of anti-federalists, stated as fact, which is sourced to a blog run by two students from Trumbull High School which plainly fails to meet reliable sourcing standards appropriate for a high quality article like the 2A. Followed by an unsourced claim that this objection was "raised frequently". That is followed by a paragraph of quotes selectively drawn from a primary document synthesized to advance one point of view. Following that is an overly detailed description (albeit well sourced) of one isolated controversy in Pennsylvania favored by a fringe POV, which is given undue weight. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added the ratification statements (all of majorities, not small minorities as in PA) of the five states that appended statements requesting or demanding that Congress include a bill of rights. As of this revision, it's more NPOV w.r.t. WP:WEIGHT, but quite arguably much too lengthy. On the other hand, if we're to keep the PA material so as to shed light on the topic of the PA minority view widely quoted on the web today, the additional material from other states (perhaps further edited by other users, of course) is IMO needed to keep the section in perspective and reasonably balanced. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC) ... Here is an updated revision of this section as of 8 November 2009. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I will give this more attention in detail in the coming days. It is much improved. I do think it misses the 'big picture' which is the sequence of events where: First, the country decided to abandon the Articles of Confederation and then they decided to create a Constitution System to replace the failed Confederation System. Secondly, a minority of people (like the strident Patrick Henry), objected to this shift in governmental structure. So third, as a compromise, it was decided to include a "bill of rights", one of which was the 2A. Presently this subsection, leading with the sentence "The prefatory clause..." jumps in at the third phase, and it is confusing to the readers to omit the sequence of the first and second phases. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

RE 'the country decided to abandon the Articles of Confederation ... ": This may just be a semantic issue, but the way I remember the basic history is that the confederation was seen by the federalists as inadequate to serve the common interests of the states and the decision was to discuss and resolve the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. What the Constitution did was essentially change the classification of "state" from one of a loose-knit confederation of sovereign states or nation states to a unified country with federated states that would retain strong influence over their respective local issues, with the Bill of Rights serving to codify the latter concern. ... Kenosis (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Rather than discuss the way I see it and the way you see it, lets look at a mainstream academic source like this text book[3]. The reasons and the opinions were varied in 1787, but the consensus then was to abandon the confederation and create a federalism. 80 years later the southern among them created another confederation, but that is a different article. The main sequence was 1) Abandoning the confederation, 2) Initiating a federalist consitution, 3) Writing a bill of rights (of which the 2A was part). This section of the article should convey that timeline. Yes, they tried and failed to fix the confederation prior to this and that could also be mentioned. Though in 1787, except for some strident anti-federalists like Patrick Henry, I think the WP:RS shows that the consensus was to abandon the old system that didn't work and start anew. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The provided source refers to "the need for revision of the Articles" and "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation", with the latter quote in the following context:

"When those who favored a weak central government realized that the [ Philadelphia Convention ] would actually take place, they endorsed the convention. They made sure, however, that the convention would be summoned for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. Those in favor of a stronger national government had different ideas."

The authors of American Government and Politics Today: The Essentials then proceed with brief subsections about "Who Were the Delegates?", "The Working Environment", "Factions Among the Delegates", followed by a more lengthy subsection on "Politics and Compromise" and another more lengthy subsection on "Working Toward Final Agreement", and a short subsection on "the Final Document", after which they summarize "The Difficult Road to Ratification". The authors summarize separation of powers, checks and balances, etc. etc.
.....It appears to me the authors are saying the federalists were bent not on merely discarding the Articles of Confederation and finding out what happened next, but rather on replacing them with an entirely different and much more federalized approach that would behave more like a country than a loose-knit confederation. Of course one can read into this that the federalists were advocating "rip 'em up and throw 'em out", but so too were the most extreme anti-federalists, while the moderate federalists would appear to have wanted merely to revise the existing Articles of Confederation. The difference between the extreme camps, of course, was that after ripping them up, the federalists wanted to replace the Articles with a whole new approach.
..... So I'd want to recommend being cautious about delineating this as "1) Abandoning the confederation, 2) Initiating a federalist consitution, 3) Writing a bill of rights (of which the 2A was part)", because the sequence of #s 1 and 2 is very debatable. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

reqesting specific quote

"In Virginia, anti-federalist Patrick Henry stated during the opening debates of the Virginia Ratifying Convention that arms are required to secure rights and freedoms from those who would take them away.[56] ^ Elliot, Debates of the Several State Conventions 3:45, 3:47, 3:169"

The opening sentence (posted above) of the section recently restored[4] by SMP0328 is unclear what exactly Patrick Henry said in Elliot's Debate. Instead the article paraphrases Patrick Henry, telling us what he meant to say. This is a classic case of WP:SYN, selecting out quotes from primary documents and editorializing to advance a POV. We are not allowed to do this per WP:NOR policy. In this case it serves to advance the 'insurrectionist theory' of the Second Amendment as fact, when we should be presenting the insurrectionist theory as just one theory. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Try reading the cite

^ Elliot's Debates, Vol. 3, p. 47: "My great objection to this government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants."
^ Elliot's Debates, Vol. 3 page 51: "The honorable gentleman who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America."98.118.19.104 (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If its STILL unclear why not ADD the quotes themselves to the article. Should make it clearer.98.118.19.104 (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You are describing the quotes from footnotes 57 and 58. My question is about footnote 56. Also, there remains open questions about the selective selection of these quotes from all the available quotes being violation of WP:SYN. Additionally, I question whether we are giving proper balance, as this entire subsection treats the 'insurrectionary theory' of the Second Amendment a presumed "fact". Instead we should describe the insurrectionist theory as one of the multiple theorys. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Who don't you look it up? The volume and page numbers are provided.98.118.19.104 (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to look it up and did not find it confirmed. What I see instead is editorial synthesis of a primary source, not allowed per WP:NOR policy. I am removing that one problematic "footnote 56" sentence. Should reliable third party sourcing be found, and if anti-federalist WP:UNDUE problems in that subsection are fixed, it can be restored. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"...delegates in some of the states insisted that the Constitution include a bill of rights. "

Can we improve the precision of the unsourced clause "..delegates in some of the states insisted that the Constitution include a bill of rights." which is presently in the article. With the heavy emphasis on quotes from Patrick Henry a reader of this article could think that Virginia insisted on a bill of rights conditional on their approval of the Constitution. Where the contrary actually occurred, the majority of the Virginia ratification delegation voted to approve the Constitution without "insisting the Constitution include a bill of rights". SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

trouble with the recently restored paragraph.

The recently restored[5] paragraph contains four sentences. The first two make claims that are not confirmed in the linked ref. The second set of two sentences have no referencing at all. Also, the first two uses weasel words that five states made 'explicit requests or demands'. This seems a POV push as, if I am not mistaken, only one state made demands and the other four actually were giving recommendations or instructions to their own congressmen. Also the last sentence is imprecise saying four states did this or did that. In any case this entire paragraph has problems with WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:POV. This needs fixing, citing, or removal. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a summary paragraph of the material that follows, which is well within our discretion at WP editors. All the material is referenced for each state that attached explicit requests (or in the case of NC, a demand upon which ratification was contingent). Click on the links in the footnotes for each state's material, and you'll see those states' ratification documents reproduced verbatim. ... Kenosis (talk) 11:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, fine. I have revised some of the wording trying to make the paragraph more "summary" and less editorial, plus I removed the incongruous reference pointing to the SAF website which has unclear reliability. I am a bit uncomfortable relying on our editorial interpretation of the meanings of the primary documents of "each state's material", as we should be using third party sources. Feel free to tweak this wording towards an acceptable compromise. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

All reasonable, and goes towards a better article in the end. To be candid, I'm not delighted we've needed to include as much material as is presently in the section of state ratification debates, but WP:Summary style is a guideline, while WP:NPOV and in particular WP:WEIGHT are core policy. If the proposed language of one state's minority are to be included, the proposed language of other states' majorities quite plainly must also be included in that section. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the larger WP:UNDUE problem I think is that we are giving emphasis to the minority opinions, without giving enough weight and in some cases without giving any weight to the majority opinions. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed sentence

I've removed the following sentence:

"And, also of deep concern to many antifederalists, was Clause 16 which removed power from the states to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining" the militia because of a fear of a risk that the state militia could be rendered ineffective if or when the federal congress might chose not to fund the arming of the militia."

It repeats the material which is presently quoted in the article as "from Clause 15". If the point about "because of a fear of a risk that the state militia could be rendered ineffective if or when the federal congress might chose not to fund the arming of the militia" is deemed to be necessary in this WP article 2A, section 3 "Drafting and adoption of the Constitution", then OK, but please try to make it concise? Myself, I don't think it's needed because the following sentence already says

"These proposed new federal powers encountered strong distrust among a minority of people who were concerned about the risks inherent in centralized power, and they sought protection against these risks. A debate about this conflict ensued."

Also, there's no need to quote book, chapter and verse in the article, when the "Article X, Section Y, Clause Z" of the Constitution can quite readily be subsumed into the footnotes, merely quoting the relevant passages without violation of any WP editorial policy of which I'm presently aware. Moreover, it's material that belongs somewhere else than the point in the article's narrative that leads into the debate between federalists, antifederalists, and moderate bill of rights advocates. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC) ... May I suggest trying a concise rendering of the language of the then-proposed Constitution after the debate at the Philadelphia Convention after the conclusion of the paragraph about the debate between the federalists, outright antifederalists and moderate bill-of-rights advocates? ... Kenosis (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

After Kenosis' recent deletion[6], there are several important POV balancing points now suppressed. First it seems that this discussion belongs here in the article and not elsewhere as the elephant in the room in 1789 was the Constitution, immediately preceding and being the reason for the debate about needing a Bill of Rights. And central to that issue was the new militia clauses and the army clause in Article One of the Constitution. A modern 'individual rights' viewpoint favors surpressing discussion of those clauses, jumping directly to the Bill of Rights. (Favoring instead selective quotes from antifederalists published back then. This entire subsection presently is overweighted with those quotes.)

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights go hand in hand. The 1789 debate was about the Constitution shifting who controlled the military, (states' militia and federal army). This article emphasizes unduly on the arming of people causes bias towards the modern 'individual rights' viewpoint. We must also give a balanced coverage to the controversy over federal control of the military, standing army and state militia, which was arguable the center focus at that time. A 'modern individual rights' viewpoint prefers to gloss that the three clauses of the Constitution (12, 15 & 16) established federal control of the military (militia and army), and the compromise of the 2A in the bill of rights did little to mitigate the federal power shift. Ditto for the issue of debate over federal control of the funding the militia, which before and after the 2A remained to be federal. Suppression of this central aspect of the 1789 controversy is favored by the modern individual rights viewpoint as being too militia centric. We have a duty to represent both the individual rights viewpoint and the militia based viewpoint and the article suffers from removal of these sentences. In a nutshell, we must also present the big picture of the federal power shift that occurred at this time involved interplay of the militia clauses and army clause of the Constitution in juxtaposition to the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, you're right, and probably had it in the right place in the article too. I just didn't know how to clean up the existing text, which read confusingly to me. How about putting it back in the second paragraph of [[7]] after the first sentence which reads:

"It quickly became apparent that the solution to the first problem, security from invasion and security from interstate conflict and insurrections, would require shifting control of the state militia to the federal congress and giving power to the federal congress to raise a standing army. "

with only a straightforward quotation of the two important clauses the Convention put into the Constitution to attempt to achieve the objective described in that first sentence. E.g. "This became codified in Article 1, Section 8, as follows: [insert quoted clauses]" If presented as quotations, it would create the functional equivalent of a new paragraph at "These proposed new federal powers encountered strong distrust among a minority of people who were concerned about the risks ... " and probably be a good bit less confusing to read. IMO. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I will give it a shot, though I am also liking your earlier suggestion of putting at least some of the detailed wording down in 'quote=' parameter of the <ref> footnote at the bottom. You were right about my attempt at inserting this text being worded clumsily and confusing. The idea should be worded more clearly but it is difficult to distill these complex ideas into simply wording. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, it was the series of clauses (Article 1, Section 8, clauses 12-16?) that addressed the issue that led to the Convention (difficulties in organizing to suppress an insurrection as had just occurred in Massachusetts, and a presumed inability to suppress a foreign invasion and/or deal with interstate conflict):

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Maybe it might be reasonable to refer to it as Article 1, Section 8, and just string the first four clauses of the group into one quoted paragraph separated only by semicolons, and the last in a separate paragraph just to keep things as simply formatted as possible, leaving further details to a footnote? ... Kenosis (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's to be presented verbatim from the Constitution, here's one possible way of doing it:

It quickly became apparent that the solution to the first problem, security from invasion and security from interstate conflict and insurrections, would require shifting control of the state militia to the federal congress and giving power to the federal congress to raise a standing army. This became codified on Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to ... provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; ... (12) To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; (13) To provide and maintain a navy; (14) To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; (15) To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; (16) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

These proposed new federal powers encountered strong distrust among a minority of people who were concerned about the risks inherent in centralized power, and they sought protection against these risks. A debate about this conflict ensued. Federalists such as James Madison initially argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary, asserting that the federal government could never raise a standing army powerful enough to overcome a militia.^[1] Similarly, Federalist Noah Webster argued that an armed populace would have no trouble resisting the potential threat to liberty of a standing army.^[2]^[3] Madison would later become a leading advocate for the United States Bill of Rights.

Anti-Federalists supported a proposal to amend the Constitution with clearly defined and enumerated rights to provide further constraints on the new government and to protect against a risk of the new federal government disarming the state militias, while proponents felt shifting power over the militias to the federal was prudent and that by listing only certain rights, other unlisted rights would fail to be protected. Amidst this debate, a compromise was reached, and James Madison drafted what ultimately became the United States Bill of Rights, which was proposed to the Congress on June 8, 1789.

IMO, anything more detailed than this should be done with a "see-also" or "main article"... Kenosis (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This summary section is looking much better now. I am looking at each of the state subsections just below and am wondering what are the reason(s) for inclusion, and what are the main point(s) to make. And, do those state subsections properly balance the POV's. It seems that these state summaries must strike a proportional balance between federalist viewpoints and antifederalist viewpoints, in proportion to the miniority-majority balance ratio. Presently it seems to disproportionately focus on the minority antifederalist viewpoints in the selection of which states to include and within states included. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"Similar language appears in many Revolutionary Era state constitutions." sourcing???

I think we need to fact check the sentence: "Similar language appears in many Revolutionary Era state constitutions.". Firstly, it probably is improper to call the Virginia Declaration of Rights a constitution. And, what is important is how many state constitutions were precedent to the federal Constitution, and of these how many has this precedent language. I don't know off the top of my head, but I am guessing that this language (which does exist in quite a few subsequent state constitutions) was not actually precedent to the federal Bill of Rights in "many". In any case, we should quantify "many" and get this sentence fact checked based on reliable sourcing, and presently it is not. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That passage in the article definitely needs to be cited to a reliable source. Similarly with the statement that the prefatory clause is a shortened version of the arms-related passage of the VA Declaration of Rights, because it's not universally agreed to be merely a prefatory clause in the 2A, and also because the article hasn't yet introduced the debate about the function of the first clause. I'd stopped short of removing it per WP:PRESERVE. Either way, I'm not sure this statement about the Declaration being a precedent to the Second Amendment is needed in the context of the VA subsection of the section on state ratification convention debates. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And the tangential question, what is the point of these 'State Constitutional ratifying debates' subsections? In Virginia, the ratification 1788 debate was about the 1788 Constitution, not about the earlier 1776 Virginia declaration of rights, nor about the later federal Bill of Rights debates which were separate and distinct. Indeed, the debate over the ratification of the Constitution was distinct from the debate over the ratification of the federal Bill of Rights amendments. This whole section is sloppy and blurs the distinction, giving instead emphasis to antifederalist 'pro-gun' snippet quotes, which are too often trumpeted out of context to bolster an modern gun rights agenda based on fuzzy originalism fabricated from carefully selective quoting of out of context snippets of 'founding fatherisms' cut from the gun rights advocacy blogs and gun show pamphlets. We should do better than that by avoiding the selective WP:SYN quoting from primary documents, sticking with high quality third party reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, some ways back someone started a section on the ratifying convention debates and it remained a short subsection until recently, when the Pennsylvania minority material was added amidst a great deal of wild argument, a move supported by User:Trasel and perhaps others. (The PA minority material has been widely circulated on the web in support of the position of proponents of individual gun rights with the implication that it has some weight of authority.) Now it is part of the article unless a consensus can be reached to remove it. The majority proposals of the other five states for the language of the bill of rights relating to arms have since been included so as to achieve WP:NPOV. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Except, it has been established here that the so called Pennsylvanian minority material was not actually part of the formal Constitutional ratification debate. It might belong elsewhere in the article, perhaps in a new section making comparison between federalist and antifederalist opinions, but it is improper to call it part of any formal ratification debate. And, the five other states' material you added appear entirely drawn from primary documents and as such really shouldn't be included in an article because, without reliable third party sourcing, it would violate WP:NOR policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

W.r.t. WP:PSTS (part of WP:NOR) the inclusion of the quotations from various states in that section doesn't go against the policy.:

"Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source."

Nonetheless if there's a potential consensus to remove that whole section on ratifying convention debates and place the first paragraph into the section on Drafting and adoption of the Constitution, I'd certainly not complain. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It may have been inadvertent. But, I believe that by selecting just the antifederalist quotes that pertain to (individual) arms, and by not selecting the quotes of the federalist opinions that favored taking federal control over the militias and establishing a federal standing army; you have synthesized. Objectively, the majority opinion at that time (by virtue of the result, majority ratification of Article 1, Section 8) we can safely conclude that the majority favored a standing army and a strong federally funded and centrally controlled militia. Yet, reading the the article with the quotes you chose to select, (and not the federalist you omitted), a reader gets the impression that the antifederalist viewpoint was the dominant viewpoint. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Those last five states to ratify--New Hampshire, Virginia, New York which followed the Massachusetts example but with written proposals for language in the Bill of Rights, plus North Carolina which made its ratification contingent on a Bill of Rights, and Rhode Island which ratified after the Bill already passed Congress--are the only official written statements on the issue that emanated from any of the states. It has little to do with federalist vs. anti-federalists, because in the end even the majority of federalists supported a bill of rights, otherwise Congress wouldn't have passed the Bill. So I stand by my position-- if the PA minority is in there, so should be the other states' majority proposals for language of what ultimately became the Second Amendment. On the other hand, if there are other official statements that arose from the ratifying conventions, I'd sure support their reproduction in the article.
..... Lacking a consensus to remove this mass of advisory material from the state conventions, which primarily serves to help clarify the widespread usage of the words "keep and bear arms" in that day, and does little or nothing to help clarify any other debates of today such as whether it's only a state's right or is also an individual right, I'd think it might be time to start a daughter article and just link to it. Care to do the honors? ... Kenosis (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] I don't understand the reasoning for calling this "debates" then, when you are not writing of debates, but rather limiting it to "written statements" of just the states in opposition. As to the so called "Pennsylvania minority" it was not part of the formal debate, I don't think it should be in the article, in this "ratification debate" subsection at least. I disagree that your selection of quotes serves to clarify the words "keep and bear arms", why do you think that is the case? There is already exhaustive coverage of the various meanings of that term, using reliable secondary sourcing so your use of primary sources is unneeded. And, I don't volunteer to start any daughter article based just on quotes from primary sources.

If we are to actually have this cover the "ratification debates" we should do so, and base it on reliable sourcing. May I suggest the excellent summary written by the historian Isaac Kramnick, the 30 page introduction to the 1987 reprint of the Federalist Papers? (search for ISBN 9780140444957) For instance, per that sourcing; a major issue at the debate was the widespread contempt for the weakness and failures of the existing state legislatures. Also per that sourcing, a key central issue was the ineptitude and failure to quickly suppress Shays Insurrection, and that revolt was about relief of debt. We can do better if we delete the WP:OR primary document selective quotes and start over using third party sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've given my own best shot today at trying to reorganize the recently developed bloat in a series of edits starting from this edit through this edit. while removing extremely little of the existing material. TBH, I think it's time to gut this section about "State ratifying convention debates" and put it here on Talk in case it's useful in starting a new article that could potentially be linked from this article. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What you have just done is a significant improvement, though I would like to sleep on it. I am of mixed opinion about gutting it or fixing it. On one hand, I can hear arguments that it is relevant to the origin of the 2A, but on the other hand it is troubling that the passage lacks better third party sourcing. Also, it is troubling that it gives the impression that the Bill of Rights was dominant in the ratification deliberations, nines states were needed to ratify, and nine states ratified without recommending a Bill of Rights. Virginia, the tenth, was the first to recommended a Bill of Rights (and the subsequent states). SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on several time-consuming attempts at keeping in accord both with the core content policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and guidelines such as WP:Summary style, in accordance with the guideline WP:BOLD and in violation of no policies I can think of, I've removed the whole bloated section on "State ratifying convention debates" and am placing it here in case it's useful in a separate article, e.g., State convention statements in the United States relating to the Second Amendment, or some such title. Here's the existing material, which might help to encourage other established WP users to participate in arriving at a consensus on this (not that I'm holding my breath):

===State Constitutional ratifying debates===

In order for the Constitution to be declared as ratified, nine of the thirteen states were needed to vote in favor; though as a practical matter "a viable Union would be unthinkable without New York and Virginia—two states where Antifederalism was strong and demand for a bill of rights was widespread."^[4] Almost immediately, five states—Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia and Connecticut—voted to ratify without conditions, solidly supporting the new Constitution. Massachusetts, the second largest state at the time, was divided and after three weeks of debate it was agreed it would ratify the Constitution without conditions, but it would require its Representatives to seek Congressional passage of a bill a rights at the First Congress. Following the Massachusetts example, six of the remaining seven also voted to approve the Constitution without conditions, while requiring their respective Representatives to seek the Congressional passage of a bill of rights at the First Congress. Two states postponed final action on the Constitution until after the Bill of Rights was submitted to the states for ratification.^[5]

====Pennsylvania minority proposal====

During the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention (it was the first state to begin its convention and the second state to officially ratify) a leader of the opposing minority named Robert Whitehill prepared a document that included two proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution relating to bearing arms and the militia.^[6] The proposal, which never reached the floor of the Pennsylvania convention, advocated reducing the federal government's power to organize and command a militia to less than it was in the already existing Articles of Confederation:^[7]

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game, and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers."
"That the power of organizing, arming and disciplining the militia (the manner of disciplining the militia to be prescribed by Congress) remain with the individual states, and that Congress shall not have authority to call or march any of the militia out of their own state, without the consent of such state, and for such length of time only as such state shall agree.^[8]

This dissenting material in Pennsylvania represented an anti-federalist view which proposed to remove the federal government's power to organize and command a militia and instead return the right to the states to decide when and where troops from the individual states would bear arms for national defense.^[9] After the convention adjourned, Whitehill's "bill of rights" was published by fellow anti-federalist Samuel Bryan as part of a compilation of dissenting material which never reached the convention floor in Pennsylvania.^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]

====Majority proposals for specific language by the last states to ratify====

The ratifying conventions in four of the last five states among the original thirteen included written requests to the Congress in their ratification documents, and one state explicitly demanded that the Constitution protect state-based rights of the people to keep and bear arms. Four of these states—New Hampshire, Virginia, New York and Rhode Island—attached proposals to the new Congress for suggested bills of rights to be added to the Constitution. North Carolina refused to ratify the Constitution until after the Congress had passed a bill of rights and submitted it to the states for ratification. Four of these states also mentioned that a well-regulated militia consists of "the body of the people trained to arms" or "the body of the people capable of bearing arms".

=====New Hampshire=====

New Hampshire's ratification document, dated June 23, 1788, ratified the Constitution without modification, though it recommended twelve alterations in order to "remove the fears & quiet the apprehensions of many of the good People of this State".^[15] The document contained two provisions relating to arms which recommended to Congress:

"That no Standing Army shall be Kept up in Time of Peace, unless with the consent of three fourths of the Members of each branch of Congress nor shall Soldiers in Time of Peace be Quartered upon private Houses without the Consent of the Owners."
"Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion "^[16]

=====Virginia=====

The opening clause of the Second Amendment ("A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," ) is a shortened version of language found in the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights.

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."^[17]

During the opening debates of the Virginia Ratifying Convention, anti-federalist Patrick Henry asked how the people could resist tyrants if their arms had been taken from them by this new federal power system created by a federal Constitution replacing the existing state based power system of the Articles of Confederation.^[18]^[19] Many delegates who were in generally in favor of the Constitution were concerned that it did not contain a list of guaranteed rights. George Mason proposed a bill of rights similar to the Virginia Declaration of Rights, of which he had been the principal author.^[20]^[21] Virginia's final ratification document, dated June 26, 1788, included a statement that "recommended to the consideration" of the first assembled Congress a "declaration or bill of rights".^[22] The paragraph relating to arms reads as follows:

"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."^[23]^[24]

=====New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island=====

New York was the last state to ratify the Constitution without condition prior to actual passage of the Bill of Rights. Its recommendation to Congress relating to bearing arms, dated July 26, 1788, reads as follows:

"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."^[25]

North Carolina refused to ratify the Constitution and submitted a bill of "unalienable rights of the people" that must be protected before they would sign.^[26] After the Congress approved the Bill of Rights and submitted it to the states for ratification, North Carolina ratified the Constitution in 1789. The state convention's proposed article relating to arms, dated August 1, 1788, reads as follows:

"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."^[27]

Rhode Island held its Constitutional ratification convention in 1790, after Congress had already passed the Bill of Rights but prior to the Bill's ratification. Included in its recommendations to Congress were three paragraphs relating to bearing arms:

"As standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity, and as, at all times, the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power, that, therefore, no standing army or regular troops shall be raised or kept up in time of peace.
"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well- regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except in time of war, rebellion, or insurrection; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity; and that, at all times, the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power; that, in time of peace, no soldier ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war only by the civil magistrates, in such manner as the law directs."
"That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead."^[28]

There's the material. Hopefully it's useful elsewhere. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I a OK with this shift of text to the talk page, as I think that meticulously sticking with the core WP:Policies is paramount and prudent. I recognize that this is hard work and judging from the readily apparent improvements in the quality of the article, the results of this hard work are appreciated. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

some glarring errors in the article

Discussion by a single-purpose editor with multiple IPs blocked for block evasion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The article is rife with errors and some are so obvious I can't quite believe that they are in a wiki article.

For instance, Alexander Hamilton is listed as being from Virginia - He was from NY

The comment that the Founding Fathers favored "democratic government" per the quote "deterring undemocratic government;" is laughable to anyone who has read some history. The Founding Fathers despised "democracy", some probably more then they despised "tyranny" since they considered it "rule of the mob". Hamilton who supported a strong central government probably fell into that camp.

James Madison, the writer of the Constitution, for instance states

http://thehornsblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/founding-fathers-view-of-democracy.html

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

Hamilton's state of origin needs to be corrected from Virginia to NY and the statement deterring undemocratic governmentneeds to be changed to something like deterring tyrannical government" 71.184.189.196 (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

while the reference to Hamilton being from Virginia has been fixed, the "undemocratic" comment remains and needs to be fixed.71.184.189.196 (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

i think th is is all good info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.234.110.58 (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This also seems wrong - As a result, these Patriots established independent colonial legislatures to create their own militias which excluded the Loyalists and then sought out to stock up independent armories for their militias. - My memory of high school history is that George Washington fought in the French and Indian Wars, as a member of the Virginia Militia. The militias were not created by the legislatures but were pre-existing as a carryover from English practices and for protection against Indian raids, French attacks and even possible attacks by pirate and freebooters not above raiding a town for its valuables or even for food and drink. Also, I have no memory of anything that states that the Battles of Lexington and Concord were fought by one of two militias defending those towns or that one of those militias joined and fought with the British troops.98.118.13.205 (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

changed "undemocratic" to "tyrranical" myself

Discussion by a single-purpose editor with multiple IPs blocked for block evasion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

only to run into interference.

Anyone who objects to that change should try to find favorable comments by any of the founding fathers for democracy. They are at most few and far between. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.177.99 (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Also think that "slave control" was not much of an issue at the time. I have never heard of it as an issue prior to reading this article.71.184.177.99 (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As noted in the edit summary by the editor who reverted you:

The source says "undemocratic", not: "'tyrannical"

A similar note was left by me on your talk page. Please do not engage in original research or synthesis. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/71.174.142.108 and User_talk:Tedder/Archive_4#Multiple_IP_.22socks.22_at_Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Straw Purchase

The article states A "straw purchase" occurs when someone eligible to purchase a firearm buys one for an ineligible person.

According to http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/2005/p53004/index.htm Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF P 5300.4 - Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide 2005 (Revised - 9/05)] Page 165. a "straw purchase" is when the purchaser of the gun on the Form 4473 is not the actual buyer, whether the gun is bought for an ineligible or eligible person, with one exception: when the purchaser is buying the gun in good faith as a bona fide gift for an eligible person. Courts have inconsistently ruled that it is not a "straw purchase" to buy a gun for someone who could legally buy the gun themselves (that the intent of Congress was to prevent someone eligible to purchase a firearm from buying one for an ineligible person) but that is not how ATF enforces the law, and testing the ATF's interpretation at the appeals court level is expensive. Naaman Brown (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The direct quote from the cite UCLA Law Review Paper (pg 15) is: "Individuals charged with making illegal “straw” purchases—whereby someone eligible to purchase a firearm buys one for an ineligible person—have raised unsuccessful Second Amendment challenges,..." And, the point is that in the post-Heller era, that challenges to federal straw purchase law based on Heller precedence have been denied, specifically with the case United States v. Bledsoe. I am guessing that you are thinking of court cases that precede Heller? The point being made here is that the Heller ruling did not affect the constitutionality of the "straw purchase" vis a vis the law specifically challenged by Bledsoe. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

United States v. Skoien

I have removed the reference to United States v. Skoien in the Judicial interpretations section's Federal circuit court cases after Heller subsection, because the Seventh Circuit has decided to rehear that case en banc. This results in the panel decision formally referenced in that subsection being vacated and so that panel decision is void. Source SMP0328. (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent IP edits

207.188.193.66 has made several edits today which are troubling. First, they added yet another argument to the troubled Meaning of "to keep and bear arms" section. That section is already an example of participating in the dispute rather than describing the dispute; another "no, it doesn't" is not needed. Next, the editor collapsed the list at the beginning of the Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution section which was the result of so much discussion last year. That change also removed cited content, broke named references and left a closing tag visible. Now, the editor appears to be edit warring over the removal of cited content at the end of the English history and common law section. All of these changes have been without explanation. Does any of this improve the article? Celestra (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

These proposed edits should really be discussed here on the talk page instead of being a source of an edit war. Glancing at the page history it appears that the AnonIP has made five reverts in roughly 24 hours, including one made ten minutes after a warning on his/her talk page. That probably warrants inviting an administrator from the WP:AN3 to review this matter. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I only count three reverts; the other diffs appear to be new changes. Celestra (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

District of Columbia v. Heller

"The dissenting justices were unpersuaded by this argument.[163]"

What the F&^k is this? If the dissenting justices were persuaded, then they wouldn't have been dissenting justices. It's trash like this, included only to try to strengthen one side of an argument, that gives Wikipedia a bad name. In fact nearly all the references in this section are of the dissenting opinion. Why? This was the minority opinion and thus, should not be given weight over the majority.

How stupid do we think Wikipedia users are? The dissenting justices are always unpersuaded by the majorities argument. Are we going to add this little footnote to every section referencing every supreme court case? And please don't give me that "but It's cited" B.S, being cited doesn't make it valid information.

Let's remove at least this stupid line that only serves to try to weaken the validity of the majority opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.15.8 (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

English Common Law DID permit the general populace to bear arms! (contrary to recent edits and one source)

I see that a recent edit by User:SaltyBoatr has added a claim that English common law did NOT permit the general populace to bear arms. Clearly we have ONE claim (sourced to an American writer St. George Tucker, who states

"Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty"

This is somewhat troubling for several reasons.

Here we have ONE OBSERVER (a lawyer in Virginia as it happens) making a comment about the situation he believes is extant in England. He claims that the Bill of Rights only gives right to Protestants and is CONFINED TO THEM. Technically speaking the first statement is true. The second statement is not true. he Bill of Rights was a settlement with a king which was intended for the King to recognize the rights of protestants to arm themselves (the protestants having been under the threat of a re-assertment of Roman Catholicism with the fear that this might be imposed. The Bill of Rights DID NOT take away the rights of anyone else to bear arms. People at the time already had the right to bear arms to defend themselves and some had an obligation to defend the king (and due to the stripping of the powers of the King in the Bill of Rights, this was beginning to transfer to Parliament in the name of the King).

His second troubling claim is that prohibitions on certain gaming activities led to an interpretation that there were prohibitions on the use of guns and other weapons to kill game. The situation regarding gaming and the use of guns and dogs was quite problematic in England because there was a general right to use a weapon to kill game but there was no right of pursuit onto private proprty to retrieve it. This led to a great deal of disputes between gamers and those poachers who retrieved game from land other than their own. The situation is quite well summarized in the 1911 Enclopaedia Britannia. See http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Game_Laws As soon as parliament started passing laws regarding gun licensing in the late 19th and early 20th century that the common law right to keep forearms began to be restricted. As soon as THESE laws were passed, the common law right was replaced with permissions. Tucker seemingly writing in 1803, many years before the system of licencing was introduced so it is very hard to know what he was referring to when he states "not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty". My guess is either that this was in a later edition or else Tucker was simply wrong. IN ANY CASE, ANY WORDS. SUCH AS THOSE ADDED TODAY THAT INDICATE THAT ONLY SOME PEOPLE IN ENGLAND HAD A COMMON LAW RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS SIMPLY UNTRUE until the licencing laws extinguished the common law right. There certainly was such a right at the time of the adoption of the second amendment and for many years afterwards.

I think we must stick to the wording of English laws when stating what is and what is not the law of England. The words of one man, lawyer or not, writing in Virginia many thousands of miles away is not authoritative on the laws of England. This may have been in Blackstones but it is in a minor note and clearly seems to express opinion without reference to sources.--Hauskalainen (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There must me a misunderstanding. I think you are describing text in the article that has existed in a stable state for approximately two years. This text I think generally matches the book ISBN 0-674-89307-7 by Joyce Lee Malcolm, which in my opinion, and the opinion of many neutral observers is the paramount scholarly work on the history of the English right to bear arms. Professor Malcolm is generally viewed as holding a roughly neutral point of view, leaning slightly towards the "individual right" viewpoint. Regarding the issue of arms use for "killing game" I recommend reading the Joyce book, and also the book by Alexander DeConde ISBN 1-55553-486-4, I believe it fair to describe both these books as examining the prohibitions, and resistance towards the use of arms and gunpowder laws in attempts to control poaching on royal land. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether the text has been in the article for 2 years or not, it has to meet the test of verifiability. You refer me to the Joyce book which is not accessible to me. That should not be important because Joyce herself must have sources for any claims she makes. A law regarding poaching is not a law prohibiting the possession of weapons generally for one's one defense. Tucker gives no source for his assertions. What about Joyce Malcolm? And what makes you think that a prohibition on the use of firearms on royal land constitutes a general prohibition on the right to weapons. English common law would permit anyone to have a weapon until it became prohibited. And my understanding is that did not start to happen until the 19th century and not in a major way until the 20th century. For the assertions you inserted to be true it would have to be an order of the king in medieval times and by order of parliament after the glorious revolution. Which is it? And what in particular happened to remove the general right to bear arms if it happened before the period I have indicated? It must be verifiable.--Hauskalainen (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The book should be available at a library. That is access. Some book citations also have a convenience link, but that is not required to satisfy verifiability of this reliable source. Your suggestion about the sources Joye used for the book suggest a misunderstanding of verifiability; we do not need to, nor are we permitted to, go back to those sources to see if we agree with the conclusions Joyce reached. That would be OR. We just have to refer to a portion of that reliable source to include the claim which Joyce made. Celestra (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen, I can tell that you have a deep interest and pay close attention to the issue of the right to bear arms. I encourage you to look up and read the Joyce Lee Malcolm book as you will find it to be carefully researched and intriguing. Also, I recommend that you take a look at the book by Alexander DeConde because it also includes much fascinating detail and analysis about the history of the right of the right to bear arms. Both of these books are meticulously researched and are excellent resources for the history behind the topic of this article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent). @SaltyBoatr Clearly you have access to this book, I do not. If you have the text available, then all you need to do to assuage the rest of us is to let us know what it says on this point. What are the references? She is an academic. She must have given references. Similarly with the DeConde book. I am fairly sure that the common law right to bear arms for personal defense within Great Britain did not begin to be diminished until the early 1800s when certain persons deemed to be "vagabonds" and found to have been carrying a weapon were deemed to have committed an offence. As far as I know this was the first encroachment into the right to bear arms. If there is an earlier act or acts then what are they? --Hauskalainen (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:V does not insist that a source must be available online, and AFAIK never has. Of course if a citation to a book lacks page numbers, it might be useful to insist on a page number. We're not obliged to page through an entire book to find a questioned passage. The relevant policy is at Wikipedia:V#Burden_of_evidence. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

@Celestra. I am well aware of WP policy regarding sources. All I am asking is how the texts support the claim. The text is written by an academic and would have given an original source. If she did that is fine. If she did not, then the claim has to be open to question until someone else can provide a substantial basis for it. I am not asking for the Joyce reference to replaced with an earlier source; just for the basis of the claim made that some persons in Great Britain did not have the right to bear arms at the time the second amendment was written. If that is in Joyce, what is it based on? We have it from Tucker that not one person in five in England could possess a gun without fear of a penalty. If that assertion is true it has to be founded on something. What is it? If nobody can point to what it is, then it puts Tucker's own assertions in doubt. Royal proclamations and laws passed by parliament are pretty well documented. If the claim is capable of being substantiated it has to be based on official records and not the claim of a single lawyer thousands of miles away in Virginia. --Hauskalainen (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the policy which allows an editor to question the basis for claims made in reliable sources. The only valid concerns are whether the book is a reliable source and whether the content in the article correctly represents the claims in the source. I'm willing to assume good faith that the content is supported, but you are welcome to obtain a copy of the book and test that assumption if you'd like. Arguments around what she based her claims on are moot. If you think she is mistaken, you would need to find an equally reliable source which has a conflicting claim and we would have to decide how to capture both claims in the article. And remember, you are asking an editor to defend content which was restored after its unexplained removal. There is no burden to support restoral; the burden would be on the editor who wants to remove the content to establish a new consensus that the content is no longer required. Celestra (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

My primary question is about what the source actually says. It is either in the source (in which case the person with access to the source ought to be able to point out to us what is actually says, where it says it, and what is the basis for the author's assertion), or else it is not in the source. I am not at this point able to examine the veracity of a claim that exists in Wikipedia. I don't really mind who it is who supplied the information in the first place. I am not "getting at" SaltyBoatr if that is what you mean. If nobody has access to the source then it cannot be substantiated. And if no editor is able to substantiate the source for a text in the encylopedia then frankly the content which it underpins should not be included either. Just for clarity, the issue at stake here at this stage is WP:VER and not WP:RS --Hauskalainen (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The book by Professor Malcolm is easily available to view online via Google Books, and it is available in many local libraries, and it easily and cheaply available for purchase from online used book vendors[8]. I think it fair to say that she writes that a personal right to weapons did not exist in common law prior to the establishment of the right for certain Protestants circa 1689. Prior to that there was a duty to be armed for service to the crown, but not a right. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I just removed the text describing "ancient liberties to hold arms"[9] because it needs some improvement on sourcing. Bear in mind that during most of this 'ancient period' the concept of personal liberties were quite restricted due to serfdom, which was a form of slavery. It wasn't until the period of the Enlightenment that a concept of personal liberties came into being in Britain. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I get the feeling that the problem is getting to be WP:ICAN'THEARYOU. The source, a book, is accessible. If you want to test the assumption of good faith that the original editor faithfully captured the claim, you can go get a copy of the book. If SB were adding this content, it _might_ be reasonable to ask for a quote, but that isn't the case here. Even if it were, we are not allowed to explore "the basis for the author's assertion." If you want to establish a consensus for removing this cited content, the burden is on you to show that the source is unreliable or does not make the claim. I'm not accusing you of "getting at" SB, just misunderstanding who has the burden of proof about this. Celestra (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

NMo, this is not a case of "I don't hear you" and as it happens I have been reading the relevant chapter via Google Books and it still does not support the claim which Salty makes. See the new section I have added about Joyce Lee Malcolm's writings. I actually agree with most of what she says. She does not explicitly claim that there were no such rights prior to the English Bill of Rights at all. What she says in two places confers that this was a guarantee of rights, though she does rather confusingly refer to "since 1689" in relation to the right which I agree implies that the right was not extant, which is not true. If there was no right before this time, some law or decree would have made it so. This is not the case to the best of my knowledge. The slip she made is an easy one to make in the context of a history of written constitutions and explicitly written rights. Though it is true that the right had not been written down, the Common Law provides that everything is lawful unless it is has been previously made unlawful. That no law or decree prior to the 1800s had restricted the right of access to arms for self defense means that there was already a comman law right to arms, irrespective of the wording in the English Bill of Rights.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could go forward with this discussion if you were to identify the sourcing of your belief that "Common Law provides that everything is lawful unless it is has been previously made unlawful.". This may be true now in the 21st Century, but I would be surprised it was true prior to the Age of Enlightenment, (and the genesis of the concept of personal liberty) and that is the time period being being discussed in the article section. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

See my comments at the end of the next section. I do now accept that Parliament passed a gaming preservation law which did indeed restrict gun ownership to restrict game hunting in England to those with a land interest or else employed to enforce that interest. I was clearly not previously aware of this. In practice of course this did restrict the ownership of a gun for self defense, but it would not have restricted the general right of all persons in common law to use arms for self defense (albeit in practice it meant that certain persons would not have had ready access to a gun for that purpose). I am on fairly certain grounds about the Common Law and I do not see any benefit in discussing the Age of Enlightment in this context as it has no relevance (unless Salty wishes to pursue his claim). --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Primary Sources and Original Research

Primary sources may only be used descriptively; they may not be used as a basis for a broader claim. You are pointing at one set of laws and claiming that reference supports a broad conclusion. It is equivalent to my pointing at a single law having a certain penalty and concluding that penalty is due to that law. Please leave the research and drawing of conclusions to the secondary sources and capture those sources' conclusions. Celestra (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Firstly thanks for restoring the text that I accidentally deleted. I had been editing with a friend's i-phone and the damn thing accidently dropped half the text. That never happens when I edit with my Nokia!

Secondly, the problem I have with your text is that it is misleading and false. It states that some persons in England at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment had no right to bear arms. That is completely false. Here is why.

In England at the time there was (as there still is today) in common law,

"auxiliary right of the fubject, ...(being).. that of having arms for their defence, fuitable to their condition and degree, and fuch as are allowed by law. Which is alfo declared by the fame ftatute 1 W. & M. ft. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due reftrictions, of the natural right of refiftance and felf-prefervation, when the fanctions of fociety and laws are found infufficient to reftrain the violence of oppreffion. " (Blackstone 1765, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book the First - Chapter the First : Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals)

That right is qualified as being those arms "suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law." Those laws being at the time ones restricting access to certain classes of arms (towit guns) for the landed classes only and their authorized gamekeepers for the preservation of their gaming rights; and earlier preventing certain Catholics from holding firearms (lest they be used to usurp the authority of parliament- thought the latter was a temporary scare which

did not last long).

The basic rule is that there is a common law right to have arms but the rule is qualified by law. As I see it that is the case in the U.S. with law today. Is it not the case that the right to bear arms in the U.S. is not absolute but qualified by law on the suitabilty of the person and the suitabilty of the arm? I am fairly sure I would not be allowed to run around Ohio with a dirty bomb under my arm (suitable for their condition or degree) or be permitted to carry a gun if I was a former felon who had used firearms to commit an offense (as restricted by state licensing laws). The only difference is that the U.S. drafters of the constitution (wisely or unwisely depending on your point of view) wrote the English Comon Law right into the Second Amendment and an appointed Supreme Court has allowed States to set conditions by law over that right. In England it is the elected Parliament that has modified the Common Law rights.

The Common law of England, just as with the Constitution of the United States, protects a person's right to bear arms to defend himself and his property. Only the laws amending that right differ by degree. --Hauskalainen (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Could we start by identifying your sources? I believe that your interpretation of the Blackstone Commentary from 1765 is a form of original research. Have you had a chance to read the Harvard University Press book, ISBN 0-674-89307-7, by Professor Malcolm? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a little trouble following exactly which edits are the source of the debate here, except for [10] that removal, which is appropriate (drawing some conclusions from the old law). The addition of the term "common law" to the header isn't a problem--what Blackstone refers to in the quote is the English "natural right", in contrast to the statutory rights of the English Bill of Rights or the other statutes--but it's not entirely accurate either. The statutory rights referred to are not common law rights.

Could someone point out the more specific diffs for what's at issue here (assuming that's necessary). Shadowjams (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleting paragraph of substandard material

The following paragraph seems to refer to material no longer in this section or which has been mover to other sections.

Historian Jack Rakove, in an amicus brief signed by a dozen leading historians filed in District of Columbia. v. Heller,[110] identifies several problems with the Kates and Blodgett-Ford argument. Coxe's reference describes the ownership of weapons, not the purpose for which the weapons were owned. Thus, privately owned weapons were state mandated as a means of meeting one's legal obligation to contribute to public defense. Other historians have noted that the Second Amendment was as much a civic obligation as it was a right in the modern sense.[111] The meaning of the Pennsylvania dissent of the minority is even more hotly disputed. Historians have also noted that this text, written by the Anti-Federalist minority of a single state, was hastily written, never actually reached the floor of the convention, and was never emulated by any other ratification convention.[111][112][113][114][115]

The above paragraph either needs to be totally deleted or the language substantially reworked.

Problems

1)The Ravoke Brief was in support the District of Columbia which lost the case. The brief therefore seems to had little or no influence on Supreme Court thinking. There were dozens of briefs filed in that case. Why is one from the losing side referenced without material one on the winning side? Isn't that biased?

2)The paragraph makes references to Kates, Blodgett-Ford and Coxe which make no sense. My guess is that additional material by Kates, Blodgett Ford and Coxe previously appeared in this article which has since been deleted. Statements in opposition to positions no longer existing in the article just lead to confusion. If other wiki authors believe that the material should be retained then the Kates, Blodgett-Ford and Coxe positions/arguments/statements (whatever the hell they were) should be reinstated so that a reader knows what the hell Ravoke is objecting to.

3)The other historians sentence seems confused. The Second Amendment protects a right and not a civic obligation. It does not FORCE the people to buy personal arms so that they could perform their civic duties, it protected their right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of their state and the United states. And I am puzzled by the reference to a "right in the modern sense"? What is difference about a right today then a right over 200 years ago?

4)The section starting with "The Meaning of the Pennsylvania...." seems out of place. It seems to refer to previously deleted material no longer in this section.

5)The last part of the paragraph seems to be unusually demeaning of the dissent, a historical document that served a a template for later objections to the lack of a Bill of Rights within the US Constitution and was used as one of the source documents for the Amendments which later became the Bill of Rights

See the following language from the US Senate publication The Rights to Keep and Bear Arms

http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a Bill of Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison. Madison did not write upon a blank tablet. Instead, he obtained a pamphlet listing the State proposals for a Bill of Rights and sought to produce a briefer version incorporating all the vital proposals of these. His purpose was to incorporate, not distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania minority, Sam Adams, and the New Hampshire delegates. 71.184.185.145 (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense to keep the consensus passage in the article until a new consensus is reached. Addressing your points above... 1) It is not at all clear who "won" and who "lost" Heller, neither is that important. The citation is about background historical information. Indeed, now that the dust is settling on the Heller decision with the "longstanding prohibitions" clause becoming the operative clause, it is arguably the true that proponents of reasonable gun regulations prevailed. 2) The Kates, Blodgett-Ford and Coxe are merely references to footnotes 108,109 immediately seen in the text above. 3) The "Civic obligation" interpretation is well known significant interpretation, and regardless of whether you personally agree with that interpretation, we are obligated to give it coverage in this article per WP:NPOV policy here. 4) The Pennsylvanian minority passage could be given improved wording, but it also is important because it is addressing a relatively well known colonial era quotation indicative of the individual rights viewpoint. 5) This sentence continues discussion of this same colonial era quotation, and which gives appropriate context per the previous talk page consensus. (and check the archives, I recall many 100K of words of discussion working out that prior consensus wording) We should not be casually changing this consensus wording at whim because one editor holds a difference personal opinion. That consensus wording was written to describe a neutral-POV balance point independent of personal editor opinions. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

1)Heller got his gun, DC wasn't allowed to prevent him from getting it. The Supreme Court decided in favor of Heller. By any reasonable interpretation, Heller got what he wanted and therefore won. DC didn't get what it wanted and therefore lost. 2) What kind of sense does it make to respond to footnotes in the text? and what were the problems Ravoke found? Blodgett-Ford is presented as quoting text, and her conclusions from that text are not presented. As it currently stands the language is useless. Blodgett-Ford came to some unknown conclusion and Rovoke found unknown problems with it. That sort of language can be replaced with "She said" and "He said" without loosing any information. Both versions are pretty darn useless and uninformative. "She said" and "He said" has the advantage of being short. Additionally there is no reference at all to what Coxe was talking about, just that Ravoke objected to it. That can be replaced with a single "He said" without loss. In other words that language is also useless and uninformative. 3) If that viewpoint is significant, then the US Supreme Court probably considered it in Heller. Are you aware if it was? At a minimum it should have been mentioned in one of the dozens of briefs submitted in the case. Do you know if it was? 4) I have no objection to changing the wording as long as it makes some kind of sense. Currently the whole paragraph seems disjointed and out of place, possibly because other material may have been deleted. 5)The last part seems biased and disparaging. Source documents used to prepare the Bill of Rights should not be treated in that manner.71.184.185.145 (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you get a chance to read the volumes of prior talk page negotiations about this article passage? The hashing over of this paragraph's wording took weeks and was exhaustive. I am reluctant to re-write answers to your questions being asked today when you can read the answers which have been previously provided in the talk page archives here. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 18:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I am reluctant to look through a bazillion prior posts for what to me seems a simple matter of leftovers from previous edits. The "Coxe" sentence for instance is indicative. A word search of the article shows only that one reference to Coxe. Nowhere does it say what his opinions were, what the objections to his opinions were, or even indicates who he was. Assuming that is his last name (assuming he is male), what is his first so we can at least let people know who he was? See below for a list of problems with just is one sentence

Coxe's reference describes the ownership of weapons, not the purpose for which the weapons were owned.

1) Who was Coxe

2) what reference?

3) In what document did he make whatever statement/conclusion he is supposed to have made made, that was referenced, or did he himself make the reference to a prior document?

4) What was that reference/statement/conclusion?

5) Wouldn't a link to that document be nice?

All in all, by itself this sentence is useless.

and looking through the references I am quite disturbed by the following

^ Ref 112 Merkel, William G.; Uviller, H. Richard (2002). "this "minority report" turns out to be no more than the collected ramblings of a single embittered eccentric who departed the convention in disgust"

To disparage a document used by Madison as source material for the US Bill of Rights in the manner done by Merkel and Uviller, seems unprofessional and even unamerican.71.184.185.145 (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Any Idea if this is the Coxe referenced

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Tench_Coxe

His wiki article shows he was in favor of the right to have and use private arms and includes this quote

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. — Tench Coxe (1755-1824), writing as "A Pennsylvanian," in "Remarks On The First Part Of The Amendments To The Federal Constitution," in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, p. 2 col. 1

Also per that wiki article, although not a familiar name(at least to me) among the Founding Fathers, he seems to have been a high government official at various points in his life.

He next became a Federalist.[2][1] A proponent of industrialization during the early years of the United States, Coxe co-authored the famous Report on Manufactures (1791) with Alexander Hamilton and provided much of the statistical data. He had been appointed Assistant Secretary of the Treasury on September 11, 1789 under Alexander Hamilton when Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury.

If you wish to keep the Coxe sentence do you have any objection to including the above quote so readers can at least know what Ravoke was objecting to?71.184.185.145 (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The answers to your questions could be found if you read the footnotes, but in any case I have added names to the sentences to increase the clarity of who is talking about whom. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe I mentioned that Coxe shows up only once in a word search of the document.71.184.185.145 (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem to want to keep the material in question, I find this sentence strange and unclear

Thus, privately owned weapons were state mandated as a means of meeting one's legal obligation to contribute to public defense.

While I don't doubt there were a number of laws listing what arms and equipment were required of militia members, I hardly think that a person over the age limit for the militia would be deprived of his private arms and denied the ability to defend himself just because he was now too old to be a member of the militia. Do you have any evidence that once a person became too old to be a member of the militia, his gun(s) were taken from him? Since, by law, every able bodied male was (and still is) a member of the militia, and (per Ravoke) would be state mandated to own PRIVATELY owned weapons, when he became too old, either he would keep his weapons or the state would have to pay him for them. There IS a section in the Constitution requiring compensation for deprivation of private property. Are you aware of any transactions where the state purchases privately owned weapons after a militia member becomes too old? If no such transactions exist, and Ravoke believes that this is the ONLY reason that private arms were available then the sentence should be changed as this is most likely a minority opinion. I'm not objecting to the inclusion of that opinion, but I would like that opinion tied to Ravoke

Any idea which of the viewpoints below is the most accurate representation of Ravoke's views? The first is a pretty darn narrow viewpoint

Ravoke believes (or concludes) from his research that ALL privately owned weapons were state mandated, ONLY as a means of meeting one's legal obligation to contribute to public defense.

Ravoke believes (or concludes) from his research that SOME (or the majority, or the minority) of privately owned weapons were state mandated, as a means of meeting one's legal obligation to contribute to public defense. 71.184.185.145 (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the Rakove paper? (footnote 109). Also, the article " A well-regulated militia:..." (footnote 110) provides answers to your questions. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have now done an overview of the Heller Brief (footnote 109) by Rakove and others, to see if it sheds any light. Those historians wrote in support of DC and the "collective rights" view, which was discredited by the Supreme Court in Heller, but there is nothing in the brief that indicates that the primary reason for weapons ownership was a "state mandate". The word "mandate does not even appear in the brief. It looks like someone inserted a personal opinion into the article. No question, however that one of the reasons for owning weapons was community defense. Another, of course being self-defense. I did not check footnote 110 as it is not online and I don't have the book. That book under footnote 110 was also not authored by Rakove.

Nitpicking here but "Other historians have noted that the Second Amendment was as much a civic obligation as it was a right in the modern sense." also has issues. The second amendment is part of the US Constitution and thus the highest law of the land. While the law may describe a civic obligation or duty, it is itself not a civic obligation or duty. A change to the following would be an improvement

Other historians have noted that the Second Amendment describes a civic obligation or duty and not an individual right.

Still don't understand what the difference is between a right in the modern sense and a right 200 plus years ago. There is of course the modern saying that goes something like , "you have all the rights you will ever need! Unless you try to use them!". Hell, with the passage of the Obamanation health bill, you don't even have the right to spend your money for stuff YOU want. Big Brother knows best, and Big Brother wants you to BUY that broccoli, even if you never plan on eating it. Broccoli growers being the second highest contributors to a life of ease and luxury for our Senators and Congressman. The first being Wall street.71.184.185.145 (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Footnote 110 describes the "civic model" viewpoint you are asking about. Remember, the task at hand here is to see that the article fairly and accurately matches each of the various viewpoints seen in the reliable sourcing. We are not here to express our personal disagreements with any of these sources. The passage you are questioning previously has been thoroughly vetted though a very extensive collaboration of many editors in an intensive process that took several weeks, see talk page archives. This article talk page is not a forum for general discussions of personal opinions about this topic. If you have questions about the topic of this article, please direct your questions to Wikipedia:Reference desk. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that it has been vetted? No offense intended, but stating that the Second Amendment "IS" a civic obligation, as opposed to "possibly" describing one, seems to be a glaring oversight. "possibly" because as of Heller the Supreme Court ruled that it describes an individual right, not a collective right and not a civic obligation. Also per above there is no mention of anything like a "state mandate" in the Heller Brief (footnote 109) by assorted Historians. That portion seems to be unsupported by the footnote and is likely someones personal opinion.

I continue to be unhappy with the derogatory handling of a source document for the US Bill of Rights. If you wish to keep the language I will be adding balancing material, to the effect that Madison used that document as source material for language to the US Bill of Rights, referencing a US Senate publication for backup.

See the following language from the US Senate publication The Rights to Keep and Bear Arms

http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a Bill of Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison. Madison did not write upon a blank tablet. Instead, he obtained a pamphlet listing the State proposals for a Bill of Rights and sought to produce a briefer version incorporating all the vital proposals of these. His purpose was to incorporate, not distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania minority, Sam Adams, and the New Hampshire delegates. 71.184.185.145 (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)71.184.185.145 (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you get a chance to read the footnote 110 source? Also, remember that at Wikipedia we must include all significant points of view fairly, including those with which we personally may disagree. It appears your problem is that you disagree personally. Please read the referenced sourcing. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the footnote as pointed out above. You have not responded to my complaint on language as to whether the second Amendment "IS" a civic obligation or describes that obligation. Also you have not responded on the derogatory treatment of a historically important document. As you say above wikipedia must include all significant points of view. The US Senate's view of this document is significant. Do you have any objections to including that view? 71.184.176.9 (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't say the "the second Amendment "IS" a civic obligation", so your complaint is baseless. The fact that reliable sources describe the minority report in that way was determined to be important per editor consensus during some very intensive discussion, see the talk page archive. I recall that the discussion revolved around the fact that various points of views (like yours) see that minority report as "historically important" and some see it as not historically important. You are asking that the article be re-written to more closely match your personal point of view. That is inappropriate, see WP:NPOV. We should be very slow to overturn the consensus version of the article which was thoroughly vetted, again, see talk page archive. The viewpoints described in the 1982 Strom Thurman/Orrin Hatch report are already represented in the article now, so your complaint that these views are not included is baseless. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, it is worth mentioning that the Constitution.org link mentioned above is a link to the personal website of Jon Roland. The abridged version of the 1982 subcommittee report on Jon Roland's website is not the complete report, in that Jon Roland has edited out and omitted the portions of the report that don't agree with his personal point of view. At Wikipedia, we must include all significant points of view, including also POV's that Jon Roland might disagree with. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 18:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The US Senate's view is more important than any pretty much any view outside of the US Supreme Court. The views of the House and the views of the presidents office would be equal in importance. Why do you object to the inclusion of that view? I have no objection to citing a full version of that report or one that exists at another website,if you believe can show that the language cited is not straight out of the original publication.

Look at Jon Roland's version of those Senate hearings, it ends with the phrase "[Other sections omitted.]". When you check the 1982 printed version, I see excised portions of the report that don't appear to agree with his personal politics. The 1982 hearings included testimony about the Second Amendment given by the National Coalition to Ban Handguns among others. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Lastly: Are you sure you read the language I am questioning - which is

Other historians have noted that the Second Amendment was as much a civic obligation as it was a right in the modern sense.

If the Second Amendment "WAS" a civic obligation per the source, what is it now? I personally believe that the Second Amendment is language on a legal document that DESCRIBES something and is not itself that something. How about you? Is the Second Amendment a civic obligation or a right or whatever it is, or is it words on a page of paper describing something? I have to warn you, choose wrong and you will look like an idiot.71.184.176.9 (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That sentence starts with the words "Other historians have noted...". Point of fact. Also, this article talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss what you believe or what I believe. I do see your point about the "describes" wording. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If you see the point, do you agree that the current language looks idiotic and that it needs to be changed? No offense intended, but anyone that thinks that the Second Amendment "IS" a protected right or obligation versus describing such, is short a few screws. "Other Historians" included. As for your other comment above, I am pointing out that the only opinion showing on a significant historical document is derogatory. As you yourself pointed out, wiki should show all all major points of view and having only a derogatory reference is contrary to what you yourself stated is wiki policy. Can we agree to either, 1) include the positive viewpoint of the US Senate as a counterpoint to the current derogatory language, or 2) the removal of the the derogatory language (removal being my preference)?71.184.176.9 (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed it, but the ambiguous language of that sentence was recently fixed[11]. Also, favorable coverage of the "Pennsylvania minority report" that mirrors the 1982 Orin Hatch hearing is presently included in the article, following the words "Per Sayoko Blodgett-Ford..." (ref footnote 108). Regarding your opinion that the NPOV balance wording is derogatory, that wording is taken nearly verbatim from the sourcing. Indeed, there are five high quality sources (see footnotes 111-116)that hotly dispute the significance given to that minority report. There were weeks of hard work and discussion hammering out the consensus wording for this article passage, look at the talk page archives to see this discussion. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

So you have 5 negative sources on that document and only 1 positive reference. Lopsided to say the least. The positive references need to be increased to restore balance. Any objections to including Supreme Court language on that document in addition to the Senate reference to that document. The following references appear in the Heller opinion

But so was the highly influential minority proposal in Pennsylvania, yet that proposal, with its reference to hunting, plainly referred to an individual right. See 2 Documentary Hist. 624.71.184.176.9 (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There are problems with using snippets of quotes from orbiter dictum of primary court opinions like you suggest. Your snippet quote skews the meaning by truncating the words in the court opinion that immediately follow which are: "Other than that erroneous point..." Those omitted words negate your assertion. Reasonable people disagree on this point. The NPOV balance point of this article passage contains roughly equal treatment of text, the Kates and Blodgett-Ford assertions followed by a rebuttal. The count of the footnotes is unequal, but it is the text of the article which matters. That text is appropriately equal as determined by editor consensus, established after extensive consensus building work that took several weeks, see talk page archives. I am quite reluctant to now revisit and overturn that hard earned consensus building. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 16:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The point, which you are dancing around, is that the Supreme Court considers this document "highly influential". Do you have an issue with adding this Supreme Court viewpoint to the article? The quote being directly from a document authored by the very same people whose viewpoint is quite a bit more important that the viewpoint of a bunch historians, who filed a brief with the US Supreme Court in Heller pushing a discredited viewpoint, and whose viewpoint was promptly ignored by that same Supreme Court. Also Blodgett-Ford only cites the document, she does not praise it. Those authors actually insult it and its author. There is no question as to the negative bias of the article toward this document.71.184.176.9 (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

proposed addition, moved to talk page

There is about 4,200 words just above discussing this already, and there remain significant problems still needing fixing before moving the passage into the article space. The existing article passage was established by consensus and should not be changed lightly. Pasting the proposed wording change here pending resolution:

"The US Senate on the other hand cites that document as a source document for the US Bill of Rights<ref>US Senate Publication, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms,1982, http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm, His purpose was to incorporate, not distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania minority, Sam Adams, or the New Hampshire delegates. </ref> while the US Supreme Court in Heller called it "highly influential"<ref>DC v Heller http://supreme.justia.com/us/554/07-290/opinion.html, But so was the highly influential minority proposal in Pennsylvania, </ref> "

Restating several problems from above: The Pennsylvanian minority report is already given coverage in the article with a NPOV balance point which was previously established by editor consensus work which occurred over several weeks time. Mentioning it a second time would be redundant, and would skew the consensus agreed balance point. The quote from Jon Roland's "constitution.org" website is to an abridged version of the 1982 Orin Hatch Senate report, which was selected abridged to give an skewed POV per Jon Roland's politics. The AnonIP's selective quote from the Heller primary court document comes from orbiter dictum has been truncated by the anonIP to omit the words that immediately follow which are "Other than that erroneous point..." , and those words negate the statement. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 17:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The report is given negative coverage or neutral coverage. Either the negative coverage needs to be removed, as I originally did and to which you objected, or positive coverage must be included to balance the negative coverage included, which I now did and which you now object. The quote I included is from a Senate Report and not the language of those who control the site. If you don't like the website where the report is hosted, simply pick another site more to your liking. The erroneous pointy refers to Justice Stevens "erroneous point. Justice Stevens wrote the dissent, aka he was on the loosing side, and the majority thought he made an erroneous point. The text from the Heller opinion before and after the quote is included below for clarity.

Justice Stevens thinks it significant that the Virginia, New York, and North Carolina Second Amendment proposals were “embedded … within a group of principles that are distinctly military in meaning,” such as statements about the danger of standing armies. Post, at 22. But so was the highly influential minority proposal in Pennsylvania, yet that proposal, with its reference to hunting, plainly referred to an individual right. See 2 Documentary Hist. 624. Other than that erroneous point, Justice Stevens has brought forward absolutely no evidence that those proposals conferred only a right to carry arms in a militia.

BTW: Looking at the Heller Dissent by Stevens I found the following language which is at odds with those historians who think that those proposals were never heard in the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention. It looks like Judge Stevens thinks that the points presented in the minority report were in fact presented during the convention and later incorporated into the critique.

The rejected Pennsylvania proposal, which was later incorporated into a critique of the Constitution titled “The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Pennsylvania Minority of the Convention of the State of Pennsylvania to Their Constituents (1787),” signed by a minority of the State’s delegates (those who had voted against ratification of the Constitution), id., at 628, 662,71.184.176.9 (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Still have an issue with as well - in the same problem paragraph discussed above

Just to be clear, the following currently appears in the article, which I have a problem with.

Thus, privately owned weapons were state mandated as a means of meeting one's legal obligation to contribute to public defense.

As far as I know, as of right now, by law, militia membership includes all able bodied adult males up to some age limit (I think 40). Assuming the same back then, how likely is it that an old man past 60, living in the wilderness with few close neighbors, and subject to Indian attacks, would BY LAW, be DISARMED - NOT ALLOWING HIM TO HAVE A GUN TO DEFEND HIMSELF. That is what the above quote implies.

Either that quote needs to be removed or someone needs to find a citation from a reputable source to back it up.71.184.176.9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC).

That sentence is well sourced. See footnote 111, which points to a book published by the Oxford University Press. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can stick a quote on a comment, but that does not mean that the comment accurately reflects the thoughts of the person cited. Does this author actually think that ALL people who had arms back them, had them upon permission by the government, including those people in the wilderness who may have been 1-2,000 miles, yes that is right 1-2 THOUSAND miles, from any seat of government. Look up fur trappers. Please find an actual quote by that author, stating he thinks ALL guns were kept based on the permission of some government body, and absent that permission there was no right to keep a gun. If you do find that such language, I can with 100% certainly say that he is no historian.71.184.176.9 (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Kenosis

Deletion of the Senate Report on grounds of obscurity

The report is obscure, but that does not change its validity.

Pardon me, the version of the report you are using has been abridged. It comes from the constitution.org website of a well known political extremist. Also, I view that document more as a political statement than as a scholarly publication. This encyclopedia should give preference to scholarship, and it should report on political statements as being politics, not as being fact. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 13:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have already said that if you don't like that site, feel free to pick another one where that report is hosted. As to obscurity, Merkel and Uviller are in the same ballpark per Amazon book sales rating. About as many people are interested in buying and reading that Senate report as are interested in buying and reading Merlel and Uviller's book. Since the disparaging comment I object to originates with M+U removing their comment would satisfy my last objection to this paragraph. Next to last objection actually, since it seems that duplicate citation mentioned yesterday (see below), is still in the article. Yet another example of the poor quality of this paragraph. I hope we can agree that duplicate citations is are poor editorship.

It is becoming hard to follow your talk page comments so I may be misunderstanding you, sorry, please see WP:TALK for guidance of how to use talk pages, which can help us work out our problems and disagreements. Regarding your offer that I should "feel free to pick another one", no, the burden of proof is on you. See WP:BURDEN for explanation of this policy. Regarding the 'duplicate citations', no those are simply using of reference tags with the "name" feature, see Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners#Same_reference_used_more_than_once for explanation of how this works. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 16:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

What am I supposed to prove? That it is a US Senate publication? Re: Duplicate cite. There are 5 citations grouped together in that originally piss poor (pardon the language) and now, after some correction just plain old poor, paragraph. Two of those citations are the same author, the same book and the same page number in that book. Look up cites 113 and 115. This is not a situation where the same author is used to cite different points in different parts of the article, this is the same author cited twice for the same point . I hope you can see the problem. If not then my already low opinion of your nitpicking conduct will get even lower.71.184.176.9 (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As to how obscure it is, that report was first published in 1982 and it is still in print. I will bet you anything you care to name that quite a few of the other sources cites in the article will not be in print on their 28th birthday

Checking with Amazon to see how popular it is here is what I find. The report in book form is rated pretty low in sales by Amazon.con at 1.6 million - low is good - high is bad. I'd say pretty darn unpopular.

There are five cites sources on the negative material

Cornell on cite 111, also from a book is rated at 80,000 - much better then the report Merkel and Uviller, also from a book is rated at 1.4 million - same ballpark as the report Gary wills, also from a book, is rated at 360,000 The Ravoke cite is from a law journal, which have only one print run. Do you know if it was reprinted or can we safely say it is more obscure then the senate report, which continues to be printed almost 30 years after it was first produced.

The fifth site is exactly the same as the third cite. Which supports my original thought that the whole paragraph was piss poor (pardon the language) to begin with. If it was reviewed by umpteen authors as per SB, why is one citation shown twice, including the page number of the book?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>Which needs to be corrected.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Now if the senate report in book form at 1.6 millionth on the charts and going on 30 years, is about as popular as the Merkel and Uviller book which is quite a bit younger, I'd have to say that the Senate Report has more staying power and therefore relevance then the book by Merkel and Uviller.

From the footnotes, the Merkel and Uviller citation is the source for the derogatory references and since Merkel and Uviller are in the same ballpark in popularity with the senate report, I can't see how you can include one and not the other. Per your own objection, Merkel and Uviller need to be removed.

a b Merkel, William G.; Uviller, H. Richard (2002). The militia and the right to arms, or, How the second amendment fell silent. Durham, N.C: Duke University Press. pp. 83. ISBN 0-8223-3017-2. http://books.google.com/books?ei=nSLdSo28C5v-lASs4c2QAQ&q=this+minority+report+turns+out+to+be+no+more+than+the+collected+ramblings+of+a+single+embittered+eccentric&btnG=Search+Books. Retrieved 10-19-2009. "this "minority report" turns out to be no more than the collected ramblings of a single embittered eccentric who departed the convention in disgust"

There are 3 choices, 1: keep one obscure reference while removing the other showing partiality, 2: remove both showing impartiality, and 3: include both showing impartiality. I vote for either options 2 or 3.

Please advise as to your preference.

Depending on how you respond, I may have doubts as to your good faith in this matter.71.184.176.9 (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment on the change line

which implies that the senate does NOT think the the report was a source document for the Bill of Rights. I may have misunderstood your objection, when I objected above. Here is my objection no 2.

The text of the Senate report clearly shows the Senate DOES think of that the Penn minority report was a source document for the Bill of Rights. From below it looks it was once removed from the "pamphlet" used by Madison. That pamphlet seems to have been a listing of all proposed constitutional amendments by all the states, with Penn, NH, and Massachusetts named. Sam Adams was from Massachusetts.

When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a Bill of Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison. Madison did not write upon a blank tablet. Instead, he obtained a pamphlet listing the State proposals for a bill of rights and sought to produce a briefer version incorporating all the vital proposals of these. His purpose was to incorporate, not distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania minority, Sam Adams, or the New Hampshire delegates. 71.184.176.9 (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Documents on Constitution.org dealt with already -one year ago

Due to constant nitpicking by SB I took his advise and looked up some of the old talk page history

What I found out: What goes around - keeps coming back!

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/Archive_21#constitution.org

The argument over whether to use constitution.org one year ago with Ferrylodge seems to have been resolved by using a different source for that document. I have already proposed the same option several times to SB, and I gave SB the option of picking the hosting site to be cited for the document. 71.184.176.9 (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually not. Still, then and now, the version of the 'Hatch report' you propose to use remains dubiously abridged.

Regardless, let's look at the big picture here: Your agenda, yet again, seems to be to want to cast a favorable light on this so-called "Pennsylvania Minority Report". You are trying to do this by illuminating it in the light of "The Senate cites..." and "The Supreme Court calls it...", and thereby impying a favorable light on the point of view you personally favor. This is settled ground, and consensus here on the talk page from last October and November decided against doing this. It is disruptive for you to keep going against that consensus. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

My agenda, as stated before is to either get the derogatory treatment of an important historical document removed or to enter balancing positive commentary. If you don't like constitution.org, I again offer you the choice of the website hosting the Senate Report which contains some of that positive commentary. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI: I am 71.184.176.9. There was a power failure yesterday shutting down my DSL modem, which was then reset to a new IP number when power came back on.96.237.120.38 (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yet another positive view of the Penn report

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacJosephBScarnati.pdf

This is from a brief to the Supreme Court in the Heller Case, from the President of the Pennsylvania Senate, J.B. Scarnati, and at least as equal valid as the historians brief. At least, because the historians argued for the loosing side, while Mr. Scarnati argued for the winning side.

On page 27 of that Brief he states that the proposed Bill of Rights (by the Penn minority) had influence in Mass. NH, Vir, NY and NC.

I'm sure that if I look at the other pro-Heller briefs, I will find additional positive comments on that report.96.237.120.38 (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarification in "Scholarly commentary" section

For now, I've chosen to clarify the recently inserted text (here) to at least reasonably reflect the actual sources from which the assertions just added by the anon-IP are drawn. (1) What was asserted to be "The US Senate" is actually a 1982 Republican-led subcommittee the controlling majority of which happened to be advocating private gun rights, and (2) I tried to make it clear it was the "majority" in the 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Heller. Click on the link to see the changes to the article text... Kenosis (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to get partisan why not go all the way and include this snippet from Mayor Daley. PRIMO material.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/mayor-daley-threatens-to_n_584106.html

Democrat Mayor Daley of Chicago, after the US Supreme Court stated it was leaning toward ruling against gun bans, threatened to shoot a reporter.

"If I put this up your -- your butt, you'll find out how effective it is. If we put a round up your, ha ha."

Daley is a piece of work. Supposedly anti-gun, yet he wants to stick a gun up a reporters ass and blow him a bigger one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Daley is a thug and runs Chicago with an iron fist. Like any other authoritarian, he doesn't handle criticism well. His stupid and childish remark to that reporter should not be used to dirty this article or any other article. SMP0328. (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The US Senate in 1982 was Republican controlled, and the way things work, if you have an overall majority, you have control of the various commitees as well. Why not also say Rakove, a historian with ties to anti gun groups, states...96.237.120.38 (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree to you comments about Daley, and to you opinion that the comment does not deserve space in the article. You will notice that another "stupid and childish" remark is currently showing as part of the current article. See cite 112 by Merkel and Uviller which goes "this "minority report" turns out to be no more than the collected ramblings of a single embittered eccentric who departed the convention in disgust". 96.237.120.38 (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the personal attack that was quoted in footnote 112. The footnote is otherwise unaffected. The personal attack was not necessary for providing a source, the other three footnotes with which it is grouped don't have quotes and I don't believe selected quotes are helpful for any of those footnotes. SMP0328. (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the removal. If I had done it, I am 100% sure that the SB/Kenosis duo would have started yet another inane pissing match.96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help. SMP0328. (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've no inherent objections to the removal of the quoted passage from Uviller and Merkel within the footnote. Its removal was consistent with the removal of other quoted passages placed within footnotes, and IMO is a reasonable editorial judgment call. I do, though, happen to think brief relevant quotes from these various cited authors assist the reader in learning the relevant language in the source without necessarily consulting the source itself, same as was also done with the Heller opinion and the snip from the 1982 Senate subcommittee report, since removed. But either way is OK with me as long as the practice is reasonably consistent. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Rakove and Bellesiles - Is Rakove a reliable source?

A few years back, Bellesiles seems to have gotten himself a lot of grief for faking research. Rakove, who seems to be the #1 author of the historians brief, per the link below, had close ties with Bellesiles, including input into the book where that fake research was published.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/01/a-peoples-history-of-the-united-states.php

A Nov 20 Chicago Tribune article quoted Jack Rakove of Stanford as follows: “It’s clear now that his [Bellesiles] scholarship is less than acceptable,” Rakove said. “There are cautionary lessons for historians here.”

(I blinked when I read this, given that page 583 of Arming America has the following acknowledgment: “Jack Rakove kindly went through the second draft with a keen eye and improved every page he read.”)

The next day Rakove acknowledged that he was the one who had supported Michael Bellesiles Fellowship at Stanford. Which was rather prescient, since Jack Rakove was one of the Historians at Chicago Kent citing Arming America heavily to support his gun control argument.

What Jack did not note on H-OIEAHC was that Michael Bellesiles satisfied the requirement for that Fellowship –presenting his findings to the Stanford community — at a Stanford Symposium on the Second Amendment set up by …Jack Rakove.

In damage control mode

A prominent Stanford Historian, Jack Rakove, suddenly started telling the New York Times that the History Profession had a Peer Review process and that that would squeeze out the truth. As the scandal unfolded, Rakove was the spokeman cited by the newspapers re the integrity of the history profession.96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

New material

The addition of the two new sentences by AnonIP to the "meaning of bear arms" section have created new ambiguity. The first part discussed a Tench Coxe editorial in a newspaper which used the phrase "keep and bear their private arms", which has been adopted by individual rights proponents as having meaning in support of their point of view. The second part addresses the so-called minority report passage, with includes the ambiguous wording "for killing game" found in an anonymous pamphlet distributed after the Pennsylvanian convention. These are two distinct and separate incidents. But, the two added sentences (the Orin Hatches musings and the Antonin Scalia's incidental remark) only pertain to the 'for killing game' pamphlet and not the Tench Coxe editorial. The wording of the article is now ambiguous, falsely implying that Orin Hatch and Antonin Scalia also think the Tench Coxe editorial was important, when there is no evidence that is true.

And, civility on the talk page has been poisoned with acrimony, is there a way we can cooperate to fix this mess? SaltyBoatr^getwet 20:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I made minor changes to clarify what is being referenced in the new material. Do you have additional complaints?

BTW: I did notice you attempt to downgrade an important historical document to the status of "anonymous pamphlet", a US Senate report to the status of "the musings of Orin Hatch, and Scalias opinion supported by the 4 other Supreme Court Justices signing off on the opinion, to a mere "incidental remark". 96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked up the reference to killing game and the complete comment is as follows. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game. In case you unfamiliar with the term "to bear", it means "to hold or carry". I find it perfectly understandable that ones needs "to hold" a gun in order to use it while hunting (killing game). I have trouble with the concept of going hunting by putting a gun down on the ground and expecting it to load, aim and fire itself. Even worse is the concept of going hunting by leaving a gun in a government controlled armory, where in addition to the above 3 issues, it also has to fire through the walls of the armory. Are you still confused?96.237.120.38 (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Having had my faith in you drop, drop again and then drop even more, I decided to do a bit of further checking. The Democrat and ranking minority member of the subcommittee had this to say about the report. He refers to it as excellent, fair and thorough and not the musings of Orin Hatch as you seem to believe. Unless the musings of Orin Hatch are excellent, fair and thorough.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html#h1-18

The Constitution subcommittee staff has prepared this monograph bringing together proponents of both sides of the debate over the 1968 Act. I believe that the statements contained herein present the arguments fairly and thoroughly. I commend Senator Hatch, chairman of the subcommittee, for having this excellent reference work prepared. I am sure that it will be of great assistance to the Congress as it debates the second amendment and considers legislation to amend the Gun Control Act.

Dennis Deconcini,

Ranking Minority Member,

Subcommittee On the Constitution.96.237.120.38 (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Dennis Deconcini is referring to the original version of the report, not this version of the report you have seen which was abridged. Also, I understand your personal belief that to bear means to hold and carry. Yet, with an open mind we also must see that others consider the term "keep and bear" as a conjunctive[12][13] which implies a military context. We must edit this article to respect both points of view. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 01:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There is only one version of the report. Are you stating that Deconcini did not sign off on that statement, which is a part of the report itself? As to whether or not my belief on whether "to bear" means "to hold or carry" is correct, I direct you to Websters dictionary. If you want to push the thought that Websters dictionary is in error, then your already low credibility will get even lower.96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What definition does your version of Websters give for "bear arms"? Most modern abridged dictionaries like those published by Merriam-Webster don't define all the historical usages of words in the English Language including the Eighteenth Century two word term: "bear arms". Take a look at a true unabridged historical dictionary like the Oxford English Dictionary for the 1789 definition of the meaning of "bear arms", see the entry arm, n.2 4.c. in The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. You might need to go to a library to find this. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the "Contents" listing at the top of the report. There were also statements at the hearings giving "Other Views of the second amendment" from: 1) David J. Steinberg of the National Council for a Responsible Firearms Policy. 2) Michael K. Beard, Samuel S. Fields, of the National Coalition to Ban Handguns and 3) The Association of the Bar of the city of New York. My guess is that these three items of 'gun control' balancing testimony were trimmed out from the version of the report posted on Constitution.org and Guncite.org because of their "gun rights" advocacy agenda. Interestingly, the report version posted at Constitution.org at least has the honesty to mention at the bottom that "[Other sections omitted.]"[14]. The Guncite version trims out that disclosure that "other sections are omitted". This sourcing fails WP:V policy I think. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Read the Supreme Courts opinion of that phrase, already in the article, and as an editor, something you should already be familiar with

A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter 96.237.120.38 (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

And, stating the obvious, the killing of game purpose was not put into this Second Amendment. Though the first half of the Second Amendment does mention an explicit purpose, a well regulated militia. Our job is to fairly represent all significant viewpoints, and in this case the mystery of why "killing game" was mentioned in one rogue pamphlet begs explanation because it stands out as a rare exception among hundreds of other usages of "bear arms" consistently in military contexts. Here is one detailed study[15] worth reading. There are various significant explanations found, one is that modern gun rights proponents have scoured the 18th century written record looking for material to bolster their case. They found this run-on sentence and like it because it is helpful to an individual rights modern political argument. Another reliably sourced explanation, published by Duke University Press, was that the rambling "killing game" sentence which blurs military and non-military uses was composed in haste by an eccentric person. Yet, this quote was removed[16] by SMP0328 and I think the article suffers from that deletion. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 16:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Your issue was with what "to bear" meant. The US Supreme provided the answer. On the meaning of laws, there is no more significant viewpoint. In case you are unaware of it, the Supreme Court has ruled that plain everyday meaning of the law, is the law.96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

And speaking of significant viewpoints are you aware that in the historians brief, Rakove and the other historians admitted that Pennsylvania, even during wartime refused to set up an organized militia? How they can say that the right to arms is militia based, when Pennsylvania had no militia and refused, even in wartime, to create one is a puzzlement.13:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI: I again noticed you downgrading an important historical document to the status of "a rogue pamphlet". 96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, not me personally. I am just reflecting what I read in the sources. Specifically, the U&M analysis of that pamphlet published by Duke University Press. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Your impartiality is legendary. Why not ignore the US Supreme Court, the US Senate, a leading Pennsylvania politician, in order to side with a some two bit historians. I can fully understand your reasoning.

BTW: I notice you changed the text of the article to say the right of English protestants to arms is purely defensive. Why not add the fact that they were defending themselves from an abusive monarch.96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

^ Madison, James. The Federalist No. 46 (at Wikisource)
^ Webster, Noah. “An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution” (October 10, 1787)
^ Young, David E. (2001). The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights 1787-1792 (2nd Ed. ed.). Golden Oak Books. pp. 38–41. ISBN 0-9623664-3-9. A Citizen of America (Noah Webster) October 10, 1787 Pamphlet: An Examination into the leading principles of the Federal Constitution {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
^ Conley, Patrick T.; Kaminski, John P. (1992). The Bill of Rights and the states: the colonial and revolutionary origins of American liberties. Madison, Wis.: Madison House. pp. 31–32. ISBN 978-0-945612-29-2.
^ Conley, Patrick T.; Kaminski, John P. (1992). The Bill of Rights and the states: the colonial and revolutionary origins of American liberties. Madison, Wis.: Madison House. pp. 23–31. ISBN 978-0-945612-29-2.
^ Garry Wills (2002) A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government, p. 253ff.
^ Garry Wills (2002) A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government, p253ff:
* At p253: "At the last minute, before the Pennsylvania convention voted to ratify the Constitution, a delegate named Robert Whitehill filed a list of fifteen changes to be made to the document, reducing it to even less authority than was granted in the Articles of Confederation (R 2.597-99).
In the convention he resorted to every device to delay and defeat ratification. He insisted that there were inadequate safeguards against a tyranny and on the day of ratification attempted, without avail, to have fifteen articles incorporated as a bill of rights.[fn2, cited to "Whitehill, Robert," in Dictionary of American Biography, vol. 10, edited by Dumas Malone (Charles Scribner's Sons, 1936), pp. 104-105]
The items on the list were never discussed in the convention, which went on to approve the Constitution. Five days after that vote, Samuel Bryan, who had not been a delegate in the convention, assembled some quickly obtained and miscellaneous objections to the Constitution--including Whitehill's list, along with some things that contradicted it--and published this under the misleading title The Dissent of the Minority of the Convention (R 2.617-49) ..."
*At p254: "[The last of Whitehill's proposed amendments relating to arms, article 11] would have invalidated the constitutional provision for federalizing the militia (Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16). In fact, Whitehill's phrasing exactly reverses and cancels that of Clause 16, which gives Congress (not the states) the power 'to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia."
^ The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention"
^ Garry Wills (2002) A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government, p254ff.
^ David J. Siemers (2003) [http://books.google.com/books?id=Iz1qOC4MSB0C&pg=PA91.
^ *David Wootton (2003) The essential Federalist and anti-Federalist papers, p xi.
^ *Maeva Marcus, James R. Perry (1985) The Documentary history of the Supreme Court of the United States ..., Volume 4, 1789-1800, p503-504, fn1
^ Stephen P. Halbrook, "The Right of the People or the Power of the State: Bearing Arms, arming Militias, and the Second Amendment", Valparaiso University Law Review, 1991.
^ *Saul Cornell (1999) The other founders: Anti-Federalism and the dissenting tradition in America, p 117.
^ "New Hampshire ratifies 57-47 with 12 proposed amendments". 11-12-2009. Retrieved 12 November 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ "Amendments Proposed by the New Hampshire Convention (June 21, 1789)", cited to Helen E. Veit, Kenneth R. Bowling (1991) "Creating the Bill of Rights", ISBN: 801841003.
^ Stimson, Frederic Jesup (2004). The Law Of The Federal And State Constitutions Of The United States: With An Historical Study of Their Principles, A Chronological Table Of English Social Legislation, and a Digest Of The Constitutions of The Forty-Six States. New York, NY: Lawbook Exchange. p. 83. ISBN 1-58477-369-3.
^ Elliot's Debates, Vol. 3, p. 47: "My great objection to this government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants."
^ Elliot's Debates, Vol. 3 page 51: "The honorable gentleman who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America."
^ Patrick T. Conley, John P. Kaminski (1992) The Bill of Rights and the states: the colonial and revolutionary origins, p23.
^ Karpeles Manuscript Library summary of the VA convention, citing James Madison's personal notes of the convention.
^ "Virginia Ratifying Convention, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution", citing Elliot's Debates, 3:657--61.
^ "Virginia Ratifying Convention, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution", citing Elliot's Debates, 3:657--61.
^ "Virginia's Ratification" U.S. Constitution Online
^ "New York Ratification of Constitution", 26 July 1788, citing Elliot's Debates 1:327--31.
^ Elliot, "Debates of the Several State Conventions" 1:326, 3:652-61, 1:327-29, 4:244, 1:335
^ North Carolina Ratifying Convention, Declaration of Rights and Other Amendments, Aug. 1, 1788, Cited to Elliot's Debates 4:242--46, 248--49.
^ "Rhode Island's Ratification

[fed46-1] Madison, James. The Federalist No. 46 (at Wikisource)

[2] Webster, Noah. “An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution” (October 10, 1787)

[3] Young, David E. (2001). The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights 1787-1792 (2nd Ed. ed.). Golden Oak Books. pp. 38–41. ISBN 0-9623664-3-9. A Citizen of America (Noah Webster) October 10, 1787 Pamphlet: An Examination into the leading principles of the Federal Constitution {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)

[4] Conley, Patrick T.; Kaminski, John P. (1992). The Bill of Rights and the states: the colonial and revolutionary origins of American liberties. Madison, Wis.: Madison House. pp. 31–32. ISBN 978-0-945612-29-2.

[the_bill_of_rights_and_the_states_a01-5] Conley, Patrick T.; Kaminski, John P. (1992). The Bill of Rights and the states: the colonial and revolutionary origins of American liberties. Madison, Wis.: Madison House. pp. 23–31. ISBN 978-0-945612-29-2.

[6] Garry Wills (2002) A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government, p. 253ff.

[7] Garry Wills (2002) A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government, p253ff:
* At p253: "At the last minute, before the Pennsylvania convention voted to ratify the Constitution, a delegate named Robert Whitehill filed a list of fifteen changes to be made to the document, reducing it to even less authority than was granted in the Articles of Confederation (R 2.597-99).
In the convention he resorted to every device to delay and defeat ratification. He insisted that there were inadequate safeguards against a tyranny and on the day of ratification attempted, without avail, to have fifteen articles incorporated as a bill of rights.[fn2, cited to "Whitehill, Robert," in Dictionary of American Biography, vol. 10, edited by Dumas Malone (Charles Scribner's Sons, 1936), pp. 104-105]
The items on the list were never discussed in the convention, which went on to approve the Constitution. Five days after that vote, Samuel Bryan, who had not been a delegate in the convention, assembled some quickly obtained and miscellaneous objections to the Constitution--including Whitehill's list, along with some things that contradicted it--and published this under the misleading title The Dissent of the Minority of the Convention (R 2.617-49) ..."
*At p254: "[The last of Whitehill's proposed amendments relating to arms, article 11] would have invalidated the constitutional provision for federalizing the militia (Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16). In fact, Whitehill's phrasing exactly reverses and cancels that of Clause 16, which gives Congress (not the states) the power 'to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia."

[8] The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention"

[9] Garry Wills (2002) A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government, p254ff.

[10] David J. Siemers (2003) [http://books.google.com/books?id=Iz1qOC4MSB0C&pg=PA91.

[11] *David Wootton (2003) The essential Federalist and anti-Federalist papers, p xi.

[12] *Maeva Marcus, James R. Perry (1985) The Documentary history of the Supreme Court of the United States ..., Volume 4, 1789-1800, p503-504, fn1

[13] Stephen P. Halbrook, "The Right of the People or the Power of the State: Bearing Arms, arming Militias, and the Second Amendment", Valparaiso University Law Review, 1991.

[14] *Saul Cornell (1999) The other founders: Anti-Federalism and the dissenting tradition in America, p 117.

[teachingamericanhistory.org-15] "New Hampshire ratifies 57-47 with 12 proposed amendments". 11-12-2009. Retrieved 12 November 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[16] "Amendments Proposed by the New Hampshire Convention (June 21, 1789)", cited to Helen E. Veit, Kenneth R. Bowling (1991) "Creating the Bill of Rights", ISBN: 801841003.

[isbn1-58477-369-3-17] Stimson, Frederic Jesup (2004). The Law Of The Federal And State Constitutions Of The United States: With An Historical Study of Their Principles, A Chronological Table Of English Social Legislation, and a Digest Of The Constitutions of The Forty-Six States. New York, NY: Lawbook Exchange. p. 83. ISBN 1-58477-369-3.

[18] Elliot's Debates, Vol. 3, p. 47: "My great objection to this government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants."

[19] Elliot's Debates, Vol. 3 page 51: "The honorable gentleman who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America."

[20] Patrick T. Conley, John P. Kaminski (1992) The Bill of Rights and the states: the colonial and revolutionary origins, p23.

[21] Karpeles Manuscript Library summary of the VA convention, citing James Madison's personal notes of the convention.

[22] "Virginia Ratifying Convention, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution", citing Elliot's Debates, 3:657--61.

[23] "Virginia Ratifying Convention, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution", citing Elliot's Debates, 3:657--61.

[24] "Virginia's Ratification" U.S. Constitution Online

[25] "New York Ratification of Constitution", 26 July 1788, citing Elliot's Debates 1:327--31.

[26] Elliot, "Debates of the Several State Conventions" 1:326, 3:652-61, 1:327-29, 4:244, 1:335

[27] North Carolina Ratifying Convention, Declaration of Rights and Other Amendments, Aug. 1, 1788, Cited to Elliot's Debates 4:242--46, 248--49.

[28] "Rhode Island's Ratification

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]