Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

-Hauskalainen - use of primary documents

A few days ago you deleted some cites that referenced text from the English Bill of Rights (a primary document). I could not understand why wiki would ban the use of such documents, and from the policy page below, their use is not banned, just restricted

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published 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. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, as that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.

I believe my use of the English Bill of rights as a reference is allowed as I used it to support descriptive statement that an educated person can verify A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge

I stated that the majority protestants were afraid that James II and his catholic successors would eventually force the English to convert to Catholicism and citing the following section of the Bill of Rights Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom; .

While the word "extirpate" isn't much in use anymore, I hope that what passes for an educated person these days, either already knows that meaning, can infer what it means, or at worst can look it up in a dictionary.

one online dictionary gives the following meanings

1 a : to destroy completely : wipe out b  : to pull up by the root 2 : to cut out by surgery synonyms see exterminate96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Links in footnotes are messed up

Anyone know why so many of the links in the footnotes are messed up? Isn't the proper format [URL text]?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably old age. I tried one myself that looked like interesting reading, but it was a dead link. Sites come and go, they change their names, remove or move material, etc.96.237.120.38 (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There was one mismatched square bracket in one of the ref's which caused the other refs to show their square brackets. I just fixed it I think. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Good work, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Heller historians brief

Since what to me was a simple deletion of poor material has now turned into a pissing match, I thought I'd share some comments in the historians brief which I ran across.

see http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290tsajackn.rakove.pdf pages 11 and 12 for verification

The historians comment in that brief, that Pennsylvania had no militia for two decades prior to the Revolution due to "Quaker influence" and that even following a petition from "frontier counties" during the Seven Years War and Pontiac's rising of 1763, the colonial government failed to set up an organized militia. Again in 1776 Pennsylvania failed to call up an organized militia.

The historians point of view is that the Second Amendment is based on a state authorization to have arms so that one can serve in the militia. That viewpoint is incompatible with Pennsylvania's refusal to have an organized militia, even during wartime.96.237.120.38 (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Added material showing Pennsylvania had no militia and refused to organize one, based on comments in historians brief.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

English history section needs some work

There is a partial sentence backed up by citation #9 and most of the rest reads badly, probably due to numerous edits that resulted in that partial sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

After moving the partial sentence above, and some back and forth between myself and other editors on other sections of a certain paragraph, which IMO ended up looking even worse after the edits then before, I re-edited the paragraph to cover all the major points. Not to my surprise, I find the paragraph edited for what I believe is the worst.

Major points which I believe should be (in some manner) included. Below is for discussion

1) Prior to 1689, the right to arms was not a "protected" legal right, and that the 1689 English Bill of Rights made it a protected right, and even after that Bill was passed that right was of limited nature and even then only applied to protestants. Common law rights are not protected rights since common law is "unwritten" law.

(inserted comment by Hauskalainen ... I don't accept the Bill of Rights of 1689 in practice changed anything. People had a right to arms generally before its passing and had the same right afterwards. Parliament before and after was free to change the law at will and has done so in relation to certain classes of arms. People cannot claim that the rights in the Bill of Rights were protected in the same way as people in the U.S. have done so in respect to the Second Amendment. This is a misreading of English law and English history). --Hauskalainen (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

2) As to whether William and Mary gave Parliament the power to pass the bill, from my readings prior to the edit, Parliament had been dissolved prior to the Glorious Revolution, but due to the fear a being forced to turn Catholic, former members of the dissolved Parliament got together, passed a bill dethroning James II and offering the crown to William and Mary. After William and Mary took the throne they officially reinstated Parliament and the now fully official and legal Parliament passed into law the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which either resembled the bill passed by the unofficial Parliament or was the same of that bill.

Above source may be wrong, another source states that William and Mary were required to accept the bill of rights prior to their coronation. This may have been the precursor bill, or the principle of such a bill, and not the Bill of Rights itself.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

3) I can't say I would go along with a statement that Parliament was "democratic", since that would mean nobles and clergy in Parliament were elected. Commoners in the House of Commons were elected, but what we call gerrymandering Congressional districts is a pale shadow of what went in England. One of the wiki articles I references stated that prior to a redrawing of districts in the 1800's, one district was composed of 4 people and had 2 House members, while another district was a town which had fallen into the sea. I have no objections to calling Parliament "representative" since it had members from all classes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Your three comments above seem to reflect your personal beliefs because you do not mention your sourcing for your ideas. In order to proceed with your request for discussion, we need to be discussing what the reliable sourcing says, not discussing what individual editors believe. Please specifically tell us what is the secondary sourcing you are reading for your ideas. Give the exact page numbers, and/or exact URL's so we may read it too, thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Do I need to explain that "Common law" in unwritten? i.e not legislated, but evolved through many many generations of courtroom battles? If I do, then I won't bother. Your ignorance is too deep for my limited patience. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I am ignorant about a lot of things, but I think I do understand you! Except, I am not allowed to respond to you here. The way it works is that on article talk pages like this one, we are supposed to avoid talking about personal opinion. If you would like to discuss personal opinion with me, ask your questions over on my user talk page. Ask me there, and I will answer you there. Here, on article talk pages we are supposed to limit our discussion to what the reliable secondary sourcing says about the article, and to avoid talking about personal opinion. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for how this is supposed to work. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said my limited patience makes me unable to help you. Anyone who thinks you needs two citations to a certain page of a certain book to make ONE point, such as yourself, is in need of dire help, exceeding what I can provide. I am therefore cutting my losses. And as I pointed out below, primary sources are allowed by wiki policy, as long as an "intelligent" person can see the connection. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record I don't recall that you have pointed to primary sources either. (Admittedly I am not certain tracking anonymous comments.) Unless you are saying that you are pointing to "unwritten" primary sources. I don't think there is an exception in WP:V policy allowing unwritten sources, especially for contentious subjects like this. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 03:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used, but only in a very narrow way. Here's wiki-policy on the matter:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published 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. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, as that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.

SMP0328. (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Already mentioned in the section below. Let me know if you think the following is an allowed use of a primary source. Can the descriptive statement be verified by an educated person, from the primary source cited text?

I stated that the majority protestants were afraid that James II and his catholic successors would eventually force the English to convert to Catholicism and citing the following section of the Bill of Rights Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom; .96.237.120.38 (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Read the policy more closely. "Any interpretation of primary source material" is disallowed. In your usage you are interpreting the majority Protestants intention. The primary source says nothing about the Protestant's intention, it just talks of what the Catholics were doing. Were Protestants "afraid"? Were Protestants seeking to avoid something James II would do? That involves your interpretation.

Fortunately, major historical events like this have plenty of excellent secondary reliable source material available. Usually it is easy to find a solid secondary source that says the exact same thing as your primary interpretation. If it isn't easy to find secondary sources confirming your ideas, maybe you need to rethink anyway. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Read the policy closely yourself. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. Unless of course you are not an educated person.96.237.120.38 (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

A descriptive statement is different than an interpretive statement. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

and what did I interpret?96.237.120.38 (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As I already said: 1) You interpreted that the Protestants were afraid. 2) You interpreted the intentions behind the Protestant Bill of Rights. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 23:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously people who REVOLT are MOST JOYOUS at who they rebel against! You are so funny! If you can't tell what people are feeling after they plainly tell you, see the meaning of "extirpate" (definition in following section) below, then as I said before, it is well beyond my limited patience to EDUCATE YOU to see what is before your face. I suggest you enroll in a community college. Start with basket weaving 101.96.237.120.38 (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Open for discussion of recent edits

AnonIP recently reverted[1] without explanation several recent well sourced edits which seem to be improvements to the article. Opening this new section in order to discuss any objections. This is preferable to making unexplained wholesale reverts. Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The material already in the article on the meaning of well regulated seem fine and even includes a cite to the US Supremes. 96.237.120.38 (talk)

I see that AnonIP has deleted[2] that there are multiple views as to the meaning of the Blackstone quotation. Did you read the paper[3] by Stephen Heyman, footnote 15? In it he states bluntly that there are multiple views among scholars about the meaning of this Blackstone quotation. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Your changes did not match the cites. I changed the material to reflect the cites.96.237.120.38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC).

Beating a dead horse - This is the Heyman cite appearing in the article "Heyman, Stephen (2000). "Natural Rights and the Second Amendment". Chicago-Kent Law Review (Chicago-Kent College of Law) 76 (237): 253-259. http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=steven_heyman. "Finally, we should note that (contrary to Kates's assertion) Blackstone nowhere suggests that the right to arms derives from "the common law." Instead, this is a right that is secured by "the constitution," and in particular by the Bill of Rights."

If you wish to continue this discussion, I can probably skin the horse, make dog food out of its flesh, grind its bones for calcium, render its fat for oil, and boil its hooves for glue.96.237.120.38 (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I see that AnonIP has made a wholesale revert[4] without discussion again. Can we talk this without silently edit warring? Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I restored well referenced material that you deleted that was already in the article. What about getting consensus to remove it? 96.237.120.38 (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you deleted rather than restored references. And, the references you removed were of very high quality from scholarly law review articles. Please explain your reasoning for these deletions. Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You deleted the original material and replaced it, I restored the original material, you then deleted it again, I then again restored it. If you want to add additional material you are free to do so. Just make sure it is well referenced.

I thought you were all about "consensus"? or are you all about "consensus" only when it suits you?96.237.120.38 (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Could we instead discuss the article? This revert[5] of yours was unexplained. Could you please explain the reasoning behind your revert? Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 02:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there some part of "I restored material which you had removed" that is difficult for you to understand? If so, then run to that community college and start with the BASIC basket weaving class.96.237.120.38 (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You deleted[6] the entire paragraph with the reference to the Lewis and Clark Law Review article by William Merkel, explain please. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 05:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I said above, if you want to add new material, you are free to do so, as long as it contains backing citations. Material already in the article, which as you previously pointed out, is there based on editorial "consensus", should be left alone.96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Trying to move this forward, AnonIP deleted the paragraph with footnote 125.  :

Version prior to AnonIP edit:

Meaning of "well regulated militia"

The meaning of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment has been interpreted two ways: One interpretation is a usage of the term "regulated" to mean "disciplined" or "trained".[124]

Another interpretation of "well regulated" is that in the eighteenth century the term regulated meant subject to rules and regulations, the same as the modern meaning, and that it did not mean trained.[125]

On what constitutes a well regulated militia, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 29: "The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.[45]"

Version after AnonIP edit

Meaning of "well regulated militia"

The term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment has been interpreted as a usage of the term "regulated" to mean "disciplined" or "trained".[124]

On what constitutes a well regulated militia, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 29: "If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security....A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.[45]"

There are a couple issues here. 1) Per reliable sourcing there are two interpretations of "well regulated", we should be describing both. And, 2) The selective quotation from Alexander Hamilton, with the ellipsis (...) amounts to improper synthesis of a primary document in attempt to bolster one of the interpretations.

That footnote 125 points to a paper in the Lewis and Clark Law Review. Could other editors, if they haven't already, please take a moment and read the paper[7], especially page 361, so we can discuss the relevance and reliability? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

A blind man can see that the quote you state I deleted was ALREADY in the article, and with my restoration, is still in the article. If that community college has Basic basket weaving for the blind, I recommend that course as the starting point for your education.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No. You deleted the paragraph starting with the words "Another interpretation of 'well regulated' is...". That paragraph was sourced to the article in the Lewis and Clark Law Review. I know your opinion that I should take a basket weaving class, you have said this many times. Instead, can we please discuss the article? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to add new material, do so as long as it is cited. Do not delete old material while you are doing so, included by "consensus" that contradicts your new material. see POV push.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This "old material" you speak of is that quote from Federalist #29, a primary document. That quote seems contrived to make a case that Alexander Hamilton was saying that "well regulated" means "trained". It achieves this by conjugating two sentences together with an ellipsis. When I checked the source I see that there are a 641 words omitted by that ellipsis. This is an excessive distortion of a primary source and violates WP:SYN policy. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 00:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

click here to view the words from the primary source omitted with the ellipsis

If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the same body, ought, as far as possible to take away the inducement and the pretext, to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies, which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter'. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence, than a thousand prohibitions upon paper. In order to cast an odium upon the power of calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, it has been remarked, that there is nowhere any provision in the proposed constitution for requiring the aid of the Posse Comitatcs, to assist the magistrate in the execution of his duty; whence it has been inferred, that military force was intended to be his only auxiliary. There is a striking incoherence in the objections which have appeared, arid sometimes even from the same quarter, not much calculated to inspire a very favorable opinion of the sincerity or fair dealing of their authors. The same persons, who tell us in one breath, that the powers of the federal government will be despotic and unlimited, inform us in the next, that it has not authority sufficient even to call out the Posse Comitatus. The latter, fortunately, is as much short of the truth as the former exceeds it. It would be as absurd to doubt, that a right to pass all laws necessary and proper to execute its declared powers, would include that of requiring the assistance of the citizens to the officers who may be entrusted with the execution of those laws; as it would be to believe, that a right to enact laws necessary and proper for the imposition and collection of taxes, would involve that of varying the rules of descent and of the alienation of lauded property, or of abolishing the trial by jury in cases relating to it. It being therefore evident, that the supposition of a want of power to require the aid of the Posse Comitatus is entirely destitute of color, it will follow, that the conclusion which has been drawn from it, in its application to the authority of the federal government over the militia, is as uncaudid as it is illogical. What reason could there be to infer, that force was intended to be the sole instrument of authority, merely be cause there is a power to make use of it when necessary ? What shall we think of the motives, which could induce men of sense to reason in this extraordinary manner ? How shall we prevent a conflict between charity and conviction ? By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government. It is observed, that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and the ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power. What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen. But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who object to select corps as dangerous, were the constitution ratified, and were I to deliver my seutiments to a member of the federal legislature on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him in substance the following discourse : "The project of disciplining all the militia of the United " States. is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable " of being carried into execution.

OK then. This is my proposal, all fully sourced.

===Meaning of "well regulated militia"===

The meaning of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment has been interpreted two ways:

One interpretation is a usage of the term "regulated" to mean "disciplined" or "trained".<ref>As noted by the U.S. Supreme Court in ''[[District of Columbia v. Heller]]'', "[T]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training." ''Heller'', majority opinion of the Court, Part II-A-2</ref>

Another interpretation of "well regulated" is that in the eighteenth century the term regulated meant subject to rules and regulations, the same as the modern meaning, and that it did not mean trained.<ref name="Merkel361" >{{cite journal|last1=Merkel|first1=William|year=2009|title=Heller and Scalia's Originalism|journal=Lewis and Clark Law Review|volume=13|issue=2|pages=361|url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1422048_code695147.pdf?abstractid=1422048&mirid=5|date=Summer 2009|quote=Well-regulated meant well trained, rather than subject to rules and regulations. (A quick look at the Oxford English Dictionary reveals that, rather unsurprisingly and contra Malcolm, in the eighteenth century, regulated actually meant regulated, much as it does today. It did not mean trained.)}}</ref>

On what constitutes a well regulated militia, Alexander Hamilton wrote in [[Federalist No. 29]]:{{quote|The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.<ref name="Fed29">Hamilton, Alexander. [http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm Federalist No. 29, "Concerning the Militia"]</ref>}}

Comments please, I will be inserting this shortly. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 00:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I recommend you wait until 24 hours have passed. If the anon doesn't respond within that time, or he agrees to your proposal, then place it into the article. Waiting will prevent your adding it, followed by his reverting that addition. SMP0328. (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I can wait until tomorrow, though AnonIP has recently said twice that his invites sourced additions saying just above "you are free to do so". SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The proposed edit deleted the portion of Hamilton quote that describes what a "well regulated" militia is, as well as a reference showing that the Supreme Court seconds, or accepts that meaning. In other words the "accepted" meaning would be deleted from the article in favor of a meaning pushed by a small number of modern historians. I won't object if SB adds material pushing that small minority opinion, but I object to replacing the accepted meaning showing in the article, with that minority opinion. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A second proposed edit: This involves the selective quote from Blackstone in the "English History" section. Firstly, understanding legal treatises is hard enough, let alone the difficulty of understanding the ones written in archaic English from 1765. This seems a violation of the primary source limitation that the usage must be understandable by normally educated people. Plainly, a practical understanding of Blackstone is limited to a few of the most expert legal historians. The easiest fix is probably to simply remove the Blackstone quote entirely. If we choose to leave it in, alternately we should shift from using the primary document and instead be using reliable secondary sourcing. I was researching this and found two papers by distinguished professors in academic journals. Take the time please and read these two; 1) Heyman, Stephen (2000).[8] "Natural Rights and the Second Amendment". Chicago-Kent Law Review (Chicago-Kent College of Law) 76 (237): 253-259. and 2) Levinson, Sanford (2009).[9] "For whom is the Heller decision important and why?". Lewis and Clark Law Review 13 (2): 315-347. Both these describe how Blackstone uses a different meaning for "natural right" when speaking of the right to have arms, and that it is more accurately called "a subordinate auxiliary right". In short, my second proposal is to remove the interpretive wikilinks from the primary document quotation, and to add ", or a subordinate auxiliary right:" to the end of the introductory sentence. That is, unless other editors agree to just eliminate the Blackstone quote entirely because it is a problematic primary document usage. Comments please, I will be doing this shortly. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

An educated person can understand what Blackstone is saying, especially with "suitable for his condition an as allowed by law" background provided within that section of the article. I personally would like to see a few of the "suitable for his condition and as allowed by law"quotes condensed into something like "a limited right". Endlessly repeating it seems excessive. I don't support changing the direct quote however. That would be unprofessional.96.237.120.38 (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the Steven Heyman paper[10] in which he examines the meaning of Blackstone? If you haven't, I ask that you do. You might find it to be an interesting paper, it also covers the topic of the Pennsylvanian minority report. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Blackstone basically said that arms are the last refuse of those who want to resist oppression. Please explain to me how the disarming of the general population, by the government, allows them to resist that government oppression through force of arms. Partial quote from Blackstone: "when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."96.237.120.38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC).

Blackstone seems pretty clear, why do I need an interpreter? http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s5.html

Review WP:NOR policy, if you want to edit, we need to be using secondary sources. The issue here is that "natural right" as described by Blackstone was a complex concept and the use of the wikilink you inserted[11] is prohibited interpretation. This is explained in the Heyman paper, did you read the Steven Heyman paper? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And, lastly, to vindicate these rights, when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and lastly to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I also have a proposed edit. In a previous section of this talk page I pointed out that in the historians brief, those historians admitted that the Pennsylvania refused, due to Quaker influence, to create an organized militia, even after petitions during wartime. If Pennsylvania did not have a militia, and refused to create one, how can the right to keep and bear arms be militia based? 96.237.120.38 (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A well regulated mansion? controlled by umpteen laws? I think not!

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/washington.htm

Custis was nineteen at the time of Washington's death. He describes the scene:

Mrs. Washington retired about the usual family hour, but becoming alarmed at not hearing the accustomed sound of the library door as it closed for the night, and gave signal for rest in the well-regulated mansion, she rose again, and continued sitting up, in much anxiety and suspense. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I accept the definition that "well regulated" means trained, because I see that reliable secondary sources say it. I also see that other reliable sources say that "well regulated" uses the word "regulated" to mean "regulated" in a modern sense. Per policy here we are to include all the significant points of views which we find in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

and now that "small minority" opinion, limited to a few historians and the people that they have deluded, is included in the article.96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that the Heller ruling has not allowed for umpteen gun requlations? Heller spoke loud and clear that nearly every gun regulation (short of a handgun at home for self-defense) is going forward deemed Constitutional, see SCOTUSblog "Heller: “…nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons… ... would have been better served if the regulations Heller addressed in dicta had been ..."]. Who knows if regulated means regulated, or trained, or both. I see it described both ways in the opinion of Antonin Scalia. Clear as mud, and the article should fairly indicate that regulated in the 2A can be read two ways. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that the "small minority" opinion that well regulate means festooned with laws and regulations is now in article.

George Washington, August 25, 1776 letter to Israel Putnam.

The distinction between a well regulated Army, and a Mob, is the good order and discipline of the first, and the licentious and disorderly behaviour of the latter96.237.120.38 (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Did Washington advise a commander to get well-law'd troops to reinforce his fortifications (works), or well-trained ones?

I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got. George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889)) 96.237.120.38 (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

SB - your enlargement of Hamiltons quote is not appropriate to the article

As it stands, it is "to the point". Your addition buries the relevant quotation in irrelevant material.

If I did not know better, I would say that having failed to get that quote removed, you are now trying to bury it in irrelevant material.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant material? Say's who? The trouble with the version of the text you prefer is that it involves selective quotations, taken out of context, and misleadingly cobbled together with an ellipsis which distort the meaning and contrives it to mean something which you wish it meant. This is a textbook case of editor synthesis of primary documents. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you dislike the ellipses I have no objection to removing the first portion of the quote. It has nothing to do with what well-regulated means and is Hamilton pushing his agenda of more federal control of the militia.

Hamilton however, accurately describes what the Founders meant by a well-regulated militia. The US Supreme Court seconds that interpretation. If you don't like that interpretation because it goes against your agenda, I can't say I feel sorry.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You wrote "is Hamilton pushing his agenda of more federal control of the militia". In other words: "is Hamilton pushing his agenda of more federal regulation of the militia". Selective quotations from Hamilton can be made to show him where regulation means regulation. Except that you don't want to do that, or do you? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The militia is a state body. Hamilton was in favor of moving control of the militia to the federal government at the expense of the states. Your points also have nothing to do with what "well-regulated" means. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, you write "control", and control is a synonym for regulation. Hamilton supported federal regulation of the militia using the literal meaning of the word. Your selective quotation of a primary document is contrived to hide this and is a policy violation. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Your points again have nothing to do with what the phrase "well-regulated" means.

Was this you who wrote this yesterday, I accept the definition that "well regulated" means trained, because I see that reliable secondary sources say it. I also see that other reliable sources say that "well regulated" uses the word "regulated" to mean "regulated" in a modern sense. Per policy here we are to include all the significant points of views which we find in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr get wet 13:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

My condolences if you suffer from a memory disorder.96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The WP:RS use the term in various ways. If we are going to quote from Federalist #29 is makes more sense to quote the opening sentence[12] which seems to better summarizes the point he is trying to make and uses "regulation" to mean "commanding its services". Instead, you want to pick out a portion of one sentence down in the middle, distorted to change Hamilton meaning to match your own. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Was this you who wrote this yesterday, I accept the definition that "well regulated" means trained, because I see that reliable secondary sources say it. I also see that other reliable sources say that "well regulated" uses the word "regulated" to mean "regulated" in a modern sense. Per policy here we are to include all the significant points of views which we find in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr get wet 13:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If not then either someone has high jacked your account, or you are engaged in puppetry of one sort or another. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I just highlighted in yellow the second half of what I wrote. My point is that there are two significant opinions here seen reliable sourcing. Not just the one opinion which you are trying to emphasize using an out of context quote from Hamilton. We must give fair coverage to both opinions, even if we don't personally agree with the opinions. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That section of the article deals with the phrase "well regulated", and not with the word "regulated". If you can find a another quote by Hamilton (or another Founding Father for that mater that shows the phrase "well regulated" means "festooned with laws", "limited by law", "regulated by law", "governed by law" or something similar, I have no objection to you including it in part 2 of that section. Otherwise please cease and desist in pushing you POV agenda to the detriment of the article.96.237.120.38 (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Federalist #29 says" "confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority"...."reserving to the states"..."the authority of training the militia". Plainly, Hamilton meant "training" when he wrote training, and he used the word "regulation" when he meant control. So, if Hamilton said "regulated" when he meant "training", then what does he mean when he wrote "of training"? My point is that it is dangerous to use snippets of primary documents when we write an encyclopedia. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And what did he mean when he said that PRACTICING (going through) "military exercises and evolutions, AS OFTEN AS MIGHT BE NECESSARY" is what gives a militia the character of a "well-regulated" militia?

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You asked me a question: "What did he mean?". My answer is: That would involve interpretation of what he said!

Per wiki it only requires that you be educated without any special knowledge. So sad!96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you check the historical usage of the term "well regulated" in the English Language, it is documented by the Oxford English Dictionary as having usage between 1709-1894, with no recorded usages in the last century. It is an antiquated English term, fallen out of use in modern English. Very few people are educated in the use of disused historical English terms like this. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

When I read Hamilton he writes suggestive that regulation = training in one place and that regulation <> training in another place. That is why we are required here at Wikipedia not do interpretations of primary documents. We should delete that selective Hamiliton quote because it is interpretive, selectively chosen to push one favorite POV. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

One minute you spout "all views must be shown" to get a minority view you support included, the next minute you want the majority view that you don't like deleted. Classic case of POV push.96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you have the "majority" "minority" reversed as to common viewpoints. Most everyone thinks "regulated" means "regulated", this is especially true when you look to historical language authority, like the Oxford English Dictionary. This is true both for their historical usage of "regulated" and for the OED record of historical usages of two-word term "well-regulated". If you get a chance, look it up in the OED and you can confirm this. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

At least 5 of 9 US Supreme Court justices think that it means "trained"96.237.120.38 (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

How do you know? It appears that you are selectively reading and interpreting primary documents again. (see next section) SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I know because the majority opinion for Heller was signed of by 5 of 9 US Supreme Court justices. BTW: That BASIC basket weaving for the blind class looks a bit too advanced for you. I now recommend the one where you learn to make mud pies.96.237.120.38 (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Academic criticism of Heller

When I read reliable secondary sourcing which has studied the Heller ruling I see that it is described as "an act of (self?)-deception or conscious fraud", "a hollow sham"[13], "patently erroneous"[14], "simply foolish"[15] and "rife with absolutist rhetoric"[16] by a string of well known and leading experts in constitutional history. This is not blog-o-sphere criticism. It comes from articles in Law Reviews & Law Journals published by major Universities. The response has been scathing dismissal of Heller as being self-absorbed "law office history"[17]. Considering the amount academic criticism of this ruling, WP:REDFLAG comes up, to be prudent we probably should take it with a grain of salt. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

and I am sure that I can call you any number of things, such as fair, evenhanded, a credit to his nation, beloved by all who know him, etc etc etc, but calling you that does not necessarily make it true.96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

@SB: I think you have it backwards. The branch of the government responsible for interpreting the constitution has made a decision with which some people (including many academics) disagree. That happens. Any source which characterizes that decision as a fraud or deception is questionable per WP:REDFLAG. Extremist rhetoric like that is the mark of an opinion piece, not a scholarly examination of an issue with many reasonable people on either side. Celestra (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Does the court have authority to decide what is or is not history? Law Office History is plainly different than WP:V history. Did you read those University Law Review articles? I doubt it, there is a lot there and I am only about half way through reading them myself. They contain some extremely well documented and compelling criticism of Scalia's opinion. Also, you suggest that there are Law Review articles on "either side" regarding Scalia's version of history, please tell me exactly which article(s) you are speaking of, I would like a chance to read them. Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Merkel (the source of the opinion piece above) has also had some "extremist rhetoric" re the Pennsylvania Minority Report. He was quoted in one cite with the following "this "minority report" turns out to be no more than the collected ramblings of a single embittered eccentric who departed the convention in disgust". This is not the treatment a true historian gives an important historical document thought by many to be the template for the US Bill of Rights. He seems to be some two bit professor trying to create waves in order to get published.96.237.120.38 (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Law review articles are opinion pieces. The fact that academics write them doesn't make them objective or neutral. Heller doesn't become wrong because of what academics say about it. If opinion pieces are reliable secondary sources, then I will add some from organizations such as the Second Amendment Foundation. SMP0328. (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't really fair to dismiss an academic article published in a University Law Review as an "opinion piece". The fact remains that the historical work written by Antonin Scalia in the Heller ruling has been subject to a very large amount of scathing academic criticism. Whether or not one agrees with that criticism, we cannot deny that the criticism exists. Therefore, WP:REDFLAG is invoked here regarding use of Scalia's writings in the Heller opinion as a source for verifying 'fact'. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

SMP0328, have you read the Law Review Articles I cited above? If yes, could we discuss specifics? Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Law review articles are well written scholarly opinion pieces. I'm not denying their criticisms exist, but I am saying they are not neutral. If you feel balance is needed regarding Scalia's opinion, add material from Steven's dissent. BTW, don't start with your reading requirement. I'm referring to law review articles in general, so it's not necessary for me to the ones to which you refer. SMP0328. (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't saying anything is neutral. I was saying that because they are vetted prior to publishing in the Law Review that they therefore likely meet a higher quality standard for reliable sourcing here. Law Office History is plainly different than WP:V history. Because of the very large amount of high quality reliably sourced criticism of the Scalia's opinion of history, WP:REDFLAG is invoked. Roughly analogical to the way we treat other discredited books around here. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If this "this "minority report" turns out to be no more than the collected ramblings of a single embittered eccentric who departed the convention in disgust" appeared in a peer review journal then the peers are all on vacation.96.237.120.38 (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no section on the Constitutional ratification process?

The fight for a bill of rights, including proposed amendments relating to the militia and arms, during the Constitutional ratifications debates, during the debates themselves, in newspapers, pamphlets and other printed matter, seems to be more important to an article on the Second Amendment, then a section on English law, common or protected. The section on "Conflict and Compromise" in Congress is nothing more then a debate on the language. The debate on whether to insert that language is missing.96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is a section covering the Constitutional ratification process. I accept that you don't like it, and I agree that there is room for improvement. Though, any improvement must satisfy WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Starting this discussion now, I ask you: Which secondary sourcing are you reading that might be useful for this improvement? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The section you are talking about is about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Not the Second Amendment itself.96.237.120.38 (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not arguing with you. The only thing preventing a compromise here is that so far you have consistently refused to use secondary sourcing as a basis of your proposed edits. Find a way to do that, and I suspect I will be able to agree with you. Keep insisting on your personal research and personal opinions, then not. Give it a try, reliable secondary sources. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I used the historians brief for at least one cite.96.237.120.38 (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I recall that one too, and yes, that was better. Do that kind of sourcing more please. Ultimately I would like to encourage you to use "most reliable" sourcing that is defined around here as being "Academic and peer-reviewed publications...university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers." See WP:SOURCES for details. Opinions vary whether amicus briefs meet this standard, but I believe that usually they do. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Amicus briefs typically are legal advocacy. They'd be a reliable source for certain chains of legal precedents. If used, an amicus brief would need to be qualified inline by a phrase such as, for example, "X argued in an amicus curiae brief that YYY". ... Kenosis (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Feudalism, fiefdom, policing laws are NOT relevant to the English Bill of Rights on which 2A is based

I deleted an entire sub-section of the English history section on the grounds that it had no direct relevance to the second amendment. Salty has added it back.

Here is what the cut section says

An obligation existed that certain English subjects keep and bear arms for military duty[7][8][9][10] which dates back to at least the 12th century with King Henry II, in the Assize of Arms. In the English feudal system of that time, there were relatively few landowners, most of whom owed their title to land through their obligations to the King who they were obliged to defend. Most of the population at that time were peasant farmers or "serfs" paying rent in the form of a share of the land granted to them to work. Serfs were thus tied labour and were not permitted to leave the service of the Lord of his manor. About ten percent of the population were "freemen", a class of person in the feudal system who were not tied to the land in the same way as the serfs and who paid rent in the form of money. The Assize of Arms obliged these "freemen" to bear arms for defense of the monarchy, thus considerably extending the numbers of persons equipped to do so. There was no universal militia in England. Later, in response to complaints that local people were reluctant to take up arms to enforce justice for strangers, The Statute of Winchester of 1285 (13 Edw. I) declared that each district or hundred would be held responsible for unsolved crimes. Each man was to keep arms to take part in the hue and cry when necessary.[11] The reason for such a requirement was that without a regular army and police force (which was not established until 1829), it was the duty of certain men to keep watch and ward at night to capture and confront suspicious persons. Every subject had an obligation to protect the king’s peace and assist in the suppression of riots.[12]

So in summary it covers the following topics (and in brackets my reasoning why this is not related)

• a law regarding an obligation to bear arms (no such obligation appears in the 2A)
• Feudalism (not in place when the English Bill of Rights was passed nor present in America)
• community policing by the populace before the establishment of professional police (not in the 2A)

Now, although these topics are often discussed in a background section on books covering the history of arms in England, they are not directly related to the 2A. As I have read about the 2A and the discussions about this, the drafters were influenced not by these elements of English history, but by the fight between parliament and the monarch which resulted, amongst other things, in the passing of the English Bill of Rights. It is the wording in the English Bill of Rights that appears (with minor changes) in the 2nd Amendment. Therefore it seems wholly relevant, when telling the English historical background to the second amendment to look at the English Bill of Rights and its background. The other stuff about feudalism, policing, and monarchical defense, is largely irrelevant in the American context. It is actually confusing to the reader to discuss these things before getting on to the real background which is the English Bill of Rights.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some of the material is of minimal relevance, but the right to arms, even if it is an individual rights, does come with some associated burdens. Defense of the community is one of those. As in England a full time police force did not come into being until the 1800's and in the US the common citizen could (and still can) arrest lawbreakers. The militia was for the longest time the main defense of the US and even in WWII the large number of guns owned by civilians in Hawaii was one of the reasons Japan chose not to invade those islands. I have no objection to the mention of armed freemen, as they were the militia of their time, while the hue and cry relates to catching criminals, something one does not want to do if the criminal is armed and you are not. Instead of a total deletion how about attempting to consolidate the material into fewer words. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, check the sourcing in the footnotes you deleted. That reliable sourcing says that this history is relevant background of the Second Amendment. Who should be believed: the cited reliable sourcing, or personal opinion? Policy is clear, we should be faithful to the reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are addressing me, I am unaware of deleting any footnotes recently. The only one I am certain of deleting is that duplicate footnote by Wills which you insisted on keeping. Over the past couple of days I added a number to satisfy your nitpicking.96.237.120.38 (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No. I think he's addressing me. The natural right to arms does NOT come with any burdens. Burdens only came when others added them, and that is an entirely separate issue. You need to be clear about which source cites a direct relevance between feudalism and its obligations and the English Bill of Rights. I see none. I do see direct relevance between the fears of a powerful ruler removing the right to arms (the background to the relevant right in the English Bill of Rights) and the similar text in the 2nd Amendment. It is not unexpected that writers and historians have looked to the English context and that they should have reviewed the rights and obligations to arms in the English context. But the simple fact is that there is NO indication that the drafters of the 2nd Amendment had in their minds anything at all concerned with the archaic and short lasting phenomenon of feudalism. It does seem to be concerned with self defense (and related concept of collective defense) which is the origin of the natural right to bear arms for defense which they wanted to preserve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Hauskalainen (talk • contribs)

Hauskalainen, lets talk not edit war.

Following the back and forth taking passages out and putting passages in, lets talk this over and find a mutually agreeable compromise instead please.

We are required by policy to be neutral giving fair treatment to all the significant POVs. One of the major POVs distinguishes between a right to arms, and a right to bear arms. "bear arms" implies (and implied) warfare, including in the earliest time dating back to the 12th Century, a duty of 'hue and cry' police service and a duty of 'milita' military service which later evolved into a right of the people to have a militia (as opposed to a standing army). "Bear arms" is different than "having arms" which covers the greater topic of arms for hunting and self defense. We must distinguish the two concepts. Can we work out language on the talk page and stop the reverts in article space? Please? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And, regarding the location of 12th Century passage. It sure seems logical to order the English History section chronologically, earliest first, latest later. Why should we order it backwards? What am I missing? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You are missing that this has NO CONNECTION to the Second Amendment!

The Second Amendment is a transplantion from the Bill of Rights with a few words changed. The English words arose arose more from fear than reality - a final stamp (as was hoped) on the elimination of papal interference in the politics of England and the right to arms of the protestants was part of that. In America, the States, which had achieved independence from a far away monarch had come together and had just created a new creature bigger than themselves. They were likewise concerned to preserve their rights through the militias they had arisen and not allow those rights to be infringed by the Federal government. In today's context this all seems a bit crazy (both the English protestants' concerns and the American states' concerns) but in their time they were thought to be of fundamental importance.

This is the English contextual background to the connection between the Second Amendment and English law. It has absolutely nothing to do with feudalism, or the obligations placed on people to defend the King. Sure, these are historical events but they have no connection to the English Bill of Rights nor the American Bill of Rights. If you want to argue this then lets do it. For the moment the text is lower down because it is just confusing to have it higher up because the main connection is to background to the English Bill of Rights and not the things that I have deleted and that you have added back.

Now, having said all that this edit by you http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=366054077&oldid=366051149 cites as the summary "In one major POV, rights about 'arms' does not equal rights about 'bearing arms'. Rem sentence of editorial per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. " I really cannot see how my text, which you deleted in that edit can possibly contain anthing contetious. It was a bald statement of pretty undeniable fact. How can you possibly think otherwise??

As to the claim (which I think came from you) that the English had no rights to arms for self preservation before the Bill of Rights (or that it needs a reference to prove it), perhaps you would like to read Thomas Hobbes on the subject of rights in this regard (Search for " Not All Rights Are Alienable " within http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm#2HCH0013) The right to life is so basic and so personal that every person has the right to exercise it and it can never be given up (in law or otherwise). --Hauskalainen (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This is getting repetitive, trying again. The issue can't be simply that you believe it doesn't have a connection. The issue is that there is reliable sourcing that says it has a connection. I have asked you many times to point to reliable secondary sourcing describing this right to arms, but you haven't done this. And, no, your pointing to a book published in 1651 by Thomas Hobbes isn't secondary sourcing, it is your primary research. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)

It is getting repetitive because you are ignoring my please for evidence. So let me help you out here and then you can perhaps tell me where I am going wrong. Let's look in more detail at the text...

An obligation existed that certain English subjects keep and bear arms for military duty[18][19][20][21] which dates back to at least the 12th century with King Henry II, in the Assize of Arms.

These facts are not doubted. but they are simply not relevant. The 2nd Amendment did not create an obligation on men to serve in the military which is what these laws did in England. It simply is not about this. Sure, it mentions the need for a military force but this is in the context of the states' rights to form such a force, a right which it says shall not be infringed. The connection is only tangential at best and certainly not of direct relevance.

In the English feudal system of that time, there were relatively few landowners, most of whom owed their title to land through their obligations to the King who they were obliged to defend. Most of the population at that time were peasant farmers or "serfs" paying rent in the form of a share of the land granted to them to work. Serfs were thus tied labour and were not permitted to leave the service of the Lord of his manor. About ten percent of the population were "freemen", a class of person in the feudal system who were not tied to the land in the same way as the serfs and who paid rent in the form of money. The Assize of Arms obliged these "freemen" to bear arms for defense of the monarchy, thus considerably extending the numbers of persons equipped to do so.

It was me that added the discussion about feudalism into the article. This was because the article originally spoke only about the right of freemen to arms (because freemen were obliged by law to retain them). To a person not realising that freemen had very specific meaning in feudalism the words the right of freemen to arms could easily be mis-interpreted, perhaps as the positive right of those not enslaved to have arms. It certainly was not that. Having cleared that up we come back to the relevance of the obligation of some to have arms created in English law to the second amendment. As this is actually the subject of the para An obligation existed that certain English subjects keep and bear arms for military duty[18][19][20][21] which dates back to at least the 12th century with King Henry II, in the Assize of Arms discussed previously I will take this matter no further for now other than to repeat that the connection is only tangential because of the word militia in the American text but the connection is highly specious because that word is not present in the related text in the English Bill of Rights. The connection is yours (or at least it is you that appears to be defending it).

Now I turn to the references in the paragraphs above:-

[18] is to a dictionary, the purpose of which is beyond my comprehension because the reference is not expanded.

[19] is to Merkel and Uvilla who argue that the right in the second amendment was personal not related to the milita (despite the wording). Well, that is a strange point of view but even so, the connection to a feudal obligation to defend a king is not made.

[20] is to page 290 of this book which can be seen here http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=290. It is concerned with the second amendment but it has nothing to do with the paragraph to which it attached (i.e. nothing to do with English law). It seems to be totally mislplaced and therefore irrelevant.

[21] The link given does not work but I have re-traced it to this link http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1995/sep/21/to-keep-and-bear-arms/ It too is about the second amendment but nothing to do with the English law as far as I can tell.

Continuing with the text...

There was no universal militia in England. Later, in response to complaints that local people were reluctant to take up arms to enforce justice for strangers, The Statute of Winchester of 1285 (13 Edw. I) declared that each district or hundred would be held responsible for unsolved crimes. Each man was to keep arms to take part in the hue and cry when necessary.[22] The reason for such a requirement was that without a regular army and police force (which was not established until 1829), it was the duty of certain men to keep watch and ward at night to capture and confront suspicious persons. Every subject had an obligation to protect the king's peace and assist in the suppression of riots.[23]

This text is about the issue of public order. I do not doubt it but it does not per se develop a connection to the Second Amendment. Now the references.

[23] is an article about policing and does not mention the second amendment at all

[24] gives us the following quote A Well-Regulated Militia, represents the latest addition to the ongoing debate over the nature of the Second Amendment and the American right to arms. Early Americans wrote of the right in light of three considerations: (1) as auxiliary to a natural right of self-defense; (2) as enabling an armed people to deter undemocratic government; and (3) as enabling the people to organize a militia system.". All well and good, but it does not establish any link to the law in England.

For all of the above reasons I am going to propose again that we delete these texts. They simply do not establish any connection between English law before the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment. The only one that I can see is the issue of militias. But this is a tangential connection. Militias had existed in America before the Second Amendment as they had existed in England before the passing of English laws. The texts may have a place in a discussion about the laws regarding militias but their connection to the Second Amendment is tendentious and not supported by ANY of the references contained in the text.--Hauskalainen (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you read the decision in the Heller case it is clear that there were earlier recognitions that there was an encient right to bear arms for a variet if reasons. J. Trusler, A Concise View of the Common Lawand Statute Law of England 270 (1781) (“if [papists] keep arms in theirhouses, such arms may be seized by a justice of the peace”); Some Considerations on the Game Laws 54 (1796) (“Who has been deprivedby [the law] of keeping arms for his own defence? What law forbids the veriest pauper, if he can raise a sum sufficient for the purchase of it, from mounting his Gun on his Chimney Piece . . . ?”); 3 B. Wilson, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson 84 (1804) (with reference to state constitutional right: “This is one of our many renewals of theSaxon regulations. ‘They were bound,’ says Mr. Selden, ‘to keep arms for the preservation of the kingdom, and of their own person’ ”); W.Duer, Outlines of the Constitutional Jurisprudence of the United States31–32 (1833) (with reference to colonists’ English rights: “The right ofevery individual to keep arms for his defence, suitable to his condition and degree; which was the public allowance, under due restrictions of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation”);(from note 7 on pages 9 and 10 of the decision http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf) The decision confirms that And, of course, what the Stuarts had tried to do to their political enemies, George III had tried to do to the colonists. In the tumultuous decades of the 1760’s and 1770’s, the Crown began to disarm the inhabitants of the most rebellious areas. That provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms. A New York article of April 1769 said that “[i]t is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence.” and later still Besides ignoring the historical reality that the SecondAmendment was not intended to lay down a “novel principl[ e]” but rather codified a right “inherited from ourEnglish ancestors,” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281 (1897), petitioners’ interpretation does not evenachieve the narrower purpose that prompted codificationof the right. And to cap it all the judgement saidPutting all ofthese textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .” with this last sentence carrying a foootnote where the justices diagreed with another of their number saying Contrary to JUSTICE STEVENS’ wholly unsupported assertion, post, at 1, 17, there was no pre-existing right in English law “to use weapons for certain military purposes” or to use arms in an organized militia

All this confirms what I have been saying. The right to arms existed BEFORE the passing of the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment and that the purpose of these enactments was not to grant a right but to prevent it from being taken away (by the King in England and by the Federal government in the United States). And the preserved right in the US context comes directly from the English Bill of Rights with both enactments intending to preserve an individual right. The decision in Heller makes it very clear that the right in England and America was personal. The decision does consider the issue of the militia context in the american text. Because it takes the right as being a personal right, it is, despite reference to militias, a personal right not connected with the militia. It therefore follows that any discussion of militias in the English context is entirely irrelevant. --Hauskalainen (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Kenosis - Massachusetts Compromise

The Massachusetts Compromise was a defining moment in the ratification process. Without that Compromise the Constitution would not have been ratified "as is". 5 states, as part of the ratification process "required their members to support" a Bill of Rights once Congress has been assembled under the new constitution. I think 4 of those 5 included proposed amendments as part of the ratification document. Add the two states that would not ratify unless a Bill of Rights was already included in the language they were to ratify and you have 7 of 13 states that refused to ratify without a Bill of Rights or a promise of one. 7 of the original 13 is over half. Naming the states that refused to ratify seems more important then quite a few things in the article, like when and where Congress removed, or moved, a comma from the language. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Massachusetts Compromised is already wikilinked, and prior to its recent wikilinking it has long been referred to in this article as a "compromise" between federalists and anti-federalists. Perhaps a way of dealing with this objection would be to insert the word, e.g., ". . . generally referred to as the Massachusetts Compromise . . .". The reader needn't be subjected to a mention of every single state that did everything at every single step along the way. Else the article would be an outright tome. See WP:Summary style. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Naming the states which used the Massachusetts Compromise is a bit more informative then describing the high drama involved in moving a comma.96.237.120.38 (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In what way is the reader better informed about the Second Amendment by naming in this article the states that over two centuries ago followed the Massachusetts compromise? Some are from the North, some from the South; some today are comparatively progressive, some comparatively conservative, etc. etc. etc. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't personally understand why there is such a fuss about the comma either, but when you look at reliable sourcing there is plenty of discussion of the comma controversy found. Therefore we should give it coverage here, regardless of what I personally think. I don't see the same attention is given in WP:RS as to which States were part of the Massachusetts Compromise, or not. We should be following the policy WP:DUE here, therefore I agree with Kenosis on this one. AnonIP might want to review WP:NOR policy, this article is not the place to publish his original research about the Second Amendment. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the language cited? If you did you wouldn't be babbling about NOR96.237.120.38 (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

My comment above was generally about your edits this last month, and not specifically about the last edit. I give you credit for using sourcing with that last edit. Though the book publisher, Pelican Publishing, is not a publisher of well known reputation for fact checking and accuracy and is known for being a vanity press. In a high profile article like this one, where available we should be trying to use WP:SOURCES which are of the "best sources/most reliable" type. That is: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources...university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers." If you were to be using those quality sources it would be helpful. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You appear to believe that the only truly reliable sources are those of academia. Many times, academia is an example of groupthink (everyone having the same viewpoint on a particular issue). That means peer-review ends up being no better than self review. In those cases, "Academic and peer-reviewed publications" end up being quite unreliable. SMP0328. (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I am just trying to follow the WP:V policy, which speaks about "best sources/most reliable" sources. If you have trouble with "groupthink" aspects of that policy, speak up over at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability. This is an important article, we must follow policy and we should try to give it best quality sourcing. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I am pointing out that not all peer-reviewed articles are reliable. I don't interpret the Verifiability policy to treat peer reviewed articles as automatically reliable. I believe it means to express a preference for reliable articles that are peer-reviewed. SMP0328. (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say automatically reliable, I said "most reliable". If you have problems with the policy, go discuss the policy in the right place: Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability. The present policy consensus is that "best sources/most reliable" are "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources...university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers." Until that policy changes, we should stick with it. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with both SMP and SaltyBoatr insofar as the reliability analysis doesn't necessarily end with simply noting that a source has been published in a peer-reviewed publication. And there may also a WP:WEIGHT consideration as to whether a cited source is expressing, for example, an extreme minority view or a dominant view or something in between. As well, we inevitably need to work in WP:Summary style, particularly with a controversial topic that involves as much potentially relevant information and background as this one does. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's the full quote of the Verifiability policy regarding academic and peer-reviewed articles:

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.

So "non-academic" sources are acceptable and no type of source is categorized as "best". So it isn't necessary for sourcing to be from academia. Also, note the quote above says "usually". Academic/peer-reviewed articles sometimes are not the most reliable. I believe this is such a case. SMP0328. (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually read the policy, some sources are typed as "best sources". Exceptions exist. Examples of this might be a book like Bellesiles' Arming America published by a well respected publishing house, Alfred a Knopf Inc., which nominally would be considered a most reliable source. Yet, WP:REDFLAG is invoked with this book because we see a significant number of published 'most reliable' criticism in credible academic articles in Law Reviews and Journals like the Yale Law Journal[18], Fordham Law Review [19], William and Mary Quarterly[20] and others. Reliably needs to be checked against WP:REDFLAG. This is roughly analogous to the large amount of credible criticism we see of the history presented by Antonin Scalia in his Heller opinion, WP:REDFLAG is invoked in both cases. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

We know our respective positions regarding academic publications, so there's no need to continue this back-and-forth. As for the Opinion of the Court in Heller (what you keep attributing solely to Justice Scalia), that's part of the reasoning of the United States Supreme Court regarding why it decided Heller as it did; that makes it relevant to the parts of the article referring to that decision. Criticisms of that reasoning are, of course, also relevant. SMP0328. (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't just me calling this a Scalia opinion, that is what I read in the Law Review articles I mentioned above, but you refuse to read them, your loss. Because, they are pretty interesting reading, even if you don't agree with them. For instance, the opinion was drafted almost entirely by Scalia, with the apparent small exception being the 'longstanding prohibitions clause', that totally gutted the decision, and which was added at the last minute as a requirement to achieve the fifth vote. Clearly Scalia's "Law Office History" is considered very dubious by a large number of reliably published experts. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 23:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The REAL reason why the English have historically had a right to arms

The English Longbow! and the amount of practice it required to become proficient in its use.

Enuf said!96.237.120.38 (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

From the article on the English longbow

It was the difficulty in using the longbow which led various monarchs of England to issue instructions encouraging their ownership and practice, including the Assize of Arms of 1252 and King Edward III's declaration of 1363: "Whereas the people of our realm, rich and poor alike, were accustomed formerly in their games to practise archery – whence by God's help, it is well known that high honour and profit came to our realm, and no small advantage to ourselves in our warlike enterprises... that every man in the same country, if he be able-bodied, shall, upon holidays, make use, in his games, of bows and arrows... and so learn and practise archery." If the people practised archery, it would be that much easier for the King to recruit the proficient longbowmen he needed for his wars. Along with the greater ability of gunfire to penetrate plate armour, it was the amount of time needed to train longbowmen which eventually led to their being replaced by musketmen.96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The material above does not appear to be about this article, but rather it is general discussion about the topic of this article. This talk page is not the place for general discussion about the topic. See Wikipedia:NOT#FORUM. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

SOMEONE put the Assize at Arms into the article! and it wasn't me!96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The quote has nothing to do with rights at all! But it reinforces my point that rich and poor alike had a right to arms long before the 17th century.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My impression of history is that the low point for England was the Norman Conquest. The invading Normans took over the country, deposed the native nobility (if not outright killed them) and took steps to make the native English second class citizens, including disarming them. After a period of time (2 hundred years), the Normans felt so secure in their rule, that they took steps to encourage the Native English, who they felt they themselves were, to practice their archery skills, so that they could benefit from that skill in battle.

The English peasant,now armed with a longbow and skilled in its use, could take down the most well armored knight, unlike a peasant on the mainland who had to rely on farm implements. The English peasant enjoyed more rights then his counterpart on the continent, not because he was given those rights, but because he could kill anyone who would tried taking them away.96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Joyce Lee Malcolm references

The majority of the relevant chapter is accessible at Google Books. Having read the chapter I do not see any eveidence that Malcolc claims this as "being a transition from an obligation to a right" as the article text currently claims. Indeed quite the reverse because she scolds another historian, Roy Wetherup, for seeing a connection between the rights explicitly given in the English Bill of Rights and the term "well formed militia" when the English Bill of Rights was clearly connected to the Glorious Revolution and the preservation of protestantism in England. And she refers to the English wording as "a guarantee" - which it was - of an existing right. Later she refers to the rights of Englishmen being "refined and expanded", though rather confusingly she later says that "Since 1689 these rights included the right of Protestants to keep and use weapons" as if these rights had not existed before. As I point out in my recent edit to the article(backed by the full text of the relevant section of the English Bill of Rights instead of just part), the right was merely an explicit re-statement in statute law given by parliament and recognized by the monarchy of an ancient right to bear arms. That the statute applied explictly to Protestants has to be understood in the historical context and it did not mean that Catholics had no such rights after 1689, nor that the right in common law did not prteviously exist. I think this is merely a slip by Malcolm because most of what she says is eminently reasonable and backed by references. I therefore propose that we remove the following texts

"The right of some English subjects to possess arms was recognized under English common law; however many English subjects were not permitted by law to possess arms"

which cites Joyce but which does not seem to be supported by the reference. --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

On page 9[21] Professor Malcolm discusses the distinction between "a duty and a right". Prior to 1689, having weapons was a duty for certain British subjects. After the 1689 declaration of rights, it was first established as a right for Protestants, but not for Catholics. Did you read page 10[22] which describes that under 17th Century British law that the use of weapons for hunting was considered to be "a privilege" revocable by law? Clearly, according to this expert there was not an "ancient right to weapons". SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence you point to was not confirmed by reading pg 11 of the cited source, and I just tweaked the sentence to match the source and improved the reference to include a direct quote from the source. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to the texts on hunting. I admit that I was wrong in thinking that firearms were not restricted before the 19th century. Clearly an Act of 1671 (properly citable as "'Charles II, 1670 & 1671: An Act for the better preservation of the Game, and for secureing Warrens not inclosed, and the severall Fishings of this Realme.', Statutes of the Realm: volume 5: 1628-80 (1819), pp. 745-746") DID restrict gun possession for the purpose of preventing poaching.

"it is hereby enacted and declared That all and every person and persons, not haveing Lands and Tenements or some other Estate of Inheritance in his owne or his Wifes right of the cleare yearely value of one hundred pounds per ann? or for terme of life, or haveing Lease or Leases of ninety nine yeares or for any longer terme, of the cleare yearely value of one hundred and fifty pounds, other then the Sonne and Heire apparent of an Esquire, or other person of higher degree, and the Owners and Keepers of Forrests, Parks, Chases or Warrens, being stocked with Deere or Conies for their necessary use in respect of the said Forrests, Parks, Chases or Warrens, are hereby declared to be persons by the Lawes of this Realme, not allowed to have or keepe for themselves or any other person or persons any Guns, Bowes, Grey hounds, Setting-dogs, Ferretts, Cony-doggs, Lurchers, Hayes, Netts, Lowbells, Hare-pipes, Ginns, Snares or other Engines aforesaid, But shall be, and are hereby prohibited to have, keepe or use the same."

(Statutes of the Realm: volume 5: 1628-80 (1819), pp. 745-746. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=47447 Date accessed: 21 April 2010.)

However, this was not a restriction on the possession of arms for self defence (which I am sure remained a common law right, as it still does today) but it did without doubt restrict the availability of a particular type of arm (i.e. a gun) albeit to protect the gaming rights of the landed classes. I therefore suggest that we replace the vague notions in the text with this explicit restriction. --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You write "which I am sure remains a common law right". Tell us what is your sourcing for this belief. Did you get a chance to read the Malcolm book? In it she identifies prohibition on possessions of firearms (handguns) in Britain dating back to at least 1541. So clearly, it was not simply an issue of controlling hunting. SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, looking at the article, the only two references that describe a common law origin are from Stephen Halbrook[23] and David Hardy[24] who both are prominent NRA attorneys with non-neutral points of view. In our duty to keep a neutral point of view here we must be careful with balance for this type of sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The right of self defence is widely recognized in the courts though there is no LEGISLATED right of self defence. Decisions as to what is and is not lawful are decided case by case by the judges in the courts. Thus the right to use arms in self defence is part of the COMMON LAW. You have the right to defend oneself by whatever means you have available and within the limits of the law. The right has to be proportional. It is even within the law to use a FIREARM to defend oneself, though it is unlikely to happen as most people, due to the licensing laws, do not have access to firearm. Similarly it is not legal to carry a knife for the purposes of self defence but it is okay to use a knife to defend yourself if one happens tp be available. The courts in Northern Ireland have decided that it may be legal to have a gun for a legal purpose (for example to defend oneself or another another person under common law) even if there was no licence held for that gun. The absence of the licence means the breaking of the licencing laws but the gun could still legally be used for the legal purpose (i.e.one of self protection). It may seem odd that there can be strict licencing laws concerning guns yet the use of a gun (even an unlicenced gun) does not restrict the use of that gun for a legal purpose (of self defence or even defending a another). The presence of licening laws has not removed the common law right of self defence or even the right to use a firearm in self defence. BUT... to defeat a charge of murder or manslaughter you would have to assert that common law right in court (which the court could accept) but then pay the penalty for breaching any licensing laws. (The Fegan case in the reference I gave applies here). Tony Martin (farmer) overstepped the mark when he shot at intruders in his home. He had a right in common law to defend himself and his property but he was not exercising that right lawfully when he shot at an intruder who was in the process of escaping and killed him. You will find a neat summary of the law at http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/cases/self-defence.php. A reading of the cases will continually refer to the right of self defence without any reference to any statute in this area. This is, by definition, the common law. --Hauskalainen (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

But back to the original issue... The article still quotes Malcolms as claiming that (the English Bill of Rights) was "the first instance when the customary duty to bear arms transitioned into n right to have arms for defense." I have read Malcolm and she absolutely does not say this. If Salty wants to keep this in he is gping to have to spell out exactly where she says this.--Hauskalainen (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The subtitle of the book is "The Origins of an Anglo-American Right"[25], key word: "origin", (not pre-existing). On the book blurb of her website she says: "This book explains how the Englishmen's hazardous duty evolved into a right." See the first sentence of page one of this book which says: "The right of citizens to be armed not only is unusual, but evolved in England in an unusual manner: it began as a duty. " You claim to have read Malcom, it is hard to understand how you missed this being on page one. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I believe I have read all the bits you pointed me to previously and nothing there seemed to show this. So it seems that Malcolm indeed write this. But she is clearly wrong. It is every man's right to defend himself. It always has been. She has got carried away by the tracing of the early references to armaments in the WRITTEN law and has ignored completely the COMMON law. If A attacks B, B is entitled to repel the attack and use whatever arms are available in a reasonable manner to stop the attack him. By your (and Joyce's reckoning) this would mean that, B would be as in the wrong as A. That is clearly nonsense and no common man, justice or jury would ever have said otherwise. I have no idea whether anyone has ever challenged the claim, but on behalf of my fellow Englishmen I do so now! The fact is that there was first a personal right (for self defense at least), then an obligation on nobles to defend the king, and then, in a fit of panic, a written law granting in perpetuity (which scholars today argue is non-constitutional because it is discriminatory and against the Charter of Fundamental Rights), certain rights to members of the protestant faith to the exclusion of all others, including the right to bear arms. The parliamentarians of the day did this only because they did not want that common law right taken away from them (which they had feared could happen). I know that you probably want believe Malcolm just because of the reference, so somehow I will have to seek to find a way to prove her wrong. Maybe I'll just write to her to see whether she will reconsider. --Hauskalainen (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Here, oddly enough, is Malcolm herself talking about the extent of the right to kill in self defense in relation to a case from the 1300s (See Page 24) http://books.google.com/books?id=ddaDbEIwiCUC&pg=PA342&dq=Joyce+Lee+Malcolm+-+Professor+of+History+at+Bentley+College+and+author+of+Guns+and+Violence:+The+English+Experience+-&hl=en&ei=CbPyS9zYDY_u-Qa5r7iRDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22common%20law%22&f=false. Here Malcolm seems to accept that scholars have argued that Englishman had the right to kill in self defense and not just an obligation to retreat first when acting as a peacekeeper or to defend himself, his family or his property. I think in her text she was merely ignoring the early right to use arms self defense or defending others or their property. It is interesting of course to note that even 700 years ago, there was an expectation not to revert to violence except under extreme provocation. --Hauskalainen (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And here is an American text from the 1800s referring to every man except the priesthood being expected to be trained in the use of arms dating back to Saxon times, almost a thousand years before the Glorious Revolution. There clearly has been a right and a duty to bear arms in England for the common good at least from the very earliest part of our written history. --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

When you say "expected to be trained" that means "duty". The problem here I think is that we are not asked to personally agree with what the sources say, but we are expected to read and fairly represent what the sources say. Professor Malcolm identifies the Bill of Rights of 1689 as the first instance of a right to bear arms. The discussion of common law on pages 24-25 discusses permissible self defense, (as being permitted by the Crown) as necessary for the duty of maintaining watch and ward or the duty to respond to a hue and cry. Watch and ward, and hue and cry were duties to the Crown at that time. Permission from the Crown to do something is different than having been granted a right to do something by the Crown. Malcolm explains that it was the Revolution of 1689 that took by force the 'right' which had belonged to the Crown, (and which was subject to the permission of the Crown), and transferred that 'right' to the Protestants. The Protestants then kept the right, and did not grant permission to the Catholics. While I respect your different personal belief about this, this talk page is not the place to discuss your personal beliefs. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the issue I have is simply that Malcolm is wrong to assert that the right to bear arms evolved from an obligation because, in simple terms, there would have been a presumed right in common law that a man (or woman) would be allowed to defend themselves given the right to life of every man. This would therefore mean that there has ALWAYS been a right to bear arms long before it appeared in the English Bill of Rights. It only appeared in the Bill of Rights to PREVENT it being taken away by the act of a monarch given the fear of so-called popary. The supremacy of parliament had only just been established and its permanence had not been firmly rooted (though in practice it has never been challenged since then). The duty to defend the community was an extension but as we have another very much earlier source for this duty perhaps we should use this one rather than the Malcom one. The strange fact is that this has never been a constitutional right in English Law, and it is rather strange that this should have been lifted from an Act of Parliament in England and turned into a constitutional right in the US of A. I suppose this shows that the right of assertion of rights over a monarch were as strong in the rights of American minds as they were in the minds of the English. The English do not regard this as a constitutional right but a common law right. English case law regarding the use of arms in self defense confirms this. Even weirder is the fact that right has now moved in the US to be one of a personal right which it never was even in the English law. It was very much written as a right of Protestants collectively to preserve their existing right. --Hauskalainen (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You also claim that Malcolm talks of "permissible self defense". I see no such reference on the pages you say or the pages around that and neither did a google books even find the word permissible within the book. On the contrary, on page 23 it says "The governments most urgent tasks, the restoration of order and the prevention of counter revolution, were exceedingly difficult because by 1649 large numbers of Englishmen posessed private weapons(by which she would have meant firearms), which they had becomes accustomed to useing as they saw fit. " This does not indicate at all that weapons at that time were held only for defense of the realm! Indeed the emptying of the royal forests of game (see the text) indicates that the use of arms for gaming was rife once the King had been executed. I really cannot accept your assertions that there was no common law right to posess arms before the Bill of Rights. Clearly there was and people did. This is also referenced in the two paragraphs at the top of page 11. There was a general right to arms, though the law did sometimes restrict certain persons the right to arms, the places where the right could not be exercised (for public safety) and at certain times, the types of arms that one could hold. But in general terms, the right to arms for self defense as well as defense of the community was well established. This right was NOT restricted to those obligated to hold arms as the text in the article as it stands currently seems to imply.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Consider that the article primarily is about protection of the "right to keep and bear arms", and we should give that priority. Pushing emphasis to a "right to arms" is actually tangential. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

All my edits today have done is to re order the texts, move some text into the references (to avoid overbearing the main text) and to emphasise that the general right to arms (which is the same as the right to keep and bear) was an existing right (which is clear from the Malcolm texts and indeed the Blackstone commentaries). It also corrects the text which seemed to tell a misleading story... that the right began as an obligation... that is a totally misleading statement. I know that the cover of the Malcolm book may say that but it is wrong. The right to bear arms was a right in natural law (and common law) in order to preserve the right of self preservation. It goes back way before the days of firearms and later efforts to control firearms (and longbows for that matter). My edits thus establish historical accuracy against a presumed desire by some editors to assume that this is a "right" that developed slowly and flowered in the English Bill of Rights and thence into the United States Constitution. That, frankly, is a complete misreading of history. The truth is that the right was there first, then it got tampered with by King and Parliament and then, due to a moment in history, got put into legislation which, in English law was non binding on future parliaments (despite the wording to the contrary) and, despite the Bill of Rights being an important constitutional document, that part of it which relates to a Right to Keep an Bear Arms has absolutely no constitutional validity today. I believe this is said somewhere else in the article. Maybne this needs to be put together with this text. It would make sense to do so.--Hauskalainen (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, your latest revert[26] did nothing but put some vandalism back into this article. Slow down and think before you edit war. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen, it might be helpful at this point for you to be specific about what sourcing you base your claim that there is a common law right to arms which predates the duty to participate in militia and civil defense. We need to build this article by starting from the reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If there were no common law right to preserve one's own life then there would be no defense in law of "self-defense", because a right to self defense is not written anywhere in statute. Ergo it is a common law right. If there were no right to self defense and nobody attempted to defend themselves from assault using whatever came to hand (because it was illegal) then the consequences would be unthinkable. It is stupid of you even to argue that there is NO common law right of self defense. It has always existed and it is crazy beyond words that you should think that I would need a king's permission to arm myself in order to defend myself. --Hauskalainen (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The story of rulers disarming the general populace in order to 1)secure their position, or 2)make it easier to take the peoples stuff, or 3)both, is as old as man. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The argument that I must provide a reference for the common law right to keep arms for self defence is no different to asking me to provide a reference for the right that I have to keep milk in my refrigerator. There has been no law preventing me from keep milk in my refrigerator, nor is there a law preventing me from keeping an iron bar under my bed. I have a right to keep an iron bar under my bed just as much as I have a right to keep milk in my fridge. I can also walk down the street carrying milk just as freely as I can carrying an iron bar. The argument you are making is akin to saying that I have NO RIGHT to keep milk in my refrigerator because it has not been declared in some legal document (a law, a decree, or my nation's constitution). Because there is nothing in law to prevent my keeping something at home or carrying it with me does not make it illegal. The presumption is always one of legality unless some law or previous case declares it to be illegal.--Hauskalainen (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It really would be helpful if you could separate a discussion of what you personally believe from what we read in reliable sourcing. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Regarding your question about the personal liberties, keep in mind that the history behind the Second Amendment is older than the concept that people have liberty in a modern sense. The modern concept of liberty of people to have arms is generally thought to have emerged with the Enlightenment, specifically with the Glorious Revolution of 1689. Prior to that event, the modern concept of liberty didn't exist like we take for granted today. I believe that the article is attempting to give the appropriate coverage to this 1689 event. Except that I have problems with your reorganization earlier this week, because the passage discussing the Glorious Revolution is given redundant coverage, once at the beginning of the English History section, and again at the end. I preferred the previous sequencing, before your re-shuffle, which had the earlier times first and the later times later and had a more logical flow. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you assert that you had a right to keep ice cream in your refrigerator? I think you would. But can you provide a reference for that? Of course not! The very idea is ridiculous. We are not discussing my opinions but facts. Here is another. Many Americans I have come across seem to think that their "liberties" come from their constitution and that people in other countries do not have these "precious liberties". This is faintly ridiculous but I have heard it said so often that I think they really believe it to be true. The law in any country may restrict your liberties but nobody can grant you a liberty unless it has been previously been restricted. When Blackstone talks of "the natural right of resistance and self-preservation" he talking about the same thing that I am talking of. The natural right of resistance and self preservation is that which any human being would assert was a right if their life and liberty was in danger and which the courts have allowed as a defense in cases where extreme violence has been used to offset extreme violence in the other direction. If I am wrong here, what else could this refer to? It is clear that the reason parliament (in haste I might add) wrote elements that were very bad law (which parts of the Bill of Rights is, and so too the laws of succession of 1701) was because they lived in fear that their (existing) liberties might be taken away. The argument about positive rights has raged in England for a long time. The advantage of defining these rights in law is not that it grants a new right that did not previously exist but that it aims to prevent those things that we think of as rights from being taken away (such as the right to free speech, the right of assembly, and even the right to keep and bear arms. This was what the protestants feared. It does not mean that there was no right to free speech or free assembly etc. before these rights got written into law. That is the issue and it is why people had a right to keep and bear arms long before anyone legislated on the matter. The simple truth is that all rights have to be balanced. In England I have a right to free speech but others have a right not be verbally abused because of their race, religion, or sexuality. These rights conflict. Similarly you in America have a right to keep and bear arms, but it is severely constrained by other laws. One right does not outweigh all the other. They have to be balanced. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

We I understood your analogy about milk in the refrigerator the first time, no need to repeat it again. What is missing is that you are not giving the sources for your idea, as required by policy around here. Read about that policy here: WP:SOURCES, thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

We??? I don't think you did understand, because the purpose of the analogy is to show why it is unreasonable to expect me to find a source for the right to bear arms pre-dating any legislation in the area for the same reason that you would be unable find any references for the right I have to keep milk in my fridge. I have the right to keep milk in my fridge because there is no law to prevent it. So it was with bearing arms in ancient times. It is simply wrong for the article to imply as it did/does that there was no right (to have and use arms) before the Bill of Rights (in England) or indeed before the Second Amendment in the United States. The obligation is I think on the other foot. If there was a time when that liberty was lost, then it is for you to show that THAT happened. We already have reference to the specific case of hunting but the text in the article seemed to imply that there was no liberty before this time. For that to be so you would have to demonstrate when that happened (and how) from a reliable source. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I am only speaking for myself. I still have no comment on your personal opinion. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not opinion but the application of logic. If it helps yo,u think about positive and negative rights. The creation of an explicit right in law was an intention to create a so called negative right (the right NOT to be disarmed). I am no expert in US constitutional history but I am prepared to fight for the correct statement of English history. You can opine to your heart's content as to whether or not that was a reasonable thing. The English and American laws actually diverged rather than converged with the passing of the Second Amendment because until then there was a general liberty to keep and bear arms to defend oneself, one's family, and one's country (with a few exceptions), a liberty very important when there were no forces there to keep the peace. The departure came because (despite attempts in the wording to the contrary) parliament in England can simply overturn the English Bill of Rights (though it may not have done so) whereas Congress alone cannot do so. Indeed a supermajority is needed to do so. Furthermore judges in England can and do re-interpret the law irrespective of what is written in legislation. It is highly unlikely that a Catholic these days would be denied the right to a defense of a general right to arms for example. English judges will, when seeking an equitable decision, look at recent legislation on equality, human rights, and dangerous weapons such as guns, knives, and nuclear or biological materials and the role of the police in civil society when interpreting any claimed rights. I am not sure, but I suspect that lawyers in the U.S. would be looking primarily at previous constitutional law decisions which are much more difficult to overturn than any similar situation in English law. Two very different outcomes from similar wording placed in different contxts.--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Logic indicates that if Bamba, the tribes chief, took away the spears of the tribes hunters, he would shortly thereafter cease to be chief, and possibly cease to have a head based on the hunters severing the connection between said head and the normally attached body, or cease to have his normal quota of blood, or both. And there you have the origin of the common law right to arms.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place that has rules. One of the rules is that we are not allowed to use original ideas in our edits, but that we must limit editing to what we read in reliable secondary sourcing. Neither is the talk page the place to discuss our personal ideas because discussion of personal matters is disruptive. See the policies WP:V, WP:NOR and the guideline WP:TALK. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Rules for article content do not apply to discussion pages. The discussion here is on the origin of the common law right to arms. I added my two bits to that discussion.96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Salty - the simple fact is that it is YOU that is defending the position that the "right" developed from an obligation and that before this there was no right. That is actually quite contrary to the majority of what Malcolm says (if you read her carefully and in full), but yes, in one place, she does seem to say that it did develop from an obligation. She is clearly referring to early references in the law to "arms". It is clear to me that reading Malcolm as a whole you must accept that there was a GENERAL right arms before these laws came into force. This is confirmed also by the text of the Bill of Rights and by Blackstone which refers to guaranteeing or preserving rights (I can't immediately recall the precise wording). The simple truth is that people had a right (in the sense of a liberty) to bear arms (subject to precise allowances under law) before the passing of the Bill of Rights for the same reason that I have the right to keep milk in my fridge. One has a presumed freedom to act until that act has been declared unlawful. You can cite that small piece of Malcolm but against that has to come the entire weight of Malcolm's arguments, Blackstone, the Bill of Rights itself, and the sheer logic of the process of law formation. It is YOU that is in the weaker position in this argument. --Hauskalainen (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Guide me through this, I just don't see Malcolm making this point about a "GENERAL right to arms", which exact page numbers are you looking at? She seems loud and clear to be making the case that the right to bear arms was first a duty and then a right. Heck, it is right on page one of the book in the first sentence "it began as a duty". SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

England Section looking poor at this time

Too many people pushing for total control - is like too many cooks making the soup. It will taste like crap. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That's this article's history. I don't see that changing anytime soon. SMP0328. (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Why "looking poor"? I think it is now much shorter, with less focus on irrelevant issues. I am not seeking control but just a fair representation of the Second Amendment's English historical background which was set in a power struggle between King and Parliament, and a desire to limit the power of a King to withdraw the general right to have arms for defense. In America there was no doubt a similar desire to control the powers being vested in a new higher authority, the Federal government. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It reads like crap. Too many people with too many points of view who want this on top (prime real estate) versus that, (pushed by someone else) or that other thing (pushed by yet a third person). After adding a few minor points, and seeing the battle I can't see wasting any of my time on that section, as next week anything I add will probably end up gone, due to collateral damage.

A pretty house can still look good even if not maintained, an ugly house on the other hand is ugly no matter how much paint you slap on it. The English section is currently an ugly house.96.237.120.38 (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to see the ugly, pretend you never saw it before and are looking at it for the first time. UGLY!96.237.120.38 (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this. Here is my suggestion for a revision of the text.

The Second Amendment is a variation of text in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which says the following:

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law

At various times in the run up to, during, and after the English Civil War, militias on either side had disarmed both Protestants and Catholics. The war itself did not end with a full resolution of the conflicts between the Monarch and the Parliament until Glorious revolution and the enactment of the English Bill of Rights, which amongst other things reserved the right of Protestants to retain arms suitable for their defense. This was not a new right, but was a way of forcing the monarchy to regard this as reserved the right which the Monarchy could not take away.

In the American context, Americans remained fearful that the congress would assume powers over them in much the same way as the English monarch had tried to exert powers over Parliament. The words of the Second Amendment were this borrowed from the English Bill of Rights (which was seen as being very important to both Englishmen and Americans) but modified to show that the people reserved their rights to have arms which they regarded as essential for the formation of Militias to defend the states. Hence the wording

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

The Supreme Court in Heller (see below) confirmed that the right to keep arms existed in English law prior to the passing of the Second Amendment and that therefore the right to arms was a personal one and not restricted to the militia. As in the case of English Bill of rights, the declartion is an affirmation and a reservation of a pre-existing right and not the creation of a new right.

In England, in the particular case of firearms, controversy arose in the context of hunting and long before the Bill of Rights, laws had been passed to restrict the ownership of guns to the landed aristocracy and those working for them "in order to preserve the game". Mere posession of a firearm without legitimate justification could result in sanction under law. Notwithstanding this, English law has always allowed a person the right of self defense to preserve life and to use arms for this purpose, subject only to a test of reasonableness as to their suitability and condition and their being allowed by law. The wording of the text in the English Bill of Rights was therefore not denying Catholics their general right to posesses arms for self defence nor did it repeal the earlier laws on the posession of guns for hunting. It did however create a reserved right for protestants, but as scholars have noted this was always subject to parliamentary revision. In practice, the English monarchy developed into its modern state of being a constitutional monarchy and parliament reigns supreme. The English Bill of Rights remains important constitutionally therefore not for its impact on rights to arms (which in practice changed very little) but for the impact it had on the powers of parliament over the monarchy. Therefore parliament has been free to leigislate on matters relating to certain classes of armaments such as knives, swords and guns without repealing the Bill of Rights explicity.

The advantage I see of this is that it points out that the Englishman's right to arms was long standing. It explains the similarity and the difference between the English and the American texts, and does so quite briefly. The links to other articles avoids loading too much background material into this article. I even included the reference to the guns issue for hunting, though neither the second amendment or the Bill of Rights discusses guns. The text above does not have references but they will be easy to find.

Comments please!--Hauskalainen (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

English history doesn't begin with the Glorious Revolution. The Assize of Arms and longbow is relevant showing that an obligation to practice archery skills turned into a right to have a longbow, which later evolved into a right to own firearms. The difference between the US and English forms of government also come into play. In England all rights are granted rights (sometimes granted at the point of a sword, like the Magna Carta, but still granted) from a higher power like the King or Parliament. In the US all governmental power is derived from the will of the people and all government officials are acting as representatives of the people. In the US, a deprivation of the right to arms for self defense, is akin to a hired guard disarming his employer, because the guard doesn't think the employer can be trusted. In England it is akin to the employer (the King and later Parliament) disarming his household staff (the people - serfs). What are the chances that Heller would have won his case, if he was in Engalnd?96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Following (not a "reliable source" but still indicative)on the Peasants Revolt of 1381

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/peasants_revolt.htm

1. After the Black Death, many manors were left short of workers. To encourage those who had survived to stay on their manor, many lords had given the peasants on their estates their freedom and paid them to work on their land. Now, nearly 35 years after the Black Death, many peasants feared that the lords would take back these privileges and they were prepared to fight for them.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Did I say that English history began with the Glorious revolution? We are only discussing English history in connection with the Second Amendment. What you are saying might be relevant to a discussion about arms in England but the Second Amendment is about te right to Arms in America. The simple fact is that the rght to arms is an ancient one, it was an established right in England and became declared again explicitly in the English Bill of Rights for a particular reason and then got written the American Bill of Rights in a slightly different way for a slightly different reason. The Bill of Rights (English or American) is not about militaty service or feudalism, or the black death. You offer no evidence for your claim that there is a big difference between America and England about how rights originate. In fact what you are saying is something of an urban myth. The American system of Law is based on the English. Both countries have a constitution, and contrary to popular belief, both are written down. The English constitution as it has emerged from the 17th and 18th centrury is arguably more flexible and more democratic than the American one. We do not have a situation in England where a single line in a constitution written two centuries ago can be used to resolve issues almost unimginable at the time it was written and one which no doubt have the founding fathers twisting in their graves. Such as the right to free speech being used to allow the distribution of pornography into the home at the speed of light and whether a corporation (almost unheard of at the time) with reserves of wealth far greater than that of the average real person can use that wealth to attempt to sway public opinion at election time. Or that the fate of a child not yet born should be decided on the right to privacy and which now cannot be changed by the normal process of legal reform. I am not aware that the English constitution gets itself into these knots. The American one does all the time. Anyway the main point is that discussions of laws regaring longbows, obligations to defend the community, historical forms of government and the Black death all have their place in Wikipedia. But not here because they are not strictly relevant to the topic at hand. --Hauskalainen (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be OK if you could cite a reliable reference connecting the Assize of Arms or issues regarding longbows to the American Bill of Rights or the English one. Heller's case could not arise in England.

You asked me about the UK and the decicion in Heller. The Supreme Court's ruling was that "...(DC's) ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense". That could not be brought in England because Parliament, representing the people, has already determined that in balancing the freedom to carry arms and the risk of death or serious injury arising from the posession of handguns, that licences for handguns should be issued only in very exceptional circumstances. That was a lawful and democratic decision made a parliament elected in the last 15 years in which all adults over the age of 18 were eligible to vote. It was not decided by an unelected group of people (a body of judges) interpreting a declaration made by a bunch of men 200 years ago that was not manadated even by vast numbers of the US population at that time (women, slaves, men under the age of 25) let alone the majority of the people in modern times. I think the English law is more representative of the collective spirations of the people. But that is just my opinion.--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

What I am saying is that, as you put it, no Parliament can control the actions of a future Parliament. Parliament considers itself "top dog" and the "source" of power. In the US the "source" of power are the people. The individual states are required to go to the people for changes to the state constitutions and the US government is required to go tot he states for changes to the US Constitution. The point I am trying to make is, "where does ultimate power" reside. In England, it is Parliament and in the US, it is the people. In the US any law "repugnant" to the Constitution is "null and void".In England there is no constitution and the Bill of Rights can be changed at the whim of Parliament.96.237.120.38 (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of claims that the Bill of Rights was a victory of one class over another

I deleted text which made this general claim. It appears tc conflict greatly with what was said in the Heller case settled by the Supreme court of the United States. This is that the right to Arms in England was not amended at all by the English Bill of Rights (see recent discussions above about the legal decision by the Supreme Court in the Heller case).

I therefore tried to follow the references. The reference in Conde cites as his source Michael A. Bellesiles for the claim that Parliament voted for the disarming of Catholics immediately after the Bill of Rights was passed. I can find no evidence this anywhere, but I did discover that Michael Bellesiles had to resign his professorship and had a prize he had been awarded revoked. I found this article http://hnn.us/articles/1185.html which describes the shocking allegations that Bellesiles regulary misquotes and transposes intent in his use of references. My questions over Bellessiles is his claim that Parliament voted after the passage of the Bill of rights to disarm Catholics. To my knowledge this is nonsense and given doubts over his credibility I think that we should disregard this opinion. The second citation only gives a page number of a book that I do not have access to. But in any case, this is in total conflict with opinion recently given by the highest court in the United States. Given the lack of detail about the claim that Schwoerer is of the opinion that the Bill of Rights was somehow one class of people lording it over another class of people I have taken the liberty to delete both claims. Our purpose is to inform our readers about the true nature of the English law and both claims seem to be widely off the mark.--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The Supreme Court rules on US law, but they don't rule on history. (Especially with a highly contentious opinion which has been widely ridiculed in the major university law reviews.) For history we read third party reliable sources. Ditto for what you call "to my knowledge", no, you should point to third party reliable sources. Reliable sources per WP:V. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Bellesiles is lying scum. His peers said so. Material that is even partially based on his work, unless supported by other sources, should not be in the article.96.237.120.38 (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Explain these reverts please...

Hauskalainen recently did two reverts which need explanation, see [27] and [28]. Both of these reverts serve to advance Hauskalainen personal point of view, and appear to violate WP:NPOV policy. Both of these reverted edits were attempt to reflect the balance of the POV fairly, and both were sourced to reliable sources. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I dispute the "personal opinion" barb but I'll gladly explain why I reverted them.

The first one points to Malcolm and actually repeats your preferred opinion that this was an obligation that developed into a right. As I have said to you before this clearly does not represent that Malcolm says as a whole because in other places in the text she clearly accepts that there was a pre-existing right to arms. I can give you many examples. If you dare to challenge this I will make you look stupd. Do you dare me to do this?

The second reversion was because you are conflating connection and relevance. That thyey are connected is pretty much undoubted. Whether there is any relevance to looking back at the English law to undertand the American is the point that the citation makes. This is not the same as the text edit you made which implies that experts do not agree whether the American text has any antecedence in the English text.

Honestly Salty, you are now totally exposed (in my mind at least) as a total fraudulent editor trying to push a POV. (See the other section I added recently). And yes this is not really in the spirit of Wikipedia regarding civility but there are limits to every editor's patience. --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the 'personal opinion' seeming like a barb. I wrote that because you did not make your edit based on arguments made from third party reliable sourcing. See WP:V and WP:NOR. Lacking your sourcing, your edits appeared personal. We obviously disagree. My I suggest that we discuss this based on what we read in reliable sourcing? Both of those edits came from ideas found in high quality third party reliable sourcing. I know you dispute me, but do you dispute that what I wrote accurately conveyed what is seen in the sourcing?

I dispute that Malcolm really believes what you say she believes. You have taken one small quote from her book that appears to support your argument and ignored a huge swathe of what she writes which shows that to be a false representation. I have no doubt from your edit history that you are more widely read on this than me. And I have little doubt from the structure of your reply that you know that I am right and you are wrong. Just because an edit carries no citation does not make it personal opinion or original research. The civil thing to do in such a case is to ask for a citation for things that are obvious (especially to well informed editors). I am always ready to cite because I don't make things up. I am as guilty of being mis-informed as the next man (as I was on the issue of hunting restrictions and rifles) but I am always happy to admit when I have made a mistake. Do you STILL argue that Malcolm believes that the right "developed from an obligation" or are you man enough to admit that her other writings acknowledge that having arms was always a right? --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Concerning Footnotes, Format, and Flaming

While there exists no policy forbidding lengthy footnotes, I believe that most information should appear in the article and quotations should only be used to justify a particular stance, not as an area for potpourri and factoids. If you make a statement that such and such is this way, then put a reference to the page in the book where this material may be found, it adds an air of superfluity to then repeat the same point with a quote from the book, especially if multiple sources make the exact same point. Moreover, if you enter a quote in-text, it is highly burdensome to then place a paragraph worth of additional quotations in the footnote tangentially related to the quoted material. Lastly, if you quote a court case, the ruling justifies the statement. There is no imperative to write out exactly what the ruling says in a footnote, especially if the quote is exceptionally long and contains numerous formatting errors, including inconsistent quotation marks, formatted ellipses, etc. If the quote is exceptionally enlightening, either place it directly in the text, or else place it in the footnote, including the most relevant point while excluding unnecessary text using ellipses and brackets.

As for the new formatting changes, I am simply following the formatting found in featured articles. It may be a tad tedious to make sure that your source isn't already listed in the reference section, but it makes the article look professional. As of now, not a single Amendment article is even rated good! That is appalling considering Canada's Charter of Freedom and India's analog Bill of Rights are both featured articles (though, I believe, they lack substance). In fact, not a single American legal article is a featured article. For this reason, I suggest we continue adding more detailed materials to this article, conscious of style and formatting, and move it toward feature status. Flaming over some decision by such and such judge in England concerning the Bill of Rights is a little silly. As I understand it, reference to a case wherein a point of view is expressed by a high-ranking judge, learned in a particular legal system, is not a point of view violation. The interpretation by the judge is, de jure, the officially correct interpretation, regardless of whether other scholars disagree. Their disagreements, however, ought to be addressed, but in an article more appropriate than an article about a different country.Andy85719 (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Except you have stripped out much more than potpourri and factoids. You have stripped out very much detail, explanatory material and convenience URL linking from the footnotes, and for no apparent reason other than "I believe that most information should appear in the article...". Fine. Except you deleted this information from footnotes and did not bother to put in in the article! Which is it? Net effect here is that you deleted very much useful information.

Your opinion about "a point of view is expressed by a high-ranking judge" doesn't seem to be based in policy either. There is a big difference between the holding of a ruling and the dicta of a ruling. It usually takes a expert to distinguish between the two. Further, judges rule only on law. In their dicta, judges sometimes also express opinion on history. That doesn't make a judge a historian. A judge cannot change history, for that we must check with historians. See Law Office History for another POV about how Scalia skewed history in this instance. We can report what Scalia's opinion of history was, but we can't report is as 'fact, as we need to also give equal time to other expert sourcing in disagreement. We need to follow NPOV policy and report both POV's fairly. The argument above is that Hauskalainen seems to think that the courts can determine the facts of history by edict. They can't. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 00:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the Obsession of Some to Clarify the Language of Article VII

It has become clear that some editors are driven to include language justifying the use of the word "protestant" within the context of (English Bill of Rights). These justifications, however, are often placed inappropriately and are not sourced properly, instead consisting of the editorial conclusions based on personal reasoning. Personal reasoning is not appropriate for articles included in Wikipedia when such reasoning is not supported by an independent credible sources. To those involved in the repeated introduction of unsupported materials, I urge you to either find support or remove such additions. Moreover, I urge everyone to ensure fluidity in all additions to this Article. Haphazard additions and cut-and-paste jobs are not acceptable in quality articles. Andy85719 (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am growing quite weary arguing that arguments must be supported by sources. I do not desire a flame war but I must insist we comply with Wikipedia article guidelines, of which citing sources for arguments is a critical component. Also, why must we elaborate so thoroughly on English gun right history for an article about the Second Amendment? Why must we ensure that we include long excerpts from the English Bill of Rights in order to justify the claim that protestant was not an exclusive term. Clearly, this is a position for which I have sources directly contradicting. I do not seek to argue the contrary, merely to provide a good, well-balanced coverage of necessary materials for this article. A book making the point you extensively develop in the unsourced additions and placed in bullet two of the distinctions list is most prudent. Andy85719 (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is troublesome that Hauskalainen keeps inserting his personal opinion into the article. We simply must follow the policies, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. To that end, we must start by examining what reliable third party sources say about this topic, then we must fairly represent each significant point of view in the article. What individual editors personally believe has not place here. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet}

I am quite happy to have opinion in the article, even as to two sides of a legal argument which the courts may have settled. But those opinions should not be presented in a way that obsures the settled opinion and where settled opinion has been reached they should be discussed together so that reader can see the whole argument. The reason for putting the English Bill of Rights (note! You should not refer to the element in question as "Article VII of the Declaration of Rights" because it is simply confusing because it is almost never called this) in its full context is because it exposes very clearly WHY the word "protestant" is mentioned and why it is NOT a denial of rights to other religions. If the "Scholars" that Salty (I think) referred to who believed otherwise had just taken the opportubity to read the thing fully it is highl unlikely that they could have made the observations that they did. Either they are scholars because they attended high school or they are just repeating the wrongful assertions that were made in the "myths" I mentioned above. I am happy for these people to be shown up as ignorant in the article and it is wrong to say that I am just adding my personal opinion. As I have said, I am more than willing to find sources to back up that which I write, which, I would argue,has much more clarity and integrity than anything that was in the section I have been editing on an off (mostly off) for a year or so now. As Salty has been a regular contributor and has even been trying to resist the addition of clarity (on the spurious grounds that they are POV or unsourced or improperly sourced) he must bear a some responsibility for this. As I say, I am willing to take matters to arbitration and I am willing to provide references and discuss the adequacy of any references that have been added. All you need to do is to put a citation request in the article or discuss the matter here. I am not superman and unlike some editors here I am not working full-time editing this article. How you guys can do this makes me wonder sometimes. I am trying to be constructive in these matters. I see that Salty prefers just to regard my observation above about the "myths" that have been spun here in the past as cranky. Well, fortunately we have the history of the article and the edits that have got it to the stage where it was whenit was telling those myths. It will be a simple matter to show how this has been done. (Though it will take a lot of time). The fundamental truth of the matter I think will be clear to any reasonably well educated person. On the topic of third party sources, this is usually needed when the veracity of source documentation could be in doubt or where this is room for doubt about how to interpret the content. I do not think that can be said to apply for example in the clear statement of legal opinion given in writing by Supreme Court judges in fairly plain English, or even the content of the preamble to the declarations in the English Bill of Rights (despite the unfamiliar spelling). The WP rules on third party sourcing are not as strict as Salty seems to make them out to be. --Hauskalainen (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If we have disagreement about the rules, let's consult with the policy talk page(s) to seek clarification. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I lost you when you wrote "obsures the settled opinion", followed by more of your personal opinion and zero references. What is "settled opinion"? Point to third party reliable sourcing when you answer. These sources should say the opinion, and say it is settled. Stick to third party sources, (avoid primary), and cite specific page numbers in books please. Thanks! SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Settled opinion? Take the example of whether the references to "Militia" in the second amendment was meant to imply that only those that serve in the Militia have a right to bear arms or whether it means that in order to be able to form Militia that the people had to have the right to be armed and that the right to arms for self defense is more widely held. This is now settled opinion. It has been discussed by the only authority empowered to consider the issue and that opinion has been given. The article must clearly state the settled opinion and in discussing discussing how that settled opinion wa arrived at discuss the alternative opinions. We must not be allowed to confuse personal opinion with settled opinion. The Nazis (and in reality probably only some of them) believed that people of arian descent were superior to those from Africa or the Middle East. But we cannot allow WP to preesent this as though the opinions of the Nazis have equal value to the opinions of others. We cannot allow ourselves to take the opinions of a minority and try to give it equal status on the grounds that we have to represent ALL opinions. We have to reflect all MAJOR opinions as well as being clear about what the settled opinion is.--Hauskalainen (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we disagree whether the Supreme Court of the United States gets to trump policy here at Wikipedia. Here at Wikipedia our policy is to include all significant points of view. I don't think that the SCOTUS gets to tell us otherwise. Further, I think your perception of "settled opinion" is wrong. The last time I checked, the only thing binding in US Court decisions was the holding, in other words the ratio decidendi. This thing you called "settled opinion" is not the holding of the court, but it is merely the opinion of the court, in other words the obiter dictum. In the United States the obiter dictum is not binding, and therefore your idea about "settled opinion" seems fanciful. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of POV and OR in this so-called edit correction

Maybe my original edit was not clear. Let me expand on the point that I wished to raise in this piece of text. And it goes back to the myths I spoke about earlier with regard to which of these two positions is correct,

(a) that the Second Amendment created a new right,

or

(b) whether it was an affirmation of an existing right.

If (b) is correct, then the American right is similar to the English right

Furthermore there are two other related issues (though I cannot I recall if this was in an earlier court's settled opinion in this or another case) as to

(c) whether the right is so fundamental that it applied to everyone

or

(d) whether the States can modify it through legislation (for example exluding felons or the insane from the right to have certain weapons.

If (d) is correct, then the States' situation is similar to parliament's in the UK - it can modify the right. I suspect though that it is not as simple as this. (I see from the judgment that the court found that the carrying of handguns is Americans preferred means of exercising their right to self defense and that it was wrong in principle for DC to seek to ban that ownership of that class of weapon). That certainly is a nig difference between the UK and the US because almost nobody carries a gun in the UK, not even the police (except in rare situations and at sensitive places such as ports of entry or near foreign embassies).

and finally also the issue of the words relating to the militia settled the argument

(e) was the right to arm pertinent only to those serving in the militia in the context of that service ?

or

(f) was the right intended to be for everyone (subject perhaps to due restictions on qualification?

If (f) is correct then the situation in the U.S. again resembles that in England

So first of all, am I right that it has been settled that (b) (d) and (f) are the settled positions and that all were decided in Heller? And if so, how can we best express that simply in the article (pointing out the similarities to the English law) without repeating all that is contained in the lower sections on Heller?

Comments please!--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "decided in Heller" is not true. The decision of Heller was the Ratio decidendi, the holding, quoting verbatim: "...we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." It is also the case that there is a large amount of rationalization and reasoning written in Heller that we can read and try to make sense of. Those writings are considered merely Obiter dictum, non-binding opinion. I accept that some people like you think that non-binding opinion decides the matter of history. There are many experts that disagree with you, quoting just a few:"an act of (self?)-deception or conscious fraud", "a hollow sham"[29], "patently erroneous"[30], "simply foolish"[31] and "rife with absolutist rhetoric"[32]. The response from legal experts and well known historians has been scathing dismissal of Heller as being self-absorbed "law office history"[33]. Certainly, the matter of the "true meaning" of history was not settled with Heller. The only thing that was settled was the holding, which involved prohibition of an operable firearm for the purpose of immediate self-defense in homes in the District of Columbia. To say much beyond that takes editor interpretation, which we can't do per policy. For that we need third party reliable sourcing and neutrality balance. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

My Goodness! What is going on here? Why are people using unsourced opinion and moving the article into non-sensical sequences? Why are people still arguing over the ruling in Heller? Why can't the section on English history contain fact only without distorted blathering about squinting one's eyes and "clearly seeing" something to be true? Outrageous! It is so discouraging that, instead of improving the article, people are destroying it with point of view and original research garbage. Likewise, it does no good to repeatedly attack the ruling in Heller without acknowledging that it is the ruling. The law is the law is the law, reasonableness notwithstanding. Both of you need to cool it with the attacks and reverts and blighting of the article. Include both views and move on. Andy85719 (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't thing any of those law review articles have attacked the ruling of Heller, in other words, "the holding". The holding is simply the holding. Those experts are criticizing the obiter dictum, the reasoning given to support the ruling. There is a huge difference between the holding and the dicta. It is sloppy for editor's here to confuse the two. The reality is that there is a large quantity of reliable sourcing that questions the reasoning behind Heller, we must face that fact. I strongly support including all the significant POV's that are seen in third party reliable sourcing, fairly and neutrally, so I don't understand how you can say I do not. I do oppose original research, or POV imbalance. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet}

Let's see if can find any agreement. I will outline my understanding of the issue. The right to bear arms existed under (unwritten) common law and became the received law of the American colonies at the time of settlement. The Bill of Rights 1689, which as imperial law was binding on the U. S. colonies, confirmed this right, at least for some subjects. The common law and the imperial law continued in effect in the U. S. following independence although the former colonies and Congress had the power to repeal to restrict them. Some states and the U. S. incorporated versions of the right to bear arms into their constitutions. The actual meaning of the right and the power of U. S. legislatures to restrict it has never been resolved. Although D. C. v. Hitchens Heller addressed some issues, a lot of the interpretation remains unsettled law. While S. C. decisions are binding on lower courts, it is not a reliable source for understanding legal history. TFD (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be more simple if you were to point to third party reliable sourcing, we shouldn't care about (as you put it...) "my understanding" . It has been frustrating for weeks now, but no one yet has pointed to a third party reliable sourcing that says "right to bear arms existed under (unwritten) common law". When you read the most well known book on this topic: Joyce Lee Malcolm's (1996). To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674893077; the year 1689 is marked as the date of the origin of the right. In that book she describes at length that the origin of "the right" occurred in 1689 with the English Bill of Rights. Also, there is huge disagreement in the third party reliable sourcing if the right to "have arms" is synonymous with the right to "bear arms". Prior to 1689, Malcolm explains in detail in that book, the issue of "having arms" was a duty to the crown for citizen police and militia duty. I am not sure what you are speaking of when you say "D.C. v. Hitchens" I am guessing that you 'typo' meant to say DC v. Heller. And, yes, the opinion of the court is simply opinion. The court doesn't get to change history by ruling, they merely get to comment on history. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur SaltBoatr. I wasn't referring to you when I attacked revisions, I was referring to a certain other editor that constantly places unsourced material into the English history section and says we need to look at context, dicta, blah, etc. Usually this material is a regurgitation of Heller, which had, until I began deleting footnotes, been hidden at the bottom of the page. Although I agree with the Heller ruling, I too am unwilling to use the ruling to justify a historical argument. I am certain, however, that such material exists, and, given enough research, may be brought to bear in this article. Andy85719 (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence that it was a natural right. Blackstone refers to it as such and says it was merely being restated in the Bill of Rights. We have another author (a British one) who says that the Bill of Rights actually changed very little. We have a British parliamentary library briefing for members of parliament which says that the Bill of Rights is NOT what a modern bill of rights is.. i.e. a declaration of fundamental rights which supercedes contrary laws (which is thee myth that you are trying to portray). And we have the very text of the Bill of Rights itself which makes it about as clear as it could be that it was about the anger of parliament with the former King having disarmed them and allowed Catholics to remain armed and it reinstating that right. We have Scalia in his judgment (rightly) referring to the fact that this was a negative right (one that stops someone from denying that right) enforceable against the Crown only and not against parliament (which could do as it liked). You cannot have it both ways by declaring that there was no right to arms before the Bill of Rights when the Bill of Rights ITSELF makes clear that is not true. Malcolm claims that the wording was somehow fuddled to make it LOOK like there was a right in existence before this time, but she offers no credible explanation for this. Elsewhere she recognises the fact there was a natural right to arms so this reference to previous rights and the the right in the Bill of Right can only refer to the right against the crown. There clearly WAS a right in common law to have arms for self defense. This is what the colonists were demanding and why they were angry when the Crown tried to disarm them. As I have said before, IF there was no right of man to arm himself for his self defense that would create a crazy situation in which an illegally armed person could go around at will killing legally unarmed people. British law even today does allow the right to be armed for self defense, but in its wisdom it has decided that there are certain weapons that are so lethal that it is in the best interest of society as a whole that they should not be in private hands, whether it be a potentially mass murder weapon as plutonium or a sub-machine gun, or something as deadly but less of a mass murder weapon such as a hand gun. I am at liberty to use legal arms to defend my life. What you are simply trying to do is to re-tell the myths that I have outlined. That these are "myths" is not just my "personal belief"; they are demonstrably true. --Hauskalainen (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen writes "they are demonstrably true". Then demonstrate it by pointing to reliable third party sourcing. Further, you need to demonstrate that they are the only point of view, otherwise, we need to neutrally describe that they are just one of the significant points of view. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 12:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

In the colonies the right to arms was a pre-existing rights not connected to any obligation to serve in the militia. The US Bill of Rights protects that pre-existing right. Madison did NOT create that right and in fact he was against a Bill of Rights, wanting the Constitution passed "as is" without a Bill of Rights.96.237.120.38 (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Saltyboatr, I did not quote RS because I wanted to know first what were the points of dispute. TFD (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Joyce Lee Malcolm's view (1996) is that the "right to bear arms" was actually an obligation of citizens to protect themselves, their neighbours and their country at a time when there were no police or standing armies, and was only elevated to a right by the Bill of Rights 1689. She also states that there is no evidence that the right existed in common law. Blackstone however said it did. The right to bear arms was an issue in "Bacon's Rebellion" (1676), and written about by Helen Hill Miller in The case for liberty (1965). (I do not have a copy of this book.) Since this article must be based on RS, my suggestion is to accept Malcolm's view until and unless current reliable sources are found that contradict it. The types of sources required are difficult to find, and we may benefit from an expert. Whether or not such a right existed under common law however, it was not an unalienable right, but an auxiliary right (per Blackstone). TFD (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Warning!

This is a direct warning to all those engaging in editing that attempts that...

1. seek to re-write history by the false presentation of material. In particular making it seem that the history of the right to keep and bear arms in England was that it developed out out of an obligation to bear arms and that the right only fully came into being and with a proviso that it only applied to protestants and only came into effect with with the passing of the English Bill of Rights. (At best this is a WP:POV position which needs to balanced.)

2. downplay or worse, seeks to delete, material references in the article which points to multiple examples showing that the right to arms in England was

A. personal,

B. was a a right in common law,

C. applied equally to protestants and catholics and

D. applied both before and after the passing of the English Bill of Rights.

(deletion and downplaying of this material is tantamount to writing the article in a way to portray the one POV that the editors would wish the readership to know about and keep them from seeing alternative POVs. This is contrary to Wikipedia policy.)

I also wish to warn editors that some of them are engaging in gaming the system which says that "Playing games with policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of communal consensus, or thwart the intent and spirit of policy, is strictly forbidden."

If this behavior continues their actions will be reported forthwith to the administrators.--Hauskalainen (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

We have a dispute. (Disputes are not unheard of between editors editing important and potentially contentious articles, especially ones that invoke personal passion like this one.) Wikipedia has guidelines about how to resolve disputes. I am 100% committed to work through and resolve this dispute. Will you agree to do this too? The guidelines about how to resolve disputes is found here: WP:Dispute Resolution. Let's begin. Starting at the beginning. Speaking for myself, no I am not opposed to the point of view you describe. My problem all along is that you are making this point based on your own personal research of centuries old primary documents. Stop doing that. Start using third party reliable sources. Start doing that and this dispute can be resolved. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course I am prepared to go to dispute resolution. Actually I would welcome it. I even suggested this myself early (my references to arbitration). You know exactly what I mean by the re-writing of history. I explained it well enough earlier in the context of the "myths" as I have labelled them. It would help if you stopped engaging in using WP policies to game the process for your own purposes. In particulat suggest you begin by re-reading this section regarding editors who cite Wikipedia policies (such as the rules on secondary referencing and original research as you just did above) when you know that the wider issue is that I am accusing you (and other editors) of is misusing those policies to defeat the proper purpose of Wikipedia which is to inform the reader of the truth and where there are differences of opinion as to what the truth is, to present these fairly and neutrally. Your calling my actions "personal research" and implying that my sources are somehow suspicious or ineligible is NOT acceptable behavior. If I can get you to accept that all I am trying fairly and honestly to get the article to represent a balanced view of English history then we can move forward. Otherwise I will report you and the other editors of trying to use Wikipedia policies to subvert the main aim of Wikipedia.

Now for my part I am fully willing to admit that I have made accusations against you which are not in accordance with WP:AGF. In particular my making it known publicly my personal belief that there is actually a cabal of editors here who SEEM to be furiously working to maintain the article and in their representing different shades of opinion. To the casual outside it seems that the article is being well maintained by a group of disconnected editors. My suspicion is that in fact, this too and fro is a sham and collectively they are working together to keep the overall content favorable to a certain POV. The English history section has been an example of this. I can't comment for sure about the other sections. An example of what they do is to make life very difficult for editors outside of this cabal to do what they are supposed to do - i.e. to join in and edit the article to make it more perfect. They have a deliberate policy when a new editor comes along. This is to have at least one editor from the cabal to side with them (at least at first) and another one who obstructs. The obstructive ones make life difficult by reversing edits or re-writing them in a way they they can be later modified again and again so that in the end the text and intent of the original author is lost. This process continues until the new editor gets fed up and goes away and leaves it in the hope that the other editor (who seemingly sides with him/her) will carry on the cause.Or they force a page protection claiming that an edit war is in progress with the aim of freezing the article in their preferred status. In the worst case, the "friendly" editor turns against the outside editor and leaves him without support. And then "voilá!" the cabal wins.

So what happens next? Are you going to help me get this English history section into a fair shape? (cos I am not giving up yet!) Or shall I expose your games in the last few days and my other suspicions to the Adminsitrators? I should say at this point that I am so "paranoid" (I think that is the term you would use) that your cabal has at least one or two Administrators "friendly" to your cause (I have met them here in cyberspace) that I will insist that a way is found to prevent an adminstrator from nominating him or herself to the task of reviewing the issues and making a recommendation on how to proceed. The choice is yours. --Hauskalainen (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Great, see below. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

If this behavior continues their actions will be reported forthwith to the administrators. Speaking as a newly minted administrator, I'd greatly prefer it if you could resolve this without administrators getting involved ;-) I've been following the edits here for a few days (the article popped up over at WP:RFPP) and I have to say I've seen far, far worse content disputes - you all seem intelligent, capable editors. I'd suggest continuing discussion here, maybe consider asking for outside opinions at relevant WikiProjects, and - if necessary - consider dispute resolution. By posting here, I've made myself "involved", so please don't expect me to protect the article or block any of you - I won't! However, while I really don't feel admin involvement is required, I'm happy to offer my services as an editor. TFOWR 16:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

By all means watch and learn. But as you say, its best not to join in. I'd insist on several admins nominating a third who has never been involved in disputes over this or a related article. As you say, you kind of nominated yourself so it would not be appropriate. --Hauskalainen (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution - formal or through TALK?

Hauskalainen agreed to dispute resolution and asked "what is next?" Please look at the procedure then. Click here ==> WP:Dispute Resolution <==. You see it is a multi-step process, please read it. It starts simple and escalates if the simple steps don't work. The first three steps are: 1.1) Focus on content, 1.2) Stay cool and 1.3) Discuss with the other party.

So, let me start by acknowledging you and thanking for your efforts at conciliation above where you discuss WP:AGF. Please try to trust me that I am not part of a Cabal. At heart, my problem with this dispute is that the edits you are trying to make do not come from reliable third party sources. If only you could please use reliable third party sources I believe that our dispute could easily be solved. Please reconsider your approach here, and try to use reliable third party sources. I am open to hear your answer: Do you have a reason why you can't use reliable third party sources? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Er ... my "what happens next?" was followed by a choice for you to make. Were you going to help me get this English history section into a fair shape? Or did you want me to to go with my suspicions directly to the Administrators? It was not an open invitation to go straight to formal dispute resolution which I think would be crazy until we have had all the issues out on the table and discussed here first. Frankly we have not been able to get on to doing that because you simply dismiss the issues I have as fanciful, personal opinion, and without any foundation and so far have refused to engage with me over them. For us to work together you have to first stop treating me like that. I am prepared to work co-operatively with you. I need to provide references, from valid sources, all within the rules. As do you. And we need to agree a way to present the issues fairly and without undue weight to just once view of the world. If we can do this then we may be able to agree an overall shape for the English history section and how to present the valid views that we have determined exist. Then we write the text. Simply battling in the article space is a waste of time. We need to sort out our issues here and invite as many editors that have edited this article in the past as we can - perhaps going back as far as 3 or more years. In that way we avoid having other editors coming along and unpicking it all later. What do you say to that?

If you don't agree to giving me proper respect and show willingness to co-operate then the issue of dispute resolution will not be about English History. I'd prefer not to do that but I will if the option of using TALK to thrash out the issues does not work. It's your choice. --Hauskalainen (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your question about "...other editors coming along and unpicking it all later", sorry that is a problem some times. I remind you that every time you click "Save Page" when you edit the article you agree to the "terms of use" and with your click you acknowledge the warning "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. ". You were warned of the problem that your writing would be edited, sorry if you didn't read the fine print. That said, feel free to invite old editors if you want.SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I know this - of course - and that is precisely why I want the other editors to know about this and contribute. Endless editing and re-editing is what the cabal does. --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I ask: I want to be able to corroborate what you claim by reading it in a book. Point to that book please. It isn't acceptable to me to only read what you claim here on this talk page. And, no, I do not want to be interpreting 200 year old books. Nor, do I want to be told by you how to properly interpret 200 year old books. Fortunately, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of contemporary scholarly books written on this topic. Any idea worth including in this article is written in those books. So, your ideas should be confirm-able by reading books. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I will not be bound by your rules. You do not make the rules for Wikipedia. There are many sources available. Laws are a good primary source and their nature makes them a good and valid primary source (it is not true that ONLY secondary sources are compatible with Wikipedia policy). Even 200 year old books. I suspect (though I have not checked) that you may have referred to 200 year old documents yourself. We can leave interpretation to the reader. --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Not my rules, just following WP:Policy is all I ask. WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. If you are going to use primary sources, avoid any interpretation, see WP:PSTS. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You write: "I need to provide references, from valid sources, all within the rules. " Good, do so now please. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I will do so. --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

When? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The answer to that question is "When I am ready". I have contacted an English academic lawyer for assistance on this one. I cannot guarantee that he will even answer my request or when he may da so if he is willing to help. I have done this because I don't see any point pulling together all the other information already available from the references within the article (from Malcolm and the opinion of the majority on the United States Supreme Court) that I have read that indicates that people had a common law (or natural law) right to arm themselves before the bill of rights lest there are other, (which no doubt you and others might choose to challenge on the basis of dodgy assertions like those of Malcolm) if there are easier and more reliable British sources to prove the point. Maybe in the meantime, whist I am working on gathering irrefutable proof that there WAS a pre-existing right have arms for self and collective defence before the Bill of Rights (and hopefully demonstrable too before the Norman conquest when the modern system or recording laws came into being) perhaps you will be kind enough to show WHEN it occurred and HOW it occurred that the English ever LOST the right to use arms for their defence. This I believe is the case that YOU are trying to defend (as per the myths I have outlined previously). You had better be prepared to substantiate it my friend. It is no good you just citing Malcolm unless Malcolm too can substantiate her claims. The claim has to be founded on SOMETHING or else it is worthless. We know that Catholics and others were carrying arms before the Bill of Rights. Why was that not illegal? We know that landowners had firearms and could use them to shoot game. Whay was that not illegal? Why pass laws restricting possession of guns to "preserve the game" if those people had no rights to guns anyway? Your argument that there were no rights to arms would, had it been true, not have needed the passing of such a law restricting them. It only makes sense if they DID have a right to use them BEFORE the law restricting use for hunting was passed. Something for you to think about.--Hauskalainen (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

My 2 bits, SB's objections to 200 year old books means that he objects to Blackstone's Commentaries, which are close to 250 years old. I for one strongly object to any attempt to remove references from Blackstone's Commentaries from the article.96.237.120.38 (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

My objection is to the editor interpretation of these centuries old source documents. There is plenty of scholarly third party reliable sourcing discussing those books, and I support the use of that to include all significant points of view. I am simply opposed to editor original research. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I am already aware that what is plainly evident, if not crystal clear, to an educated person, is as clear as mud to you. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Even if you are correct that I am dumb like mud, there still is no apparent reason to not improve the article by using third party secondary sources. Just because the point can be made using interpretation of primary sources doesn't mean that the point must be made that way. I suspect your same point could easily be made using third party reliable sources. Why don't you do that? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

And if a Primary source does a better job of illustrating a point, why not use that primary source? Why should we use an inferior secondary source that some second rate historian made up? Care to find a source that explains how the right to arms is militia based when at least one colonial government refused, even during wartime, to organize a militia? 96.237.120.38 (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Answering your question #1: Wikipedia is not about making a point. Question #2: Because using third party reliable sources is what we do here. Question #3: I am not totally familiar with the history of the Pennsylvania militia during the Revolutionary War, but there sure seems to have been an active militia from Pennsylvania around that time[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] There was the issue of the politically powerful Quakers advocating for pacifism. It looks like the answer to your question might be found in this paper[42] by Nathan Kozuskanich. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 03:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

1: If wikipedia is not about making a point, then why are you arguing so hard on behalf of the discredited militia based theory of the right to arms? 2:Not completely true. Here we use all sources in the manner allowed by wiki rules. Those sources are not limited to just 3rd party sources. 3: Those militias was not sponsored by the colonial government because the Quakers objected. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Answering your questions: 1) The reason is that I am arguing on behalf of including all significant points of view seen in the reliable sourcing. I am not arguing just for my personal point of view, therefore I am not trying to make a point. I am trying to give fair coverage to all the significant points of view. 2) See WP:V which states prominently Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; while there are limited exceptions, the fundamental policy here is: reliable third party sources. 3) I don't care much about your speculation about Quakers and militia, unless you can point to sourcing for your idea, I have no choice but to discount it as mere original research. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

1) I have yet to see post anything in favor of the individual right to arms. As a result you are making a point that the right is militia based. 2) Third party sources are not the only cites allowed by wikipedia policies. You constant attempts to get valid citations removed is at best tiresome. 3) Not speculation at all. Straight out of the Heller historians brief. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)