Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 19

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

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

Dispute over wording of the English History section.

Plainly we need to continue our work on this talk page in order to resolve our dispute through discussion, as opposed through revert war. I encourage that we negotiation the details by working out the details using the Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/english_history_sandbox sandbox section previously started. See the discussion above, but another editor suggested[1] that we start by working with the last stable version as the starting point, and I agree this is wise. Let's work through the details please. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 01:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not been absent from those discussions and actually initiated quite a few of them. --Hauskalainen (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

hey! What's this?... http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=370176136&oldid=370175853

You write as though I have been a bad boy and have not tried to participate in the resolution of the dispute about this section. This http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASecond_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&action=historysubmit&diff=370179326&oldid=367507099 is the list of changes to the Talk page since the protection was added. I have made many contributions to the discussions above. I count TWENTY OR MORE sections or sub sections that have been added to the TALK page where I and my fellow editors have tried to reason with you and others about this issue. I am shocked that you should now go running to an Admin saying

"may I suggest another page protect to force Hauskalainen to collaborate with editors on the talk page rather than hs (sic) "negotiation" through revert war"

Enough is Enough Salty!--Hauskalainen (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

When I look at this talk page (admittetdley a superficial look at the zillion words) I feel that if anybody is out of line it is Salty. This whole talk page looks like Salty wanting to eternally and incessantly debate /advance a particular point of view, and to seek "spin" in every discussion and subject towards that end. Even the article content itself seems secondary in that quest. Salty is very wiki-saavy in this quest, making this particularly hard to sort out. North8000 (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Bingo!96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is fundamentally wrong for Salty to try to get around a page protection by editing the article in another place so that he can just paste his changes back to the article when the protection is over. Sandboxes are not places where we bypass the process of sorting out our differences as to what is in the article and what is not. Instead he should say now what, if anything, is wrong with the English History Section as it now stands. That is the proper thing to do and if we can do that we may, a last, get to a point where we agree some wording in advance which will not be rapidly unpicked later. --Hauskalainen (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

A sandbox area is an appropriate place to put a proposed modification for a protected article, so that the new proposal can be discussed. I have done this myself; it's a good way to collaborate on a draft and come to an agreement before the block is lifted. If SaltyBoatr failed to direct the discussion toward that sandboxed version, shame on him. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You might work on a NEW VERSION after discussing the OLD VERSION. But he just wanted to carry on editing like he had before using an earlier start point (which meant he did not have to justify many of the changes he was making - i.e. as if he was going to mass revert without explanation and then carry on editing in a way that gets around the page protection and then just paste back the changes. THAT is inappropriate use of a Sandbox but it is what he tried to do.--Hauskalainen (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If you guys are mad at me personally, take that out on my talk page, or at the appropriate noticeboard. This talk page is intended to be used to improve the article. Regarding the question of dispute about fixing the English History section, the policy here is to read reliable sourcing, (including the sourcing we may personally disagree) and to write an article that matches that sourcing. The problem I see with Hauskalainen latest suggestion is that it fails to connect with what the reliable sourcing, and neither does it fairly represent the various points of view seen in the reliable sourcing. Plainly, editors are drawn here who feel strongly in the cause of self protection with guns. Also, that reflects a significant point of view seen in reliable sourcing. It does not mean that this article should be a vehicle to promote that point of view. Compare the sourcing of Hauskalainen's latest proposal with the last stable version in the sandbox and the lack of NPOV balance and relative lack of citations stands out. Also, Hauskalainen's latest proposal shows a transparent intent to promote a personal point of view seen in his original research published here, see above.

To that end, may I suggest that we start by identifying the various reliable sources that discuss the English History behind the Second Amendment. We have talked at length above of the Joyce Lee Malcolm book, ISBN 9780674893078.. This Google book search might be helpful[2]. Other books I have read that cover the English History of the 2A in some depth are the Greg Carter book, ISBN 9781576072684. Garry Wills book, ISBN 9780684870267. Uviler and Merkel, ISBN 9780822330172. Books new to me seen in this Google Book search are Richard Holbrook's, ISBN 9781412006071 which describes the English origins going back to year 690 As long ago as 690 A.D., Englishmen were required to possess arms and to serve in the military. (If you don't like these books, tell which books you want me to be reading.) Plainly, a very common theme seen in these books is the role of the history English militia service in the formation of the Second Amendment (it is the dominant theme we should be matching). These sources don't much mention of an English History of "self protection" as playing a role in the origin of the Second Amendment. Show me the sources that discuss an English History of a right to self protection being discussed in context of the origin of the Second Amendment please. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, Clayton Cramer' s book, For the defense of themselves and the state (1994)[3] could be used to present the view that the right existed under common law. TFD (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone here read that book? When I paged through it with the "look inside" Amazon feature, it seems to be more a book exploring the American history of the 2A, not the English History. @TFD: Which page numbers in that book are you speaking of? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 17:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Giving this a bump. I am interested in reading all the reliable sourcing we can find. TFD mentions this book by Clayton Cramer, ISBN 9780275949136. The nearest public library that stocks it is located two counties away, a 100 mile trip for me. Has anyone around here read this book? If yes, can you transcribe a bit of what it says about the English History relative to the Second Amendment. Thanks. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(from Salty above) "The problem I see with Hauskalainen's latest suggestion is that it fails...." - Pray, Sir, what latest suggestion?

See here, I put your latest version here[4]. Let's work out the problems. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

So tell us what is wrong with it then? Which bits need reliable sourcing? Which are the the POVs that are not represented? Lets have that discussion in this new section--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I inserted specific requests for citations directly into the [[History sandbox]. Would you please insert the citations directly there. (If you do not, I intend to continue my collaboration there too, so I will be removing unsourced portions.) You, I and other editors can collaborate on editing this passage into shape. This gives you plenty of time to work this out in the sandbox before it goes 'live' in the article. When the page lock lifts, this sandbox can be the basis for what we insert into the article. Hopefully, if we do our work now, this insertion can be mutually agreeable. If you continue a boycott of the sandbox, you might not get your input as you like. Collaboration on the sandbox can avoid surprises or reverts in article space as happened next time. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

All that will happen is that I will put stuff in and you or others will pull stuff out and then we are just editing in a place other than the article space. I would rather use the TALK space to discuss the issues YOU HAVE with the PRESENT content. The place to do that is here in the TALK space. It was you that called for the edit freeze for heavens sakes. Now you want to go on editing instead of sorting out the issues. That is NOT a proper way to behave. I do not think your ojections to the English History section content really warrants a freeze that covers all the other sections as well. --Hauskalainen (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

So there are no surprises; I have waited several days for responses to citation requests and answers to questions posed over at the English History sandbox[5]. I have given ample opportunity of time. Shortly, I will deleting the problematic sentences and making edits in preparation for the lift of the page lock. I will be inserting the edited sandbox version into the article "English History" section. One week of page lock was intended to allow us to work out the specifics of our disagreements, and refusal to participate in this is your prerogative. That said, that refusal, if followed by revert warring in article space after the page lock is lifted would look very bad. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I have given you many references and you either claim that they are invalid or ignore the reference I have given and chose to read another from the same page and claims it does not match. If you claim that a reference I have given is wrong then your action should be to take it to a dispute resolution noticeboard for RS or NOR depending on the nature of your complaint. You are NOT the final arbiter of what is and what is not a valid reference. Your sandbox is not a place where to edit to get around proper discussion here as to the content of the section. I will not get involved with you in editing there and I am justified in doing so because Sandboxes are not places to get around a page protection and edit regardless. Your task as an editor is to engage constructively but so far all I have heard from you is "I don't like it" or some such. I think you are going to look very silly when we finally get down to discussing the merits of your objections. Especially the ones that claim that Blackstone is a primary source and that the clear implication that the parliamentarians were lying when they were referring in legislation to the ancient rights of protestants. The same applied to TFD who at times has said much the same kind of thing at various times. --Hauskalainen (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, use of a sandbox as a place to insert your citations might be a very effective way to sort this out. It is very easy that your responses to my specific requests for citations[6] could have been lost in the mountains of talk page text (see above, and below!). Instead of talking endlessly, just put your specific citations in the specific locations I am pointing to in the sandbox. It might be unintentional, but insisting on 100,000 words of discussion actually makes this dispute harder to follow and more difficult to resolve. The requested citations could be written in 100 words. This begs the question of why you refuse. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 16:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Issues with the English History section

1. "The right to bear arms in English history is believed to have been regarded as a natural right for the preservation of the person"

SaltyBoatr here wishes to dispute this.

Hauskalainen I am sure we can get a reference for this as I have read it many times. Bear with me a while or maybe someone eles can get me a reference.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

andy85719 Is concerned that this position's use of the word "belief" renders it superfluous to the subtopics contents and wishes that all editors avoid using the words "believe" without citing several reputable, published, persons who share said belief.Andy85719 (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen@Andy85719 I agree, which is why it needs a reference, which will be forthcoming. I don't think it is wrong though to use the word "belief" because history is always one of interpretation.

Haauskalainen offers citations sourced from the Supreme Court decision in the Heller case. In rejecting the defense claims that the meaning of the Second Amendment was limited to the militia ruled that “Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else. See Page 9 of the Opinion of the Court at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf) which expands upon this and includes the following three citations which I offer as potential citations proving that it was believed to be a natural right of the person

A Compleat Collection of State-Tryals 185 (1719)

Hath not every Subject power to keep Arms, as well as Servants in his House for defence of his Person?

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 the Saxon 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 States 31–32 (1833) (with reference to colonists’ English rights:

The right of every 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”

Do you want all three or will just one do? --Hauskalainen (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

SalthyBoatR @ Hauskalainen No. Instead Give us a specific citation to a modern, third party reliable source. I would appreciate the chance to verify this reading the full source in context. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen @SaltyBoatr I just did. The Supreme Court of the United States in a majority finding in a recent case. You cannot get much more authoritative and more recent than that. That they used 3 sources more contemporary to the drafters of the Second Amendment is excellent. The SCOTUS document gives you all the information you just asked for.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr @Hauskalainen Scalia writes on pg9: "The phrase “keep arms” was not prevalent in the written documents of the founding period that we have found, but there are a few examples, all of which favor viewing the right to “keep Arms” as an individual right unconnected with militia service." I don't see that this matches your summary #1 above closely at all, you appear to have inferred too much here. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 22:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen @SaltyBoatr Now you are deliberately playing games again. I did not point to that quote on the top of the page but the quote at the bottom and the note [7] attached to it (which goes on to the next page also). These 3 citations quoted by the the Supreme Court show that the right to keep arms was a personal one and for the purposes of self-preservation. It was NOT just for service in the Militia. I am sorry that this does not fit your beloved "developing rights" theory but that is no excuse for excluding them from the article.--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No. You provided a source, and I checked it and found that the source didn't match what you wrote. (And no, you cannot tell me to disregard the top of the page which you don't like, because you were just looking at the bottom of the page.) (And no, it doesn't mean much that you find that the SCOTUS is footnoting to the same primary documents as you are looking at.) The trouble here is you cannot write what you want and then stick in random citations to justify what you want, that gets it backwards. Instead, we must read the reliable sourcing and write an article to match the sourcing. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

2. "though one American historian has expressed a contrary view that the right developed over a period of 500 or so years beginning in the twelfth century".

SaltyBoatr here wishes to know who this is.

Hauskalainen. Well clearly I had intended it to be Malcolm and only in deference to your wishes that this be regarded as a POV if not an indisputable fact of history. I added this reference to an American Historian as I thought Malcolm might actually be rather ashamed to be associated with this view because I am not entirely sure that this really is her view. As I said earlier it sounds more like the insertion of a sub-editor or a dust cover writer. Personally I suspect she meant a "right backed up by legislation" because she looks back only through legislation for her sources of a right in law and has either ignored the natural right to have arms for self preservation or you have failed to show where else in her book this may have been referred to (I do not have the luxury of having her book but I have many on medieval English and Irish history. You claim that this is her POV so perhaps you can tell us which reference. I believe at least one other writer you have cited has a similar view but if I recall correctly that too was sourced to Malcolm. I am not sure that these other writers were historians or just other gun lobby fodder spewing out the myth. Maybe you can help us out here. If there are other historians with a similar view, please feel free to let us have the references for that too.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

andy85719 I wish that, should an assertion be made as to the number of disputants of said position, an article should be cited to support this numerical assertion. Otherwise, it is conjecture.

@ andy85719. It would be OK to change it to "some" American historians if you can show me that there is another who has come to this conclusion independently (i.e. not some other historian simply citing Malcolm). --Hauskalainen (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr Just insert a compromise wording into the sandbox. Start by reading secondary sourcing, then write text that matches that sourcing. I can recall at least four sources that describe the English history of 'militia tradition' as being vital to the 2A. To comply with WP:NPOV, this militia theory needs to be given proper weight to match that balance of sourcing. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen @SaltyBoatr Firstly, your sandbox is not a place to get embroiled in more rounds of furious editing to get around an edit freeze. Now I wish to understand what your complaint is. The first issue you raised about the sentence I have listed under point 2. was "who is the American historian"?. I don't mind if we name Malcolm. If you want to name others, please let us know who they are and the sources that show that these are independently arrive at opinions and not just a reciting of Malcolm as a source for that view.

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that there WAS a military connection to the drafting of both the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment. Both came about due to the disarming of Militias by the King. If you like, we can add a sentence to that effect. How about if we replace this sentence

Scholars and lawyers recognize that the Second Amendment has its origins in the text of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 though one disputes its relevance

with this one

Scholars and lawyers recognize that the Second Amendment has its origins in the text of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and that both of these texts were expressions of the right not to be disarmed and not the liberty to be armed. Who got that right and against whom it could be enforced differed slightly. The English Bill of Rights had been drafted to give Protestants the right not to be disarmed. English Protestants had recently experienced the Catholic King mis-applying the gaming laws to shore up Catholic strength by disarming the majority Protestants. The Second Amendment in the United States sought similar rights for the US people who had formed militias to protect their States but which had similarly suffered attempts by the English monarchy to disarm them. Who the right not to be disarmed could be enforced against differed in each country. In England the right was enforceable against the against the King and not parliament. Thus parliament could still act to modify the laws relating to arms. In the American law the right was enforeacable by the people against the new Federal Government. The drafters feared that this new creature might seek powers to disarm as the King had once done. Thus in the United Sates the Second Amendment right not to be disarmed was a right held against the Federal Government, which left the States still free to pass laws regarding the control of amarments within their territorial boundaries.

The above is quite long and as yet unreferenced but I think it gets to the heart of the issue. What the right was in each case (the right not to be disarmed), who got the right (protestants versus the entire People) and who the right was enforceable against (the King in England, and the Federal Government in the United States.

I assume that this is what you meant and not that militias are a new thing. I can assure you that people have gone armed into battle for as long as we can look back in history.--Hauskalainen (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr @ Hauskalainen Astonishing! Is this a circle game? Once again: Don't tell us what you think the reliable sourcing says. Tell us what reliable sourcing you are using! Let us read it. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen @SaltyBoatr Stop playing WP:Game. You know that we are discussing the content and how to structure it. You asked for compromise wording to include reference to Militias and I provided it. We can put the sources in later. If you have a better way of telling your beloved "developing rights myth" steeped as it is in a myth of servitude blossoming into full freedoms, you tell us how you want it told. The only thing is that you must source it to Malcolm and it must be presented as a POV and not an accepted position.--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not OK with a suggestion that we choose the text now, then "we can put the sources in later". NO. We should read the sources, then write text that matches the sources. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

3. "...contrary view that the right developed over a period of 500 or so years beginning in the twelfth century."

SaltyBoatr here wishes to put the militia tradition to much earlier as per other citations on this page.

Hauskalainen Personally I do not mind but as I have said earlier on this page, the right to act collective with arms to defend one's clan probably goes back to time immemorial. We should not say it began (for sure) in this year or that but just that these are some early examples of the collective right and duty appearing in the written record.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

andy85719 Wishes that assertions as to time periods be made with a degree of certitude befitting a scholarly publication. Airy/flimsy assertions ought to be rejected as conjecture unless supported by a respectable source.

SaltyBoatr @Hauskalainen Again. What is the reliable sourcing for your idea? I want to verify by reading confirmation in sourcing. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen @SaltyBoatr My idea!!! That is rich!!! This is your beloved Professor Malcolm's idea and it is pretty crooked. If you don't want to provide a reference for it or if you doubt that anyone has claimed that the right developed over a period of 500 years or so, or that anyone has ever postulated a "developing right" theory, then I will gladly delete the sentence once the page protection is listed. This was my concession to you Salty. I added it right up top so everyone could see it. If you don't want to see it there I can live without it.--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

4. "The period from the mid 1500s though to around 1700 was one of great instability based on religious divisions (between Catholics and the growing numbers Protestants) and differences that set parliamentarians (the landed gentry) against the King"

SaltyBoatr here asks for a citation claiming that this is original research.

andy85719 Wishes that citations were provided, even where a statement may seem obvious to the writer, as such is not always obvious to the casual reader.

Hauskalainen This sounded fairly innocuous and neutral to me. Which bit do you not believe to be a faithful representation? Let me break it up for you.

That their were religious divisions that grew?
That this happened between the dates given?
That the religious disputes were between Protestants and Catholics?
That the parliament was filled with the landed gentry? (the franchise being limited to Forty Shilling Freeholders - a lot of money in those days!!!
That the parliament was in dispute with the King?

All I was doing was trying NOT to overwhelm the reader with unnecessary references. Do you really mean ALL of these? I could respond by being akward myself and asking for all the other obvious stuff in the wider article to have citations. That will keep you all busy! --Hauskalainen (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr Show us your sourcing! I want to be able to confirm as verifiable. Please read WP:NOR to be sure you understand the distinction between original research and third party reliable sourcing. Insert your footnotes directly into the sandbox. I will be beginning to remove your unsourced sentenced prior to the page lock lift, so please get started. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen @Saltyboatr Actually none of this is individually controversial. You know and I know that all these individual elements have been in the article for a very long time. Nothing I have written is inconsistent with anything in the article as it was before. Your refusal to call ALL of what I have written as somehow WP:OR is an action beyond the Pale. It just reeks of WP:Game.--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You raise an unrelated issue. The topic at hand is that you are proposing text in the article which lacks apparent sourcing. I still am asking to see your sourcing, so I can check what you are writing for verifiability. When do you plan on providing your sourcing? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen The items (1. to 4. above) are the first four objections cited by SaltyBoatr. To me, it hardly seems to be a list of objections so grievous that it warranted a request for a page protection.

If anyone else has further objections then please add them in this section and number them from 5. onwards. I will try and keep all my comments on the subject of the English History Section to this section. It was NOT helpful to have 20 or so new sections added as happened during the last page protection period.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

SaltyBoatR I want to see your citations for your entire work, which has appearances of your "original research". To be clear here, comparing your "original research" to the last stable version you reverted, I prefer the last stable version because it was well sourced, and because it reflects the full spectrum of points of view seen in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen Your preferred version was structured in line with the "developing right" theory. This is a theory that has emerged only recently and is contrary to what many others have long believed to be the case. It is not even a very widely supported theory and the alternative and much more long standing view (that the English have always had the right to carry arms and the Bill of Rights was not a particularly revolutionary in this regard) was not given any attention at all. It is WRONG to structure the article to fit with one theory and it was wrong to eliminate a long held view that the right to arms was a natural right in support of the similar natural right to life. We must present the material neutrally in a way that exposes the controversies to the reader as well as the commonly agreed facts. It is also wrong to claim as you have done above many times that my material is not sourced. As I have shown above you and others are complaining bitterly about sourcing but the article has said many of the same things and these have not been challenged. Your actions in getting me to dot every i and cross every t that have not been crossed before is just WP:Gamesmanship on your part. This is why the edits I have made are causing you so much grief and why the cabal at work on this article is joining you in your quest. Up with this I will not put. I know that this group of editors has seen off many other editors in their quest to preserve the article in their preferred mould. But this time will be different. The English section must reflect

English history and not one American historian's romanticised version of it which attempts to blow away a history of rights exercised without question.

Would you like me to get some English History scholars to join in with you? A half dozen or so could balance things out. I don't suppose this article has had much attention from them because Brits on the whole are rather satisfied with their arms laws and think the American obsession is absurd. In England Wales (population aout 50 million) in 2005 there were just 50 gun homicides annually;http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf (Page 36)</ref> if the United States (population about 300 million) had as good a record as England & Wales there would have been about 300 American gun homicides. In fact there were more than 10,000 American gun homicides (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html).The law in England and Wales has not, in fact, changed the general right to arms. Only the right to hold certain types of highly lethal arms, and especially firearms. I think it would be a good idea to highlight how American and British laws have differed over history since the Second Amendment. The British parliament has it seems preferred not to make a radical change to the law relating to the right to arms (it did not make it a constitutional right for instance) but has controlled the right to hold certain types of highly lethal weapons and in particular firearms. It would of course be wholly wrong to imply that the very big difference in firearm deaths is due to that difference but the British reaction has generally been to tighten the laws of access to firearms as public concern over firearms has risen. It probably is also right that the British have put the very personal Right to life as being more important than right to keep arms for personal defence even though this may mean more that there are more robberies and burglaries. Malcolm has written about this I think. --Hauskalainen (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Too many words. Are you trying to distract from the central question here? Really, what does your discussion of modern gun violence UK and USA statistics have to do with your text about "The period from the mid 1500s though to around 1700 ..." I ask again, please provide the citations to the reliable sourcing for for this wording you propose as "number 4, The period from the mid 1500s though to around 1700 ...". SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

5. The article (whether in the English History section or the earlier Background section) could be more clear about "The developing right theory" (Added by User:Hauskalainen )

Hauskalainen I call it the developing right theory for want of a proper scholarly name for it. It is the elephant in the room in all of the discussions we have had. The dispute is about

the rights (=liberties) of the Early English and Americans at various points in time to have arms
the duties (=legal or moral obligation) of the English and early Americans at various points in time to have arms to defend their communities or others
the meanings of the wording in two laws (the English Bill of Rights and the U.S. Second Amendment) as they affect rights.

These three things seem to have been interpreted differently acccording to which version of history you wish to believe is true.

One view (in part supported, allegedly, by Prof. Malcolm and parts of the gun lobby in the U.S.) broadly argues that

People's and liberties expanded as the obligations given to them expanded
The duties expanded from few or none towards an obligation to serve in a militia
People feared their government would form a standing militia which would disarm them
The laws granting explicit rights were drafted to guarantee the rights of citizens to bear arms (against the tytanny of governmment if necessary)
That the rights won were so precious that they must be preserved

The other view (broadly supported by a large swathe of historical record and legal decsions) says that

People have always had the right to use arms to defend themselves when in imminent threat of losing their life or limb - but not before that.
People have always had an obligation to defend their communities. It was the developing legal system that caused these obligations to be written down.
Across human history, peoples have armed themselves not just to protect their person but also against possible external threats to their group - i.e. they have formed militias. History shows that after virtually any conflict a peace has to be restored and the vanquished are disarmed by the victors, for obvious reasons.
The laws in the 17th and 18th century did NOT grant a right to have arms. They instead protected explicit rights of citizens NOT TO BR DISARMED unlawfully.
The People have the right to shape the laws that affect them according to their present circumstances and ought not to be bound by historical. Hence legitimate governments can change the law, but the U.S. constitution reserves this right to the States' legislatures and not to the Federal legislature.

These two versions of history should be discussed somewhere in the article, and probably in the English Hisory section or the Background saection.--Hauskalainen (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr Please stop telling us what you personally think. Take this elsewhere, it clutters the talk page. We need the chance to confirm these theories by reading them in third party reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen @SaltyBoatR I am discussing what I believe should be the content of the article not ruminating about what I think. If there is a dispute between editors as to POVs then there are clearly POVs that need to be in the article. You wish the article to reflect only the Malcolm theory of a developing right. This has been criticized by other writers not just me. Especially the bit where Malcolm claims that the reference to ancient rights was a fiction made up on the spot. I have at least one reference which says that Malcolm has no evidence for this and that it flies in the face of other scholarship. You clearly do not want the myth of the developing right to be exploded in the Wikipedia article and you are doing your utmost to obstruct that. please be more positive.--Hauskalainen (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Four Deuces @Hauskalainen Could you please provide the name and page no. of the book or article that challenges Malcolm's book. TFD (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen @The Four Deuces Try this one "IT ISN'T ABOUT DUCK HUNTING: THE BRITISH ORIGINS OF THE RIGHT TO ARMS, David B. Kopel (a critique of the Malcolm book) republished here

The main body of the book ought to be the portion that attracts controversy: In it Malcolm argues that the 1689 Convention tricked the next three centuries of Britons and Americans with its claim that the British right to arms was "ancient, true, and indubitable," rather than fabricated on the spot as a result of recent experience with oppressive monarchs and their standing armies. Because Malcolm's thesis contradicts the viewpoint of almost every scholar--pro-gun or anti-gun--who has written anything on the British right to arms, one might expect controversy. So far, however, no scholar has challenged Malcolm's conclusion in print.

Malcolm's argument is, on the one hand, irrefutable, because there is no known British legal document prior to 1689 that refers to a right to arms; all the official documents call bearing arms a duty rather than a right (p. 9). But, it is not impossible for a duty and a right to coexist. Jury service was certainly a duty, but many Britons also viewed it as "an ancient, true, and indubitable right."[68] It is possible that deeper inquiry into medieval social history materials might show a similar understanding of a duty-right to arms. While the 1689 Convention may have fabricated a right in a strict legal sense, some kind of rights consciousness regarding arms must have existed beforehand, or else the Convention's assertion of an "ancient, true, and indubitable right" would have been so self-evidently absurd as not to be worth asserting.

The argument Kopel uses is not that different to my argument about the right to keep milk in the fridge. Just because there is nothing written down giving me that right does not mean it does not exist. This is what Malcolm seems to have assumed. It is interesting to see that the author says that Malcolm's thesis contradicts the viewpoint of almost every scholar--pro-gun or anti-gun--who has written anything on the British right to arms.--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Four Deuces @Hauskalainen It is not a good source because it is a book review written after the publication of Malcom's book and as it says, "no scholar has challenged Malcolm's conclusion in print". However, the statement that Malcolm's view that the right originated with the Bill of Rights 1689 "contradicts the viewpoint of almost every scholar" was certainly true when she wrote the book, but we need a source that shows whether the earlier view is still held. All the evidence shows that it is not. Also, it is incorrect to say, "The argument Kopel uses is not that different to my argument about the right to keep milk in the fridge". He says that, "rights... arise by long-standing tradition from the ancient past". He is talking about legal rights, something that can be either the basis or to the defense to a claim. TFD (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen @The Four Deuces Er.. you asked me to provide the reference to "the book or article that challenges Malcolm's book" and I did just that. Now you claim it is not valid because it was written after the publication of Malcom's book. It could hardly criticize the book before it has been published! Yes, Kopel says no scholar has challenged Malcolm in print but then he goes on to do just that. Therefore Kopel, an academic, does criticize Malcolm. You say "we need a source that shows whether the earlier view is still held". With respect, we do not. Unless you can find one that says that he or she has changed his/her position since Malcolm published, the best you could then argue would be that at least ONE has changed their mind. Otherwise we must leave the assumption of previous pulished positions being retained. I simply do not understand your point about why you think my right (liberty) to keep milk in the fridge is any different. If someone tried to prevent me keeping milk in the fridge I would have a right to go to law to understand how I lost that right, because in the absence of a law to the contrary I would be exercising my natural right to live as I please. So it was with right to keep arms. Yes, occassionally, people in the past were disarmed. Catholics and Protestants. And they protested. They didn't say "OK guv, your right, I shouldn't have had 20 rifles in my basement because I never had the right to do so" and leave it at that. But in times of war and civl war especially, there is a breakdown in law and we can understand why the niceties of the law were just ignored. It is hardly surpising that the English Protestants should have the right to hold against the King the right not to be disarmed after James II did what he did. It is interesting to note the US Supreme Court recognizes that the right was one against the King and not held against parliament. Hence parliament has been able to freely amend the law even though the Bill of Rights is one of the main documents making up the British Constitution. --Hauskalainen (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If you read the book review section in your newspaper, you will notice that book reviews, although often written by experts in their field, are not peer-reviewed articles but are written to comment on recently published books. I have already explained the legal issues to you and your repetition of your opinions that are not based on any understanding of the law or any sources indicate that further discussion with you is pointless. TFD (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This thread is discussing topic #5 what we read in the Malcolm boon versus Hauskalainen's thirteen bullet points. The conversation has drifted away. Tell me where can I read about the conflict between the thirteen bullet points and Malcolm in reliable sourcing? These thirteen bullet points need to be sourced. Give specific ISBN and page numbers please. Thanks! SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

6. The English Civil War did not totally resolve the powers dispute between the primarily Protestant parliament and the Catholic-leaning monarchy.

SaltyBoatr here commented "why lead with the English Civil War? Chronologially, earlier history should come first."

Hauskalainen @SaltyBoatr The reason is that the background to the 2nd Amendment was the same concern as the background to the English Bill of Rights (fear of disarmament) and we know that the drafters of the 2nd Amendment were in some sense copying the English Bill of Rights. The background to the English Bill of Rights was the disarmaments that had happened around the time of the English Civil War and afterwards. That is why it should begin here. This bit is not in dispute. I anticipate your motive is wanting to go back even earlier is to instill an idea, as Malcolm did, of "the developing right" theory. To construct an article section in that way without pointing out that this is a POV position with considerable problems associated with it would be unacceptable. I have no problem in the "developing right" story or myth being told in the article but it firmly belongs in the section that needs to be added regarding that particular theory.--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen, the Second Amendment protected an existing right which was received into American law from English law. That is why English law is important. You should be aware that imperial and colonial law remained in force after 1776, and some of these laws are still in force, including all laws relating to the right to bear arms. TFD (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Several sources[7], when discussing the English History of the Second Amendment start with the ancient history of the tradition of militia service. Per policy we should be matching what we see in the sources. Hauskalainen says "The reason is...(fear of disarmament)...". Which sourcing says this? It appears to be your personal preference. Instead, we should set aside personal preference and be matching what we see in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The tradition of defending the group one belongs to (family, tribe, or nation) goes back to "defending the pack" and is pre-caveman. In order to defend the group one has to have arms and training in how to use them. Among other thing the Second defends that pre-existing right to have arms, with the intent being that you have those arms available in order to learn how to use them. Try becoming a well trained football player without a football, and see how far it gets you.71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

wikilink to "natural rights" article was again deleted

The English section "used to have" a wikilink to the natural rights wiki article. I know because I restored that wikilink after SB had deleted it. It seems someone wants no attention given to what a "natural right" is.

I will again restore it after the article is unprotected. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights 71.184.184.238 (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs to source that the term "natural right" used by Blackstone centuries ago is the same as the term "natural right" today. I recall reading in reliable sourcing that there is significant differences between Blackstone's meaning and the modern meaning. Therefore the Wikilink is inappropriate WP:SYN. (I forget the precise source at this moment, but is discussed above. See above.) SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 18:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The Constitution is a contract. Contract law states that a contract MUST be interpreted based on the language used at the time that it was written. I hope you remember all the fuss you made about what "well regulated" meant.71.184.184.238 (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW: Since you believe that the natural rights article is in violation of WP:SYN, why don't you go over there and delete it. I believe that I will LOVE the results of such an action. The fact that you won't will only add to my pleasure.71.184.184.238 (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Saltyboatr, Could you please explain your comment, "Blackstone breaks down 'natural rights' differently than we do in modern times", and therefore the wiki-link is WP:SYN". Your link does not say this. TFD (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The link[8] just is discussing the individual rights component of natural law as viewed by Blackstone (see pgs 253-255), so I concede your point about 'natural law' meaning in the source being at best implied. Though the burden of proof is on the editor making the Wikilink insertion, not the challenger. My greater concern is actually about the more general issue here of using the famous 'natural rights' quotation from Blackstone, that is widely used by individual rights POV proponents. By making a direct quotation from Blackstone primary document as we do, it improperly represents the natural rights POV viewpoint as universally agreed 'truth'. When as you can see in the Heyman article pgs 253-255[9], that the 'individual rights' thesis is not universally agreed. Therefore the use of a Blackstone quote to imply the individual rights thesis as being WP:TRUTH is improper WP:SYN. We have a duty to represent both points of view about the meaning of Blackstone relative to the Second Amendment. One says it supports an individual rights thesis. Another says it supports a civic rights thesis. We should be using secondary sources that discuss Blackstone, and we should be representing both of the POV's we see. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

For the nth time SaltyB, Blackstone IS a secondary source. He was interpreting the law and not making it. That another writer takes a different view is entirely normal and this kind of thing happens all the time. It does not make Blackstone a primary source. We have established that Malcolm has created another POV and I can accept that others may have taken her line. But it does not invalidate the alternative view that the right to hold arms was a pre-existing right at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted. You can argue all you like about whether it was a natural right itself or as Blackstone puts it an auxilliary right in support of the natural right to self preservation. In this respect I am not bothered too much as to how the right is described. I would haved thought an auxiliary right based on a natural right was in practice itself a natural right but I am not that deeply interested in the demantics of the thing But the really important thing for me the non.revised version of history was that the rights given to protestants was NOT A NEW RIGHT TO HAVE ARMS but instead a PROTECTION OF AN EXISTING RIGHT TO HAVE ARMS and a right not to have that right taken away by the monarch as James I had done. The new element of the right in the Bill of Rights was the protection it afforded against the King disarming the protestants ever again. It was NOT a right against parliament because it was a protected right subject to law and the law could still be changed only by Parliament. It is this plurality of views (the conventional view versus the Malcolm view) that needs to be spelled out to the reader somewhere in this section and the reasons for their being different interpretations. Giiven that this is a complex issue perhaps there should be a WP article on the Malcolm book, the thesis at the heart of it, and the criticisms the book, good and bad, that have been made since its publication. Then we can direct readers there if they want to know the ins and outs in more detail and we can just note in this article the novelty of this piece of historical revisionism and the views in support of it and against. --Hauskalainen (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that you are not just using Blackstone as a secondary source, instead you are deliberately selecting the the passage from Blackstone which is mirroring the exact same quote which is so popular with the gun-rights advocacy websites[10][11] to advance an "individual rights" thesis. For a neutral treatment of this matter, we should inform the readers that interpretations of Blackstone have context depending on the points of view of the subject. It is not neutral to present this "individual rights" POV as if it is simply TRUTH, because contrary points of view of how Blackstone viewed individual rights is seen in significant third party reliable sourcing. We must deal with this Blackstone passage in accordance with WP:NPOV. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 13:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Other POV's are represented in the article, arguably with much more prominence then they deserve, due to your endless attempts at censorship and POV push. After Heller the "militia based" POV on the right to arms is dead. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

We seem to disagree whether the Supreme Court of the United States determines NPOV policy at Wikipedia. If the Supreme Court says one viewpoint as to history in their opinion, do they trump all other opposing viewpoints of history seen in reliable sourcing? If we disagree about that policy, we should take it up with the appropriate policy page. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't think Haus. is engaging in TRUTH pushing, rather he's insisting on reporting Blackstone as a reliable secondary source on this subject. Salt. rather shoots himself in the foot with his guilt by association argument: "gun-rights advocacy websites", etc. For what it's worth, it's my impression that, regardless of vagaries in English common law, it was English common practice, for many centuries, to go armed with a knife or staff of some sort. To be armed with more than that, without drawing official scrutiny, depended on social status. It may be that the Malcolm book deserves an article, but this topic is important so show everything. -Welhaven (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Welhaven, interesting to see that you chose here as your place to start. What I am speaking of is the policy WP:NPOV. In this case we have two points of view about this Blackstone passage. We are required to represent them both neutrally and fairly. It is pretty hard to do that by presenting one point of view by directly quoting Blackstone (making no mention of the secondary advocacy sourcing that exists), and omitting the other point of view entirely. This direct use of Blackstone skirts the context that the reader deserves to get the whole picture. It is a fact that we repeatedly see this specific quotation of Blackstone being used in the advocacy sourcing (by NRA-ILA, Gun Shows On the Net, etc.) to build an 'individual rights' argument. Let us let the reader know that, and then trust the reader to make their own judgment. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not apply to a WP:RS, only to us. Hauskalainen may use the Blackstone passage as a ref. This does not stop you from using other WP:RS to support a contrary view. You must stop, to the extent you are, deleting each others' writings and ref cites. If you try, as one other editor did, to say Blackstone is not WP:RS on English common law, you put yourself on imaginary thin ice. Please stick to providing WP:RS for your points. Misuse of Blackstone by gun nuts might be a good point but not reason to bury the prima facie meaning of the passage. No more deletions. -Welhaven (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not read anything that says the meaning of natural rights has changed since Blackstone, and therefore see no reason to prove that the the terms has the same meaning. If you think it has changed then you should find an alternative definition used in modern writing. TFD (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

@TFD. Digging, I re-located the source I was remembering that questions the Blackstone 'natural right' argument familiarly used by the individual rights POV camp. See the Heyman article in the Chicago-Kent Law Review Vol76:237, pgs 253-255[12]. Blackstone discusses the natural rights in context of his essay on types of absolute rights. According to Heyman's analysis of Blackstone, the types of rights belonging to the individual are life, liberty and property. When Blackstone discusses the right to arms, he discusses it not as an 'absolute right' but rather as an "auxiliary subordinate right of the subject". Blackstone breaks down 'natural rights' differently than we do in modern times, and therefore the wiki-link is WP:SYN. At the least, we need to neutrally describe that scholar's of Blackstone hold differing interpretations as to Blackstone's meaning of 'natural right' and that the modern interpretation favored by the 'individual gun-rights POV camp' is just one significant POV, and not agreed universally. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That issue of the Chicago Kent Law Review is suspect as it was an issue that was bought by the Joyce Foundation to publish articles that were paid for by the Joyce Foundation and chosen by an "outside editor" with strong ties to Joyce. Opposing views were not welcome. It is equivalent to "self-published" material. http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/joyce_foundatio.php

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

The "outside editor was Carl Bogus, a front man for the Joyce Foundation. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-the-attempt-to-destroy-the-second-amendment/

In a breach of law review custom, Chicago-Kent let an “outsider” serve as editor; he was Carl Bogus, a faculty member of a different law school. Bogus had a unique distinction: he had been a director of Handgun Control Inc. (today’s Brady Campaign), and was on the advisory board of the Joyce-funded Violence Policy Center.71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If we dispute whether the Chicago-Kent Law Review is a reliable source, the place to raise that question is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. The issue isn't whether we agree with the POV of the article, the issue is that the article represents a significant point of view. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not correct to say that source reliability should not be discussed on the article talk page. In fact. most such specialized WP venues want to see that it has first having been discussed on the article's talk page. Salty, you continue to use your wiki-saaviness to try to maneuver this towards your POV rather than towards the goals and intentions of these policies etc. that you keep referencing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't distrust the Review, I distrust everything in that particular issue of the Review.71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

And your sources for that distrust are... blogs. Got anything better? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Blogs that include responses to those allegations from some of the people involved seem pretty reliable. Volokh.com for instance seems reputable. A question was raised on the Reliable Source Noticeboard for that issue http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Chicago_Kent_Law_Review_-_one_specific_issue_only 71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The Chicago Kent articles were also printed in book form - http://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Law-History-Constitutional/dp/1565846990/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277933196&sr=1-1 Amazon lists the editors as Carl T. Bogus and the infamous Michael A. Bellesiles. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Michael_A._Bellesiles. Bellesiles got himself into trouble when it was found he "manufactured" his research. For instance he "purported to count nineteenth-century San Francisco County probate inventories, which had been destroyed in the 1906 earthquake and fire".71.184.184.238 (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Saltyboatr, I do not understand what you mean by Blackstone breaks down natural rights differently than we do in modern times or that your sources say that. Could you please explain. TFD (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Objectively commenting on possible alternative interpretations of the language does not violate wikipedia guidelines, but one must be mindful of the language they use and what it conveys. Wehatweet (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

They do not appear to be using different interpretations. TFD (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Re ALL OF the ABOVE: .... zzzzzzzzzzz Boring!! Blackstone is an excellent secondary source. I don't give a dman whether the right enjoyed by Englishmen BEFORE (and AFTER come to that) to have a weapon was a common law one, a natural one, a fundamental one, or an auxilliary right predicated on a fundamental or natural right. What IS IMPORTANT is that the right WAS pre-existing. This issue (supported now by several references) of its long pre-existence needs to be in the article and put as opposing the Malcolm view that the right to arms only arose from the Bill of Rights. There is clear evidence that it did not do so and had long been a fact of life. And that the Bill of Rights was an affirmation of an existing right and a protection against it being removed by the monarchy without the consent of Parliament. Salty, you cannot go on protesting that there is only interpretation of this. Because there clearly are two views. You should not write the article in a way that seems to tell the myth of the growing right. That means that the references to the Assize of arms goes into the section about the new theory because it is irrelevant in the light of the mainstream view. I think the fairest way to do this is to state the standard view that has been the position right up until Malcolm published her revisionist ideas. And then we explain the revisionist view. Personally I think that depiction of the evidence for and against the Malcolm view should be on an article about the book that published this idea. That will avoid lengthening this article any more. Iy is way to long already! What about it Salty? Shall we get together to write an article about the book and its controversial core theses? It could be FUN ;) --Hauskalainen (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

To save search time if anyone interested, the discussion of the Bogus symposium conference issue has been archived at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_68#Chicago_Kent_Law_Review_-_one_specific_issue_only Naaman Brown (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Governments secure "natural" rights - they do not "grant" them

Straight from the US Supreme Court - Budd v New York http://supreme.justia.com/us/143/517/case.html

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights -- "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" -- and to "secure," not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted.

"granted" or legislated rights,such as the right to food stamps, are not natural rights.71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any relevance to your comments? TFD (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that any editor here disagrees, (nor have I seen any sourcing that disagrees) with the fact that the Second Amendment protects and doesn't grant. There is POV disagreement over the exact nature of the right(s) which are protected, and there is discussion over whether the perceptions of the right(s) have changed over time. We should fairly represent each of these POVs without bias. Also, I see no disagreement about what the 2008 opinion of the Supreme Court has said about an individual right component being protected. So, the AnonIP can relax a bit and not WP:BATTLE these things so much. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If you do a search of the talk page for the word "grants" in this current talk page, you will find two editors stating that the second "grants" a right and many more then two if you search the archives.71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I personally 1000% prefer the concept that it an already-existent right which the 2nd merely protects. But, as a practical matter, that isn't likely to get one very far without something else. Whatever you call it, having it explicitly listed in the highest-authority document of the USA, and interpreted by the highest USA authority on such certainly does SOMETHING which needs to be covered. And, as a practical matter, it does something which claims of pre-existing rights does not.

And after all, the topic of this article IS the 2nd Amendment. North8000 (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not see the point of this discussion. The Second Amendment confirms a right and no one disputes that. The only issue is what right it confirms. TFD (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we steer this conversation away from a discussion of what editors believe? We should be instead discussing what the sourcing says. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 12:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

With respect to article content, I think that few if any of us even know what the "question" is. This seems like a rambling debate within the topic "world history of firearm/self defense rights" North8000 (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, both you and TFD seem to think that there is more the one right to keep and bear arms. Why don't you list them for us? Please don't confuse a right with "a purpose for using" that right. Example, I have the right to spend money, one purpose would be to "spend to buy candy" since "candy is dandy" or I could "spend to buy liquor" since "liquor is quicker". I can "spent to buy flowers" since chicks dig flowers, or I could "spend to buy chocolate" since chicks dig chocolate as much as they dig flowers. All of things I just posted are examples of a PURPOSE for exercising the one and only power - "The power to spend". I apologize to all chicks offended when reading the above.71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote above? "[T]hat does not mean that one has more than one right to keep and bear arms. I have not seen it described this way and it certainly is not phrased that way in primary sources." TFD (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Only a few posts above you stated "The only issue is WHAT right it confirms." indicating that you believe there is more then one right. Salty made a big todo over WHAT right the Second protects just a few days ago by stating "Even if there is demonstrated to be a natural right to have guns, the mere existence of the right is not proof that this is the same right protected by the Second Amendment." and "The 2A protects an individual right, but which?" to which I sarcastically responded "Perhaps SCOTUS was speaking about the right to keep and bear arms up your nose, in your mouth or even up your ass, but somehow I don't think so!" You seemed to be following in his footsteps.71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If I had meant to say that it confirmed more than one right, I would have added an "s" to the end of the word right (one right, two rights, etc.) It seems that the writing is pretty clear and I am sorry that you misinterpreted it. TFD (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD could you tell us what you are reading that says "one right"? Are there other significant POVs which say otherwise? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but every source I have read talks about the "right" not rights. The subtitle to Malcolm's book for example is "The Origins of an Anglo-American Right".[13] Notice the use of the singular noun. I always thought it was one right, two rights, not one right, two right. It is not one of those irregular nouns, like moose (one moose, two moose). TFD (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The word "What" implies you have a choice of options. From Salty's post above, HE seems to think that there is more then one right to keep and bear arms.71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The post referenced is this one - http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=372590226&oldid=372589920 - which Salty deleted right after posting.71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The choice of options is how the right is defined, not that there are different rights. TFD (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Typo

{{editprotected}}Please correct the spelling of "independance" to "independence" in citation 119. I've reviewed the linked PDF and the word is spelled correctly there. Nick Number (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Done here. Thanks! TFOWR 16:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

18th and 19th century style

Rhode Island's 1842 constitutional freedom-of-the-press provision declared: "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty."

Late 18th and early 19th century laws occassionally include "a purpose clause" before the "main clause", a practice not seen today. The Second Amendment is the only amendment I recall with a purpose clause. I emphasize "a" purpose clause, since they are usually not the only purpose, but are often a purpose the government would have a vested interest in protecting, regardless of other purposes for the main clause. If you are not familiar with the style (and I wasn't until ~5 years ago), it can be confusing, but the main clause stands without the exemplar purpose clause which is not an exclusive limitation on the main clause.

What is protected in the Second Amendment is the "right of the people to keep and bear arms"; the United States have a interest in assuring an armed populance from which to draw a militia: that is "a" purpose of the right but that is not the only purpose. Rhode Island guaranteed that "any person may publish sentiments on any subject"; the example clause shows a vested interest in the state assuring liberty of the press for political purposes, but that does not mean that non-political speech is unprotected and that the state could ban "Marmaduke" from the funnies because it is not protected political speech under the exemplar clause: under the main clause, "any person may publish sentiments on any subject" limited only by restrictions on libel or slander. Naaman Brown (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is not the place for a general discussion of the Second Amendment. It is the place for discussion of the article. Thanks. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The language structure of the Second was a key part of Heller. See this, often repeated language, from Heller.

A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If "bear arms" means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage ("for the purpose of self-defense" or "to make war against the King"). But if "bear arms" means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add "for the purpose of killing game." The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter.71.184.184.238 (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Typo

{{editprotect}} near citation [14] Parliament thouugh... should be changed to though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.138.178 (talk • contribs)

Fixed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}The last edit made to the article was meant to correct the spelling of the word "though", but ending up spelling "through". Please correct, thank you. SMP0328. (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm an idiot ;)

Fixed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

section break

Hauskalainen, in fact a person in the U. S. may be sued for a civil wrong committed anywhere and the local court will apply the substantive laws of the jurisdiction where the wrong occurred, except where they conflict with the U. S. Bill of Rights. I suppose you are right that the U. S. Supreme Court is just as competent to rule on English law as any other supreme court, but there is always the possibility that the rulings will differ. Incidentally the Canadian Supreme Court may hear a case on the right to keep and bear arms, based on English common law and the Bill of Rights 1689. TFD (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that there are 2 issues/questions floating around / getting mixed together at once. The biggest debate on the talk page is over the natural right / common law / etc. roots aspects. And then the second one is USA legal meaning of the 2nd. E.G. a right available to individuals independent of any militia affiliations etc. It might be good to clarify which one of these two one is talking about. North8000 (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

They are inseparable. The Second Amendment protects a right that existed in colonial America. What that right was is critical. TFD (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say "protects a right", using the singular? It seems to me that the sourcing is describing several different types of rights, and we should be using the plural. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 17:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If there is a consensus in the literature that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" refers to multiple rights then we would put that in. Can you please explain what you mean by "different types of rights". TFD (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There certainly is plenty published in reliable sources discussing at least three views of this right. The right to arms for self defense is one (and it appears that the SCOTUS has broken this down to self defense within in the home which is protected versus the right of self defense elsewhere which is not protected). The right of arms for insurrection against tyranny is another. Also, there is the right of the states to maintain militia independent from federal infringement. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the same right - Your examples show how it can be used in different ways - against different enemies.71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

~~While the right to keep and bear arms exists because it is necessary to protect other rights~~ While (according to Cramer, Malcolm and others) the right to keep and bear arms exists because (the understanding of English jurist was) that it was necessary to protect other rights, that does not mean that one has more than one right to keep and bear arms. I have not seen it described this way and it certainly is not phrased that way in primary sources. TFD (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you might be revealing your personal bias, which seems to describe the insurrectionist against tyranny viewpoint. The secondary sources describes other POV's, and actually the primary 2A is ambiguously worded. Different people in good faith can read it differently. The American Bar Association has observed that there is more disagreement and less understanding about this right than of any other current issue regarding the Constitution. To maintain neutrality, we should treat each of these viewpoints fairly, with respect, and without bias. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 22:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not see why you are seeing a bias. Again I believe that you are making this overly complex. Just state what mainstream sources say and do not try to analyze their theories unless you have reliable sources that do this. Do not worry that they have different opinions. TFD (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have diligently been citing my sources, see above. The bias I was seeing is when you wrote: "While the right to keep and bear arms exists because it is necessary to protect other rights". You don't mention your source, suggesting this is your personal opinion. Or, are you echoing some source? Perhaps this one which is well known opinion? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 01:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere in this discussion am I mentioning my personal opinions, and I have rephrased the sentence. For full disclosure, my personal opinion by the way is the U. S. Revolution lacked justification and was illegal, that the U. S. Bill of Rights should never have been passed and should be repealed. TFD (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Too bad we can't get Salty to write Blackstones fifth right language about 500 times in order to remember it. On second thought he has already seen the language at least 500 times already, so make that 5,000 71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

@ Salty @ North When I say "it is my issue" all I mean is that the issue I wish to raise at the NPOV noticeboard is one of my choosing and not anybody else's. For instance my objection id to your presenting the English right to arms as "flowing from" the military service obligation and doing so in a way that does not make it clear that this is part of a novel re-interpretation of history by Professor Malcolm and that the long held alternative view was that the right has always existed as an adjunct to the natural right of self preservation. I do NOT want other people muddying the waters by claiming we are discussing something different (i.e. what is the evidence for and against the Second Amendment right referring to a military right or a personal right). That might seem very similar but actually it is very different because we are now in the realm of American History and not English History. I want the focus t be on English History. If North or anyone else wants to raise a different issue he is free to do so but not in this discussion. I will raise my point at WP:NPOV Noticeboard and it will be my point of issue not anybody else's.--Hauskalainen (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

To: Hauskalainen, TFD, 71.184.184.238 and Salty. You you all say that the main current big dispute in this article is primarily along the lines of what Hauskalainen just described? North8000 (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that yes, Hauskalainen has summarized the key point of his dispute accurately. (My response is: 1) show me the sources. 2) show me each of the significant POVs seen. 3) The issue is how the American Colonial experience of English history, being thirteen British colonies, is precedent to the Second Amendment.) SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there might be a problem then. Your question about NPOV policy depends on the policy of "views that have been published by reliable sources." Malcolm has either been published by reliable sources, or not. Once something has been published, I see nothing in NPOV that is depends on "novel re-interpretation". Rather, your complaint seems to be about WP:Verifiability. The question about a "novel re-interpretation" seems to be a question for the WP:RS noticeboard. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Novel re-interpretation" sounds like WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE, both of which are aspects of WP:NPOV. The assertion is that Malcolm's view is less prominent and shouldn't be presented in a way that makes it appear more prominent. Hauskalainen's proposal of concisely capturing this one issue, from both sides, and taking it to the noticeboard seems to be worth a try. It would be more useful if you would present your side, but it would probably work well enough if he "wrote for the enemy." Celestra (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. The WP:FRINGE does include NPOV as one of the tests. Therefore, I would welcome a discussion of whether the book by Joyce Lee Malcolm is a WP:FRINGE source relative to WP:NPOV policy. Let's do it. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 16:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

One piece of evidence to weigh when deciding whether this book is credible, or fringe, is the fact that the Supreme Court majority opinion[14] in the 2008 Heller decision uses the book as a reference, twice, see pg 19 and 20. Is it possible that this book can be considered a fringe theory even if the Supreme Court considers it to be sufficient to use as a reference? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 16:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Another piece of evidence comes from the article written by Lois G. Schwoerer in the Chicago-Kent Law Review[15], which strongly dissents from the thesis presented in the Joyce Lee Malcolm book, and in the process gives an overview of the credible standing of Malcolm's book: (quoting)

"To dissent from Malcolm's interpretation, some might say is foolhardy. After all, her book was enthusiastically received by American historians, legal commentators, and the gun community. Lengthy reviews, warmly praising it poured from the American law journals, including those of the highest reputation. Her argument has been described as 'irrefutable,' her research in political and legal history as 'meticulous,' her book as a "foundational text" of the so-called standard modelers. Predictably, the National Rifle Association promoted the book, and reviews in its journal were especially enthusiastic. Less predictably, indeed rather surprisingly, the book found favor from the bench: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia described it as "an excellent study"...It has been noted that no scholar has challenged Malcolm in print. That is, strictly speaking, not true, but it is true that of the formal published reviews, only two--one of them by me-- expressed reservations about the thesis and scholarship, and just two other historians have negatively criticized Malcolm's study in print. In short, Malcolm's thesis has been widely accepted; in some circles it enjoys the status of dogma respecting the English origins of the Second Amendment."

In light of this evidence that her book enjoys the status of dogma, can Joyce Lee Malcolm's book be called WP:FRINGE, when exactly the opposite seems to be true? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 17:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm claims that the Bill of Rights 1689 created a right, while other writers believed it protected a right. However the origins of the Bill are irrelevant to the law in colonial America. TFD (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(I am afraid to ask.) You say "other writers". I presume you mean that Blackstone is one, but who are the others? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Cramer, for one, and Malcolm comments on the wide acceptance of this view. When I looked through various books other writers seemed to say the same thing. We can at least assume that it is a mainstream view. (Malcolm and Cramer are both reliable sources for the prevalence of the opposing views in the literature.) TFD (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I am confused. Malcolm's central thesis is that the right to bear arms evolved from the duty of militia service, and this occurred in 1689. How is that Malcolm takes both sides of this issue, that it was created in 1689 and that it pre-existed 1689? Also, could you tell me page numbers please (for Cramer and for Malcolm) of your assertion that the right to bear arms predated the Bill of Rights of 1689. Thanks, I would like the chance to verify your assertion. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 00:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have the Malcolm book in my hand now, and I guess you are referring to page 130? But that page says, quote: "It was William Blackstone in his classic work Commentaries on the Laws of England who set the stamp of approval on the need for citizens to be armed to guarantee freedom. ... Blackstone wrote: 'But in vain would these rights be declared...if the Constitution had provided no other method to secure the actual enjoyment. It has therefore established certain other auxiliary rights of the subject...to protect the three great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty, and private property.' He identified five auxiliary rights, the last being the right of the people to have arms." Malcolm points to Blackstone that the Consititution of 1689 "established certain other auxiliary rights"..."the last being the right of the people to have arms". She says that Blackstone says that the right to arms was established in the Constitution of 1689, and doesn't say that Blackstone viewed the right to have arms was a pre-existing right. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 02:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm: "Five hundred years of performing a duty did not automatically transform that obligation into a right.... No claim was made for a right for Englishmen to be armed... before 1689." (p. 9)[16] Cramer: "The English common law tradition clearly recognized a right to arms for self defense against private criminals, and for resistance against governments turned tyrannical." (p. 26) I do not have a copy of Malcolm's book. Could you look through that section again because it seems surprising that she would claim that Blackstone considered the right to have been created by legislation. He wrote, "The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."(Commentaries 1:139)[17] (The statute referred to is the Bill of Rights 1689.[18] Clearly he argues that the right derives from common law not statute. And Blacksone would not have referred to the "Constitution of 1689". TFD (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The sentence on Malcolm pg 9 preceding your sentence is: "(The Englishman) had no explicit right to have weapons for either peacekeeping or self-defense." That says unequivocally that Malcolm sees no right to weapons in England prior to 1689. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The statement from Cramer pg 26 is verified, and is a RS. It is unfortunate that he doesn't footnote that sentence, and we must conclude that he is making that statement as his unsourced opinion. Which when read in context of his lengthy discussion of the game laws and other laws disarming the lower classes, which were also English tradition, I see some internal conflict when reading Cramer as a whole. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I know that is her viewpoint. But does she claim that is the viewpoint of Blackstone also? Where does she said that Blackstone did not consider the right to exist in common law? TFD (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you meant "natural right" not "common law". Malcolm, pg 130 says that Blackstone writes that the Congress of 1689 established a new right to have arms in order to protect the ancient natural rights of liberty, security and property. Blackstone uses the words "a public allowance, under due restriction" ... "if the Constitution had provided no other method to secure the actual enjoyment. It has therefore established certain other auxiliary rights of the subject", so you can read Blackstone's meaning directly in Blackstones words: "auxiliary rights" "established", in the Constitution of 1689. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing some of these concepts, perhaps by seeing them from the perspective of the U. S. constitution. The English constitution is unwritten and was not established in 1689, but is ancient (or so Balckstone thought). (Malcolm's reference to the Constitution of 1689 is her own concept.) According to the Whig interpretation of history, which Blackstone followed and Malcolm rejects, James II abandoned the throne which then passed to his daughter, who then restored the constitution that James had abused. While Blackstone wrote that auxiliary rights derived from natural rights, the Commentaries is a legal textbook and he is explaining the reasoning of common law. The common law courts are there to protect and enforce the rights of individuals except where prohibited by law (e.g., the Statute of Limitations prohibits them from enforcing rights if cases are brought to them after a specified date) or by the law of equity (e.g., laches). Blackstone clearly states that the fifth auxiliary right derived from a natural right not the Bill of Rights, and therefore is a right that common law courts must protect. TFD (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I know that you believe this. But you make no citation that any reliable source says this. Plus, your rationale seems flawed on its face. Blackstone used the words "therefore established" in reference to "auxiliary rights" which were written in 1689. How under any rationale can "therefore established" when describing something that was drafted in 1689 be thought to mean something that happened in ancient times? Or, to make my question precise, this seems very dubious, WP:REDFLAG policy comes up now so please provide solid sourcing, and don't bother to explain it in your own words. Just tell me where I can verify this by reading solid reliable sourcing. Worse, when you read the Steven Heyman paper[19], he says quite boldly that the 'auxilary rights' (which are derived from law) are new things established by government, distinct from the 'natural rights' according to Blackstone which covered the ancient primary rights liberty, security and property. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

And, repeating myself now. I have provided sourcing that says that "Malcolm's thesis has been widely accepted; in some circles it enjoys the status of dogma.". You said that "other writers disagree", I asked who, and you responded that two were Malcolm disagreeing with herself, and Cramer with one sentence picked out of context which makes sense only if you stop reading after just that one sentence. That is hardly "multiple writers" and you continue to evade my request to identify the reliable sources that disagree with Malcolm. PLEASE! We have spent weeks and tens of thousands of words circling around this same question. Still unanswered. Time is up. Tell us where we can read sourcing that disagrees with Malcolm's thesis. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I still do not understand what your point is. Cramer said that the Bill of Rights 1689 confirmed an existing right, while Malcolm says it created a new right. I do not know what the majority view is. However an ordinary reading of Blackstone, and Cramer agrees with this, shows that the right to bear arms is an auxiliary right from natural rights, not statute. I do not have a copy of Malcolm's book and do not know her understanding of Blackstone, But he does not say that the right was created by the "Constitution of 1689" and in fact never uses the term. Also, when people praise Malcolm, are they referring to her view about the origins of the right described by Blackstone or are they talking about her interpretation of the right described by Blackstone? Consider that it does not matter whether Blackstone got his history right. His influence was sufficient that if he said we have a right to bear arms, then we have that right, even if either we do not have that right or no one before had recognized the right. TFD (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

To be clear: Stop telling me what you think Cramer or Malcolm said. Instead just tell me exactly where you read it, page numbers and paragraph. Let me verify it by reading it myself in the source. Thanks. As it stands, (I think) you now are pointing to just one source contrary to Malcolm's thesis, and that is Cramer. Earlier, you implied multiple sources. Which page(s) and which sentences in Cramer are you speaking of? Perhaps you might copy the passage which you are speaking of here on this talk page verbatim. Also, if you are going to dispute Malcolm's book, please find a copy of Malcolm's book. It seems like a waste of our time for you to oppose what she wrote without having even read what she wrote. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 22:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have provided sources for my statements. Could you please list comments I have made that you require sources for. Also, could you please point me to the section in the Commentaries where Blackstone talks about a right created by the Constitution of 1689. TFD (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me it looks like is missed it then. I don't see that you have provided specific sources for your claims that:

1) "the right to bear arms is an auxiliary right from natural rights, not statute" Cite please.

2) "other writers believed it protected a right." Which other writers? specifically. Your citation to Malcolm pg 9 looks like a mistake. Did you mean that one other writer (other than Cramer, pg 26 ) believed it protected a right?

3) And, for your entire analysis of Blackstone presented above at 16:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC). How do you know this about Blackstone, did you read it or is it your personal research?

Thanks for taking the time to address this. I believe that your answers are important to complete our vetting process of whether the Joyce Lee Malcolm book is to be used as an source for the English History section. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

1) Blackstone: "The fifth... auxiliary right of the subject... is that of having arms for their defence.... Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right.... (The word also means in addition to, not derived from.) 2) "The English Bill of Rights asserted that the nation was "vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties....." (Cramer, p. 26) That seems to be a fairly standard interpretation of an act "for the Vindicating and Asserting their auntient Rights and Liberties".[20] I can find other writers who claim the bill's intention was to vindicate and assert ancient rights, but see no reason since we I am not proposing adding any of these writers to the article. Here is the link to Malcolm p. 9, where she says, " "Five hundred years of performing a duty did not automatically transform that obligation into a right.... No claim was made for a right for Englishmen to be armed... before 1689." I am sorry but I can do not better than provide you with a direct link to the page where she stated this. 3) Please be specific. There is nothing I have written that is not very standard. 15:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

1) If we are discussing the meaning of Blackstone, then Blackstone is the primary source and we need to use secondary sources which analyses Blackstone. Which sources describe the meaning of "also" as defining "having arms" to be ancient? Your use of your interpretation of "also" is original research. 2) OK, to be clear, you have pointed to one writer Clayton Cramer, not writers plural. Correct? If not, be specific identifying the other writers please. 3) Your use of Malcolm in this way seems baldly selective and invalid. Read the two sentences just prior to the sentence you quote. They negate your point. That said: I think we are making progress now and might be close to a resolution of the dispute! There now are sources identified on both sides of this POV, (Cramer on one, and a number of sources on the other including Malcolm, Schwoerer, Heyman, Bodenhamer and others. ). And, the article should represent each of these POVs in proportion of prominence. Agreed? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 16:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

And, answering your request. I believe I already explained this here[21] and my wording appears to be clumsy, though clearly Malcolm (pg130) is saying that Blackstone is saying that the constitution "established certain other auxiliary rights" and the fifth right about "having arms" was dated 1689. I don't see any other way to view this other that that the Constitution established the "right to have arms" in 1689. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you are paraphrasing Malcolm correctly? A search of the book does not return any hits for the "Constitution of 1689".[22] Blackatone did not use the term either. TFD (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Granted. I could have used a better choice of words when summarizing Malcolm pg 130. Regardless, she says Blackstone said that the constitution established certain rights by act of law, and then describes the laws which were dated 1689. The key point she is making is that the auxilary rights are established, and that event occurred in the year 1689 as provided by the constitution. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 16:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That is synthesis:

1) "Blackstone said that the Constitution established certain rights by act of law." Acually untrue. He said the rights under the Constitution derived from natural law.

2) "The key point she is making is that the auxilary rights are established, and that event occurred in the year 1689 as provided by the constitution." You are confusing the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. It may be that the Bill of Rights established the right, but Blackstone does not say that, he says the right "is also declared by the [Bill of Rights]" (my emphasis). Could you please provide a direct quote from Malcolm where she says that Blackstone claimed the Bill of Rights established the right?

TFD (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I am speaking of the paragraphs in Malcolm that begins on the bottom of page 129, and extend onto page 130. She starts by saying "It is interesting to note that these defences of the legitimate need for firearms did not rest upon, or even mention, the need to keep weapons for the militia. As the century progressed the general right of Protestants to have weapons became increasingly explicit, and the Whig view that armed citizens were a necessary check on tyranny became orthodox opinion. It was William Blackstone in this classic work...who set his stamp of approval upon the need for citizens to be armed to guarantee freedom." I hope that helps, and asking again, if you are going to continue to argue against a book which you haven't yet read, could find a copy of this book for the purposes of our discussion? Clearly, Malcolm paints Blackstone as part of a new viewpoint about a right to weapons that was Whiggish and emerged in the 17th Century. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 17:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not arguing against the book, merely challenging your opinion of it. Your passage does not support your statement, "she says Blackstone said that the constitution established certain rights by act of law". In fact it seems to say the opposite. TFD (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I grant you. Instead of "law" I should have said "established auxiliary rights". My central point remains unchanged, which is that the date of this establishment is 1689. That is Malcolm's central thesis, that the right to have arms originated in 1689. This is hardly disputed. In tens of thousands of words, see above, and only one mention that identifies any secondary sourcing, (Cramer pg26), that disputes this central point. Unless you know of another source? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 18:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I am still having trouble following this discussion. Malcolm said the right was created in 1689 while Cramer said it existed before. No need to add more writers. But to be clear Blackstone did not say the right was created in 1689, but derived from natural law and makes no comment on whether this right had been recognized before that time. TFD (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, where to you get "to be clear Blackstone did not say the right was created in 1689?" Seems like original research. Explain please. What does "established" mean? Except as a synonym for "created". At least that is what I get from the Steven Heyman essay, plus from Malcolm 129-130. Blackstone used the word "established" when describing auxiliary rights.

English Bill of Rights established auxiliary rights??? I don't think so! Blackstones listed the auxiliary rights as follows. The first is Parliament and its authority, another is the limitation on kings power, a third is access to the courts, a fourth is the right to Petition and the last is the right to arms. Which of these five auxiliary rights were created by the English Bill of Rights?71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

AnonIP. Please do not tell us your personal opinion on this article talk page. Use secondary sourcing. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 00:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You're the one that believes that the English Bill of Rights "established Blackstones auxiliary right". One of those auxiliary rights is PARLIAMENT!71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, It is Blackstone who uses the word "established" to describe the auxiliary right to arms. And TFD, where to you get "to be clear Blackstone did not say the right was created in 1689?" This looks like nothing more than personal opinion, cite please. What does "established" mean? Except as a synonym for "created". This is also explained in Steven Heyman essay, Natural Rights and the Second Amendment, 76 Chicago-Kent Law Review 237 (2000)[23]. In that paper he describes that Blackstone (pg 253-4) view of the right to arms as: "In other words, Blackstone's "absolute rights" correspond to classic natural rights of life, liberty and property. The right to arms, on the other hand, is not an "absolute right" but is one of the "auxiliary subordinate rights of the subject". (and) "...the right to arms is limited to "such as are allowed by law." "Finally, we should note that...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". Do you dispute that Steven Heyman says this? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 00:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"Established" just tells you it created in the past. It does not tell you how far in the past. PARLIAMENT is one of Blackstone's auxiliary rights and PARLIAMENT was not "established" by the English Bill of Rights. Anyone who states that it was is not only not a "reliable source", but probably ranks below "blithering idiot".71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The question is the wording of the English History section.

The question is the wording of the English History section. (The article is locked because of that dispute.) We are supposed to be resolving our dispute about that section on the talk page. May I suggest that we all set aside what we personally know, and instead we put focus on what we see the reliable sourcing says about the English History precedent to the Second Amendment. I tried to summarize each of the POV's seen in reliable sourcing about the English history precedent to the 2A above[24] Editors here may want to add or subtract from that list. Can we please focus on what the sourcing says, and not on what editors say? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is locked because YOU engaged in an edit war and finding that you were not going to get your way YOU asked for a freeze.

and don't think that I did not notice that when YOU asked for that freeze YOU shifted the blame to myself and Hauskalainen, when neither of us had violated 3rr and YOU did.71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful it Saltyboatr explained what he means by "right(s)" (plural). TFD (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean that when I read reliable sourcing I see that there are different opinions about which combination of rights are being described by the Second Amendment. See here[[25]] where I outlined which books I have reviewed. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 16:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The text of Second Amendment refers to a singular right. Various sources may have different interpretations of which right that is, but we should be able to handle presenting those different views without synthesizing a plural. Also, how do you connect "gun control theory" with the Second Amendment? The Second Amendment is either moot (collective right) or in conflict with (individual right) the legitimate interest of gun control. Do you see the Second Amendment as preserving a right for the group in power to restrict guns? Celestra (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not talking about what I believe. I am saying that when I read books about this topic I see at least four that describe the English history precedent to the 2A as being about keeping guns out of the hands of undesirable people. Look to Cramer on page 25, and DeConde on pages 11-14 (plus other places which I have described before, see above, or ask me and I will restate them). The English tradition of using arms laws to control classes of people is described as precedent to the some of the intent behind the drafting of the Second Amendment. As Cramer puts it "The use of arms control laws for reasons of economic exploitation will reappear when we explore the Black Codes and the Presser v. Illinois decision in later chapters." These "Black Codes" have to do with the issue of slaves bearing arms, and the use of militia slave patrols. This 'slave control' theme (or as Cramer calls it, economic exploitation) of bearing arms is linked to origins of Protestant exploitation of Catholics by both DeConde and by Cramer. I am not saying this is the "major POV" seen, but it is a significant POV seen in the sourcing. And as such, it deserves a small mention in proportion to the large POVs seen. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 18:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean that you read somewhere that people SHOULD be disarmed so that they could be more easily exploited?71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, there is plenty written that says that. In the English Bill of Rights, Protestants were interested in disarming Catholics, DeConde pgs 11-14, Bodenhamer pg 75 (and several others). Also, at least two authors (Hemmenway[26] and Schwoerer[27]) argue that the clause "suitable to their condition" in the English Bill of rights was intended to restrict arms from lower class protestants, similar to the long standing tradition of the Game Laws restricting availability of firearms and gunpowder to the aristocracy. In the run up to the Revolutionary War, Loyalists sought to empower Native Americans and Slaves to bear arms which was opposed by the Patriots (Hadden pg 160). Robert Cottrol writes of it in his book[28]. Uviller and Merkel, page 178 & 182. And, Clayton Cramer's book, chapter VII describes at length the issue of disputes over the rights of slaves, (and former slaves forming Negro militias which were in conflict with the White militia. (See also, Otis Singletary[29]) to bear arms or not, prior to the Civil War, and after the war[30], see also United States v. Cruikshank. Plus the new McDonald decision discusses this issue of the right of slaves to bear arms (or not). SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That people have been disarmed and their rights violated throughout the ages (slaves for instance) is fact. My question was whether the Second acts in opposition to that deprivation of the right to arms, lessening the ability to engage in self defense, and allowing the subsequent exploitation of those unable to defend themselves.71.184.184.238 (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The answer to your question would be best if you read it directly from those sources. If you are asking me to summarize what those sources say, forgive me if I mix up a few details, but I will give it a try now: At the time of the drafting of the Second Amendment, the slave states had a well established system of slave control which involved the use of citizen slave patrol militias. (Plenty of excellent sources document this fact.) The major players behind the drafting of the 2A were Anti-federalists who tended to have their areas of support coming from the southern slave states. These anti-federalists were already aware of the abolitionist movement, which tended to come from the northern states which were generally more federalist. Slave owners were concerned that federal control over the militia might be influenced by the abolitionists, eliminating the power of the states to run their 'well regulated' slave patrol militias which were essential for what they viewed as 'security of a free state'. The slave owners had very real reason to fear if the slaves were allowed to form Black Militias. Indeed, a civil war was fought and the slaves were allowed to form Black Militias, and these battled with the White Militias. One of these battles resulted in the Colfax massacre, and the court litigation over that question made its way to the Supreme Court. (The first SCOTUS ruling on the 2A.) And, that ruling held that the states do indeed have the right to regulate their own people (and militia) free from federal control of the 2A. In the subsequent decades the southern states continued to legally use white militia as a means of black control, without federal infringement on the states, just as the 2A was intended by those slave owners from Virginia who drafted the 2A. (Please now go read those sources and tell me whether I have correctly summarized what they say, thanks, I hope I have been helpful.) SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You are avoiding the question, It is:Does the Second acts in opposition to "a deprivation of the right to arms", the loss of which lessens ones ability to engage in self defense, allowing easier exploitation of those unable to defend themselves.71.184.184.238 (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I am absolutely not avoiding the question. Please carefully re-read what I wrote on 14:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC). Also, please find the time to read the sources I identified that confirm this. DeConde (and several others) explain their viewpoint that yes indeed the Second Amendment created a system of protection of the southern states' citizen militia slave patrol system that was designed with plain intent to disarm blacks depriving their right of self defense free from federal infringement. The SCOTUS affirmed this status quo in the Cruikshank decision of 1875 and White Militia legally deprived Blacks of arms throughout the remainder of that century. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The answer is either a yes or a no. Anything else is avoiding the question.71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the sources I listed, the answer is yes. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 02:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Saltyboatr, your link enumerates four rights. An obligation to perform military and gun control are not rights, they are restrictions on rights and no source calls them rights. The rights to self-defense and insurrection are of course separate rights, even though the second is partly predicted on the first. But the right to keep and bear arms is a separate auxiliary right, which is necessary in order to protect the first two rights. (That is anyway the explanation of the Bill of Rights 1689 and Blackstone as understood by scholars.) So it makes no sense to talk about more than one right to keep and bear arms. Instead, there is more than one reason why Blackstone considered it to be a right.

Celestra, I think that is a reference to DeConde's theory. But what he actually said was that the Bill of Rights 1689 excluded the Catholic minority and Parliament later passed legislation to disarm them. The Bill of Rights did not take away the right of Catholics to have arms, and DeConde does not claim it did.

TFD (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD, It is hard for me to distinguish your personal opinion from the sources opinion in what you write. Could you rephrase what you just wrote by saying "expert X says this" and "expert Y says that", using page numbers if you can. Thanks. We are going to be seeing disagreement between the experts, so we will be needing to sort that out. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 17:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Do I need to find a source saying that the obligation to perform military and gun control are not rights, or is the fact that I am unable to find sources that they are rights sufficient. Perhaps you could assist and provide a source where they are referred to as rights. According to Malcolm, "He identified five "auxiliary" rights, the last being the right of the people to have arms.... Blackstone emphatically endorsed the view that keeping arms was necessary both for self defence, "the natural right of resistance and self preservation," and "to restrain the violence of oppression.""(p. 130)[31] Is there anything I have mentioned that any sources whatsoever question? I am having difficulty following your reasoning. TFD (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

So this view of Blackstone's view is well established on this talk page! No dispute from me. Got it! Moving on to the next task at hand. Should the 2A article (English history section) only show that one point of view? Are there other significant points of view seen in reliable sourcing? Should we include those other points of view fairly and without bias in the article? I am assuming your answer to those three questions are No, Yes and Yes. If my assumption is correct, our next task to discuss the other significant points of view seen in reliable sourcing. (As, I have been trying to do for a long time now.) Would you be willing to join me in doing this task? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Mis-interpretation of Blackstone, natural rights

The article presently includes the sentence: "In 1765, William Blackstone wrote the Commentaries on the Laws of England describing the right to have arms in England during the eighteenth century as a natural right of the subject that was "also declared" in the Bill of Rights." Citing to Joyce Lee Malcolm examination of this, pg 130 of her book. Blackstone is actually arguing that the natural right of self defense is part of the three natural rights: security, property and liberty. The Bill of Rights created some new auxiliary rights by law to provide for and protect the natural rights. In Blackstones words: "a public allowance, under due restriction" ... "if the Constitution had provided no other method to secure the actual enjoyment. It has therefore established certain other auxiliary rights of the subject". The new right to have arms is a "a public allowance, under due restriction" which "the Constitution...established" and is not actually a natural right as the article now falsely states but was created by law in 1689 in order to protect the ancient natural rights of security, property and liberty. This is an important distinction, which we need to correct. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty is back to stating that the Bill of Rights "created" and thus gave the right instead of "protecting it". The idea that the English "took up arms" to depose a king in order to get a right to arms is worthy of the mad hatter. Salty, Where did those arms that they they "took up" come from?71.184.184.238 (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Blackstone speaks of a number of "natural auxiliary" right. What are those rights?

1: The constitution, powers and privileges of Parliament

2: Limitations of the power of the king

3: Applying to the Court of justice for a redress of injuries

4: Petitioning the King or Parliament or Both

5: The right to arms

The English Bill of Rights did not create Parliament, did not create the right or ability to limit a kings powers, did not create a court system, and did not create the right to petition. Similarly it did not create the right to arms.71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

By "Constitution", Blackstone is referring to the laws of England, not the Bill of Rights 1689. He wrote, "The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject... is that of having arms for their defence.... Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."(Commentaries 1:139) I W. & M. st. 2. c. 2. is the Bill of Rights, which was passed in the first year of the reign of William and Mary (I W. & M.). Any law that is necessary to protect natural rights is part of the common law, whether or not there is a separate statute that recognizes it. TFD (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty stated that the Bill of Rights "created" the right to arms. To quote Salty " The Bill of Rights created some new auxiliary right" and "The new right to have arms"71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, stop using the talk page to tell us your personal ideas. Instead, tell us what sourcing says. The Malcolm book page 130 describes this pretty clearly, that "have arms" is an established auxiliary right. And the article gets this wrong. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If your source states it was an established right, why are you stating it was created? 71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, stop WP:BATTLE. Also, read what I wrote above more carefully. The source I cite is quoting William Blackstone who wrote: " "if the Constitution had provided no other method to secure the actual enjoyment. It has therefore established certain other auxiliary rights of the subject"." Blackstone is using the word "established" as a verb, not as an adjective like you claim. The definition of the verb "established" is essentially synonymous with the verb "created". SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The English Constitution predates the English Bill of Rights. "established" without a specified date does not mean established by the Bill of Rights.It just means "established at some point in the past".71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Another useful source for the English History section - Bodenhamer

Being as we are trying to work this section out right now, another source that gives specific coverage to the issue of the English History being precedent to the American Second Amendment (including discussion of Blackstone) is the passage in Bodenhamer and Ely, ISBN 9780253219916, pages 89-91. This book confirms Malcolm's thesis that the duty to arms had transformed into a right to have arms. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The book does not confirm anything other then that the author has an opinion!71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

and that opinion was "The English Settlers who populated North America in the seventeenth century were heirs to a tradition over five centuries old governing both the right and the duty to be armed." from Bodenhamers book The Bill of Rights in modern America, reprinting an Article authored by Cottrol and Diamond. Page 73. Also on that page "all persons were expected to participate in the hot pursuit of criminal suspects ...supplying their OWN arms for the occasion."71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Read further (p. 91): "[F]ive centuries... had transformed to duty... into a right...."[32] But it does not matter. What we need is not lots of examples of the different views but a source that explains which view is more widely accepted and why. TFD (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't perform a "duty" to bear arms for group self defense, if you don't have the right to "keep" arms in the first place. The difference between the language you cited and the language I cited only shows that the authors didn't have a firm opinion on the subject.71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The language you cited in Cottrol ISBN 9780815316664 on page "xii" is followed on the next page by the statement: "The need for community service had produced a traditional duty to be armed at English Law. But it took the religeous and political turmoil of the Seventeenth-century England to transform that duty into a modern notion of a political right to keep and bear arms." This confirms once again that the right to arms evolved from the duty to be armed, confirming the Malcolm thesis. Finally, can this proof end this interminable argument? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 13:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I cited Bodenhamers book page 73. That book is a compilation of articles, including the one cited by me and authored by Cottrol and Diamond. I don't see how a duty for self defense "becomes" a political right to arms. A duty to engage in group self defense can only "SUPPORT" the right to arms. It doesn't create it.71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, it doesn't matter here if you agree with what we read or not. Wikipedia is not about whether you agree with the secondary sourcing, rather it is about WP:V. Stop it! Don't WP:BATTLE. See WP:TRUTH and WP:NOTTRUTH. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The English Bill of Rights is quite verifiable and states within itself that the authors were protecting ancient rights abused by Charles II. The Second states within itself that the authors were protecting and enabling the ability to form militias. Funny how you deleted the militia language and replaced it with "slave control". Funny how now you want to get rid of the term "ancient rights". Looks like just another Salty POV push.71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

@TFD 23:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC) If that is what you need, look at the article by Lois Schwoerer, in the Chicago Kent Law Review which examines the Malcolm book which is the flagstaff of that duty=>right viewpoint and Schwoerer says the viewpoint is overwhelmingly dominate, to the point of becoming dogma: "(Malcolm's) book was enthusiastically received by American historians, legal commentators, and the gun community. Lengthy reviews, warmly praising it poured from the American law journals, including those of the highest reputation. Her argument has been described as 'irrefutable,' her research in political and legal history as 'meticulous,' her book as a "foundational text" of the so-called standard modelers. Predictably, the National Rifle Association promoted the book, and reviews in its journal were especially enthusiastic. Less predictably, indeed rather surprisingly, the book found favor from the bench: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia described it as "an excellent study"...It has been noted that no scholar has challenged Malcolm in print. That is, strictly speaking, not true, but it is true that of the formal published reviews, only two--one of them by me-- expressed reservations about the thesis and scholarship, and just two other historians have negatively criticized Malcolm's study in print. In short, Malcolm's thesis has been widely accepted; in some circles it enjoys the status of dogma respecting the English origins of the Second Amendment." The duty=>right viewpoint has been embraced by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and that is a very significant endorsement. Contrast this with the paucity of support for the 'ancient right' viewpoint being trumpeted here on this talk page. Ten thousand words, and just once secondary sourced citation, that is arguable a WP:FRINGE status. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 03:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets try this again, you can't perform the "duty" of group self defense unless you ALREADY have arms in your possession to do it with.71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't use the talk page to argue your personal ideas. Use secondary sourcing please. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 13:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't push you POV agenda on this article - see new section below and please respond71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That endorsement of Malcolm does not mean that everything in her book is accepted. What do they say about her theory about the history of the right in English law before the Whig revolution? TFD (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

US Supreme Court in Heller states that - Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence. A right "secured" is not a right "created".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secured - secured 1 a : to relieve from exposure to danger : act to make safe against adverse contingencies <secure a supply line from enemy raids> b : to put beyond hazard of losing or of not receiving : guarantee <secure the blessings of liberty — United States Constitution> 71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

@TFD. You can help find the answer to your new question which seems like a diversion. The point I made, which is very clear now, it that there is remarkably little criticism of Malcolm seen. (Next to zero in fact.) Indeed, beyond the one sentence in Cramer pg26 which doesn't even address Malcolm's thesis directly, editors here have failed to find any secondary sourcing in support of their argument. The only argument presented, incessantly, comes from the personal opinion of editors here. Stop it, per WP:NOR and WP:V.

When we check the secondary sourcing, we see virtually unanimous support for Malcolm's thesis coming across the board from leading historians, jurists, legal commentators, and the gun community. It is ironic that what we have here now on this talk page an argument that Joyce Lee Malcolm, who has been the darling of the gun rights community, is not 'pro-gun' enough! Really? This opposition to Malcolm is pushing to the realm of extreme pro-gun WP:FRINGE now. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty - please respond

In "Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution" you deleted a reference to "establishing militias" as one of the reasons why the Founders considered the Second important, and replaced it with "slave control". Why did you delete the reason for the existence of the Second, which is WITHIN the Seconds language, replacing it with an obscure reference to "slave control'? My original posts on this BLATANT POV push, from 2 weeks ago are below and include links to you actions.

I find it disturbing that this article failed to mention the fact that the Second Amendment was in support of a citizens militia, a central concern of the Founders, yet something obscure like "slave control" is included. Bet you dollars to dimes that this is more POV slant by someone whose initials are SB.71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup! Salty's the one who put in slave control http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=303401519&oldid=303367528

and removed an existing reference to militia http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=303545397&oldid=303544999

Adding in an obscure reason for the existence of the Second, while deleting what many consider the PRIMARY reason is BLATANT POV PUSH!

71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You are trying to fabricate a personal controversy about me where none exists. Stop the WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE. I strongly support the assertion that one of the explanations of the reasons for the Second Amendment is for a citizens militia, and the reason I do is that I see that when I read secondary sourcing. I also see in secondary sourcing the thesis that one of the reasons was to maintain the antifederalist system of southern state slave patrol militias against the threats of federalist abolitionist infringement. Per WP:NPOV we should include all significant POV's seen. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You removed from the article the primary reason for the Seconds enactment, listed WITHIN the Second itself, and replaced it with "slave control" which does not appear in any of the literature of the time. Why? other then to push your discredited militia based gun control POV?71.184.184.238 (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Ease up on the WP:BATTLE. You are arguing a snapshot in time from 2009, during the negotiation when we drafted that section. In the end, we reached a consensus as a group of editors, yet you are still attacking one editor from one edit on one day. Really? See WP:NPA. Accusing editors of POV push is considered against WP:CIVIL policy, stop it please. The entire body of my edits show that I am advocating for nothing more than inclusion of all significant POVs, including the POVs that I personally disagree. You and I can get along if we focus on what the secondary sourcing says, and not waste time attacking other editors personally. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

YOU took out the reason for the Second that is WITHIN the Second and replaced it with a miniscule viewpoint, with a following so small, that it does not even belong in the article. Why?71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I did because I see at least a half a dozen reliable sources that discuss the 'slave control' theory. See the discussion above for a listing, though the most concise is the DeConde book pages 11-14. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 02:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

And how many sources state that one of the reasons was to establish a militia. You know! That there thingie that the Second Amendment starts of with, which you deleted?71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

And another source, Robert Cottrol

Here is another source that confirms the Malcolm thesis. See the book by Robert Cottrol ISBN 9780815316664 on page "xiii" which says: "The need for community service had produced a traditional duty to be armed at English Law. But it took the religious and political turmoil of the Seventeenth-century England to transform that duty into a modern notion of a political right to keep and bear arms." This book might also be useful to use when sourcing the English history section. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 16:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

What was the "not so modern" notion of a political right? How about an auxiliary right to the right to life and the right of self-defense. See Blackstone!71.184.184.238 (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if the question is what Blackstone meant, then we are not allowed to directly use the writings of Blackstone to confirm the meaning of Blackstone. Per WP:NOR policy we are required to use secondary sourcing that has written about Blackstone to discern what Blackstone meant. Fortunately, there is plenty of high quality secondary sourcing giving coverage to what Blackstone meant. We should be reading it, and we should be identifying the various points of view seen, and we should be including all significant points of view. What we shouldn't be doing is just including your personal point of view about what Blackstone meant. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

More SB bull!71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I would encourage you to read the opening sentences of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. "Comment on Content not the contributor." –Joshua Scott ^[who?] 02:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering that Salty has already tried to get references from Blackstone removed from the article, and has been repeatedly told that not only was Blackstone a usable source but a DAMN GOOD source, I change the above to - same OLD SB bull! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Slave control in slave states

The above appears in the article as a reason for the Second. The originator of this view seems to be Cart T Bogus, sometimes Joyce Foundation employee.

As far as I can see it is is an attempt "to blacken by association".

I haven't seen anything from anyone else on this issue, and unless someone comes up with more sources, "INCLUDING some referencing primary documents from the Revolutionary War era, or those primary documents themselves," I will be deleting it as a small minority opinion not worth including in a wiki article.71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Your choice of wording "blacken by association" when discussing militia slave patrols was perhaps unintentional, but it is unfortunately deeply offensive. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that the use of the English language offends you. What language would you like me to use?71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe SB was referring to your using the word "blacken". To me, he appears to think that could be misinterpreted as a racial pun. Maybe you should be careful with your wording, but also SB should give you the benefit of the doubt. SMP0328. (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of what he was objecting to. The term is still part of the English language and I know of no other English term that more accurately expresses what Bogus was doing.71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually this viewpoint is seen in multiple reliable sources, have you seen the book by Cottrol and Diamond? ISBN 9780815316664 Deleting content because you don't like it doesn't match policy here. I realize that you intensely dislike Carl T. Bogus, but he is a well known Law Professor and author who is viewed as an expert in this topic. We are supposed to give coverage to to all significant points of view here. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What page does he say that and is he referencing Bogus?71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The book you reference is a "compilation" of court cases and law review journals. Your additional cite is "thin air".71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually not. The Cottrol book speaks[33] at length about the role of race and slave control at the time of the drafting of the Second Amendment, and the importance of the militia/posse with slave control. (Hardly any surprise considering that the main support of the Second Amendment came from Virginians, with Virginia being a slave state which was deeply concerned about the northern federal power over southern state militias). These north-south tensions did not ease, and eventually played a big role in the Civil War/Reconstruction/14th Amendment, (see the dicta in McDonald discussing slaves bearing arms in the Dred Scott v. Sanford case). These same southern state militias were active for the next half century[34] until the Civil War, and afterward resulted in militia actions leading to the first important Supreme Court case pertaining to the 2A. This is not an isolated POV either. Exploration of this 'slave control' topic is published again in the Boddenhamer book, quote: "And an armed white population was essential to maintain social control over blacks and Native Americans who toiled unwillingly as slaves and servants in English settlements." Similarly, the Sally Hayden book also speaks of the issue of slave patrols versus freed slaves being granted the right to bear arms during the Revolutionary War on the side of the Loyalists], with this being on topic relative to the British History behind the Second Amendment. Objectively, the issue of militia's for slave control, and debate of the right of slaves (and later Negro militia's) to bear arms is solidly documented and vital to any discussion of the first century of Second Amendment history. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually yes the Cottrol book is a compilation of various articles and court cases. One need only look at its table of contents for proof. If Virginia was so gung ho for militia use for slave control why is there no mention of slave control during the Virginia debate on ratification? Was the NH objection also based on slave control? In case you didn't know NH is a northern state without slavery.71.184.184.238 (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If you dispute the Cottrol book as being a WP:RS, take that up at the RS noticeboard. I don't know the answers to your two non sequitur questions, but they seem intended to distract and are irrelevant to the policy standards here which are WP:V and WP:NPOV. And, I have cited strong evidence in reliable sourcing that the "slave control" issue is a significant point of view. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 23:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If you haven't yet realized that I am objecting to "slave control" because it is a minor viewpoint, and therefore not worth of inclusion in a wiki article, let me enlighten you. I am objecting to "slave control" because it is a minor viewpoint, not worth of inclusion in a wiki article.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

OK then. You are objecting under WP:UNDUE policy. Presently the article includes ten words of coverage to this topic which is seen in reliable sourcing, in this 15,000 word encyclopedia article. You seem to be arguing for zero words. How does zero words comply with WP:UNDUE policy? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Small minority opinions have no place in wikipedia, seems pretty clear to me. What part of that don't you understand?71.184.184.238 (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that this article failed to mention the fact that the Second Amendment was in support of a citizens militia, a central concern of the Founders, yet something obscure like "slave control" is included. Bet you dollars to dimes that this is more POV slant by someone whose initials are SB.71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup! Salty's the one who put in slave control http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=303401519&oldid=303367528

and removed an existing reference to militia http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=303545397&oldid=303544999

Adding in an obscure reason for the existence of the Second, while deleting what many consider the PRIMARY reason is BLATANT POV PUSH!71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Just checking to see if this is a significant point of view. Here are several more reliable sources, Spitzer ISBN 9780872894174, page 40: quote: "Further an article by the legal scholar Carl Bogus presents substantial evidence that southern state leaders supported inclusion of the Second Amendment to ensure that they could their state militias to suppress slave revolts." Also, the issue of militia slave suppression related to the Second Amendment was discussed at US Senate hearings in 1998[35]. There is also given coverage in the Southern California Law Review 1365 (1992-1993) in an article titled "Race, Riots, and Guns" authored by Carl Bogus[36]. And again in the UC Davis Law Review, 1998 see pages 335-337[37]. Clearly this is a significant viewpoint seen published in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

All your references above are either by Carl Bogus or cite Carl Bogus. The opinion of one person is not significant.71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the founding father Patrick Henry argued to preserve the state militia system to protect against if "there should happen an insurrection of slaves", so there is at least one person beyond Carl Bogus who saw this as important. Or, do you also believe that the words of Patrick Henry are not significant? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The quote from Patrick Henry comes from Elliot's Debates, a 5 volume set. If "slave control" was a major concern to the Founders then it would be widely debated in those volumes. It's not. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional confirmation of Patrick Henry's viewpoint that well directed slave patrols were necessary for the security of the state is seen in Ray Raphael book ISBN 9781595580733 who quotes Patrick Henry on page 152 speaking of the dangers of slave insurrection quote: "Attention to the Government of the SLAVES may, I hope, counteract this dangerous Attempt. Constant, and well directed Patrols, seem indispensably necessary." Plainly our founding father Patrick Henry, a Virginian slave owner, was well aware of the importance of well regulated slave patrols to maintaining public order against the risks of slave revolt. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 19:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Please include additional supporting sources other than Carl Bogus.::::

Deacons of Defense

While looking for more references to "slave control" I ran across a reference to what may have been the most influential militia of the 20th century, The Deacons of Defense.

"The Deacons for Defense and Justice were an armed self defense African American civil rights organization in the U.S. Southern states during the 1960s.The organization practiced self-defense methods in the face of racist oppression that was carried out by Jim Crow Laws; local and state agencies; and the Ku Klux Klan."

"An example of this type of force needed that made substantial change in the Deep South took place in early 1965. Black students picketing the local high school were confronted by hostile police and fire trucks with hoses. A car of four Deacons emerged and in view of the police calmly loaded their shotguns. The police ordered the fire truck to withdraw. This was the first time in the twentieth century, as Lance Hill observes, “an armed black organization had successfully used weapons go defend a lawful protest against an attack by law enforcement"

Survey: Should we agree to seek help from formal mediation?

It seems that we have had trouble working out a mutually agreement using the talk page. Hopefully a mediator can help guide us towards reaching an agreement that can be acceptable to everyone. What do you all say to this suggestion? Shall we engage the help of formal mediation?

Yes. Let's try mediation. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

NO. I would rather have a red hot poker shoved up my ass then deal with SaltyBoatr in mediation. The red hot poker would be less painful.71.184.184.238 (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of some type I think that the usual Wikipedia rules are weapons of warfare rather than a way to resolve this. I have some reservations.....getting a random volunteer mediator with the methods, commitment to impartiality and strength to resolve this would indeed be a stroke of luck. The other challenge is that the usual mechanism of an active talk page (alone) is not up to this task. A continuous stream of comments which disappear from view in a few days with nothing organized emerging. I have an idea / framework for a sub page that might work. If you wanted to give me a 3 week trial at orchestrating it, I would be willing to try. After that if I don't get a 75% vote of confidence I would resign. North8000 (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen, TFD, and any other interested editors; would you please indicate your answer one way or the other to the survey asking about engaging formal mediation? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not see that formal mediation would be useful, but would accept it. Note that agreement must be unanimous. TFD (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment. The only way mediation would have any chance of being productive is if each participating editor is willing to give in at least a little bit to other editors. If you are not willing to at all compromise your position mediation would be a waste of time for you. SMP0328. (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I do not see that formal mediation should be used until all avenues have been exhausted.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue as I see is one of NPOV and I have placed a notice about this there already. However, the reviewers there have a daunting task trying to review the details of the dispute and the discussions. So here is my suggestion. Here is my suggestion.

1. I replace the request I have outstanding on the WP:NPOV Noticeboard with a note that we are endeavoring to reduce the volume of material for reviewers to review.

2. We archive off of the talk page ALL of the material we have discussed to date.

3. I will then write a summary of the NPOV issue as I see it. Salty can discuss with me if there are things I should add but it will be up to me to finalize the statement of issue. It is after all my issue and not his.

4. When the statement of issue has been written Salty will be responsible for generating his response to the issue in less than 200 words. He can take on board any input from any other person but his response in the final analysis will be his own.

5. I will then have a right of reply to anything which Salty has mentioned which I also must be under 200 words, but which I can waiver if I am happy that nothing he has said needs to be challenged.

6. When this has been done we leave only a clean version of the statement of issue, the reply and riposte (if any) on the TALK page. I will then inform the WP:NPOV noticeboard community that we are ready for the item to be reviewed.

How does that sound?--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

We must start with a review of WP:NPOV policy, and then attempt to follow the policy. Agreed? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 00:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV policy: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 01:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

All reliable sources state that the US Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right unconnected with service in the militia. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

We are not discussing the Supreme Court. They are not the definitive source for English legal history. In fact they do not even have the power to interpret the laws of England. TFD (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

@Salty. No problem with presenting the Malcolm theory in the article. How this is done is perhaps an issue, and I will refer to it in the Issues statement and let you comment before I finalize it.

@ipuser. The Second Amendment is not the issue here. It is the presentation of English history.

@TFD. I am not a legal expert but last I heard, when it comes to the common law, British Courts will consider cases from outside the UK with a common law tradition including the United States and my uns´derstanding is that the Canadian, Australian and American Courts will do the same - so they can "interpret the laws of England" (and Wales; but I agree they are not a definitive source of history. --Hauskalainen (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said "All reliable sources state that the US Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment protects a PRE-EXISTING individual right unconnected with service in the militia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.184.238 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

@Hauskalainen. Would you clarify what you mean in item #3 "It is after all my issue not his." This confuses me because I am not arguing "my issue". Instead, I am reading reliable sourcing and trying to fairly represent without bias what I see in that sourcing. I have not been arguing "my issue". I haven't even stated here what I personally believe to be true. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry have been away due to unforeseen circumstances and now my time is short. The POV ISSUE is that your saying that "the right to have and use arms in ENGLAND stemmed from the DUTY to have arms" is POV. It is a POV that has been accepted by some but by no means by everyone. It is a minority POV coming from a clique of historians and others associated with the gun lobby. When I said "the issue is mine and not his" I meant by that that I wanted to keep the issue focused on the issue of the "revisionist" theory of Malcolm and not on any other issue. This is NOT a dispute about whether the "right" mentioned in the second amendment was a right associated with military service or if it was a personal right. It is about whether it is POV to say that the right stemmed from an obligation to do military service. --Hauskalainen (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem about the time, take care of your business! You wrote: "It is a POV that has been accepted by some but by no means by everyone." When you get a chance, please tell us specifically who you are talking about when you say "by no means everyone"? In other words, please identify your reliable secondary sourcing for your assertion of the contrary viewpoint(s) to the Malcolm thesis. Thanks. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 22:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

And another, Uviller and Merkel

Here is another book that discusses the English history, including the English constitutional heritage, precedent to the Second Amendment. See Uviller and Merkel, pages 161-165, ISBN 0822330172. An important point made is the under the English system, "Rights were deemed just because they were (or claimed to be) old and established, that is to say: constituted." SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 17:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If a right was old and established, then it was not "created" by the English Bill of Rights. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be best if you were to read pages 161-165 of that book for yourself, but summarizing it now: I think that the authors are making the point that sometimes these 17th Century legal commentators would claim that these rights were old and established when the rights weren't actually old and established. In the circumstance of the 17th Century, simply claiming the rights to be old and established was sufficient to deem them constituted. Feel free to read that passage in the book and tell me if I got it right or not. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 16:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

What proof do those two authors have that the right was NOT old and established?71.184.184.238 (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, we only need to check for WP:Verifiability, not proof. The assertion that the 17th Century legal commentators were speaking figuratively when they claimed that these rights were "ancient" as described by U&M as or claimed to be', is also confirmed by Malcolm page 115. Quote: "(The parliamentary convention) enumerated the ways in which James II had subverted the constitution of the realm; listed thirteen rights and liberties of the people of England it characterized as "true, ancient, and indubitable" that were to be recognized unequivocally; and elevated William and Mary to the throne as king and queen of England. While the right of subjects to have arms had been singled out as one of the "true, ancient, and indubitable" rights to be included in the Declaration of Rights, it was neither true, ancient, nor indubitable. The Convention members themselves were its authors." The solidly refutes the assertion that the 'right to have arms' of the English Declaration of Rights was truely ancient, as it was just figuratively ancient according to these two verifiable reliable sources. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 00:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Since We are talking about theories, the correct terminology is "evidence" not "proof". The evidence is that there is no record that anyone claimed there was a right to keep and bear arms before the emergence of Whig ideology. TFD (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And, actually, maybe both of us are wrong. The correct terminology here is "verifiable". And, it is verifiable in reliable sourcing that the Malcolm thesis has been widely accepted, indeed almost universally accepted. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 18:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

But, was that because the right was unquestioned, like breathing, or because it didn't exist? There are no references to that right in early US Supreme Court decision because there were no gun control laws to contest, and not because the right to keep and bear arms didn't exist.

From Heller - " Federalists responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people. See, e.g., A Pennsylvanian III (Feb. 20, 1788), in The Origin of the Second Amendment 275, 276 (D. Young ed., 2d ed. 2001) (hereinafter Young); White, To the Citizens of Virginia, Feb. 22, 1788, in id., at 280, 281; A Citizen of America, (Oct. 10, 1787) in id., at 38, 40; Remarks on the Amendments to the federal Constitution, Nov. 7, 1788, in id., at 556. " and " The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right" 71.184.184.238 (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Your point is made. Still, at most, the 'ancient right' theory is but one POV, . We must also include the Malcolm thesis, because we must include all significant POV in the article. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 18:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It is possible the right existed but people did not know it did. We still need to provide a source stating the relative acceptance of different views of the origins of the right. TFD (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I concede that anything is possible. The issue here is WP:V. I think that the Schwoerer paper in the Chicago-Kent Law Review[38] solidly verifies that the Joyce Lee Malcolm book is widely accepted. If we need more, we could follow through and check some of her footnotes, because she gives sourcing for all her claims. What is missing is evidence of just how well accepted the "ancient rights" hypothesis may be. Considering that a handful of editors here have been looking for confirmation of this hypothesis for more than a month now, and we have found next to nothing in reliable sourcing, well we can say (to put it charitably) that secondary sourcing of "evidence of acceptance" is hard to find. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the English Bill of Rights, within itself, calls the right to arms an ancient right, and considering the citations in Heller copied above, I think that that your "virtually nothing" comment is a bit off. Like meat left in the sun for a few days.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The hypothesis is in Cramer. We do not determine the acceptance of a theory by conducting our own original research or counting the number of writers who hold a particular point of view but need reliable third party sources that tell us this. The fact that the book is widely considered authoritative does not mean that every opinion presented is accepted. Her sources for the origin of the right are not helpful because she is presenting a theory. TFD (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Your idea about "not helpful because she is presenting a theory" seems odd. Where to you get that idea? And, for the record, we have third party confirmation of the numbers of experts who "accept" the Malcolm theory, this is give to us in the Schwoerer paper. Do you have problems with using the Malcolm book as a source for this article? If yes, be specific. We can take up any and all of your concerns with the RS noticeboard. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 00:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You are not representing what I am saying. It is not a matter of reliable sourcing but of weight. To what extent is Malcom's theory that the right developed in the late 1600s accepted by the academic community? You must answer that with a reliable source before we can decide what weight to give her views. Can you please state Schwoerer says about this. TFD (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Antonin Scalia in his book ISBN 9780691004006 (pgs 136-137) describes Joyce Lee Malcolm's book as being "excellent study". That kind of praise carries some weight, don't you agree? If a Supreme Court justice gives the Malcolm book weight, that is a pretty clear indicator that we can do so too. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

@TFD: Schwoerer writes: "(Malcolm's) book was enthusiastically received by American historians, legal commentators, and the gun community. Lengthy reviews, warmly praising it poured from the American law journals, including those of the highest reputation. Her argument has been described as 'irrefutable,' her research in political and legal history as 'meticulous,' her book as a "foundational text" of the so-called standard modelers. Predictably, the National Rifle Association promoted the book, and reviews in its journal were especially enthusiastic. Less predictably, indeed rather surprisingly, the book found favor from the bench: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia described it as "an excellent study"...It has been noted that no scholar has challenged Malcolm in print. That is, strictly speaking, not true, but it is true that of the formal published reviews, only two--one of them by me-- expressed reservations about the thesis and scholarship, and just two other historians have negatively criticized Malcolm's study in print. In short, Malcolm's thesis has been widely accepted; in some circles it enjoys the status of dogma respecting the English origins of the Second Amendment." Also, for what it is worth, the Supreme Court's majority opinion written in Heller also makes reference to Malcolms book, twice.

The first 10 pages of the book covers early English history from 1200 to 1600. Essentially all of the rest of the book is devoted to analysis of the events of the late 1600's in England except for the last chapter that discusses the First U.S. Congress of 1789. Is there any doubt that this book qualifies as an well verified source? SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 01:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

UN-believable - Hey Salty! Did you know that Schweorer disagrees with Malcolm? http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SchwoererChicago.htm "My essay, however, contests its thesis, attempts to show why it is unacceptable, and offers a reading of the evidence and of the nature of late-seventeenth-century and eighteenth-century English society and thought that is different from that of Professor Malcolm"71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Of course I knew it, do you think I am stupid? This makes me guess that I am the only person here who has actually read her paper. The supreme irony is that I have been branded as a gun grabber, while at the same time I am arguing to include the material from Joyce Malcolm who is a well known pro-gun author! Lets just read it all, and include it all fairly without bias. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 01:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"and include it all fairly without bias"???? Please! Why would I think you are stupid, when you out took the reason for the Second, that is written as part of the Second, and got rid of it from the article, to replace it with "slave control". That's not stupidity, that's POV push!71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the most relevant part of her thesis how the right was understood by the Whigs and the American revolution? Whether the right came to be recognized in the 1600s or existed from time immemorial is really irrelevant to how these rights are interpreted today. We need commentary on that. TFD (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No. While the bulk of her book, roughly 80% is a discussion of what the right to have arms meant in the time frame of 1660-1690. She then concludes with an afterwards arguing the "individual rights viewpoint", which actually has been highly influential during the last decade. (The most notable person showing influence being Antonin Scalia.) Also, you may want to see additional commentary, but I don't see that question being relative to the question of whether the Malcolm book qualifies as being a reliable source, and therefore being a valid source in this article. This book is a valid source. Also, you appear to plain wrong about your "really irrelevant to how these rights are interpreted today" assertion. The elephant in the room is the argument of originalism, (or pseudo-orginalism depending on one's POV) being used by the SCOTUS in 2008 and 2010. This "individual rights thesis" championed by Malcolm has been HUGELY relevant to the interpretation today! Indeed, let's be honest, that originalism is the subcontext of this present talk page dispute. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 17:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If Scalia was really using originalism, he'd make more then a passing mention of the fact that those Founders that demanded a Bill of Rights were more then a little afraid that the federal government would grow unchecked, would eventually disband the militias, except for "select militias" under government control, and pretty much wipe out "common law" rights in the process. At that point arms in the hands of individuals could be used to overthrow that tyrannical government. Following is from the article

The orthodox view of the meaning of the Second Amendment was articulated by Joseph Story in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution. In his view the meaning of the Amendment was clear:

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.[88]71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If the Whigs wrote the English Bill of Rights then their thoughts are on the document itself. THEY say that they are protecting "ancient" rights abused by Charles II, on that document.71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that argument. What we need to know is how widely accepted it is. TFD (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Among those writing the English Bill of Rights, it was either the most supported or the least objectionable language. That is how politics works. Anyone today, who doesn't accept that this language is in the English Bill of Rights is by definition "not a reliable source". The language is there, plain as day, to anyone who wants to look. Any researcher who can't be bothered to look is a piss poor researcher. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes we know that is what they wrote, but we do not know if it is true. I know that is how politics work, history is re-written in order to legitimize current rulers. But that is not how history should be written. TFD (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Historical Documents aren't usually rewritten long after the fact and the forgeries used to replace the original DOCUMENTS and LANGUAGE. Are you saying that the English Bill of Rights language that we cite today is from such a FORGERY?71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)