Jump to content

Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Counteracting Confirmation Bias?

Looking back on the last six weeks of dispute here, a recurring factor has been where various editors have rejected verified content published in reliable sources presented here because of an apparent cognitive dissonance with the editors personal beliefs about the topic. This form of editor confirmation bias has been highly disruptive. I am asking that editors examine the pattern of discussion above and answer the question of whether decisions about the article should be made on presumption of what is known as 'truth', or should all significant POVs be included, even those which don't align with the personal belief system of the editors? SaltyBoatr get wet 18:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking back on the last six weeks of dispute here, a recurring factor was Salty engaging in edit wars, and finding that he could not get his way, asking for an article freeze, blaming others for edit warring, when in fact he himself was the one who engaged and continued those edit wars despite warnings.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/Archive_28#SB.2FHauskalainen_-_rules_on_edit_war_and_3_revert_rule http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/Archive_29#Salty_Boatr_-_You_are_already_in_violation_of_3RR

BTW: "slave control" is not a significant POV and needs to be deleted. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

For those who are interested, I have cited a significant number of reliable sources that describe the issue of slave patrol militias as being a part of the reason for drafting the 2A, see here[1] and here [2]. This seems to be a situation where AnonIP is experiencing confirmation bias and is simply unable to see something because it conflicts with his perception of 'truth'. Remember, per NPOV policy we must include significant viewpoints seen, even if they don't match our personal world views. SaltyBoatr get wet 19:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
My fixation is with the fact that you removed a reference to the militia being one of the reasons for drafting the Second and replacing that reason, which is part of the Second itself, with an obscure reason like "slave control" which appears in few, if any, Revolutionary War era documents. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey Salty: If slave control was more then an obscure issue it would appear in a number of places within Elliot's debates. Here you go, 5 volumes of historical goodness - Knock yourself out http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually Patrick Henry, a Founding Father, argued explicitly that state control of militia must be preserved to protect against if "there should happen an insurrection of slaves", this is described in several places including in the 2009 book by Wendell Phillips, ISBN 9781110430550. Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing this is a major POV, but clearly it is a significant minority POV seen in reliable sourcing. Presently the 15,000 word article spends ten words on this viewpoint. That is hardly undue weight. It seems that you actually oppose the mention of this viewpoint because you personally don't like it. Policy here is that we should give fair neutral coverage to all significant viewpoints. SaltyBoatr get wet 13:28, 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) 17:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
From what I can see, the references SB points to above seem to substantiate that the 2A militia component has been used for slave control, but doesn't support the idea that this was a driving force behind the creation of the 2A. I don't see the slave issue in any of the books that I own on the subject. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no question that there was some concern by some of the founding fathers as to whether they could use the state militias to put down slave revolts, but as you point out it is a secondary issue. The northerners didn't care because they didn't own slaves and most southerners could not conceive of being deprived of their right to their private arms. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
@AliveFreeHappy writes "I don't see the slave issue in any of the books that I own on the subject". Confirmation bias could affect which books you chose to buy and read. Though, plainly, there is significant coverage in seen in reliable sources (albeit books which you don't own) that one of the driving forces was to maintain state control of the militia system as Patrick Henry said: "there should happen an insurrection of slaves". WP:NPOV says we should not give undue weight to minority opinions. Presently we devote ten words out of 15,000 words to this 'slave insurrection' point of view. 10/15,000 is not undue weight. SaltyBoatr get wet 17:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Confirmation bias is more likely to happen when you do a web search.i.e you tend to find only what you search for.71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The books I have cover a range from "pro-gun-rights" to "anti-gun-rights" to "don't care about the gun rights issue, just history". Even the example you give puts the slave issue as a tertiary reason. In the idea of UNDUE it's not 10 words out of 15,000, it's the list of issues given, we should be careful that the lists are the "mainstream" view. IE a list of reasons given for the 2nd amendment that has 4 or 5 items that are near universal, and one tertiary item is possibly unbalanced. We need to be careful as you say with confirmation bias from using sources that aren't representative of mainstream so we can understand how relavent they are in the field. for example U&M is quoted frequently, but is not a mainstream thesis. In fact they claimed new conclusions in history (their publisher calls it a "fresh interpretation" IE a new/alternate/non-mainstream interpretation), and of course new conclusions must of necessity not be mainstream. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I have already given a number of citations to reliable sources above which give coverage to the 'slave control' hypothesis several times above. Also, two of these citations have been included in the article, (which has been stable for almost a year) reflecting the prior consensus which was developed to include 'slave control' as one of the times in the list of "for one or more of these purposes" listing seen in the article:

"In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]"

  • deterring undemocratic government;
  • repelling invasion;
  • suppressing insurrection;
  • facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
  • participating in law enforcement;
  • enabling the people to organize a militia system,
  • slave control in slave states.
(When I look at this list copied from the article glaringly absent is: "self protection within the home", !!!) Are you asking me to repeat the "slave control in slave states" citations I have given already here again now? I will do so, but no wonder this talk page grows so big. The most prominent proponent of this hypothesis is Carl Bogus, see footnote 33 and 34. This Carl Bogus hypothesis is confirmed by similar coverage in a number of sources as being a significant minority viewpoint. DeConde pgs 20-22, Uviller and Merkel page 178 & 182. Also, Robert Cottrol speaks independently of the race element behind the drafting of the 2A in his book, pg "xv". Clayton Cramer in his chapter VII discusses the issue of arming (or not arming) slaves relative to original intent of the 2A. See also Boddenhamer/Ely on page 75. Sally Hadden, pg 160 speaks of slaves bearing arms and in the Revolutionary War, which was the same issue which Patrick Henry was concerned about when Henry appealed for "Attention to the Government of the SLAVES ...well directed Patrols, seem indispensably necessary" See also the book by Otis Singletary, Negro Militias and Reconstruction which covers in depth the issue of bearing arms. Also, remember that the first Supreme Court case ruled that the states were not infringed by the federal government with regard to regulation of the white militia in Louisiana, which directly pertains to the 2A and the right to bear arms for freemen who were attempting to exercise their right to form a negro militia, and the SCOTUS ruled that indeed southern states could continue their longstanding practice of using white militia for race control with the Jim Crow laws. Don't get me wrong, but my point here is that this viewpoint absolutely has been seen in reliable sourcing to a minor but significant extent, enough to warrant a small mention in the article. These are the citations I remember, and I probably have forgotten a few. SaltyBoatr get wet 23:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The cites you listed were probably added by you, at the time you added the "slave control" language and took out the "militia" language. You seem to have an POV control issue, plainly shown by your inclusion of the minorly relevant "slave control" reason and the deletion of the primary militia reason. Your cites also point to your bias, as it was the MILITIA which was to be used for slave control, and per those cites slave control fall under "why a militia is needed" instead of itself being a stand alone reason. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you realize that self protection within the home falls under "facilitating a natural right of self-defense"? as does self defense "outside the home".71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Merkel was grad student until 2005 so some of the references to him are from before he got even his PHD. His resume currently lists him as an Associate Professor. He might rank as a second stringer right now but 5 years ago we wasn't even a "bench warmer". 10 years ago he fell under "waterboy".71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Henry was a hardcore pro-guns advocate

Probably because he was involved first hand at the receiving end of "gun control", when the British seized militia gunpowder stored in Williamsburg, Virginia. If there was any reason to have a gun, no matter how obscure or secondary, Patrick Henry was the man to find that reason.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Gunpowder_Incident

The Hanover County militia, numbering about 150 and led by Patrick Henry, reached Williamsburg first on May 3. Henry was advised by Carter Braxton, a Patriot member of the House of Burgesses, not to enter the city, so he took up station a few miles away. That day Dunmore's family escaped to Porto Bello, Lord Dunmore's hunting lodge on the York River,[5] and from there to the HMS Fowey, lying at anchor in the York River. The next day, May 4, Henry received £330 in royal funds transferred from the accounts managed by Braxton's father-in-law, Richard Corbin, who was the Deputy Collector of the Royal Revenue in Virginia, as payment for the powder.[4] Henry then departed to take his place as a member of Virginia's delegation to the Second Continental Congress. On May 6 Dunmore issued a proclamation charging Henry with extortion of the £330, and forbidding the citizenry to assist Henry in any way.

The above is for information purposes only, so that editors have a bit more background on the era and one of the major players. I don't intend to include in into the article so don't start blathering either "original research" or "synthesis"71.184.184.238 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC).

"Civic duty" viewpoint infests the article like a pus-filled cancer

The "civic duty" theory originated with Saul Cornel, and it was not the original theory as the article now states. This theory has a following so small that it was never even considered by the Supreme Court in Heller, which ruled the Second protected an individual right. All Justices agreed on this point, and yes! That includes the dissenting judges as well.

Now that the "collective rights" / "Civic duty" garbage has been deep sixed here in the US, Salty is trying to get it backdated to England.

If the Second Amendment was written "A well educated citizenry, being necessary for a free state, the right to keep and read books shall not be infringed" Salty would say that Books are limited to those already well educated. Plainly this is a crazy notion and why the US Supreme Court rightly stated that the "collective rights" interpretation (i.e. guns are allowed only to those in a government sanctioned militia) was "worthy of the mad hatter". 71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong here. Saul Cornell discusses this "civic right" viewpoint relative to George Tucker's interpretation of the Second Amendment, and Justice Stevens cites this paper in his Heller dissent (see Steven's footnote 32 where he references Saul Cornell's paper St. George Tucker and the Second Amendment : Original Understandings and Modern Misunderstandings, 47Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1123 (2006). SaltyBoatr get wet 19:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no surprise here that we see more than one point of view about the 2A in the reliable sourcing. The fundamental question is: Do we edit an article that shows just the favored point of view? (Deleting the other POVs which we don't like.) Or, do we write an article that fairly shows all the significant points of views seen in reliable sourcing? (Including the POVs we may not personally agree with.) SaltyBoatr get wet 15:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
When I questioned the validity of the Chicago Kent Law review issue published under the control of the Joyce Foundation, I was told by admin that those authors who support the collective rights view can be included in the article , as follows "HOWEVER, I would tend to think that these articles could be cited primarily for the fact that there were academics who held the view that the Second Amendment is a collective, not individual, right. That was their opinion, and it was a notable opinion that could be described as an opinion in a Wikipedia article. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, several years after the CKLR issue was published, that the Second Amendment protects an individual right."

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/Archive_29#Chicago_Kent_problem_issue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

AnonIP keeps repeating the "worthy of a mad hatter" argument. Putting this in perspective, this is a reference to Antonin Scalia's rationale given in dicta to Heller. It echos a well known 'individual rights' meme which points to the wording in a pamphlet issued by a disaffected member of the Pennsylvanian ratification convention named Robert Whitehill. The reasoning goes that Mr. Whitehill has credibility telling us what James Madison meant when he wrote the Second Amendment and Mr. Whitehill's opinion should be given weight. Maybe this is true (as Antonin Scalia asserts), though there is disagreement seen in reliable sourcing about the weight to be given to Mr. Whitehills pamphlet. See for instance the analysis of this Whitehill meme where Garry Wills writes: "From this we are to conclude that this one man, who could not even get a discussion of his points started in the convention, is explaining to us the meaning of the Second Amendment, drafted by Madison, who was in total disagreement with every other thing on Whitehill's list. ... This violates the Jeffersonian maxim that we should expound a document's meaning from those who approved it, not those who disapproved." Garry Wills argues[3] that reliance on the Whitehill pamphlet to discern the meaning of the Second Amendment defies reason. There is plainly more than one POV seen, and to be fair, we should represent each. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
BTW: A few minutes worth of work will show that Whitehill DID present his ideas to the members of the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention. Seems all the guys you quote are at best second raters, who can't be bothered to check the facts. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch14s29.html71.184.184.238 (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the fact is that he tried to present his ideas to the convention and his attempts were dismissed[4]. SaltyBoatr get wet 19:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually he DID present his ideas at the convention and that is recorded by those present at that convention. Too bad Wills is such a pathetic researcher that he couldn't bother to examine historical documents. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The people who award the Pulitzer Prize seem to disagree[5] with you. Seriously, what is your point? The article gives coverage to this so called 'Pennsylvania minority report', and the article attempts to give a balanced coverage to the various points of view seen. Again and again you come to this talk page with the apparent complaint that the article doesn't match your personal point of view. Sorry, see the policy WP:NPOV. Our task here is to set aside our personal point of view and to edit fairly and without bias what we see in reliable sourcing. How else can your choice of words "like a pus-filled cancer" be interpreted? Stop the WP:BATTLE please. SaltyBoatr get wet 00:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
If Wills wrote that this "4. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel nor unusual punishments inflicted." Is in total disagreement with this "Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment. - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." , then the only thing he deserves in a "Booby Prize".71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I see your logic, you point to a similarity you see between what Robert Whitehill wrote and the Bill of Rights. Then you conclude that, therefore, the book by Garry Wills should be considered an invalid source. That isn't the way policy works around here. Even if the point of view expressed by Garry Wills in his book is "wrong", what matters is whether or not the point of view is significant and verified. When I check[6] to see if other books use the Garry Wills books as a source, I see that he has been repeatedly cited by other authors. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that this source is significant. When I check the reliability of the publisher of his book, I see that Simon & Schuster has a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Therefore the book is verified. According to policy here, it doesn't really matter if editors personally disagree with the sources. Please stop arguing with the sources by giving your personal opinion, it is pointless to the purpose of editing an encyclopedia and disruptive. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
If Wills wrote that this "4. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel nor unusual punishments inflicted." Is in total disagreement with this "Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment. - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." , then the only thing he deserves in a "Booby Prize" and a t least THAT portion of his work in UNRELIABLE!! 71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Repeating yourself and bolding text doesn't improve your persuasiveness. (Hint: Use third party reliable sources if you want to persuade other editors.) Also, your original research matters little here. Your WP:OR implication that Robert Whitehill originated the declaration of a right to be free from excessive bail seems whimsical. When I check sourcing it seems that his so-called "minority report" was written by copying items from the Pennsylvanian Constitution, and sources say that the Pennsylvanian Constitution drew upon the concepts of Charterism. One of the petitioned complaints of the Charterists was against "excessive bail". So, your attempt to pump up the status of Robert Whitehill seems weak because Mason and Madison were certainly well aware of the "excessive bail" complaint of the Charterists and certainly did not need Robert Whitehill to tell them of such. That said, what your the point now? I 'favor including a fair balance of all the significant POVs including the ones like, as seen in reliable sourcing. I oppose scrubbing out just the POVs that you personally dislike because they run contrary to a Robert Whitehill fixation. SaltyBoatr get wet 18:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
If Wills wrote that this "4. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel nor unusual punishments inflicted." is in total disagreement with this "Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment. - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." , then the only thing he deserves in a "Booby Prize" and at least THAT portion of his work in UNRELIABLE! His opinion is also a small minority opinion! VERY Small!71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
What is your point? You've said three times: "If Wills wrote...". While in fact Wills didn't write that, at least he didn't write it in this book ISBN 978-0684844893 which we are "discussing" now. If you have problems with using Garry Wills book as a source, it would be helpful if you would mention precisely which wording in this article is troublesome, and to mention the page number in Wills' book which causes you grief. SaltyBoatr get wet 19:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
YOU quoted him as saying that! Now you say he didn't! Are you lying now or were you lying then?71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
My point is that if Wills wrote that this "4. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel nor unusual punishments inflicted." is in total disagreement with this "Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment. - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." , then the only thing he deserves in a "Booby Prize" and at least THAT portion of his work in UNRELIABLE! His opinion is also a small minority opinion! A VERY VERY VERY small minority opinion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think I ever claimed that Garry Wills wrote about "excessive bail". So if you are going to call me a liar, please have the courtesy to specifically identify the diff where I lied. Also, could you answer the question which I asked you twice now: What is your point? SaltyBoatr get wet 21:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
You quoted Wills as saying "From this we are to conclude that this one man, who could not even get a discussion of his points started in the convention, is explaining to us the meaning of the Second Amendment, drafted by Madison, who was in total disagreement with every other thing on Whitehill's list. ... This violates the Jeffersonian maxim that we should expound a document's meaning from those who approved it, not those who disapproved." THEN you said "While in fact Wills didn't write that". Both statements can't be true. If both can't be true then one is a lie. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Salty, Would you say that anyone who pushed the viewpoint that this language "A well educated citizenry, being necessary for a free state, the right to keep and read books shall not be infringed" limits the rights to books to only those already well educated is a nutjob, a wacko, a crazed person, someone with a few loose screws etc. etc. etc.?
Salty your points above would carry more weight if Madison wrote the Second Amendment BEFORE Whitehill supposedly commented on it. As it is your distortions above only shows your desperation to save something from your years of pushing something worthy of "the mad hatter".
Lastly, you can tell me if this passage from Nunn v State of Georgia (1846) supports an individual or collective rights.

Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is Wills a piss poor source? If Salty quoted him right then yes he is.

Per Salty Wills stated the following

"From this we are to conclude that this one man, who could not even get a discussion of his points started in the convention, is explaining to us the meaning of the Second Amendment, drafted by Madison, who was in total disagreement with every other thing on Whitehill's list. ... This violates the Jeffersonian maxim that we should expound a document's meaning from those who approved it, not those who disapproved.

Whitehill did in fact present the idea of a Bill of Rights in the Pensylvania Ratification Convention http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch14s29.html

Anyone who compares Whitehills list of Proposed Amendments will find the majority of them included in the Bill of Rights drafted by Madison http://www.constitution.org/afp/pennmi00.htm

1. The right of conscience shall be held inviolable, and neither the legislative, executive nor judicial powers of the United States shall have authority to alter, abrogate, or infringe any part of the constitution of the several states, which provide for the preservation of liberty in matters of religion.

2. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, trial by jury shall remain as heretofore, as well in the federal courts, as in those of the several states.

3. That in all capital and criminal prosecutions, a man has a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, as well in the federal courts, as in those of the several states; to be heard by himself and his counsel, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses; to call for evidence in his favor, and a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent, he cannot be found guilty, nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; and that no man be deprived of his liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.

4. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel nor unusual punishments inflicted.

5. That warrants unsupported by evidence, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded or required to search suspected places, or to seize any person or persons, his or their property, not particularly described, are grievous and oppressive, and shall not be granted either by the magistrates of the federal government or others.

6. That the people have a-right to the freedom of speech, of writing and publishing their sentiments, therefore, the freedom of the press shall not be restrained by any law of the United States.

7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.

8. The inhabitants of the several states shall have liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times, on the lands they hold, and on all other lands in the United States not inclosed, and in like manner to fish in all navigable waters, and others not private property, without being restrained therein by any laws to be -passed by the legislature of the United States.

9. That no law shall be passed to restrain the legislatures of the several states from enacting laws for imposing taxes, except imposts and duties upon goods imported or exported, and postage on letters shall be levied by the authority of Congress.

10. That the house of representatives be properly increased in number; that elections shall remain free; that the several states shall have power to regulate the elections for senators and representatives, without being controled either directly or indirectly by any interference on the part of the Congress, and that elections of representatives be annual.

11. That the power of organizing, arming and disciplining the militia (the manner of disciplining the militia to be prescribed by Congress) remain with the individual states, and that Congress shall not have authority to call or march any of the militia out of their own state, without the consent of such state, and for such length of time only as such state shall agree.

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

12. That the legislative, executive, and judicial powers be kept separate; and to this end that a constitutional council be appointed, to advise and assist the president, who shall be responsible for the advice they give, hereby the senators would be relieved from almost constant attendance; and also that the judges be made completely independent.

13. That no treaty which shall be directly opposed to the existing laws of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be valid until such laws shall be repealed, or made conformable to such treaty; neither shall any treaties be valid which are in contradiction to the constitution of the United States, or the constitutions of the several states.

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

Some of the language is almost an exact match - compare the 8th Amendment to proposed Amendment 4 above

Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment. - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

71.184.184.238 (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Spare us your original research, (we cannot use it per WP:NOR), and it disrupts the talk page. No one, including Garry Wills contests that Robert Whitehill attended the convention, nor that he attempted to get his protests admitted. Still, he failed at this attempt. After the convention he published these proposed amendments as this so-called "minority report". The key point is that his attempts to get the amendments admitted were officially dismissed[7]. Whitehill held a minority viewpoint. We see differing POV here and one POV seen in reliable sourcing is that reliance on the viewpoint of the minority (Whitehill) to discern the meaning of the majority who drafted the Second Amendment defies logic[8]. SaltyBoatr get wet 19:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Spare us your obstructionism! Per the quote YOU listed, Whitehill did not get to do anything at the convention. He in fact, got enough of a discussion going to have over 20 other members sign off on his ideas.71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Since you missed it, Whitehill was not only one of that majority that wanted a Bill of Rights, but was on the very short list of peoples whose opinion was considered when writing that document, which BTW has already been pointed out to you.71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually when you check reliable sources you see that Whitehill was in the minority at the convention: "Whitehill himself proposed amendments and when his views were not heeded" See book by Jon Wakelyn, ISBN 9780313331947, page 225. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Whitehill was one of the majority "in the colonies" who wanted a Bill of Rights. The majority in Pennsylvania who did not want a Bill of Rights had to give way to the majority who did. That majority was in part led by Whitehill.71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the Federal Bill of Rights that was eventually enacted was MUCH different than the Bill of Rights which Robert Whitehill wished for in his so-called minority report. The biggest difference was the continuance of the Federalized Militia, and Whitehill was soundly rejected in that regard. Don Higginbothem and several others write about this. SaltyBoatr get wet 21:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
From section below - A comparison of Whitehill's 14 points to the Constitution, the nation's "Bill of Rights," shows that eight originated from his proposals.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Whitehill - Direct quotes from link - No OR

http://explorepahistory.com/hmarker.php?markerId=851

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

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

Throughout his forty-year political career Whitehall represented the considerable number of Pennsylvania farmers who favored local government and mistrusted the concentration of power in the state and federal governments. Today, many of his arguments still make sense to those who fear that the federal government - especially the president and judiciary - have usurped too much power from the American people. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that it a fringe point of view. I am quite sure that 99.99% of sources agree that George Mason and James Madison are considered to be the co-fathers of the Bill of Rights. the main writers were George Mason and James Madison. Each of them is known as The Father of the Bill of Rights. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm quite sure that 100% of sources agree that Madison OPPOSED a Bill of Rights!71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
While Madison originally felt that a bill of rights was unnecessary, he did alter his position and absolutely promoted them. Without his support it's not unthinkable to suggest it might never have passed. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Not true! Madison only advanced a Bill or Rights because if he didn't his "love child" The Constitution was likely going to get a major overhaul at another Constitutional Convention.

The following is from "James Madison University" http://www.jmu.edu/madison/gpos225-madison2/madprobll.htm

New York, when it ratified the Constitution, had called for another constitutional convention, which was now clearly provided for in the Constitution. By drafting a Bill of Rights, Madison headed off that possibility. He stated quite openly: "I should be unwilling to see a door opened for a re-consideration of the whole structure of the government, for a re-consideration of the principles and the substance of the powers given; because I doubt, if such a door was opened, if we should be very likely to stop at that point which would be safe to the government itself."
It is clear that Madison truly thought that a bill of rights was not necessary except to mollify those who thought it was required, to preclude another constitutional convention and to encourage the final two states to ratify the Constitution. In later years, his letters revealed no great pride of authorship. In a letter of 1821 he referred to "those safe, if not necessary, and those politic, if not obligatory, amendments." In his speech to Congress the best he could say of a bill of rights was that it was "neither improper nor absolutely useless." This is, certainly, faint praise.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of why Madison eventually supported it, or any second thoughts he may have had later in life, Whitehill was not the father of the Bill of Rights. Even the source you cite says "it's not too much of an exaggeration" - implying that there is exaggeration in the statement.  –Joshua Scott [who?] 05:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
In The Bill of Rights and the states, page 329: "The Pennsylvania Minority [which includes Whitehill] did not, of course, bring the Bill of Rights into existence".  –Joshua Scott [who?] 05:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
It's "not too much of an exaggeration" is intended to show that Whitehill had considerable influence in the language of the Bill of Rights. A far cry from the quote by Wills reference by Salty, which states that Whitehill has practically no influence on that language. A glance at the 14 points listed above, shows reference to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, trial by jury in disputed over property, speedy trial, the right to confront your accuser, excessive fines, cruel and unusual punishment, compelling of evidence, limitations on warrants for search and seizure, limitations on federal powers, and not least the right to keep and bear arms.
Not only does Wills say that Whitehill had no impact on the Bill of Rights language except for the Second, but that Madison was in TOTAL DISAGREEMENT with every other thing on Whitehill's list. From this we are to conclude that this one man, who could not even get a discussion of his points started in the convention, is explaining to us the meaning of the Second Amendment, drafted by Madison, who was in total disagreement with every other thing on Whitehill's list. Wills deserved the BOOBY PRIZE for that comment.71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
It appears you aren't reading the whole sentence of what Garry Wills wrote. He is speaking of the federal versus state sovereignty, and it is apparent that Wills is explaining that Whitehill represented an extreme fringe element which was advocating for even less federal control than that seen in the Militia clauses, (Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16) of Constitution and remarkably fringe even less control that it already possessed in the Article of Confederation! It was only a very small number of people in 1788-1789 that believed like Whitehill, that the Articles of Confederation were too federally strong. And, I grant your point that Madison and Whitehill might have agreed about "excess bail", but that is not what Garry Wills is speaking about here, neither is it relevant to the topic of this article. So stop your WP:BATTLE please. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
You quoted Wills as stating "From this we are to conclude that this one man, who could not even get a discussion of his points started in the convention, is explaining to us the meaning of the Second Amendment, drafted by Madison, who was in total disagreement with every other thing on Whitehill's list." Then you tried saying that he didn't say, now you say that he did say it, but was talking about something completely different. It's embarassing to find one of your favorite cites would make an excellent replacement for the village idiot, isn't it.71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Pardon me for not following the copious amounts of argument on this page, but your comments are in violation of WP:BATTLE. You need to tone down the rhetoric and attacks.  –Joshua Scott [who?] 17:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Life would be much simpler if people didn't keep changing their stories. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
What is the goal here? Proving a 'gotcha' on SaltyBoatr? As I said, read the Garry Wills quote in context[9], and you see he is speaking of this in context of a discussion on State sovereignty and not of "excess bail". Yes, I put an ellipsis in my initial quote that hide the 'state sovereignty' words in the sentence, (and provided a hotlink to read the full context if you were interested). You are wrong to call me a liar because I used an ellipsis, just read the full context. I granted you your point about "excess bail", see above. Yet you continue your WP:Battle. STOP. Can we start discussing what reliable sources say about this topic now? And no, Garry Wills is not a village idiot, if you disagree lets resolve it using WP:DR, versus name calling. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The goal is to show that Wills is sometimes an UNRELIABLE source. and some advise. The more you change your story the less anyone trusts your word. This is now your FOURTH version of what that language by Wills means.71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Slave control in slave states

We have discussed this at length, see above, but there has been shown on this talk page more than six significant citations that discuss the hypothesis of that anti-federalists (like Patrick Henry) viewed that one purpose of the Second Amendment was to maintain the continuance of the tradition to maintain militia citizen slave patrols to protect against the risks of slave insurrection. Deletion of this short mention of this POV seems to plainly violate the policy that we include fair coverage of all significant POVs seen in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr get wet 17:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Your citations all lead to Carl Bogus and one quote from Patrick Henry. It is at best a minority opinion, both today and in the past.71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Self protection within the home

I have added self protection within the home to the listing of "purposes" of the Second Amendment. This may be a bit of a reach because it is presently unsourced. Though considering that the recent Heller ruling has established that this is a protected right, there must be some sourcing that it was one of the 1789 purposes. I am asking for help please in finding the sourcing in third party reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr get wet 17:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Would that not imply that the right is conditional on the use being one of the "purposes" which would certainly be (incorrect) OR? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Self defense within the home implies that it is a limited right that can only be used inside ones home. Besides it is already covered by "facilitating the natural right of self defense". If the right defended a right to hunt, there would be no need to say the right to hunt wabbits, the right to hunt roadrunners, or the right to hunt coyotes. All are covered under the right to hunt. Similarly if the right to self defense is protected, there is no need to list, defense at home, defense in your yard, defense in your garage, defense on a public sidewalk, defense in your car, or defense in your place of business. All are covered.71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The exact wording in Heller that has been important is the holding "for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." So far at least, the "traditionally lawful purposes" tested in court, over eighty cases, the only purpose protected by the Second Amendment has been "self defense within the home". See this paper: Heller's Catch-22, 56 UCLA Law Review 1551 (2009)[10], that did an extensive study of the post-Heller cases, and the actual effect of Heller has indeed been only upon "self defense within the home". For our article to suggest otherwise, such as for a broader right of self defense outside the home (within a Post Office or other public place for instance), is wishful thinking and not based on the reality. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
"Such as" does not mean "only" - self defense is already covered by "facilitating the natural right of self defense"71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

INTRO: "protects each person's right"

The wording of Heller allows for limits on who the right protects, so saying "protects each person's right" as recently added to the introduction is simply incorrect. Heller specifically says that: "The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill." Unless felons and the mentally ill are not persons, the wording in the introduction is plainly false. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed updating of last sentence of the lead

"Several significant U.S. Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Second Amendment were written between 1870 and 1940. The Court recently revisited the issue in 2008 and 2010" is obviously outdated. What do y'all think of: "Several significant U.S. Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Second Amendment were written between 1870 and 1940, and then in 2008 and 2010."  ? North8000 (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the intro (which I assume is what you are talking about), should reference Heller and McDonald and not 2008 and 2010. I think the Bar Association comment in the first paragraph of the intro would fit better if included in the second paragraph.71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Propose that the section -Meaning of "to keep and bear arms" - be cut down

In Heller the US Supreme Court stated that in the context of the Second Amendment the word "to bear" means nothing more then "to carry". All the He-said She-said in that section is now pretty much irrelevant and can be reduced to a couple of paragraphs - the same format as the section on the meaning of "well regulated"

From DC v Heller ->>> If "bear arms" means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms,

Even if the proposal is not accepted, I will be adding the above reference quote from Heller to that section. Frankly I am somewhat surprised it is not there already, since post Heller it is the most relevant piece of information in existence.

Problem with Oxford Dictionary Dictionary meaning -- The referenced meaning from the Oxford Dictionary is also wrong - Per Oxford online - the meaning of to "bear arms" is 1: to carry arms, and 2: wear or display a coat of arms. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1225453#m_en_us1225453.047. The meaning in the article "to serve as a soldier" is not included in the online version and is therefore an "uncommon or rare usage".

I was able to look at a large Webster dictionary, Websters Third New International Dictionary, a 3 volume set totaling about 3,000 pages, each page measuring 9.5 by 13 inches. Like I said, a "large" dictionary. Per that dictionary the PRIMARY meaning of "to bear arms" is "to carry or possess arms", while the secondary meaning is "to serve as a soldier". 71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you should be looking at the Oxford English Dictionary, not the Oxford Dictionary. The reason for this is that the OED gives detailed historical coverage of the English language, and we are speaking of historical usages here, spanning back over many centuries. Modern dictionaries like the Websters Third New International Dictionary, do not give historical English coverage and instead dwell on modern useages. The Oxford English Dictionary is available at essentially every library, just ask your librarian for access. SaltyBoatr get wet 17:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Let me expand on Websters "to carry or posses arms" meaning. It is immediately followed by - <the right of the people to keep and bear arms - U.S. Constitution>. BTW: I already cited a passage for you from The Canterbury Tales showing that the usage of the word in question meant "to carry" when those Tales were written. Here are a few others others http://www.archeryweb.com/archery/chaucer.htm - Let me know if the forester in question was going to wage war with his "horn" which he bore "on breast".

A yeoman had he, nor more servants, no, At that time, for he chose to travel so; And he was clad in coat and hood of green. A sheaf of peacock arrows bright and keen Under his belt he bore right carefully (Well could he keep his tackle yeomanly: His arrows had no draggled feathers low), And in his hand he bore a mighty bow. A cropped head had he and a sun-browned face. Of woodcraft knew he all the useful ways. Upon his arm he bore a bracer gay, And at one side a sword and buckler, yea, And at the other side a dagger bright, Well sheathed and sharp as spear point in the light; On breast a Christopher of silver sheen. He bore a horn in baldric all of green; A forester he truly was, I guess. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Since no one said yes, I will take that as a no!71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Introduction & reference to individual rights

I have removed the just added sentence from the introduction "The US Supreme has ruled that this right is an individual right, which cannot be restricted by federal, state or local governments." This seem wildly at odds with reality considering that a very large array of "longstanding prohibitions" are "presumptively lawful", so writing in the introduction "which cannot be restricted" seems wildly off-base. Restrictions have been ruled valid in federal courts these last two years. See [11] and [12]. SaltyBoatrgetwet 17:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, you threw the baby out with the bathwater. You were right in taking out the "cannot be restricted...." but you also deleted "individual right" which should have stayed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I plan to put back in the "individual" part. A stub sentence, but supported and correct, and we have to start somewhere. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Salty is good at removing the word individual, and bad at including it.71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I merged the first sentence of the Introduction with the "stub sentence". Now the first sentence refers to "each person's" RKBA. Hopefully everyone will be happy with this change. SMP0328. (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I am confused by SMP0328's and Schutpuppe's edit summaries. Unless I'm mistaken, they don't seem to match the edits done. But all's well that ends well which seems to be the case after Schutpuppe's edit.
"Right" is not POV, it is straight from the wording of the amendment which is the subject of this article, and that it is an individual right (although "individual right" is ambiguously brief) was clearly decided by the Supreme Court. North8000 (talk) 04:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
For the second time you deleted core, sourcable material without discussion. (the "individual right" sentence). Rather than being reverted, can you restore that deletion yourself? North8000 (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
This is also a POV balance issue. There remains to be seen in reliable sourcing that there is both a right of a firearm for traditionally lawful use such as self defense, plus there remains a right of the states to have militia free from federal infringement (which now has legal effect because Parker v. DC was affirmed I quote: "Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities in protects are not limited to militia service"). Therefore both the militia viewpoint and the self defense within the home viewpoint are presently valid. Keeping the introduction vague is the simple way to maintain NPOV. Use of the term "Individual right" without first defining it as being limited to "traditional lawful" falsely implies that there is a broad individual right when plainly there is no such thing. It is a matter of POV perspective. Some see Heller as validating unlimited individual rights, other see Heller as validating longstanding prohibitions on guns. We must carefully and fairly respect both significant POV's. SaltyBoatr get wet 15:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Salty, good points, but that brief statement in the lead does not state or imply otherwise. It merely says that that whatever the 2nd Amendment right is, such applies to individuals.North8000 (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The sentence I removed earlier certainly flatly stated incorrectly that there was a greater protection than reality, and it failed to convey that the civic purpose of militia service of the states still exists and is protected from infringement. What wording do you suggest? Perhaps: "The court has held that this right protects both the civic purpose of militia service plus traditionally lawful purposes such as self defense within the home for people who are not felons or mentally ill." That would be accurate, taking wording from the court documents, but hardly satisfactory because it is cumbersome. I suggest that we continue to do what we have done for years here, which is keep the introduction simple and sufficiently ambiguous to cover all the POVs. We can explain the detail of the various POVs inside the article. Also, a significant POV now is that under existing 2A law, "longstanding prohibitions" of guns are "presumptively lawful", and if we include a open ended statement about "individual rights" then for POV balance, I think that should be included in the introduction too. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you are right about keeping the lead short. But somewhere we have to let the major binding interpretations (Supreme Court decisions) regarding the 2A be covered as such. Putting them on the same level / covering them as just another POV is a POV distortion. I think that the content is already there in the Heller and McDonald sections, but lost as a "needle in the haystack" which is not right. We really ought to move forward on this.
I submit that there are two POV/OR things that you keep working to introduce. One is the juxtaposition of the "presumptively lawful" finding with the "individual right" finding. These are two different topics, each makes statements that are worded to be independent of each other, and to not conflict with or encroach on the other. The other is to keep leaving out the examples that the court gave in the "presumptively lawful" finding, which are brief and important. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Moving Heller and McDonald closer to the top would make them larger needles, but may cause other problems.71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Latest Flurry of Changes in the Lead

Why don't we all slow down here and build some consensus before editing contentions areas. Besides making this a painful mess (instead of just a difference of opinion) this would probably end up getting the article locked up again.

While it's only one example, Salty, I certainly don't agree with your last change to the lead. It implies things that were never said in the Heller decision, such as that the right is conditional on home defense, and that current laws are generally OK. These implications are unsourced and OR. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that longstanding gun prohibitions are being found presumptively lawful is well sourced, have you read this paper[13] that analyzes the post-Heller court cases? Over eighty cases have been ruled upon in the last two years, and unanimously, these courts have ruled that gun control laws are constitutional under the 2A. With the one exception of the handgun gun ban in DC, no other gun control laws have been overturned on Second Amendment grounds. Objectively per excellent sourcing, the "BIG DEAL" coming from Heller measured in real world terms is that virtually all gun control laws are being "presumptively" deemed lawful by the courts. If we could set POV battles aside, this should be said loud and clear, but the compromise is to leave the introduction ambiguous. SaltyBoatr get wet 22:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I just read/skimmed it, I don't think that it is what you said. It's one person's opinion/analysis on the Heller decision, and not a review or analysis of the post Heller court cases. And, since the 2nd Amendment was not confirmed as restricting State and Local laws, until a few weeks ago, how could cases about state and local laws laws prior to that be relevant to the current reality? North8000 (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

@North8000, There is not need to take my word for it then, counting up court rulings is not a matter of opinion, it is just simple counting. I appreciate that Professor Winkler's paper is long to read, so I am clip and pasting the relevant section of the paper (pages 15-17) where he counts the post-Heller court ruling. Just read it for yourself and you decide:

This is not really a matter of "one person's opinion". The rulings in these post-Heller gun law court cases are simply public record, and are easy for anyone to count. The UCLA law review article counted 75 court casts as of January 2008, and there has been more than a hundred new cases since, with similar results. In a more recent study, current as of two months ago, this website keeps track independently of post-Heller gun law cases and has counted a total of 200 cases including the intervening year. They say Courts have almost uniformly rejected challenges to federal firearm laws based on Second Amendment challenges., see also[14] and [15]. The bottom line here is that this new "individual right" has not translated into anything in the courts other than a slight easing of the gun restrictions in Washington DC, and even that was contested by Dick Heller, it went to trial and he lost[16] in March of this year. Therefore if we are to be honest here, the important "real world" effect of Heller has been the validation of essentially every gun law. There is no reason to predict that the state gun law challenges will be different because they will be looking to the precedent established by these 200 court cases these last two years. And, the key words these courts are looking to, repeated hundreds of times now, are that "longstanding prohibitions" of guns are "presumptively lawful". SaltyBoatr get wet 02:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

So which of those 75 rulings hold that the Second Amendment is not an individual right?
--Hamitr (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Salty, the "Individual Right" finding is essentially that being in or not in a militia has no effect on 2A rights, whatever those rights may be. What do these court cases have to do with that? You keep trying to occlude covering of this point with out-of-topic stuff. This finding is very important, resolves a long-standing debate on this particular topic, and needs to be prominently covered.
If we WERE talking about the effect of Heller on state and local laws (which, at the moment, we aren't), any pre-McDonald cases regarding on state and local gun laws would tend to be irrelevant.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, maybe the conversation has drifted now, but it started as a discussion about government restriction of the individual right, as the wording I objected to asserted falsely that the right: "...cannot be restricted by federal, state or local governments." My point is that yes, since 2008 there is an individual right component recognized by the court. And, that right is limited by presumptively lawful longstanding prohibitions. Adding the word 'lawful' to the lead, hopefully that is an acceptable compromise. SaltyBoatr get wet
I agreed with you on "cannot be restricted by federal, state or local governments" and I think that that statement has been gone for a few days and is old news. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
If you agree with me, what is your opinion of this[17] recent revert. This edit warring is a problem. By the way, I agree with you that we need to control the "flurry" edits in article space by talking instead, but the problem persists. And, I suggest that an article page protect would be warranted once again if we cannot keep the discussion of edits on the talk page and out of the edit summaries. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Section break

Salty is good at minimizing (current intro) and bad mouthing (slave control) the Second.
The closest to a consensus intro is here from a few weeks ago. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/Archive_29#Proposed_edit_to_Introduction. Salty will never go for it however. It has the word "individual" in it. Let me know what you think.71.184.184.238 (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
That's a big section with a lot of ideas in it. Which did you mean specifically? Maybe the first hing that we should decide is whether or not to cover this issue in the lead. Salty suggested not, which I said could be a good point, but then he went and put a lot of detail into the lead.
I tend to think keep the lead short, and then create a new section "Supreme Court Determinations" and put the key authoritative stuff there. Leave all of the details, dissenting opinions etc. in the court cases section.
But, guys, let's have some fun doing this. Disagree, but also mutually try to move this forward instead of an eternal slugfest , and hopefully in a friendly way. North8000 (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
It is unacceptable and just incorrect to say "individual rights" in the intro, without defining it as limited individual rights. This is because saying broadly "individual rights" doesn't fairly cover the various POVs seen. Honestly, keeping the introduction ambiguous seems easiest. But if we include "individual rights", we need to also include "longstanding prohibitions" are "presumtively lawful" and that not every individual has a right. SaltyBoatr get wet 22:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Salty,
  • You are misquoting what that sentence in the lead said, but let's not go there.
  • Keeping the lead short is cool, but that will just move this debate elsewhere.
  • I think that you are mis-paraphrasing and misinterpreting/misusing the wp: NPOV policy on alternative points of view. Essentially it just says that they should be covered and identified as such. One could even say the the ones now rendered obsolete or discredited by the recent Supreme court decision only need to be covered as such, per the "flat earth" example in the WP:NPOV policy. But either way, nowhere does it say that alternate viewpoints need to color or be included in every statement of the majority viewpoint, or (in this case) in every statement of the authoritative definition by the Supreme court. North8000 (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Finally, you keep throwing up the straw dog of implying that the "individual right" court determination statement is an assertion of particular individual rights or that they can't be restricted. This particular court determination is simply that whatever the right is, it is not conditional on service in a militia.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Noticed that Salty deleted the cite to the online Oxford dictionary

which doesn't match his POV bias, but which anyone can check, with a supposed quote from another Oxford dictionary which no one can check.

I also noticed he deleted the reference to Websters dictionary which I added over the past couple of days which also does not back his POV.

Looks like Salty is back to his obstructionist ways and a Salty against everyone else edit war is probably not far away.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I Checked a copy of the Mariam Webster Dictionary - a paperback printed in 1974. The first meaning of "bear" is "carry". There is no entry specifically for "bear arms" in this paperback dictionary. I think the meaning is conclusive - Of 3 dictionaries I have looked at, 3 say "Carry" is the primary meaning.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Mariam Webster online matches the "large" Websters I checked - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bear%20arms
The primary meaning is to carry, and the secondary to serve as a soldier - bear arms 1 : to carry or possess arms
2 : to serve as a soldier. Now 4 dictionaries checked. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually the passage you repeatedly delete is sourced to a book which talks about the Oxford English Dictionary. This is "reliable secondary sourcing" which you have deleted in your edit war. Your use of your research of modern dictionaries is problematic "primary research" which is intended to serve your purpose of "proving" that bear arms means carrying guns. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Spitzer cheated on his wife. It wouldn't surprise me to find he puts a different priority on a words meaning then the dictionary he quotes does. Regardless the two online dictionaries most widely used do not agree with Spitzer. You blather about primary sources has been answered before. Per wiki policies primary sources can be used. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed New Section

I propose we develop a new section that outlines the currently broadly relevant Supreme Court determinations / findings in an un-occluded manner. This most-important stuff (THE binding interpretation) is currently lost (needle in a haystack) in the current court section, and there is some question about trying to put this into the lead. Here's a start on the big items:

I propose that people feel free to edit the following section to develop this:

- - - Beginning of Editable Section - - -

Overall Title: Influential U.S. Supreme Court Interpretations

District of Columbia v. Heller

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use within the home in federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states. It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, i.e. irrespective of service or non-service in a militia.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia. The Court of Appeals had struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the District of Columbia's regulations act was an unconstitutional banning, and struck down the portion of the regulations act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." "Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975."

To clarify that its ruling does not invalidate a broad range of existing firearm laws, the majority opinion, written by Justice Scalia, said: "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."North8000 (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

McDonald v. Chicago

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___ (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the issue of gun rights. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

- - - End of Editable Section - - -

To 71.184.184.238, I hope you don't mind / my apologies if you do, that I moved the following out from under the "certain right...." section above. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The "worthy of the mad hatter" comment in Heller should be included to show that per the Supreme Court the collective rights theory is dead! dead! dead!71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

North8000 (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok with me!71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment I am not sure that this is really a new section considering that for a long time now the article has has sections devoted to both of these court cases[18][19]. I actually agree strongly that the is room for improvement to rewrite these two sections to give a greater attention to the holding, or as North8000 calls it: "the binding interpretation". Regardless, we should respect the WP:SS guidelines for how to do this, with a summary of the topic presented here, and the detailed coverage in the articles dedicated to both these court cases. SaltyBoatr get wet 19:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Either way, maybe we can develop the verbiage above. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I guess my "either way" idea isn't totally valid, as a revision of the current section would be lengthier that a "gist of the findings" section. And my main concern that the main findings would remain the current "needle in a haystack remains". How about we develop just the core findings, and then use that as a basis for whatever comes next. North8000 (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I have inserted the summaries from the two articles, which are pretty well written and serve just fine as concise overviews. SaltyBoatr get wet 22:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Nice start! I was thinking that the 3-4 "presumptively lawful" sentences directly from the decision (INCLUDING THE EXAMPLES THE COURT GAVE) would be a key addition. I know that you want that in there (less the examples)  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Heller wording above implies that guns are only legal inside the home. A solid NO from me on that wording!71.184.184.238 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC).
I wasn't talking about that. Maybe I used the wrong term. I was referring to the section where it said that the decision was not intended to void certain clearly good laws such as prohibiting insane people from having guns. North8000 (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of "well regulated militia", the Standard Model

Hoping to avoid an edit war in article space, this needs discussion on the talk page. Twice now[20][21], Hamitr has deleted the passage discussing the context of modern militia movements relative to the 18th Century meaning of "well regulated militia". First, please lets work this out using reason on the talk page, and not edit war sans discussion. And, reasoning via the edit summary is no substitution for talk page discussion.

The edit summary reasoning given by Hamitr is "this statement amounts to WP:SYN when included here since it has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment; add it to the militia movement article instead" and "rm statement that has nothing to do with the meaning of "well regulated militia" in the amendment; it could go in the militia movement page, though". Assuming this was the case, I am reinserting the paragraph with fixed footnoting.

This confusion might have been caused by munging of the footnotes done by Andy85719 in June 2010. In any case, the sourcing of the paragraph is from seminal article[22] by Garry Wills which discusses a significant point of view[23] concerning the "standard model" viewpoint of the Second Amendment. In no way is this source off topic for this article.

This raises a greater question about article structure, which is how to deal with the issue of the "standard model" of the 2A which dates from 1989-present. Unfortunately, there is bias in the article now where this modern viewpoint is painted as "the true" viewpoint. We are required by NPOV policy to treat viewpoints neutrally, so we should be fixing this bias problem.

There was a point in time prior to the re-write following Heller that the article contained coverage of the "standard model" theory, but that got hastily deleted out. Considering that the Standard model thesis is the elephant in the room concerning the modern interpretation of the 2A, and that it serves as the political and judicial underpinnings of the movement that lead to Heller we should be giving this important 2A topic coverage in this article. SaltyBoatr get wet 21:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The Supreme Court used the accepted meaning of well-regulated in Heller, by stating that well regulated means nothing more then well trained.71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
If you are looking for the viewpoint of the Founders then you either discover their opinion or the opinions of those close to their time period. This language from Nunn v Georgia will point you in the right direction

Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!

The preamble which was prefixed to these amendments shows, that they originated in the fear that the powers of the general government were not sufficiently limited. Several of the States in their act of ratification recommended that further restrictive clauses should be added...But...does it follow that because the people refused to delegate to the general government the power to take from them the right to keep and bear arms, that they designed to rest it in State governments? Is it not an inalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This right is too dear to be confided to a republican legislature.71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution → Second Amendment — The US 2nd amendment is clearly the prime topic with more than 20,000 views vs. about 150 for all other 2nd amendments in total([24]). Instead of moving, Second Amendment could also be made into a redirect. Schuhpuppe (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The primary topic issue only arises once you make up your mind that there is a need to shorten the title of the article, which IMO would be arbitrary and inconsistent with comparable articles. Also, avoiding systematic bias should be a more important concern (and, where sytematic bias is an issue, it does not seem sensible to base a decision solely on page visits). --FormerIP (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
To illustrate the systematic bias issue, the argument put by Schuhpuppe could almost certainly apply to all consitutional amendements (14th amendment, mentioned above: 18,503 v 76 for Ireland and 0 for poor old Pakistan). Although I don't have time to look for an example, it is also probable that there will be general topic articles such of the type "Phenomenon X in the United States" which, under this logic, would be re-named "Phenomenon X", with articles relating to other countries relegated to a disambiguation page. Not sure what we would do about the article French Kissin' in the USA under that circumstance, though (edited to add: if you click on the link, you'll see that soemone's ahead of us...). --FormerIP (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Not sure Wikipedia has a major problem with USA centric systemic bias, and that could hardly be more apparent that with the topic of bearing arms. The global perspective is much different than the USA perspective, and the USA perspective dominates Wikipedia. (Witness that the article about the global article about bearing arms is named with the USA centric title "keep and..." even though the term "keep and bear" is only applicable in the USA. The proposed page move would make that systemic bias even more obvious. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Partly support We should keep the original title to be consistent with other articles. However the page Second amendment should become a redirect to this page and its contents moved to a disambiguation page. While I am opposed to a USA centric view, the American constitution is the world's most important written constitution and its amendments are far more notable than those of other countries. The second amendment to the Australian constitution for example is more likely to be called the Constitution Alteration (State Debts) Act, 1909, and there are no articles for the second amendments of most countries' constitutions. TFD (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry TFD, but I just wanted to note that this phrase made me laugh out loud: "While I am opposed to a USA centric view, the American constitution is the world's most important written constitution". It may be a true statement, but my diaphragm never lies. --FormerIP (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The importance of a constitution is not based on the population of its country, but in its significance in constitutional studies. the U. S. contsitution is notable for the several reasons. It was the first written constitution and one of the few that actually created a new nation. There is a body of literature surrounding its creation by notable 18th century thinkers. It has provided a model for most if not all other written constitutions, including presidential systems but also parliamentiary democracies including India and other members of the Commonwealth, and even Communist countries. India copied judicial review from the U. S., while Australia copied "full faith and credit" and the same division of responsibility between states and federal government. In fact much modern terminology comes from the U. S, constitution: the president, senate, congress, supreme court, state for example. TFD (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I know that many, if not all of the original 13 colonies wrote up constitutions predating the US Constitution. A number of those original constitutions are still in force. For instance the one from Massachusetts continues to state that Massachusetts is a "free, sovereign, and independent state". Regardless of the importance of the US Constitution, the Second Amendment should follow the naming convention of the other Constitutional Amendment articles.71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Without wanting to get into mud-slinging, the contest for the title of "oldest surviving constitution" is a toss-up between the Bill of Rights, the constitution of San Marino and the Magna Carta. Which wins depends on your definition of "oldest", "surviving" and "constitution". In this particular race, the US constitution is a non-runner. 81.110.111.164 (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
One commentator states that "the American constitution is the world's most important written constitution". I would just point out that India (to take one example) has over a billion inhabitants and a very powerful supreme court. The Indian constitution has a whole lot of amendments with the same names as the American ones. Countries like India just don't have much impact on Google results, for obvious reasons. - Hibernian1 —Preceding undated comment added 18:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC).
I took that to mean that the US constitution influenced many/most constitutions that followed it, i.e. it's historically important. TFOWR 20:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Is conceit too strong a word? Navel-gazing? Is lacking clarity a good direction? The principle of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, and the phrase Second amendment means (wait for it) second amendment, anything else is plainly wrong in research terms, or grammatical terms. I believe that the existing disambiguation page is appropriate. Some of the argument above is clearly not thought through, if that argument is to be followed, we will be moving Constitution next. billinghurst sDrewth 07:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Support, U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!. Marcus Qwertyus (signs his posts) 17:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose If you are going to do this then all the other amendments should be done - but that will clash with constitutional amendments from many other countries. Wikipedia is supposed to give a World Wide View, this would make is just too USA biased.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, out of respect for the United States Constitution, a document worth naming in the title of an article on one of its components. I equally oppose redirecting Second Amendment (or Second amendment) here, which would amount to the same thing. Let the ambiguous unadorned term disambiguate. bd2412 T 03:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is the English Wikipedia, not the US Wikipedia. The majority of people in the world who can read English are not US citizens. There are many notable documents with at least two amendments. Article titles should be sufficiently descriptive; "Second Amendment" is not, and should remain a disambiguation page. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The tite as it currently stands is correct. Anytime you have an amendment it has to amend some other document. So the title should be Second Amendment to ___________. In this case the blank is the United States Consitution. Without that part of the title it is an ambiguous title. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 04:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Explanation of the POV tag

I have added the POV tag to the article in light of the edit warring over the wording of the introduction. Most recently[25] and [26], with the edit summary saying that there is a "right to revolt". This article needs to include a fair coverage of all the points of view seen. Certainly, the Insurrectionist point of view is one point of view, but it is not the only point of view. The whole article, but especially the introduction, needs to treat Insurrection-ism as point of view, not as an established "truth". Rather than edit warring this, it is wise at this point to add the POV tag to encourage other editors to see the talk page to work out this problem. SaltyBoatr get wet 22:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, I think that you are trying to caricature your opposition; "insurrection" was mentioned in an edit summary only as an example where the 2nd is not limited to "lawful"....e.g. where the laws/government are in conflict with the constitution. I also had trouble with your wording and was going to give a different example ( e.g. where the constitution would cause laws to be overturned rather than followed) but the other person beat me to it with their example.North8000 (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Lawful is POV. The Second enables self defense against usurpers. Usurpers would by definition call any resistance to their takeover of power "unlawful". See quote from Justice Story below. Especially "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."

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.71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr again added a POV tag. This time, I was the one to remove it. SaltyBoatr seems to want to add a Scarlet Letter to this article. All editors should be on the lookout for future attempts to restore the POV tag. SMP0328. (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be more helpful if we were to discuss the issue rather than impugning my intent. Based on the balance of reliable sourcing seen, the neutral point of view on this topic is for lawful bearing arms. Certainly, one point of view favors insurrectionary use, but that is not the main point of view seen. SaltyBoatr get wet 01:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Salty, again, I think that you are mis-characterizing and trying to caricature your opposition with that "insurrection" tangent. To the best of my knowledge, "Insurrection" was mentioned only in an EDIT SUMMARY and only as an example where the 2nd is not limited to "lawful"....e.g. cases where the laws/government are in conflict with the constitution. I also had trouble with your wording and was going to give a different example ( e.g. where the constitution would cause laws to be overturned rather than followed) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that a POV tag is appropriate North8000 (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
A less extreme example of unlawfull defense is this one http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/05/would-be-burglar-shot-to-death-by-west-side-resident.html
Why was it unlawfull? Because the 80 year old who shot the intruder used and unregistered firearm.198.105.0.4 (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
@North8000. You say the POV tag is not appropriate. I say it is appropriate. We dispute. Do you dispute that we dispute? The text of the tag says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.". Which part of that tag message is incorrect? Are we in an ironic situation where we dispute that we dispute? SaltyBoatr get wet 17:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Salty as long as your discredited militia based theory does not get top billing YOU will always have a dispute. Let me yet again repeat that the Supreme Court has not only rejected the militia based theory but has labeled it "worthy of the mad hatter". "Crazy talk" doesn't deserve much space in a wiki article.71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know what DeConde is supposed to be a reference to

I'm assuming this book http://www.amazon.com/Gun-Violence-America-Struggle-Control/dp/1555534864/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279670586&sr=1-2

The practice of having two places to go to find what is referenced is in my opinion bad practice. Anyway if someone can confirm the book above is the book referenced then it should be added to the list of references at the bottom of the article. Did I mention I didn't like that system?71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@AnonIP, Actually, no, you didn't object back when it was done. You and now I agree about the footnoting installed unilaterally by Andy85719 in June. This is a situation where the present style of editing by revert war fails us. We should really be discussing the changes so that we can keep Andy85719's style of footnoting up to date. SMP0328, I take it that you like Andy85719 style of footnoting, or is that still true? One big regret I have that was lost was that Andy85719 stripped out the URL convenience links that used to be part of the footnotes. I know this suggestion will go over like a lead balloon, but the simplest way to fix the footnote mess now is to back to a stable version prior to Andy85719's disaster. SaltyBoatr get wet 12:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr's request for full protection

SaltyBoatr has requested that the article be fully protected on grounds of there being a "dispute". All editors who have posted on this talk page should place a response as to SaltyBoatr's request before the request is acted upon. SMP0328. (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Obstructionist bull$%%^. Salty can't get his way and out of spite wants the article frozen.71.184.184.238 (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
If you have a problem about my behavior, the article page is not the place to discuss it, use the appropriate forum. Discuss the article, not the editor. I am willing to agree to use WP:Dispute Resolution procedure to resolve this article dispute. Are you? SaltyBoatr get wet 12:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Salty, I don't see where there is specific dispute. If you feel otherwise, could you say what you feel that it is? North8000 (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
There are a variety of issues, that add up. The biggest is the rewording of the introduction to reflect one POV as the only POV, and specifically the removal of the word "lawful" which is intended to promote the minor insurrectionist POV. Going back to an ambiguous intro would fix that. This problem in the introduction is amplified by the recent removal of the passage sourced to the Garry Will's 1995 New York Review of Books paper describing how the modern militia is not considered "well regulated" using the definition in place in 1789, (with the modern militia groups being insurrectionist). This problem warrants a POV tag to alert readers to this talk page discussion. (Is there a good reason not to alert readers?) Also beyond the introduction, there is a problem where this article in response to Heller was re-written with revisionist history. I have no problem with the fact that in recent decades that the operative point of view in the courts and politics has shifted towards the "Standard model" viewpoint. But I do see a NPOV violation when the article is being cleansed of NPOV reporting that other viewpoints even existed, and that the Standard Model viewpoint was not always the operative viewpoint of the Second Amendment. The court can make history, but the court cannot change history. The article is written as if the court changed the history. We should restore the deleted passage that describes the three models of Second Amendment interpretation. Ditto with the revisionist viewpoint about ancient English history, per sourcing the viewpoint was not always the natural right of insurrection. One major viewpoint about that is that it emerged anew in the 1600's, with the adherents just claiming it to be ancient.
That said, asking again, do editors agree to follow WP:Dispute Resolution procedures? SaltyBoatr get wet 13:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
This looks more like 5-10 complex topics to me, more a call for some orderly, consensus article development, rather than resolvable by or reduc-able to 1 or 2 dispute resolutions. I think most of us could agree to keep the lead short and somewhat vague. That would also include you not injecting selected coloring / occluding details. My own agenda is just to make sure that the influential Supreme court findings get covered as such, not lost in the current needle in the haystack situation. That whole English history / natural rights thing looks too huge and complex (and outside of my field of knowledge) for me to even go near and so I haven't. When I offered to "mediate" that particular topic, I was really just planning to just guide the current discussion into chrystalizing what the main questions were with respect to article content and then trying to marshall a discussion to move it forward. To me the topic looks too big and complex to be handled in a typical dispute resolution. North8000 (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
You could show your good faith by making that "keep the lead short and somewhat vague" edit now. SaltyBoatr get wet 17:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm with you 100% on that. But I'm not sure how to do that. I think that both "sides" have some problems with what's in the first paragraph. But if we're talking about making it shorter, the second paragraph is full of secondary "off the main track" stuff. I'll give it a try in the talk section in a few minutes. North8000 (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
My two cents is that this article spends entirely too much time being protected essentially because a single user disagrees with everyone. That being said, it's not a blanket for people to start edit-warring, but I think 3R policies will suffice rather than full-on protection. I agree with North that there is way too much english history and not enough current history. The problem is that the article reflects the previously unsettled arguments that mostly no longer apply. We should edit it to state the current status in the lead, and then have a section on previous controversy or some such topic that covers these things. Giving a lot of space to "standard mode" type issues no longer makes sense, SCOTUS has said it protects an individual right. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I agreeNorth8000 (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
@AliveFreeHappy Are you speaking as an administrator, or as an involved editor? I find it of concern that your emphasis is on disagreement between parties, and not on WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. The case we see here is that the weight of personal opinion is one thing, and the weight of WP:RS is another thing. This problem would be solved if we could focus on sources, avoiding original research and meticulously sticking with a fair balance based on the neutrality balance seen in the full body of the sources. Trouble being for the last two months, you see editors fixated on WP:BATTLE,and conversation quickly goes to we all disagree with a single user. (like you just did) No, actually I am not arguing for a single user. I am looking at sourcing and saying that it doesn't match with the personal opinion of the editors here. This seems like an issue of editor Confirmation bias. Also, you wrote "previously unsettled arguments". What is that? We still have all these books prior to 2008. Are we to burn the books because of the Supreme Court? SaltyBoatr get wet 20:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't go back far enough here to have seen any SPECIFIC sourcing objections raised, if indeed any have. But in the area that I have seen specifics, and and I indicated previously, I believe that it was clear that you were misquoting and misapplying WP:NPOV. North8000 (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I am still interested in hearing AFH's answer to my questions. The portion of NPOV I am thinking of is: "Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Repeatedly, some editors making edits here in the last two months have argued that somehow the Supreme Court negates some significant views seen in the sourcing. That arguments seems to violate the policy wording all significant views. Put in other terms, the court can make history, but the court cannot change history. Worse, the courts have solidly interpreted Heller to allow widespread gun regulations outside the home, and the insurrectionist viewpoint that certain editors here are advocating is fringe in that light. Show me sourcing that indicates that much weight should be given to the insurrectionist viewpoint. A few specific complaints: The deletion of the sourced content that the insurrectionist modern militia movement are not considered to be "well regulated". Also, the undue emphasis placed on the insurrectionary viewpoint read by editor interpretation of Blackwell's and Story's primary written words as "truth"; while at the same time deletion of the contrary POV seen in sourcing. Also, the bury of the tradition of militia duty evolving into a right to have arms, that is a MAJOR point of view reaching the level of dogma, and we have yet to receive an answer to our request for sourcing of the assertion of the "ancient right of insurrection" thesis. SaltyBoatr get wet 22:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
With respect to being the legal instrument that the 2A is, the Supreme court is not a "viewpoint" of the current reality, it CREATES the current reality. Those other things that you're talking about I've not seen debated in the last few weeks here (which is long as I've been here) so I don't see how they relate to a current discussion of locking up the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
How much space do we need to reserve for "crazy talk". Yet again the US Supreme Court has stated that the militia based theory is "worthy of the mad hatter" - i.e. its "crazy talk".71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue SB is that we need to appropriately write the article so that these POV's that we need to included have proper weight. When the 2A was unsettled, it was proper to give large weight to various opinions on what it meant. Now that scotus has ruled, the previous opinions about what it means don't have the same weight. The article shouldn't be stuffed with info about how the 2A doesn't apply to individuals for example. It can say that there was a large group of people who thought it didn't apply to individuals, but scotus has ruled otherwise. Laying out huge sections intending to show that it's only militia, or that bear arms only means military services, or any other arguments that have been settled is undue weight. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

@AliveFreeHappy Are you speaking as an administrator, or as an involved editor? Also, I am confused about what you are saying about "unsettled", because this seems like you are saying that one point of view is now settled. What is your sourcing of that claim? Heller, which affirmed Parker v. District of Columbia 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007). The Court states pretty clearly, I quote: "Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities in protects are not limited to militia service" (emphasis added). The court seems quite clear that it merely added an individual right component, and did not nullify void or replace the militia service component of the right(s) protected by the Second Amendment. If the right includes both a militia based component and a self protection within the home component, why should we be ignoring the militia viewpoint? Also it appears you misunderstand me, and I am not arguing against giving coverage to the recent individual right component established in 2008, nor am I arguing for "showing that it's only militia". Instead I am hoping we can say that the court believe that then, and this now. Do you have any sourcing that say the Second Amendment no longer protects the states militia? SaltyBoatr get wet 22:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I am NOT saying there is no militia component, nor have I ever suggested such a thing. I merely pointed out that those who have argued that the 2A is purely militia ( and they are numerous in this article) are now basically in a flat-earth state. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This raises the question of whether the article should be written about present day, or about the historical progression of the Second Amendment. For instance, it would be relevant to describe how the viewpoints on the Second Amendment have evolved over time. We should give coverage to the emergence of the Standard Model theory, and not treat that theory as if it was always in existence. SaltyBoatr get wet 00:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't it cover both? And shouldn't it be clear which is which? The current version puts the "models" discussion about what the 2A might mean over what the court says it does mean. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The article should say what the Standard model is, and it should say that the Supreme Court did not accept the model, but then that in 2008 it did accept the model. The models still are real viewpoints regardless of what the Supreme Court says they believe. The Supreme court doesn't trump NPOV policy. SaltyBoatr get wet 01:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say they aren't points of view, the question is how much space is devoted to theories that are contrary to the law of the land. They don't carry the same weight that they did when the issue was unsettled. Prior to the 2A they were essentially a variety of opinions on what they thought the law meant. Now they are intresting historical footnotes about what people thought the law meant. You'll find such dust-ups in the history of many legal issues, but you won't notice much space given to such disagreements in any of the other amendment articles, even though such disagreements did previously exist. In fact a perusal of the other amendment articles gives us a pretty good guideline for how to proceed. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Decouple

Is it possible to decouple the various issues currently under dispute? It would be nice to have a brief bulleted list of the items and then try to pick them off one by one as much as possible. It may be that some are less contentious than others and can be resolved. I realize that some are inextricably intertwined, but it seems to me that there must be some way to make progress. To that end I've started a brief list.

  • Individual rights
  • Meaning of "bear arms"
  • Meaning of "well regulated militia"
  • Significance of recent court decisions.
  • English History

Feel free to edit it directly or discuss below, including of course rejecting the whole idea of decoupling outright. It won't hurt my feelings. ;-) AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This is probably OR or synthesis or contrary to some other wiki policy BUT

It is interesting to see the Roman influence in England long after the Roman Empire (at least the Western Roman Empire) became dust.

The "hundreds" referenced in early English texts are probably militia groups directly descending from the Roman "Centuries" while the "tithe" probably refers to militia groups of around 10 men - tithe was probably an early spelling of "tenth", as in one tenth of a hundred (Century).

Roman militias was composed of Roman citizens who were expected to provide their own arms. Militia troops in general provided their own "personal" arms and armor in whatever age they existed and in whatever country they existed.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O27-tithe.html - tithe adj. (arch.) tenth OE.; sb. tenth part of annual produce paid to the Church XII; tenth part XVI. OE. tēoða, contr. of teogoða, ME. tiʒ(e)þe, tīþe; see TENTH Hence tithe vb. OE. tēoðian, teogoðian grant a tithe of. So tithing (-ING1) church tithe; company orig. of ten householders in the system of frankpledge.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty you are now WAY PAST a 3rr violation

Please cease and desist in pushing your DISCREDITED POV! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to make such a claim, it's helpful to provide diffs to backup your assertion. That way others can quickly check for themselves to see if it's true. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you check how many times Salty has either deleted material or changed material in the article within the last 24 hours "with intervening edits by other posters." BTW: I provided the backup you asked for.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Merely deleting or changing material does not create a 3R violation. If you have a specific complaint, please make it. If you expect others to research it for you, you're not likely to get much support.
YES IT DOES when it happens 4 or more times in a 24 hour period with intervening posts by other editors. Look it up!
Re the backup - the sources you gave were only primary sources which cannot be used to create an opinion such as you put in the article. Primary sources can only be quoted directly in legal cases. The paragraphs you put in arrived at an editorial conclusion based on your reading of the sources. If you can find someone else who says the same in a WP:RS then we can put it in. Otherwise it seems to be WP:OR. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Primary sources are usable as long as an educated person can interpret the cited material. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." It saddens me to see that your education is so lacking that are incapable of interpreting the following without help.

These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

or this

Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!

or even this

That the provision in question applies only to the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law, is also apparent from the second amendment to the federal Constitution, which says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Here, also, the right of the people to keep and bear arms for their security is preserved, and the manner of bearing them for such purpose is clearly indicated to be as a member of a well-regulated militia, or some other military organization provided for by law.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Revised Lead

Feel free to edit in the marked area.

- - - Beginning of Editable Section - - -

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The U.S. Supreme Court made influential rulings and interpretations of this amendment in 2008 and 2010, the first time since 1940. This Court ruled that this right is not based on membership in a militia and is an individual right. It also ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governmental authority to the same same extent that it limits federal authority. [1] An ordinance, banning handguns in the home, was found to violate this Amendment and was struck down. The Supreme Court also stated that it's ruling was not to be taken as an indication that all firearm restrictions are unconstitutional. North8000 (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

- - - End of Editable Section - - -

North8000 (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That is pretty good, thank you very much. Technically, the Supreme Court in Heller affirmed Parker v. District of Columbia that the DC ordinance was in violation of the Second Amendment. In the case of McDonald, the Supreme Court did not rule that the Chicago ordinance was in violation of the Second Amendment. What the SCOTUS did was to hold that the circuit court had used the wrong standard (vis a vis Incorporation) and the case was remand back to the circuit court for re-trial. That re-trial has not happened yet, so at present, just one gun law has been deemed invalid. SaltyBoatr get wet 21:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Technically you're right about the Chicago law. But immediately after the McDonald decision, the Chicago City council replaced the law that the Supreme Court ruled on. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I changed it to what I think is for the better. Salty will disagree. It was unclear if I was supposed to change the text or follow up the above text with a new version. To North - if I was not supposed to change your proposed text please revert to your original and I will add my proposed language after youes.71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I intended that editors just change the text, within that "editable" section. North8000 (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello 71.184...... In my draft I described what what the court meant by "individual right" (whatever the right specific is, it is not affected by service/ non-service in a militia) without actually using that word to try to avoid opening a can of worms for the lead. I couldn't find a way to write an individual right sentence without being faced with the dilemma with the following dilemma....the sentence will inevitably look like this: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX is an individual right, and then "XXXXXXXX would need to be a definition of the right, which is still both unclear, and would be a subject of debate, and too big to tackle in the lead. My own version of XXXXXXX "rights, whatever they may be" was very awkward sounding but still a good attempt at summarizing the "individual right" finding which did not define the right, just that it was not dependent on milita use. Not sure how to deal with that, maybe with the following change, it will be cool with everybody. Of cours that all just in my humble opinion.
Your "exercisable by all." phrase is not correct, because the court not only did not say that, but gave an example of bans against certain individuals which their ruling did not affect. I'm planning on taking those three words out, and then see what folks (including Salty) think about it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I can see the issue of exercisable by all and don't object to its removal. As for the unconnected with service in the militia, that is straight out of Heller. If Salty doesn't like it, he can take it up with the Supreme Court. As for the rights limitations, something like. "while the Supreme Court has ruled that the right is not unlimited, what the limits of that right are has not been settled" might work.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that Salty was already OK with the "unconnected" And I think that your new sentence is very informative an unlikely to be disputed. This is a working draft that nobody owns....I just organized it a little.....feel free to put it in.
Salty?
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
In there are no objections I'll replace the lead with this later today. If there are, we'll noodle on this some more. I do have several objections with the current lead, but those would become a moot point. North8000 (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It looks pretty reasonable as an intro to me. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I put it in. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that is an improvement. SaltyBoatr get wet 21:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

null edits to keep this record visible longer North8000 (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Anything Else?

I did a flurry of activity trying to move forward on a reasonably-acceptable-to-y'all lead. I think that the new lead makes my previous new section idea a moot point. I don't have any plans to try to do anything else here, although I'd be happy to help if there is a hot topic or something where y'all would like me to try to do the same thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Your work is much appreciated. If you are asking for a suggestion of things here needing help: The massive re-structure of the footnotes by Andy85719 in June, splitting the footnotes into three sections (coupled with trimming out the footnoted quotations of the sources) has caused a big mess. Fixing and checking the footnotes is a big task which needs help. SaltyBoatr get wet 13:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't see this until just now. I haven't figured out the current structure yet. North8000 (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty there is a 3rr violation being filed against you

for edit warring71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You can respond here

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/EW#User:SaltyBoatr_reported_by_User:71.184.184.238_.28Result:_.2971.184.184.238 (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionaries Online is not the Oxford English Dictionary

collapsing this discussion, as the problem in the article is now fixed

Can we discuss this edit[27] by SMP0328? It is marked as "minor" and it has the edit summary "Minor fixes; added two wikilinks". Yet the edit makes the false claim that the website "www.oxforddictionaries.com" is the Oxford English Dictionary. Really? There is a huge difference between the two! The OED is a massive 20 volume dictionary which is the definitive reference work on historical usages of the English language.

Also, this edit by SMP0328 was made without any discussion on the talk page. And, if he had checked in on the talk page he would have learned that this passage is in the middle of an edit war[28] by 172.184..., involving the deletion of the passage source to two reliable sourced books describing the analysis of the linguistic origins of the term "bear arms" using the OED and the insertion of primary research by 172.184... drawn from the online dictionary describing the modern usage of the word. Also, the original research claims this as the definition of "bear arms" when actually it is the definition of the word "bear".

(After we fix the error inserted by SMP0328.) Could we resume a discussion of the merits of the passage describing the linguistic origins of the term "bear arms" which was sourced to the Spitzer book ISBN 1576073475 (pages 6,7) and the Wills book ISBN 0684870266 (pages 256-7)? Are these unreliable sources? SaltyBoatrgetwet 14:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionaries Online is the Internet version of the Oxford English Dictionary. Read this!. SMP0328. (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, quoting from your link "Oxford Dictionaries Online is Oxford’s innovative modern English dictionary and language reference service. " "Oxford Dictionaries" is not the same as the Oxford English Dictionary. The key difference is that it is a "modern English" dictionary. The true Oxford English Dictionary gives attention to obsolete English, and it gives attention to how the English language has changed over time. The Oxford English Dictionary is a giant 20 volume dictionary, and it too is available on the Internet at the URL http://dictionary.oed.com/. Access requires a subscription, and where I live my public library gives free access with your library card. Many other libraries give free access. Paying attention to the historical usage of the meaning of "bear arms" during the time of the drafting of the Second Amendment is important, and the OED says that the definition "to bear arms: to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." dates to usage example from 1795. Deleting this historical and substituting the modern definition of "carry guns" and claiming it comes from the OED is plain sloppy. We are required to give a balance view of the two major viewpoints, and this article section has had the "military service" meaning scrubbed. This POV imbalance warrants a POV-section tag. SaltyBoatr get wet 21:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
So we should consider the OED as authoritative, but not the SCOTUS? Also, are there any other definitions for "bear arms" in the OED? Finally, stop trying/threatening to add POV tags to the article; it's not productive. SMP0328. (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The meaning with respect to the application of the 2A, a US legal instrument, has been determined by the US Supreme Court. It doesn't opine on the reality, it creates it. While sidebar discussions of it's meanings in other places and at other times and under various other opinions is also nice, such discussions are just that. North8000 (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Learn the difference between Obiter dictum and Ratio decidendi. Scalia's discussion of the meaning of "bear arms" is not the holding, it is merely dicta. No, the dicta of the Supreme Court does not actually determine or create reality. Instead, just the holding of the court determines legal precedent for future cases, so your point about creating reality really only applies to things going forward. Considering that WP:CRYSTALBALL prevents us from predicting much into the future, it is hard to understand what point you are trying to make. My point here is that there is a great body of work written about the history of the Second Amendment which is unaffected. We can and should read those books, and no, those books are not invalidated by the SCOTUS. Now, as always, we should scrub out the making of political arguments from the article. Some of the books describe political arguments. We should continue to neutrally, fairly and objectively describe what we read and try not to editorialize. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
So, for the understanding of the USA legal meaning of the 2A, a US legal instrument, we should use your selection from amongst British dictionaries (even rejecting the on-line Oxford dictionary) rather than the U.S. Supreme Court?North8000 (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the meaning of keep and bear arms section: Do other editors agree that we should fix the erroneous sentence (presently footnote 114)? SaltyBoatr get wet 14:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, at least by titles and structures,currently there is no section on the meaning of "to keep and bear Arms." There is only a section on scholarly commentary on "to keep and bear arms". That structure is a combined POV invitation (i.e. "pick a scholar who espouses your opinion and put in their/your opinion) plus a recipe for excluding the US legally authoritative definitions of the terms. If we really want to fix it, step one would be to move the "to keep and bear arms" section out from under the "scholarly commentary" section. Until then, who knows what the standard for this section is. We could include 10 different dictionary definitions since they're all "scholarly commentary" which is the only criteria of this section. If there is ANY standard for inclusion in an article on a US legal instrument, your idea of removing a definition consistent with the US Supreme court opinion and introducing a definition that conflicts with it would be introducing rather than correcting an error North8000 (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC) as participant
I am referring to this section[29]. It is an error to call the dictionary OxfordDictionaries.com the Oxford English Dictionary. Frankly, this kind of error is embarrassing. SaltyBoatr get wet 22:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the North8000 point, no, per WP:NPOV significant points of view must be included fairly without bias. Perhaps it is time we check with the NPOV noticeboard. Again, and again I see editors saying that opinion of the court somehow trumps Wikipedia policy. No, I believe it does not. SaltyBoatr get wet 22:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, your saying "I see editors saying that opinion of the court somehow trumps Wikipedia policy" is a silly strawdog misrepresentation of what we've been saying, and I find it to be very disingenuous, . What I have been saying is in essence that, with respect to the legal meaning of the 2A, a US legal instrument, the US Supreme Court CREATES the reality which Wikipedia is covering. There is no conflict, no "trumping", they are two separate things; one creates it, the other covers what has been created. North8000 (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not disingenuous. Can you appreciate that when I hear editors speaking of "the reality" like you just did, that I am reminded of the times that editors come here to this politically charged article speaking of "the truth"? This concern could be put to ease if we were instead discussing what the reliable sourcing says. I have read a lot about this topic, and am prepared to discuss it. In the mean time, we turn circles talking past each other because we apparently are seeing different versions of reality.
Specifically about your assertion at to "the legal meaning" which you seem to view as something fixed and settled. When I read sourcing[30][31], I see that the experts observe that the SCOTUS has left the core aspects of "the legal meaning" unclear, most notably the standard of review which is a critical question. Also, the question of exactly which "individuals" have this new protection of a right is undetermined. Worse, you seem to think that McDonald has settled something. No, McDonald actually did nothing more that remand the case back to the 7th Circuit for a retrial. That retrial has not yet happened. If we were discussing sourcing, we could be sorting these questions out. Can we start discussing sourcing now?
We're going in circles here. IMHO it appears that you are asserting that that the only thing that Heller did was set aside one gun law, and that the only thing that McDonald did was to remand one gun law. Does this correctly summarize what you have been asserting? If so, we at least know what you are asserting.
Just to clarify, when I said "disingenuous, I was referring to badly misstating/misquoting what we are arguing into a form that was absurd and silly sounding. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
No, your summary of what I am asserting that these sources say is not correct. By the way, I am not willing to discuss or debate with you on this talk page what I personally believe. Specifically here, I see that a number of editors using edit war tactics, have stripped out the coverage in this article of what we see written in reliable sources, which is that during the late 18th Century that the term "bear arms" had the predominate meaning in context of military service. Certainly the Oxford English Dictionary says this. Editors, with apparent political intent, substituted the modern English meaning found in a modern English dictionary which is "carry arms". I don't dispute that the modern English meaning is "carry arms". It is just false to say that the Oxford English Dictionary (which gives coverage of obsolete English usages) says this. Presently, the article is saying something that is plain false.
Also, I see that editors here have repeatedly tried to interpret Scalia's dicta for meaning about the "bear arms". This interpretation of primary court documents is notoriously difficult. I see that Scalia's reasoning in Heller pretty closely matches the reasoning seen in the Cramer and Olson paper, where they focus on the few notable exceptions in the hundreds of usages of "bear arms" seen in 18th Century writings. They acknowledge that most of the usages were seen in context of military services, but because there are a few exceptions seen, that therefore we can conclude that a "self defense" 18th Century meaning is possible and preferable. There are other authors (Uviller, Merkel, Wills, and others) that criticize this method of focusing on the rare exceptions in the language usage, and giving these rare exceptions more weight than the common usage. I am arguing that we craft the "meaning of bear arms" section to give coverage to both these points of view seen. We can mention prominently, using neutral phrasing, that in 2008 the Supreme Court chose one of the these points of view seen. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Salty, by a preponderance of observations, including a huge amount of exchanges of the last few weeks, I have decided that IMHO you are trying to get to a POV'd article rather than being sincere about trying to get to an accurate article. And that you are using WP mechanisms (especially WP:VER, but secondarily misquoting/misapplying WP:NPOV) as tools in a POV quest rather than as intended. What I find most telling is that each time we get close to a core sincere question, you change the subject and start throwing flak around instead. Two recent examples were when an editor made a change because he thought that YOU wanted the change, you accused him of edit warring while refusing to say whether your were for or against the change. This is because you would have been forced to admit that you were accusing him of edit warring for making a change that YOU wanted, and that he made it because he felt that you wanted it. And, you have been trying to suppress coverage of the Supreme Court Heller and McDonald findings by implying that the dicta from these cases are not relevant, but when I tried to get to the heart of this core and important question you changed the subject. I am bolding this because, although I anticipate continuing to have continuing civil communications with you in this article, this is my "swan song" (= I am giving up) regarding trying to have sincere in depth discussions with you. Again, I still look forward to working you on a civil but more superficial level. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to annoy you. I take policy here seriously. WP:V says that we should be using reliable sourcing. I am feeling impatient too, when my requests to discuss reliable sourcing are met with refusal. Also, the policy WP:NPOV requires: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." When this talk page, and this article, falls under the "viewpoint prevalence" of the editors as has been occurring here, we violate policy. That is the reason we must be discussion the reliable sources. SaltyBoatr get wet 18:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that "disappointed" would be a better word tahn "annoyed". I had hopes for better; a joint effort with you toward the higher calling of an accurate, informative article. North8000 (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
In the mean time, this article laughingly calls OxfordDictionaries.com the Oxford English Dictionary. This is embarrassing. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Blatant POV pushing by SaltyBoatr

Once again I have had to delete a piece of blatant POV pushing by SaltyBoatr. His re-telling in the history section is straight from the Malcolm book. It is not a mainstream view as he claims. No major English historian (by which I mean a historian based in England) accepts this nonsense. He does not accredit his retelling to Malcolm but this is what ´that telling is. The mainstream view is, on the contrary to what he claims, that English historians believe that the right was a natural adjunct to the right to life in a world fraught with danger and little regard for the nicety of law which did not even begin to get formalized until Norman times. All this stuff about Statute of Winchester and the like is pure baloney intended to impress upon us the Malcolm view that the right developed over time. The connection between the Second Amendment and English law begins naturally with a discussion about the Bill if Rights in England and the standard view of history and not the revisionist views of Joyce Lee Malcolm.

If Salty really wishes to help Prof. Malcolm, he would do well to stop pushing her clearly personal and quirky views. It draws attention to them and could result in her disregard of historical documents as well as archaeological evidence of widespread arms ownership in the dark ages becoming much more well known and destroy her credibility in the eyes of mainstream historians.--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Accusation of POV pushing is incivil, especially an accusation as unfounded as this. That the 2A is founded upon the very old English tradition of militia duty is VERY widespread in reliable sourcing. (Explained a dozen times on this talk page, see above.) It is not just Joyce Lee Malcolm's book, but her book has been VERY widely accepted and influential. Notice that Hauskalainen objects solely to Malcolm while at the same time reverting[32] text sourced to (16) sixteen highly reliable books, (including the Encylopedia Britanica), only one of these books is authored by Professor Malcolm yet Hauskalainen deleted all sixteen. Hauskalainen should explain this shocking inconsistency in his accusation that someone here is pushing a POV.
We are talking about the American viewpoint of English history here, so I don't understand your limitation to "English historians". It is ironic that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in his book describes Professor Malcolm as being English. That said, can we have this English history section based on a fair balance of the third party secondary sourcing? We have been discussing this for almost two months, and I have provided dozens of these sources and Hauskalainen has provided none. Show your sourcing please. SaltyBoatr get wet 13:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Edit warring is even more uncivil, and downright criminal when you do it and then blame others such as in your last page freeze request.71.184.184.238 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC).
I know that I am stepping into both a topic and a dispute that I am not knowlegable on (my apologies) but Salty, your main recent edit in this consisted of inserting a huge amount of material en masse, along with an edit summary which gave a justification which is arguable at best. It said that the viewpoint espoused by this large insertion, which others are agueing is fringe, is THE mainstream viewpoint. North8000 (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
BTW I am not here arguing that you are POV pushing, I don't have the knowledge in this section topic to know whether or not you or anyone is doing that. I'm really more saying that your editing approach on this disputed topic is such that it would inevitably get reverted, and thus counterproductive to bringing this to some type of resolution. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Salty's position can be summarized as follows, if it supports gun control its good, if it doesn't support gun control its bad. That's textbook POV push behaviour.71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
@North8000 The passage I inserted, is not a passage I wrote. I was instead restoring the long-time stable passage from the English History section that had been developed through editor consensus. See for instance this version from 2009[33]. The version supported by Hauskainen now has been subject to dispute these last two months, and have all the appearances of being his personal research. If he could show us confirmation in reliable secondary sourcing, I could be convinced otherwise. The trouble is that he has been asked for his sources as least a dozen times and he has not yet replied. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Salty, thanks for that response. I don't have the knowledge on the topic of this section to know what to think about these POV/Source/Content arguments. But IMHO saying that the large block of material came from a 2009 version of the article doesn't change my own thoughts (whatever little my thoughts are worth) when I said "I'm really more saying that your editing approach on this disputed topic is such that it would inevitably get reverted, and thus counterproductive to bringing this to some type of resolution." Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your thoughts, and frankly I agree about this seeming counterproductive. The trouble is that when I attempted to follow Dispute Resolution[34] to resolve this exact dispute, I was refused. Clearly dispute resolution procedures are much preferable to negotiation through reverts, and I remain eager and willing to use WP:DR. Presently, at least, both Hauskalainen and AnonIP are the editors here who have refused DR, not me, see[35] and [36] for their refusals. Do you have suggestions what other options remain to resolve this dispute when the editors I am in disagreement refuse to follow WP:DR? I am open for ideas. SaltyBoatr get wet 19:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Dispute resolution only works with those who wish a fair resolution and will then accept it. It doesn't work with those whose only purpose in using it is to get their way, either by hook or by crook, and who will ignore it at the first convenient opportunity.71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that at the moment this is too big and complex for wp:dr. If you three would be willing to give it a try, I would be happy to try to organize a dialog & effort to move this forward. Besides my commitment to accuracy above all else, I think that I am dumb enough and uninvolved enough on this whole natural right / British history thing, to approach it as just a dumb moderator/organizer. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Good luck with that. When I tried to help out here, I discovered I belonged to a "cabal" (snort!), by virtue of the fact that I had once left a comment on this talk page 2 years ago and reverted some vandalism. The "cabal" accusations, I notice, have continued unabated. This assumption of bad faith on the part of one editor pretty much discredits the arguments presented, and I'm not happy with the behavior of the others either, for that matter. I'm still trying to figure out, where is this cabal, and how do I join? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
@North8000 If you are offering to help, I am curious about your opinion of the disputed text, seen being taken out in this diff[37]. Hauk and I have gone back and forth more than a few times on this passage. I think that this text he deleted is well sourced, and that it pretty fairly describes the neutral POV widely seen in many sources. By the way, this is not text which I authored, but rather long standing text from the article developed by consensus which Hauk deleted and which I am trying to restore. Hauk's view is: (I encourage him speak for himself). But, he has said that he thinks this long standing text from the article is Malcolm's revisionist myth. SaltyBoatr get wet 21:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Although I've spent a bunch of time trying to get up to speed on this section, I still don't have the knowledge base to have an opinion on the perspective/accuracy of the material or quality of the sources. But I do have a few thoughts as a participant (not as a debate moderator/organizer). First, as a preface, with the Heller decision making the definition of "militia" less relevant in a 2A discussion, we have to question the overall quantity of "militia definition" coverage that we have in the article, much less a substantial expansion of it. Second, the opening statement "the concept of a universal militia originated....", and it's implied (by placement) claim to be the roots of whatever militias the 2A was referring to is a broad-reaching and controversial claim. Probably would need REALLY solid sourcing, and even then stated as an opinion rather than fact. Third, as an overview, your large insertion is basically a large quantity of material about certain militias in old English history. Without implying anything, the question is why is it in a 2A article? One answer would be to bolster a particular interpretation of the word "militia" for 2A purposes. If so, without alternate history angles also presented, such would be POV, and the juxtaposition into this context (the def for 2A purposes) would be a form of synthesis. North8000 (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
You have expressed some opinions, and asked one question. Answering that question, why is this discussion in the article? The answer is that per policy, we are to read the reliable sourcing, and then we are to fairly represent without bias that sourcing into this article. Check all the sources and the conclusion seems inescapable, the very large majority of this sourcing points to the origin of the Second Amendment coming the the long tradition militia duty in English history. What sourcing says otherwise? Identify it, lets do the policy required balance weight check and then lets include that sourcing too. Unfortunately, ever since the Hausk version got locked in as the stasis version, he seems to have forgotten that on July 8th he asked for time[38] to explain his sources. Now Hausk seems content to sit back, and not explain his sources, and just revert war[39] to protect his favored text. SaltyBoatr get wet 13:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I originally intended my question to be one of "what is the relevance of this insertion". But now I've read your response and looked closer. Is the following a correct description of what you are essentially saying?:
The last paragraph of the "English History Section" contains wording that implies a pre-2nd definition of "militia". I (Salty) think that that there is a a majority or significant minority opinion that is contrary to that and feel that it should be covered.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Hauk that this text is definitely not NPOV. It's malcom-centric, which was a novel interpretation. Yes, lots of people who favor gun control refer to it now, because it suits their political leaning, similar to the issue of quick acceptance of Besellies work. That doesn't make it the main point of view. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

@AFH Wow. Is this your personal opinion? Or, are you speaking from what you have read? In any case, please show us some sourcing for your claim of "novel interpretation" and that "lots of people who favor gun control refer to it now". You seem wildly off base. Do you realize that:
  1. Gun control people dislike the Malcolm book.[40][41]
  2. Pro-gun advocates, blogs and editorialist's generally like and recommend the Malcolm book.[42][43][44][45][46][47]
  3. Antonin Scalia has described the Malcolm book as "an excellent study". ISBN 9780691004006 (pgs 136-137)
  4. This Malcolm book has been highly praised by the National Rifle Association, appearing on their approved reading list for 12 years now.[48][49]
  5. The Malcolm book has been described in reliable sourcing thusly: "(Malcolm's) book was enthusiastically received by American historians, legal commentators, and the gun community. ... Malcolm's thesis has been widely accepted; in some circles it enjoys the status of dogma respecting the English origins of the Second Amendment."
  6. That this Malcolm book was referenced, twice, in the 2008 Heller decision. ([50]pg 19
If I didn't know better I would be tempted to guess that reached your conclusion because of a snap judgement that if SaltyBoatr likes it, then it must be pro-gun control. Here is a situation where I am arguing for a mainstream pro-gun author because that author is solidly accepted as holding a well respected point of view. It shouldn't matter whether you or I like this author. We should be checking the sourcing. I have done this, have you? If your answer is yes, please describe what sourcing you are reading that says this is not the "main point of view". In contrast, Hausk's point of view (which apparently you prefer) has all the appearances of being pure original research. Things could be a lot better around here if editors like stop the WP:BATTLE. Let's limit our discussion of what the sources say. By the way, do you have any thoughts about the sixteen sources deleted[51]by Hausk? Do you think those sources are unreliable? I have asked you a number of questions and I would appreciate direct answers to each. Your answers can help bring this dispute to an end, thanks in advance. SaltyBoatr get wet 01:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that it is Original Research to say that Malcolm's view of the "developing right" theory is either novel or against the prevailing view. The fact is that Bill of Rights itself says that right to arms was an ancient right and Blackstone described it as an adjunct to the natural right of self defence. Malcolm's argument for doing so is on the spurious ground that no earlier law created the right. She completely misunderstands how rights are achieved in English law. In doing so she has at a stroke, and with no proper foundation, dimsissed Blackstone's view that ie and dismissed the Bill of Rights the evidence that you will see in most archeological museums in England that ordinary people have had arms - spears, arrows, knives, slings for a very long time. Mostly for hunting but also from time to time as instruments of war. I am not aware of any major English historian who has accepted Malcolm's view, but I suspect that is because the history of the right to arms has simply not been an issue in English society or in English history.

Now I turn to the text and the sixteen sources I deleted. These were deleted on the grounds of relevance and WP:Undue. The discussions about militia are all very interesting but they have little to do with the English Bill of Rights. It is undue because it was tring to retell the fairy tale of the Malcolm "developing right" which is quirky and not mainstream. It is not accepted by mainstream English historians not has it been accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court. The English Bill of Rights, on which the American Bill of Rights and therefore the second amendment to the constitution was based, was not about militias. It was about the reinstatement of liberties taken away illegally by the previous king and about the formation of what became a parliamentary democracy in which the sovereign was not entitled to make law. It meant that the law regarding things such as arms was firmly in the hands of parliament which would sit regularly and be elected regularly. Amongst the text I deleted was a section which said "the English Bill of Rights of 1689 .. granted Protestants a series of liberties including the right to arms for self defense" As the article now makes clear (partly as a result of my intervention) the Bill of Rights did not grant a new right to have arms but reinstated an existing right to arms. Your text (which I agree was from an earlier version of this article) was pure baloney based on the Malcolm thesis and completely misleading. Our job in editing these articles is to inform the reader and not to mislead.

If you want to discuss the military aspects of the American second amendment that has more to do with American history than it does with English history. The text that said "The concept of a universal militia originated in England", is supported with American references but as far as I can see almost none of the sources are able to justify the claim. It seems a very unlikely to me. People the world over have come together to fight off neighboring warring tribes. History is full of it. Exactly what is meant by a "universal militia"? England was way to big to have one armed force and there is much evidence that bands of men were cobbled together from time to time for defensive purposes based upon regional alliances. I have little doubt that this pattern is the same the world over. What makes these historians think that England was so special? I do not see how this can be so and so far I see little evidence to support it.--Hauskalainen (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. If you are going to make claims of "undue weight", we need to follow WP:UNDUE policy. Quoting: (we must) fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Your three paragraphs above are describing your personal point of view, stop that. It doesn't matter whether you disagree with Joyce Lee Malcolm, and the many others that say the same thing. Let's stick with what the sources are saying. SaltyBoatr get wet 15:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The scribblings of a small cabal of pro-2A writers do not outweigh the established view that the English Bill of Rights was a restoration of a pre-existing personal right. As I say, no mainstream English historian has come out and accepted Malcolm's revisionist view. Neither did the Supreme Court seem to accept that view that it was a new right created by the 1688 Act. Quite the revere in fact. That mainstream English historians have ignored this part of her book is not my fault. I tend to think that their silence is representative of either ignorance of her work or indifference. The wording of the 1688 Bill of Rights in relation to arms rights has little significance in modern day Britain. What is surprising (to me at least) is that it still animates the cousins. Would you like me to contact some of the eminent historians and lawyers at Oxford or Cambridge to comment on her interpretation of English law? I suspect that they would tear her to shreds!! If you want to preserve Joyce Lee Malcolm's reputation as a serious historian I would respectfully suggest that you drop this silly argument. --Hauskalainen (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
You say: "...the established view." Can I WP:Verify this somewhere? Cite your sourcing for this "established view". Thanks. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits of user Miguel Escopeta

I am asking for discussion of the edits[52] to the article by User:Miguel Escopeta. None of these edits were preceded by discussion on the talk page. None of these edits include any use of sourcing. Several of these edits seemed simply to be insertions of this editors personal political opinion.

Can editors agree by consensus now that we should not be tolerating significant edits like this in the main article space that are not preceded by discussion on the talk page? Can we agree that edits need to be supported by sources? Can we agree that the neutrality balance seen in the article need to match the neutrality balance seen in the reliable sourcing?

A couple specifics, this edit[53] states that the opposing points of view are now just "historical". Really? Is there any sourcing that says that the point of view among legal theorists is now settled? When I look[54][55][56][57], I still see huge amounts of disagreement among legal theorists.

Also this edit[58] with the deceptive edit summary "remove original research" actually deleted sixteen excellent sources.

What is going on here? Are we going to edit this article based on WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR? Can we agree that we should discourage editors dropping in and making substantial changes to the article with deceptive edit summaries and zero discussion on the talk page? SaltyBoatr get wet 14:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a participant, the Supreme court, creates the reality with respect to the legal meaning of the amendment. With respect to the legal meanings of the 2A, an opinion that clearly conflicts with a Supreme court finding is now obsolete or, to put it more graciously, "historical"
Speaking as an attempted moderator / discussion organizer (if y'all will have me) on your other questions, I'll write something below. North8000 (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
What is a court "finding"? Do you mean their "holding"? SaltyBoatr get wet 14:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
A general term for Obiter dictum and Ratio decidendi, both of which authoritatively define the legal landscape on the topic. North8000 (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
That is kind of vague. Can you say more precisely what this "finding" of the "legal landscape" is in this instance? Is this something that I can confirm somewhere? WP:V? Did this "finding" say that legal theorists now agree, as was asserted[[59]] by Miguel Escopeta in his edit? SaltyBoatr get wet 19:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Trying to bring this section to the subject of the Escopeta edit, I have inserted[60] wording change attempting to remove WP:OR and to smooth out the bias problem. Comments please. SaltyBoatr get wet 15:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Miguel Escopeta added back the "historical" disclaimer. Is there any verification that these models of interpretation are just historical? SaltyBoatr get wet 18:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the individual right interpretation is the sole interpretation for several cases now. Only the U.S. Supreme Court has legal jurisdiction to interpret the U.S. Constitution, as the final arbiter of its meaning. Our job, on Wikipedia is but to report the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation relative to text portraying to interpret the U.S. Constitution in articles on Wikipedia. Our job is not to advocate archaic and/or minority points of view that once existed in the absence of any relevant rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court on what a specific part of the U.S. Constitution might mean. The inclusion of such data borders on speculation, albeit with cited sources. It is thus of historical interest, only. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Could you verify please by citing reliable sources that the SCOTUS has ruled this is the "sole interpretation"? In other words, did the SCOTUS eliminate the protection of the states' right to form militia free from federal infringement? The reason that I ask is that when I check, the SCOTUS actually affirmed DC v. Parker case, and that case (which is binding precedent today) says pretty clearly that they were simply adding protection of the right of handguns within the home for self defense to the previously protected states' militia rights. Also, can we distinguish what we are talking about now. You seem to be blurring legal theorist's viewpoints with academic historian's viewpoints. I see that there is a difference between the perspective of binding precedence of law and the perspective of historical scholars. You know, lawyers versus historians. They don't always see eye to eye, and certainly the courts are not going to tell what the historians should think. Thanks. SaltyBoatr get wet 19:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The right to form a militia is not "directly" protected by the second. The right to "form" a militia is protected in the body of the Constitution. What is protected by the second is the right to form an "ARMED" militia. The states are constitutionally barred from arming the militia and MUST rely either on arms from the feds or from the willingness of individuals to arm themselves. Those are the only two ways a state can form an ARMED militia.71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Justices Extend Firearm Rights in 5-to-4 Ruling
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/Archive_20&oldid=1267581297"