Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 26

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

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

→

protects vs concerns

Im not sure what the big debate is here. The protects language is widely used by reliable sources, and by major gun-rights organizations. If the amendment protects, it obviously concerns (as protects is a subset of concerns). Therefore this is not a debate of concerns vs protects.

So the real debate seems to be does it protect or not. We (wikipedia) describe the entire bill of rights as "these limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property", and the general concept of "Bills of rights" as " The purpose of these bills is to protect those rights against infringement". The ACLU says "the entire Bill of Rights was created to protect rights the original citizens believed were naturally theirs, including..."

From the Second Amemndment Foundation Amicus Curae brief in Heller ". The language, grammar, and history of the Amendment show both that its protection is not limited to militia related activities, and that the protected right does extend to having arms for self defense against violent criminals"

NRA : On June 28, 2010--two years and two days after declaring that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess handguns for self-defense--the Supreme Court of the United States declared just as clearly that the Second Amendment protects that right not just in Washington, D.C., and federal enclaves, but in every state, city and town in America. The decision is a great victory for gun owners--but also highlights the need for us to keep being politically active, now and forever.

Most importantly in Heller : "The second amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes"

Beyond that, I don't see why protects is controversial. Clearly it does server that purpose (just like all the other amendments). The various laws that have been declared unconstitutional on the basis of one amendment or another are the direct action of that protection. the debate (from the gun-control crowd) would be how far that protection extends.

There is a valid argument if someone were to say that the bill of rights grants these rights, as then that is fundamentally changing the origin of the rights. But nobody here is making the "grant" argument. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"the right of the people to keep an bear arms shall not be infringed,". The language in the operative clause and in the drafts is plain, it protects or if we want to be precise, it, " prohibits infringement by the goverment on the people's right to keep and bear arms. "-Justanonymous (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The edit "concerns" vs. "protects" came up as a NPOV attempt to resolve an editorial dispute, and has been subsequently supported by different editors in different ways.

Here is the history of the edit:

GreekParadise disliked the first paragraph and quoted the 2nd Amendment directly in the first paragraph. Then, at 21:38, 9 March 2013‎ user SMP0328 removed the direct quote and replaced it with "protects," noting in the edit summary "Replaced redundant quote with a general description."

To pacify both parties, I suggested changing "protects" to "concerns" at 17:47, 11 March 2013‎ with the rationale stated in the edit summary: "wording tweak. text of amendment already present in article. whether by original intent or judicial precedent, the 2nd amendment is what it is today. perhaps saying "concerns" is better than the former "protects" as it is agnostic on how this came about".

As editors continued to work on the page, the edit was at some point removed when multiple edits were reverted. SMP0328 subsequently re-inserted "concerns" after reverts at 22:28, 11 March 2013‎ ("Replaced redundant quote with a neutral description") and at 18:53, 12 March 2013‎ ("Restored accidentally reverted edit"). On the talk page at 03:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC) user Grahamboat agreed that "Yes indeed, Concerns is defiantly more neutral than Protects".

The linguistic issue is this: "protects" implies a certain historical relationship between a right and the TEXT of the 2nd amendment that "concerns" does not. "Concerns" is just as technically correct as "protects" but makes no implications as to whether the 2nd Amendment protections derive from the text of the amendment itself or from case law (given that the amendment does not "grant" individuals any rights specifically, but technically restricts the federal government).

On the talk page, SMP0328 qualified his or her support for "concerns" at (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC), saying "To be clear, I support using both words." I understood that comment to mean, support for "concerns" in the first paragraph (with respect to the text of the amendment), AND "protects" in the third (with respect to the meaning of the text, as discussed in Heller).

I would also like to note that SMP0328 also offered a stronger wording at SMP0328. (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC), that the 2nd Amendment "has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms". This stronger wording is not what I am pursuing.

I support some strategic ambiguity in the first paragraph, saying that the 2nd amendment "concerns" the right to bear arms, and clearly stating in the third that the individual right to bear arms is protected. Inijones (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is a debate where we pacify a fringe element through verbal gymnastics and watering down of the bill of rights. The text is specific as are the supreme court rulings. The second amendment does not "concern" the right to bear arms, it prohibits the federal government from infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms. See Heller. The language is plain. The supreme court ruling is plain. The language protects the people by prohibiting the government from infringing. Look at the Bill of Rights wikipedia articles:

First Amendment - prohibits
Third Amendment - prohibits
Fouth Amendment - guards
Fifth Amendment - protects
Sixth Amendment - sets forth
Seventh Amendment - codifies
Eight Amendment - prohibits

No, to use the word concerns is a drastic watering down of what the Bill of Right amendments are intended to accomplish. The Founding Fathers could care less about writing a bill of rights that was just concerned with things, these were men of action and purpose, these were the most important and fundamental Rightsthat the people were to keep yes, the people - look at the wording of the fourth and fifth, these are about individuals not some collectivist revisioninst thinking! They would never put anything into the Bill of Rights that wasn't intended to mean something pragmatic. To be clear, these were the top 10 things that the Founding Fathers thought should be protected as Rights! but the argument here is that somehow the second amendment (yes, the one right after the first amendment as in almost the most important position) only concerns the people keeping and bearing arms???? Garbage, utter garbage thinking. Go back to, and repeat, sixth grade. -Justanonymous (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

complete agreement. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The above is an example of original research, matching the personal bias of the editor. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand the problem with SaltyBoatr, you don't understand English or the policy....original research? Where? I merely pointed out existing wording on no less than seven (7) out of ten (10) Wikipedia articles that deal with the ten Amendments to Bill of Rights and the editors there are consistently using the terms - protect, guard, prohibit. Straight from our Heller article:

The Scalia majority invokes much historical material to support its finding that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to individuals; more precisely, Scalia asserts in the Court's opinion that the "people" to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same "people" who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection: "'The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.' United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings...."

There is no original research Saltydog, In addition in the Heller finding found:

The Court applies as remedy that "[a]ssuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home." The Court, additionally, hinted that other remedy might be available in the form of eliminating the license requirement for carry in the home, but that no such relief had been requested: "Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not 'have a problem with ... licensing' and that the District's law is permissible so long as it is 'not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.' Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75. We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement."

It's categorically unprofessional on your part to claim "original research" where non exists. I invite you to read the WP:OR policy, it starts with:

The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.

Obviously plenty of Reliable Sources exist and it doesn't take a genius to read the amendment since it was intended to be read by laypeople. I will thank you to use Webster's dictionary for definitions of words and the standard Wikipedia policies for what we are doing here. There is no OR in my wording and I take grave exception at your misplaced verbal attacks insinuating original research from this editor. To the contrary, you just don't like what the thing says but I really don't care about that. The fact you don't like it doesn't mean you get to claim WP:OR violation or WP:RS violations.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Jusyanonymous,

When you say in your comment above (21:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)) that editors supporting "concerns" over "protects" is a fringe element, that is POV value judgement.

When you say "The second amendment does not 'concern' the right to bear arms" that is linguistically inaccurate and probably reflects a bias for the reasons I have already identified, mainly, that both "protects" and "prohibits" can be considered subsets of "concerns."

When you say "The language is plain", that is inaccurate and POV, because many people think the language is plain that the 2nd amendment concerns militia, not an individual right to bear arms per se. Lawyers, scholars, judges, and people here have debated the meaning of the amendment's grammar and the various possible context of terms like "arms"

When you say, "No, to use the word concerns is a drastic watering down of what the Bill of Right amendments are intended to accomplish" that is POV. Some people view it not as a watering down, but as a more neutral corrective. You are also making unsupported assumptions about what the founders "intended" with the grammar and terminology that has been debated and repeatedly interpreted by the courts because difficulties arose at other levels of government with the interpretation and application of the source text.

Your objection to my proposed change of "protects" to "concerns" does not address the linguistic reasoning, does not negate it, show problems with it, or demonstrate bias. It is not verbal gymnastics, it is a simple change of one word to another.

Maybe Wikipedia isn't the best venue for your personal views.Inijones (talk) 06:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It is, you're a biased editor injones. Why make your little argument here on the second amendment article? Why not on the First Amendment Article. It's because you're a biased editor. Sorry. You're also fringe (yes that's my analysis of you, It's the way I see you) because you're not arguing rationally, you're arguing from emotion and trying to dissect my words and not very well. I have a Supreme Court Ruling and interpretation, what do you have? You have nothing. Stop wasting my time and move on - respectfully.-Justanonymous (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)F

1. You call me biased, but don't show how. I have shown how you are biased.

2. You call me "fringe," but don't do anything to show how I'm "fringe" other that your own opinion, which is not encyclopedic content.

3. The edit I am proposing has varying degrees of support from multiple editors, one of whom agreed that it is more neutral. Neutrality is a central tenet of WikiPedia, and if you disagree, you don't belong on wikipedia.

4. You say you have a supreme court ruling and that I have nothing, but that is not true. I have a reasoned edit which does not conflict your supreme court ruling. And, although you're not being specific about what supreme court ruling you "have," I will assume for the sake of discussion that you mean Heller. If you think that every facet of the 2nd Amendment needs to be evaluated solely in terms of Heller, that's a bias. It's recent-ism, it makes value judgements about the importance of Heller, and it's a-historical, as such an exclusive reading would imply that the second amendment was incoherent before the Heller ruling. Because Heller did not overturn Miller, Miller is the law too. Miller is a Supreme Court case that affirms the "militia interpretation." "Concerns" addresses both co-existent interpretaions, the "individual rights" and "collective." Inijones (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No you are obviously attempting to POV push and water down the wording of an Amendment to the constitution. You are not reasonable, you make emotional arguments without any substance backing your actions, just some poorly constructed words. There are multiple sound editors that oppose your little Cabal. Stop wasting our time please so we can work. I'll keep my own counsel on my editing of Wikipedia (which is to help keep articles NPOV per our policy). You are POV pushing Injones. Please stop. -Justanonymous (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You're still not demonstrating any problem with my reasoning, or showing any bias on my part. You are not showing what my POV is, other than that I want more neutrality (which you call "watering down").

Calling my edit "watering down the wording" is POV. Some people here think it is more neutral, a core tenet of wikipedia. It is a broader term that encompasses "protects" whether that protection comes from founder intent or case law, and it encompasses "prohibits" which is in the text itself.Inijones (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

concerns is not more neutral than protects or prohibits. There is no difference in neutrality between the two words, you're choosing a word that dilutes the meaning of the amendment. You are redefining through word choice and sophistry. Sorry, no. Why are not you not making this same argumen on the other Amendment article pages? Because you're biased against this amendment and it eats you up that it prohibits and restrains the government in a fashion that doesn't align with your mindset and ideology, you don't like the "right". My contention is that concerns does not make the article more neutral, it makes the article less neutral. It dilutes the meaning of the amendment. You're not interested in neutrality abandon that cloak my friend, sorry. it's pretty clear injones , you're here to drive an agenda. Many see it here..-Justanonymous (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't read my post above, "History of the Edit" .

The post identifies this edit as an attempt to resolve a dispute between two other other editors. "Prohibits" implies a set of historical relationships that "concerns" does not, and others agree with me. Are you going to over-ride our voices?

I am making this argument here not because I am "biased" against this amendment, but because I was asked to come here, and I was trying to resolve an editorial dispute, I want neutrality, and I want accuracy.Inijones (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Your logic goes against founders intent as interpreted by the SCOTUS. They use the word "protect" you know. See Gaijin42's post at the bottom.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No, Prohibits goes to the intent of the right which is written in plain english. Perhaps you did not read the article in question nor the sources. What you are attempting to do is water down the article based on recent, 20th century regulations that have been placed on the amendment. I don't see you looking much before Miller, You're focused on Miller as if that were the end all. Read the intent of the founding fathers, several great texts there. Read British common law as an antecedent. Read what Madison, Jefferson etc were thinking. No, you're watering down. It's plain. Otherwise you'd be asking all of us to change prohibits to concerns for all the amendments. Which would truly be a big disagreement. No, your intent is clear - your (and others) attempt to insert ambiguity is a serious POV push. Many agree with me as well. -Justanonymous (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You're still not pointing out any problems with my edit or my reasoning, other than that it seems contrary to your opinion about founder intent. You're not providing sources, just pointing me towards general bodies of work. British common law is not part of the second amendment. And I'm not asking anybody to change anything in any other amendments, that's an inaccurate characterization of my position.Inijones (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Not contrary to my interpretation. Your logic is contrary to SCOTUS interpretation!-Justanonymous (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The Supreme Court is the final word on the meaning of the amendment. The have specifically ruled that the amendment does protect an individuals right to own firearms (using almost those exact words).. This WP:PRIMARY source is verified by innumerable WP:SECONDARY sources, including every major newspaper, the NRA, the ACLU,etc. There are questions as to how far that protection extends, and what exceptions to that protection may be allowable. This was pointed to by Heller directly, and we will find out the boundaries shortly as various gun control laws are passed and challenged. That the protection was not explicitly acknowledged in the past, and that there is controversy and debate in the past is all valid content for the article body. That some would like the protection to be different, or favor a different interpretation of the amendment (arguing that Heller was wrongly decided etc) , or think that the amendment should be repealed etc, are all also valid topics, with the proper sourcing. but they should not be the lede. the lede describes the law, as is.

Lets look at a similarly controversial supreme court case, Roe_v._Wade. The current interpretation of the law, per the supreme court is the primary lede description. That there is controversy and prior laws and decisions is BRIEFLY mentioned, but virtually no detail is provided in the lede. (Row is somewhat more complex as part of it has been overturned, which is not the situation for Heller) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Good thinking on crosschecking with other articles like Roe_v._Wade Gaijin42! We're being consistent across our Amendment articles and also across our other similar topic matter articles - we should continue to be consistent on this article and we should not diverge because one or two editors don't like what the law says or what the Right is about.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Inijones - your own words betray you. You’re not seeking neutrality you’re seeking ambiguity - you’re not striving to inform you’re striving to confuse – what utter nonsense. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutral can be ambiguous, they're not incompatible. You even agreed "concerns" is more "netural" on the talk page here 03:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC). SMP0328 and GreekParadise agree too. You're being evasive, or confusing my goal with my tactic. Inijones (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not ambiguous, we have a SCOTUS ruling here (We have a stronger legal interpretation here than we do in other Amendment articles where we use succinct language). There is no need and there is no place for ambiguity here. We need precision and accuracy. It protects the people (it prohibits the government). Thank you.-Justanonymous (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. SCOTUS has ruled, and specifically used the word protects. The ACLU uses the word protects. The NRA/SAF uses the word protects. forbes. The nytimes uses protects.(more than once!. Time uses the dreaded "Creates"!! On our article about Heller, "protects". It is not a violation of WP:NPOV to express a POV that is established in reliable WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources. This satisfies that requirement far beyond any reasonable standard. It is up to YOU to show sources that would make "concerns" better. It is not neutral, it is ambiguous, and that ambiguity is being used to encompass a POV which is contrary to SCOTUS and reliable sources. Even the dissenting opinion in Heller went with a protected right (although a more limited one) "I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an ‘individual’ right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred"Gaijin42 (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

In the spirit of compromise another proposal: Concerns says what 2A is about – IMHO rather loosely. Protects says what the 2A does. Perhaps we could reach compromise by stating what 2A means. All of the amendments in the Bill of Rights were deemed to be fundamental, natural, and unalienable.

"The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution recognizes a preexisting fundamental and unalienable [unchangeable] right for the Militia [States] and the People [individuals] to keep and bear arms [firearms] unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense." Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you will likely get objection from all sides on that. Clearly the right is not unalienable, as there are exceptions and limitations to it (according to SCOTUS). Via previous court rulings, we do get the pre-existing (particularly from Cruikshank), but is that sufficient sourcing? Perhaps if we attribute the statement more, it avoids some of these problems "The 2A has been recognized by the Supreme Court as protecting..." - that is somewhat more undeniable? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

RFC

There was a clear consensus that the Providence Foundation, is not, by itself, a reliable source of information about the motives and beliefs of the Framers. (This may or may not be moot if the content being argued about originates from a different source, but that question is outside the scope of this RfC, and as such I didn't examine that question at all.) --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There's been some question above about the reliability of the Providence Foundation as a source on the motives and beliefs of the Framers with respect to Second Amendment rights.

After it started to get heated, everyone kind of backed off for a bit. I think we've all had time to collect ourselves, though, so I thought I'd open it back up and see what happens. Any additional input would be appreciated. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: Just to be clear, the question here is whether the Providence Foundation is a reliable source of information about the motives and beliefs of the Framers with respect to Second Amendment rights. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that the question phrased here is both ambiguous (do you mean meeting wp:rs criteria, do you mean actually reliable, and do you mean so authoritative that their opinion on a broad topic can be stated as fact.) and also only one of the several questions blended into that discussion. The others included particular content questions. North8000 (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC comment. Ugh. I came here from the RfC notice, and I'm not going to watch discussion after I comment here. I don't know what all the discussions have been, and I don't want to know. I'm going to confine myself to a very narrow question, one that I think Bdb484 has asked: whether or not the Providence Foundation website is a reliable source about "the motives and beliefs of the Framers with respect to Second Amendment rights". No, it is not a reliable source for that. Reliable sources would be academic historians writing about the Framers. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
RfC comment. Agree with Tryptofish. The Providence Foundation web site is not a reliable source for this aspect of topic. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, gang. There were obviously lots of other elements to the debate, but Tryptofish was able to narrow it down to the only matter that I'm requesting comment on here -- an assessment of whether it's appropriate to use Providence as it's being used in the article. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment I have to concur with the treatment by Tryptofish. Just looking at the mission statement of the Providence Foundation makes it quite clear that they are not undertaking to disinterestedly document or investigate the motives, principles, and beliefs of the framers of the US Constitution, but rather promote and support a Christian worldview. From their website, the mission statement begins:
The Providence Foundation is a Christian educational organization whose mission is to train and network leaders to transform their culture for Christ, and to teach all citizens how to disciple nations.
While the Providence Foundation is doubtless entitled to its own view and mission, this makes them clearly inappropriate as a reliable historical source. They may indeed be a reliable source for their own POV, which is not really a fringe one, but certainly not as regards "the motives and beliefs of the Framers with respect to Second Amendment rights". siafu (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
RfC Comment Please format RfC as simple questions that don't require those engaging to read vast debates... If what's at stake here is Providence Foundation as WP:RS. Then, clearly, no, it's not. Not by a long way. It promotes an outright, declared POV. --Cooper⁴²(Talk)(Contr) 17:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
RfC Comment Not reliable. Clear POV.GreekParadise (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
RfC Comment - Completely fails our standards as to reliable sourcing and our expectations as to neutral point-of-view. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
RfC Comment - Not reliable. The organization is "A Christian educational organization" and is steeped in contemporary partisan debate on this subject. Now, if this organization would publish articles and analyze religious influences of the framers of the Second Amendment - that would be a good contribution. Patriot1010 (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I am closing this RFC the page in question 'The Right to Keep and Bear Arms' [1] is not a product of POV it is taken from United States District Judge Sam R. Cummings in “United States of America v. Timothy Joe Emerson.” . The full text is available at Findlaw [2] and elsewhere. It was wrong to question the site rather than the page being used. As with all questionable sources we dont need it. J8079s (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources

Google books is great for checking cites.[3] I also highly recommend Questia [4] for those without library access. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J8079s (talk • contribs) 18:55, 22 March 2013

missing comma

A comma is missing from the text of the second amendment. There should be a comma after "a well regulated militia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgolikov (talk • contribs) 01:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The text you are referring to apparently didn't have a comma. I don't have the cited book, but see this.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

A comma should be included, according to the text of the Bill of Rights on www.archives.gov. Seems legit to me, being the government and all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.155.197 (talk) 08:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Full protection

I reverted the tags that had been added to the article. I also requested that the article be locked. That request has been granted. The article is fully protected for one week. Let's discuss on this talk page what should be in the Introduction, rather than treating the article as a battlefield. SMP0328. (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The tag says it is not to be removed prior to the dispute being resolved. What gives you authority to remove disputed tags prior to a dispute being resolved? Readers of the article should know there's a controversy going on, rather than believe a single POV is a consensus choice. Please put the tags back up. Or tell me who gave you permission to remove them so I may address the issue formally with Wikipedia administrators. GreekParadise (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The POV tag does nothing to advance the discussion. It only puts a scarlet letter on the article. No matter what ends up being the consensus, there will be those that will feel that the article is POV. Rather than branding the article, let's just reach a consensus on what should be in the Introduction. SMP0328. (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

We have tried for three months to reach a consensus. I have provided reliable sources including CRS, LOC, NYT, WP, and three judicial decisions to show there was no individual right and only a militia right in all judicial decisions between Miller (1939) and Emerson (2000). After three months and an offer of $100, no one has disputed this with a single source, not even an unreliable blog entry. We have reached an impasse. The decision to throw away all information from reliable sources that tell the history of the Second Amendment prior to 2000 without informing the reader that the article is one-sided does nothing to achieve consensus. It violates WP:recentism, WP:NOR, and WP:verifiability. It rewards people who respond to reliable sources with personal attacks and unconstrained reverting. It damages the reputation of Wikipedia. I maintain the reader has the right to know that the information in the article is one-sided and that objectively proved facts have been removed. The purpose of the dispute tag is to let people know there is an on-going unresolved controversy. Do you deny that there is one? It is not supposed to be removed until the controversy is resolved. If you have a wikipedia policy that lets you remove a dispute tag when there is a detailed on-going and unresolved dispute on a talk page, please direct me to that policy. Otherwise, I respectfully request you replace the tags.GreekParadise (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If the tags are not replaced -- and no one addresses my (or Indijones' or SaltyBoatr's) arguments or provides a single contrary source to show that collective rights was not the law between 1939 and 2000, I will start a request for comment and then request formal mediation. Stop walking away from the reliable sources. Either admit they are right and you cannot dispute them or provide a single contrary source. Otherwise this dispute will never be resolved.GreekParadise (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You collectively have it backwards between 1939 and Heller, through using Russell's teapot type thinking. You are asserting a belief that is not consistent with history while demanding others prove your false assertion(s) wrong. This is because Heller was the first case in which the Supreme Court ever ruled on the meaning of the Second Amendment. That is precisely what "landmark case" means, incidentally. That Emerson in 2000 had also been ruled similarly to Heller does not mean anything about the proper interpretation between Miller in 1939 and Emerson in 2000, as an absence of rulings means only that it was not yet time for the Supreme Court to become involved. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

My view is consistent with history. The 5-4 Heller decision was NOT the first Supreme Court Second Amendment Case. Miller was a landmark case that ruled on the Second Amendment as well. And Miller found (unanimously) "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of [a particular banned firearm] has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." What is the significance of Miller? According to Love v. Peppersack (1995), in the half century plus since Miller, "the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual, right." The Love court found that "courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear a 'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.'" And there's also Cases, Tot, and Warin which agree with Miller and Love. How can you claim an "absence of rulings" when I've just given you four appellate court cases that support this contention? In fact, all of the lower courts that examined the case (and I've named four of them) consistently read Miller as conferring only a collective right until the Emerson case. How is my assertion false? No Russell's teapot here. My belief is not only consistent with history: it's cited repeatedly by the contemporaries themselves!GreekParadise (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Miller specifically did not provide any clear "victory" for collective or individual interpretations. However, there are also appellate rulings beside the ones you cherry-picked that do support an individual viewpoint. For example, in United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990), the meaning of the term "the people" in the Fourth Amendment was investigated. The Court unanimously held that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people" means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States. This case thus resolved any doubt that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right, as the people in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments did not apply only to collectives of people. (When making statements under Free Speech, you don't need a Greek chorus making the statement to make it legal to be stated!) Of course, you didn't cherry-pick this case which went in the opposite direction from what you falsely claim was the sole viewpoint. Neither did you pick the others! No, it is clearly not consistent with history that a collective viewpoint was the sole view at the appellate level as claimed in your cherry-picked history. And, of course, without the Supreme Court providing any rulings between Miller and Heller, there was no clear interpretation of the meaning of the Second Amendment during this span of time. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The revert to the text favored by a pro-gun political bias, followed by a quick full protect request is a familiar tactic of the small group of pro-gun editors who have dominated this article for at least six years now. This is a serious editor bias problem, a violation of NPOV policy. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I resent and refute that remark. Lectonar (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

As do I. Salty needs to reacquaint himself with civility and AGF. Conspiracy theories are not going to get us to a consensus. SMP0328. (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

As do I. The POV push by SaltyBoatr has gone on for over 7 years now, under several "handles", with multiple blocks on this very article! It only makes editing more difficult for editors. Yaf (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

As do I. Bad taste. Grahamboat (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice that I did not mention any names. It is very telling of guilt of bias which editors assumed I was speaking of them and claimed incivility. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see where any of the complaints were based on you implying specific individuals. North8000 (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this lock is a good idea. People are not engaging. Since being asked to come here, I feel like the intro has improved. There is a clear interest in continuing to work on the intro, but at this point, I have concerns that I would like to address, but people need to talk.

I have unanswered comments at:

Inijones (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC) to clarify terminology in response to GreekParadise: Heller did not overturn Miller, and added a new interpretation.

Inijones (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC) -- Preserving the balance of text that had been reverted, after re-inserting an edit of mine that had been later modified, and asking for help re-inserting it with a balancing statement.

14:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC) RE: normativity of terms like "generally accepted"

and

Inijones (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC) RE: unaddressed linguistic considerations around subtle differences in wording a sentence from the first paragraph.

And am happy to let the article sit for a minute.

Inijones (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The fact remains that a small group of politically motivated editors dominate the point of view of this article. Policy here is that the balance of view should be neutral reflecting the sources, and not be dominated by the personal political persuasion of the the editors that chose to 'own' the article. Collaboratively pushing out views seen in sourcing that don't match their personal politics. Accusations pointed at me personally are a dodge and diversion of this greater policy violation issue. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 14:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, as I am as protecting admin included in your conspiracy theory.....would you please provide diffs which show my political motivation? If not, you should perhaps retract your accusation. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Salty, everyone here on both sides of the debate except for you has been commenting on and debating content. You have been the only one attacking and insulting the actual editors, by repetitively accusing them of acting here based on personal politics rather than based on trying to improve the article. Please stop. North8000 (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, the person SaltyBoatr should be complaining about is not Lectonar but SMP0328. It is SMP0328 who decided to refuse to let readers of this article even know there was a dispute by removing dispute tags contrary to wikipedia policy and then rushing to Lectonar to protect the page (within nine minutes of his removal of the tags!) before the tags could be replaced. I understand the purpose of locking the page during an edit war, but locking it while hiding the controversy in order to trick readers into thinking a non-agreed-upon version is consensus is, I believe, not in good faith. I have asked SMP0328 and Lectonar to admit the truth to readers -- which is to simply to put back the disputed tags until the agreement is resolved, but they have refused. SMP0328 refuses to explain his reason, except his claim that even disputing the page -- which I and many others do -- gives it a "scarlet letter." Is SMP0328 against all dispute tags in wikipedia? And Lectonar is not involved and so will not address the question of when it is proper to remove a dispute tag.

So sadly, I have now learned a new aspect of Wiki-gaming which should be posted, I suppose, in the humor/bad faith section: it is a great strategy for POV-pushing and apparently a legitimately accepted loophole in wikipedia ethics: just get your version in the article, remove any indication of a dispute, and then rush to ask an Administrator to lock before anyone can revert. Clever, I suppose. But not ethical in my view. I realize some version has to be locked. But when there is an on-going and detailed dispute, why would anyone be opposed to letting readers know that a dispute is in progress? The tag specifically says it is not to be removed until the conflict is resolved. I believe this is because most readers do not go to the talk page. They assume an untagged article reflects a consensus view. I again urge SMP0328 to reconsider, at least on the tags alone. Otherwise, this serves as a sorry precedent for unscrupulous editors. Perhaps when seen in that vein, we can all agree to put up the dispute tags while this page is locked and actively debated. GreekParadise (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

reading through this there is consensus and the admin has been fair. multiple admins have been locking these gun related pages since sandy hook. sorry there is consensus, you just don like it and have been warring on here. Nowhere in the consensus policy does it read that GreekParadise has to like it. Take team time to post your logical rationale, discuss the article not the admin action. We're lucky he didn't block anyone directly which is warranted. Justanonymous (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

GreekParadise's comment is contrary to AGF, civility, and constitutes an unwarranted personal attack. Instead of attributing negative motives to fellow editors, he should try to work with other editors to reach a consensus. SMP0328. (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

GreekParadise. There is a discussion below regarding a core point of what you have been advocating. Why don't you participate instead of insulting other editors? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I am addressing the issue below. And I'm glad that finally, after three months, there is at least some actual discussion on the sources I have repeatedly raised rather than just peremptorily reverting everything I edit. My point is not that there is a disagreement. My point is I believe that removing a dispute tag that says it is not to be removed until the conflict is resolved is not proper wikipedia conduct. I'm not attacking an editor. I'm attacking conduct. And I'm respectfully asking permission to reinsert the tags while we seek formal dispute resolution. I was defending Lectonar because he is not involved. And I'm asking SMP0328 to show good faith by allowing the tags to be reinserted while the page is locked. If anyone has a wikipedia policy that says that it is proper to remove dispute tags in the middle of an on-going dispute and then lock the page so they cannot be reinserted, please show me that policy because I would like to review it. Otherwise, I have the right to ask SMP0328 to show good faith and replace the tags.GreekParadise (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Fully protected again....

....so, the full protection expired yesterday, and I can see progress in the attempt in finding consensus; I have given it another 3 days full protection, perhaps also to have the open request at DRN concluded. Lectonar (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The protection is tagged with {{pp-vandalism}}, but shouldn't it be {{pp-dispute}}? — Mudwater^(Talk) 01:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I took the liberty of changing it and letting Lectonar know.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. — Mudwater^(Talk) 01:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Need to stop grinding on the lead

Trying to agree on the lead has led to pages of looping discussion on this talk page, dispute resolution and locking of the article. Time to try another approach. Once it is unlocked, how about we work on improving the body of the article? -—Kvng 16:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarize what's in the article anyway. I'm thinking that that CRS piece is a good source (when not mis-used by cherry picking and pulling things our of context)Maybe we could do some really nice work and absorb it and put in a paragraph or section in the body of the article. North8000 (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This should not be up to a vote. The problem is that a group of editors with a certain personal political bias always vote for edits that match that personal political bias. The lead has been defended into a steady state which matches the personal political bias of the editors that show up here. This is improper systemic editor bias. The Wikipedia policy is that the neutral point of view should match the balance seen in reliable sourcing, not the balance of the personal opinions of the editors. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Salty, is it possible for an editor to disagree with you regarding what should be in the article without that editor having a "bias"? Why do you continue to accuse editors who disagree with you with having a "political bias" while claiming that you (and implicitly those editors who agree with you) have no bias and are simply trying to improve the article? Maybe all of the editors who have commented here are all acting in good faith. SMP0328. (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Answering your questions: Systemic editor bias is subconscious. The AGF policy should not prevent us from facing the hard reality that this article is a magnet for editors with strong political beliefs, and disproportionately those with a 'pro-gun' political persuasion have camped out here and 'own' this article. That is simple fact. It is perhaps impossible to eliminate this systemic editor bias. The solution, if it is possible, is to avoid 'voting' the neutrality balance point. The NPOV policy is that the various POVs must be included, in proportion to that seen in the reliable sourcing. I see very little discussion of that, and instead I see a group of editors resisting the minority editor viewpoint. When editors with 'pro-gun' political bias skew the balance point like this, the encyclopedia suffers. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 15:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully having multiple POV positions on the article just leads to edit warring - it happens all the time across Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia and it describes things. Let's describe what the amendment is, and it's history. Let's be consistent with the other amendments as well and with the intent for the amendments (they weren't put in to the Constitution as nice-to-haves and no that is NOT my opinion nor does it constitute OR). And, let the POV people go and write their own articles elsewhere for magazines or books. This is not the place to have a big pro con filled with recentism and bias and a bunch of editors fighting over what the other editor wrote. Let's not do that. We can describe racism without giving the KKK a forum to expound their ideology. Let's not set bad precedents here. Let's describe the article and kick out the POV pushers (yes man of them masquerade under the banner of neutrality, common sense, and champions of the wiki). Some will not be happy until the second amendment is erased from the bill of rights, to them I say, don't edit here.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Salty, how do you know you are not biased if bias is subconscious? Your past comments suggest you believe "systemic editor bias" can come only from "pro-gun" editors. That seems to show a bias on your part. As I've said before, it's better to AGF than to accuse editors of bad faith (bias). SMP0328. (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Answering SMP0328's question. All people have bias, including me. I do not deny that, neither should anyone else, we all have bias. This article, for some reason, has a tendency to attract editors with 'pro-gun' bias more than editors with the opposite bias. (Why this occurs could be discussed, but that is not germane right now.) This imbalanced editor skew is merely an objective observation. The systemic bias occurs when neutrality decisions are put up to a vote of personal opinions. The policy at Wikipedia is that neutrality balance point should be determined by the balance seen in the reliable sourcing, not the popular vote of the editors. Observing this talk page, I see no discussion of the balance point seen in the reliable sourcing. I see mega-volumes of discussion of personal opinion. So, I am pointing out a problem. This article suffers from systemic editor bias. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 18:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I think in this article we may need to reach balance, rather than neutrality. Everyone who has a viewpoint on firearms is going to be biased toward that viewpoint. So we have to reach a balance of the competing viewpoints, rather than trying to make the article "neutral". I would have no objection to adding material about the pre-Heller history regarding the Second Amendment, as long as that material was balanced regarding competing viewpoints. Such new material should be its own section, so we don't end up with arguments over how the new material is affecting existing sections. Any one piece of the article may favor one viewpoint over another, but that can't be avoided. If we focus on overall balance, rather than whether the article is neutral, we should be able to reach consensus. SMP0328. (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but the fundamental problem we are currently dealing with is essentially source selection/original research. People (myself included) who are relying on the text of court opinions, or historical commentaries are doing WP:OR interpreting them. Regarding secondary sources, there are multitudes enough to support every possible viewpoint. I also feel somewhat like we are playing Moving_the_goalposts or No_true_Scotsman, and Texas sharpshooter fallacy in trying to define questions and statements very narrowly in order to exclude contrary sources. This is a very controversial and complicated subject. We can detail the various viewpoints, and how the interpretation changed over time or location - but imo the main description needs to be about how the law/amendment is currently understood/enforced, and mention that there is still ongoing controversy. Trying to detail that controversy in the lede is a doomed effort. (One can legitimately claim that I am biased in this suggestion, in that the "current" understanding is more in line with my personal opinion than previous understandings - but I have yet to find a good argument/policy that says we should describe laws as they used to be enforced as.)Gaijin42 (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaking SMP0328, when he speaks of 'balanced regarding competing viewpoints' by consensus, that is the actual problem of which I am speaking. The policy at Wikipedia is that the balance point isn't up to a vote/consensus. The policy actually reads: "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." Here, I see zero discussion of 'prevalence in reliable sources' and tons of discussion of prevalence among editors (which you call consensus). SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You’ve managed cherry-pick WP:DUE leaving out “Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all... To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute...aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject... An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.” No one is saying individual/collective right disputes do not belong in the lede: but the way GP and others want to wrongly spin the issue implying a dominance of the collective right only view. A definite mischaracterization that does not belong in the lede. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

We are not speaking of a 'tiny minority' viewpoint in the reliable sources, but rather a 'tiny minority' among the personal opinion of editors here. Even the SCOTUS split 5:4 in Heller about viewpoint. (Four favored collective, and five identified as an individual right being added to the collective right.) And, vast numbers of reliable sources describe the 'collective viewpoint' as being the dominate viewpoint over the entire 2A history prior to 2008. Recently an 'limited individual' component of the 2A has also been identified. This newly identified right in no way negates the long standing collective component of the right. But rather the 'individual component' is added to the long standing 'collective right'.

Except, among the personal political opinions of editors here, a strong focus on "Individual gun rights" dominates. Too often, the editors argue over whether viewpoint is right. I see zero argument over which viewpoints are seen in reliable sources. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 16:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

section break

I agree the body needs a lot of work. IMHO it is way too long – perhaps an innate property of Wikipedia where editors keep adding “good stuff” and we windup with an article no one wants to read. It would be a daunting task to cull it down. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Everybody has a bias and everybody who edits Wikipedia has to care enough to write a good article about something. If I'm writing about purple daisies it's because I care about purple daisies and telling the world about them. That doesn't mean that I get to label them "orange" or to call them the "prettiest in the world." We have to get past the whole bias thing. Everybody has a biased (Saltyboater is biased as is Justanonymous). That doesn't mean we can't write an NPOV article. The frustrating thing here is that people are trying to redefine common words. I'm sorry, you don't get to say "the people" means "the government" or "the states" - NO! The document is plain language. and Purple Daisies are not Orange! You also don't get to be inconsistent. We have multiple Amendments with articles here and we have to be consistent in the ledes. The Second prohibits the government from infringing on the inalienable right to keep and bear arms - it protects the inalienable right!!! It's about as plain as daylight and the SCOTUS Agrees! (but Saltyboater doesn't like it? I DON'T CARE much!! I also can't broadcast on any frequency I want because we have to regulate a finite EM spectrum....but that's doesn't mean that my first amendment is now somehow eroded and now I must relable the article on wikipedia to read that the first amendment "concerns" freedom of speech vs protecting freedom of speech by prohibiing the government from taking certain actions!) This is a joke argument from the collective revisionist biased editors. Move on. -Justanonymous (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be fairly broad agreement that there is work to be done in the body. It may be daunting work but in doing it we are likely to learn more about the amendment and the sources supporting the article. That would be a good thing. I don't think it would be productive to work on the lead until the dispute resolution thing runs its course. Can we agree to leave it alone for now and can we get the article unprotected to work on the body? This would be a step forward. -—Kvng 22:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The body can always be improved. There is some very good material and context there that cannot be found anywhere, without expending time researching, so while I'm always for improving an article, I'm not for "improvements" that are revisionist in nature that would remove some of the good material present - such as (but not limited to) the various versions that the Founding Fathers went through, variations in state constitutions etc. That stuff is invaluable from a research standpoing and very hard to consolidate once it's lost.-Justanonymous (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone object to my describing the 60 years between Miller and Heller in the body of the article based on the CRS, LOC, WP, NYT, Miller, lower case law, and other sources I have provided here?GreekParadise (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I do.

Miller is ambiguous. It can be read to support both the collective and individual rights. To define its meaning is WP:OR

I want to quote it verbatim. Why is that wrong? By this logic, no one can ever cite any case ever.GreekParadise (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

- McClurg, p. 139. "But when all is said and done, the only certainty about Miller is that it failed to give either side a clear-cut victory. Most modern scholars recognize this fact. For example, Professor Eugene Volokh describes Miller as 'deliciously and usefully ambiguous' in an article about using the Second Amendment as a teaching tool in constitutional law. That is probably the most accurate statement that can be made about the case

One view of one pro-gun professor writing decades after the fact is not a reliable source, and far less reliable than the actual cases quoted verbatim or, for that matter, the contemporaneous sources such as every single law review article from 1912 to 1959 on the Second Amendment. But if you really like law professors, I can cite you several who argue there was no ambiguity in Miller at all. Let's just cite Miller, quote it verbatim, and if you want a for/against on its interpretations, I'm fine with that. It's probably best in a section comparing the militia theory with the individual theory. GreekParadise (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

- http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv4/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__journals__journal_of_law_and_liberty/documents/documents/ecm_pro_060964.pdf
Many people did interpret it to mean collective. Thats fine and we can discuss those opinions. We can also discuss that lower courts often ruled under that interpretation.

Actually ALL courts did, but that's all I've asked for, to quote them. I'm glad we agree. You quote your cases (if you can find any) and I'll quote mine. The more sources the merrier! Let's you and I both put in sources. I have fifteen sources I have quoted and I hope you've read them. They explain the legal and scholarly consensus throughout the twentieth century that the Second Amendment's militia clause limited its scope to a militia. What are your sources?GreekParadise (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

We should similarly discuss the instances where it was interpreted to be an individual right.

Haven't found one. Have you? All my sources say not a single case rejected the militia theory or found the individual theory in a Second Amendment case in the entirety of the twentieth century. Can you find one?GreekParadise (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Its was authoritatively NOT a complete examination of the issue, and did not directly address the nature of the right.

Have you read it? Every court in the nation found it did exactly that for sixty plus years thereafter. If you disagree with these court decisions, you should find a source that also disagrees and list that reliable source in a section in the article on those that disagree with Miller.GreekParadise (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You consistently skip addressing the argument that a militia right can easily be read as an individual right, since everyone, by tradition, by statute, and by judge (including Miller) agrees that everyone (all adult males anyway) is a member of the unorganized militia. The miller decision repeatedly uses terms such as "every citizen", "all able bodied men", etc.

The point is they have to be connected to service in a militia. Miller had a gun, but was not in a militia.GreekParadise (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

- Most importantly "These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense"
  - Capable of. not actually involved in, not organized in, etc.
From Presser "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."

Presser makes my point. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow people to keep and bear arms for service in militia, including the United States militia. And states cannot deprive people of arms they need to serve in the (then-existing) United States militia, what today would be called an army. That's still true today. A state cannot ban someone in the US Army from owning a weapon. But have you read the Presser case? Presser indeed had arms but he served in a "private militia" that was not authorized by the USA or any state. And he was criminally charged (indicted) for doing so! The Supreme Court upheld the conviction. That means that he did not have an individual right to bear arms outside a well regulated (i.e. state or federal) militia.GreekParadise (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Cruikshank - "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. "
As I'm sure you know, this was the case that said the Second Amendment restricted the federal governments and not the states. Overruled by McDonald in 2010.GreekParadise (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Cooley, 1880 - It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.
Interesting. Not a case of course but an 1880 treatise. He concludes by saying "The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited." Sure sounds like denial of an individual right. But sure, people could bear arms given their likelihood to be called up for service in a militia. That's what the Second Amendment is all about.
You are trying to cheat in your argument, by narrowly defining the evidence which is valid "Only cases after miller, but before heller". If Miller wipes out everything before it, Heller does the same to miller. If it does not, then we need to look at the entire body of law and tradition.
Gaijin42 (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
My point is focused on the twentieth century. You're probably aware there were extremely few cases -- and no federal cases -- on the militia issue in the nineteenth century. But let's put the entire history in, the nineteenth century as well. My sources say that a federal court never struck down a statute as contrary to the Second Amendment until Heller, but there were some state cases in the early nineteenth century. Fine, mention them. I'm all for inclusion of reliable facts. What I protest is exclusion of reliable relevant facts.GreekParadise (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I likewise object to a one-sided false history spanning 1939-2000 being synthesized into the article. The reason is that there are several cases that support an individual rights viewpoint, instead of a collective rights viewpoint, dating from between 1939 and 2000, that GreekParadise has chosen to ignore. As noted above, Miller specifically did not provide any clear "victory" for collective or individual interpretations in 1939. As has been noted previously, in United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990), the meaning of the term "the people" in the Fourth Amendment was investigated. The Court unanimously held that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people" means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States. This case thus resolved any doubt that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right, as the people in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments did not apply only to collectives of people. Without the Supreme Court providing any rulings between Miller and Heller, there was no clear interpretation of the meaning of the Second Amendment during this span of time. There are numerous indications, though, Verdugo-Urquirdez being just one of these, that indicate that the Supreme Court always held an individual viewpoint. Certiori is not granted by the Supreme Court until an issue is "ripe". It is just spin trying to assign this period of time to a collective rights only framework, in the absence of any direct Supreme Court rulings, and with numerous cites available that clearly show that the individual rights viewpoint was being maintained. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
No need to respond. None of these were even Second Amendment cases and definitely did not address the militia clause.GreekParadise (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I strongly object to a one-sided false history from 1939-2000. I have given you eleven federal cases with a militia point of view, one from each circuit. There are many more in that time period. You have not given me ONE. NOT ONE, that disagrees. Verdugo was not a Second Amendment case. I dare you, defy you, challenge you, entreat you to read my sources. Miguel. READ THE CASES. The only reason you REFUSE to read them is because you know I'm right!!! Admit it. You haven't read a single case I've supplied. Not a single source. You willfully believe in a falsity. And you let your willful false beliefs trump my reliable sources. Can your vague recollections trump my reliable sources? THE ANSWER IS NO!!!! Until you read my sources, you have no right comment on them. Period. You are exactly what is wrong with wikipedia. You MUST allow reliable sources in an encyclopedia to trump your personal prejudice or you have no place in wikipedia. Read my sources. Or leave.GreekParadise (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I have read Verdugo. Have you? You should read all eleven cases I cited but I know you haven't read any of them. Have you? So I DARE you to read one I just randomly picked out, Hale from the conservative 8th Circuit. Dare you. Here it is: http://www.guncite.com/court/fed/978f2d1016.html Until you know what the hell you are talking about, you have no right to comment here. It's like complaining about someone trying to present a "one-sided false history that American once had slavery exists when you know for a fact America never had slavery." There is an objective truth outside your mind, Miguel. It exists. Review the historical record.GreekParadise (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
~~The personal attacks need to stop, GreekParadise. Likewise, all your attempts to drive editors away from Wikipedia; these need to stop as well, GreekParadise. Meanwhile,~~ There are numerous cases that support an individual rights viewpoint of the Second Amendment that were litigated between 1939 and 2000, contrary to just ~~your~~ cherry-picked cases and sources. Verdugo is just one, as I mentioned before, and, in it, the Supreme Court ruled that "the people" mentioned in the Second Amendment are clearly meant as individuals, consistent with the other amendments where "the people" are also mentioned, with the same meaning. Another case supportive of an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment from this same 1939 to 2000 timeframe is Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 784 (1950). In this case, the Supreme Court held that enemy combatants were not entitled to Fifth Amendment Due Process rights, because if that were the case, they would also be entitled to “freedoms of speech, press, and assembly as in the First Amendment, right to bear arms as in the Second, security against ‘unreasonable’ searches and seizures as in the Fourth, as well as rights to jury trial as in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.” Again, the Supreme Court clearly held the Second Amendment to be protecting individual rights in this 1950 case. ~~As I have said previously,~~ It is wrong to synthesize and push a one-sided POV history in this Article with ~~your~~ cherry-picked references that all go with the collective interpretation ~~as you insist on doing~~ , when there are numerous cases where an individual rights, not a collective rights, argument was held by the courts in reference to the Second Amendment. ~~Your attempt to twist actual history, in~~ Proclaiming a sole "collective rights" set of rulings between 1939 and 2000, is counter to what the verifiable sources indicate. There was a mix of opinions evident in this period. It is the reason that the Supreme Court didn't grant cert for as long as it did, awaiting until the matter was "ripe". As for the hostile editing environment you have created, this is making it difficult for editors to discuss appropriate sources for inclusion in this article. A fundamental Wikipedia policy is to Assume Good Faith, and I don't sense that you wish to adhere to this philosophy. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Wait. So you're admitting you haven't read my cases and have no Second Amendment cases of your own? That's my point. Johnson is a Fifth Amendment case. You say so yourself. More importantly I've read it. It's about the extra-territorial application of the Bill of Rights and has nothing whatsoever to do with the limitations of the militia clause and lack thereof. I have read Johnson and all my cases, but I'm starting to question whether you've read any of them. Please specify which cases you have read -- or which scholarly articles -- or what your sources are so we can discuss them. To make all kinds of accusations without sources is exceedingly unhelpful.GreekParadise (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
And Gajin: what one person wrote about Miller is not the issue. There are people who think the earth is flat. Read the case-law. I'm not even saying these cases were right. What I am saying is they existed! Have you read them? Do you deny their existence?GreekParadise (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The cases are ambiguous and generally do not directly address the topic, and which you are using WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH to interpret. I have read several of them, as commented in an above section. There are many cases which say that "such and such a regulation is not an interference with a well regulated militia". That does not have any significance on individual vs collective rights. As stated many times, by statute, by judge (including in Miller), by tradition, by notable commentary, EVERYONE is a member of the militia. Heller did not use the words overturn, overrule, vitiate, etc which would indicate a reversal of earlier rulings. Because those earlier rulings did not directly address the question. They in fact specifically say that they did NOT overturn anything. Earlier interpretations to the contrary are historically interesting, and noteworthy, but by definition incorrect. Lower court rulings are washed away by the higher court. They have zero significance except as historical artifacts. "None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54." Gaijin42 (talk)
I object for all the reasons stated above – nothing new here; just another rehash. Saying the same thing in ten thousand words hasn’t garnered any new support. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Gaijin, which case do you claim is ambiguous? You say you've read a number of them. Which one? And are you aware of Lewis v. United States (1980) where the United States Supreme Court, citing Miller found "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia' "
This thread has been copy pasted to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Please continue there if you have more to say
I don't think this copy pasting is appropriate, according to the rules of the noticeboard. We are supposed to continue on the talk page. The only issue for the noticeboard is whether you have a right to remove what you concede are authoritative, relevant, accurate, reliable sources. I contend you are not.GreekParadise (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll make every one here a deal. Let me cite my sources and you can cite yours. We'll put the information from the sources in the text, we'll make sure nothing's taken out of context, and we'll put the sources in the footnotes. Quotes from cases can be verbatim. Quotes from newspaper articles will have the source available for people to evaluate (but should be news articles rather than op-eds). Quotes from single subjective individuals or law journal articles are more dangerous and I'm inclined to keep them out, but if we agree to include them (on both sides), we name the individual -- and their affiliation -- in the article, preferably in sections entitled "The Militia View" and "The Individual View" where we can collate the arguments of proponents of each view and let both views have their space in the article. What's wrong with that? I have never disputed other editors' rights to include other reliable sources in this article. I have merely protested the summary reversions every time I try to include what everyone agrees are reliable relevant articles on my part.GreekParadise (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You are incorrect that the cases are the ultimate authority (as far as wikipedia is concerned). Those are WP:PRIMARY which are LESS reliable (for wikipedia purposes) than WP:SECONDARY. I personally agree with you on relying on the cases, EXCEPT

You are doing more than quoting the cases, you are interpreting what the case/quote means.
In particular, you are translating "relationship to a militia" to mean "militia-only collective right".

For your specific quote above the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia', which you claim unambiguously refutes an individual right, and mandates a collective right, there is obviously at least one reliable opinion that disagrees on that statement means. Heller.
None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretationn. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment.

As SCOTUS is the highest authority, and this interpretation has been reported in many reliable secondary sources, alternative interpretations are simply WRONG (until such time if and when SCOTUS overturns itself)

Who else agrees that miller doesn't say what you say it says? Hugo Black, one of the justices who decided Miller "Although the Supreme Court has held this Amendment to include only arms necessary to a well-regulated militia, as so construed, its prohibition is absolute." - only a discussion of the arms covered by the right, not of who the right belonged to.

Another case, Lewis v US "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to [445 U.S. 55, 66] the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" - once again, miller restricts the right based on the type of weapon, and says nothing about to who the right applies

Hale, one of the cases you seem to be relying on :
"Whether the 'right to bear arms' for militia purposes is [Page 24] 'individual' or 'collective' in nature is irrelevant where, as here, the individual's possession of arms is not related to the preservation or efficiency of a militia. Id. at 1020" - clearly it has not previously been ruled to be a collective right if this is worded in this manner.

and "The Second Amendment prevented federal laws that would infringe upon the possession of arms by individuals and thus render the state militias impotent."

Johnson v Eisentrager the Supreme Court held that enemy combatants were not entitled to Fifth Amendment Due Process rights, because if that were the case, they would also be entitled to “freedoms of speech, press, and assembly as in the First Amendment, right to bear arms as in the Second, security against ‘unreasonable’ searches and seizures as in the Fourth, as well as rights to jury trial as in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.”

Now, I think you will agree that it is completely unambiguous that Heller does rule the 2nd amendment to protect an individual right, but a not-unlimited one per "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."and "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."
Now, note this earily similar wording from a pre-emerson case US v SWINTON, cited as well in GILBERT v HIGGINS "there is no absolute constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm".
Not there is no individual right. Not there is only a collective right. "no absolute right". same as in Heller.

Gilbert also says " The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to all Americans the right "to keep and bear arms" and further provides that this right shall not be infringed."
I admit, I am reading some spin into the cases, but no more than you are into the militia readings. The point is it is not a "collective-only" set of rulings, particularly when your cases don't actually use the word "collective" (3 exceptions), and don't define what "related to a militia" means.

You were arguing Verdugo before. "The people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community"
Surely it is not your argument that the 1st or 4th amendment are collective rights only?
Gaijin42 (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
GreekParadise: To be clear – you have not achieved a consensus to make the changes you suggested. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
agree with Grahamboat and with Gaijin42s excellent summary. GreekParadise, you do not have consensus to make your changes, they amount to WP:SYNTH.-Justanonymous (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Pardon me. I see a vote on politics here and 'owning' the article. I strongly disagree about claims of consensus. Shouting down and wearing down the opposition is not how consensus building works. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 16:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Salty, please stop accusing editors of bias. They have their opinions as to what should be in the article, as do you. If they are biased, then so are you. IMO, nobody's biased; we simply are trying to reach consensus. SMP0328. (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
It is time for the discussion on GreekParadise’s edit requests to end.
After a week of intensive (100,000 bytes) discussion on GreekParadise’s suggested changes to the lede there is no consensus. I thought we came close at GreekParadise (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2013 and GreekParadise (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2013 and IMHO the best balance at Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2013. Now that we are still at NO CONSENSUS it is time to stop discussing this issue. Any further discussion would be WP:Disrupttive and should be dealt with accordingly. I do not have high hopes for further enlightenment at DRN. GreekParadise wants everyone to study a bunch of cases which sounds WP:OR to me. It seems a tragedy to waste all the hard work but:If editors can’t agree on the PROTECTED version or Miguel 16:52, 15 March 2013 then according to WP:NOCONSENSUS, as I understand it, we fallback to the [[5]] version prior to the dispute.
There is also NO CONSENSUS on changing the word PROTECT to CONCERN. That fact should end further discussion on this issue. There can be further discussion on another word choice i.e. codifies, guards sets forth, etc.
There seems to be a consensus on adding a statement about individual/collective right history in the lede. To be proportional to the body, this statement needs to be brief. IMHO Miguel Escopeta 16:52, 15 March 2013 says it best “From Miller in 1939 until Emerson in 2000, lower courts followed a mix of collective rights and individual rights viewpoints.” Can we agree on that? Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
That statement should come just before the Introduction refers to Heller and McDonald. SMP0328. (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Talk page guide lines
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines I picked the one this page needs the most
Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal.

Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a forum to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material.

Thread your post: Use indentation as shown in Help:Using talk pages#Indentation (or, more specifically, Wikipedia:Indentation) to clearly indicate to whom you are replying, as with usual threaded discussions. Normally colons are used, not bullet points

Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article.

Avoid repeating your own lengthy posts: Readers can read your prior posts, and repeating them, especially lengthy posts, is strongly discouraged. In some cases, it may be interpreted as an unwillingness to let discussion progress in an orderly manner.

Avoid excessive emphasis: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate. Bolding may be used to highlight key words or phrases (most usually to highlight "oppose" or "support" summaries of an editor's view), but should be used judiciously,
Please help and lets move on. J8079s (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
good refresher at this point, and words to live by, thank you much.-Justanonymous (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Breyer's dissent
Done What we have: Justice Breyer, in his own dissent and speaking only for himself, stated that the entire Court subscribes to the proposition that "the amendment protects an 'individual' right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred" What we need (From "Heller"): Justice Breyer filed a separate dissenting opinion, joined by Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, which sought to demonstrate that, starting from the premise of the majority , the District of Columbia's handgun ban and trigger lock requirement would nevertheless be permissible limitations on the right.
This is not controversial. J8079s (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Dissents have no legal authority, so I'm not sure that either quote is particularly useful. The first quote indicates that (in Breyer's estimation) the entire court agrees that the right is individual. Nothing contradicts that, but it is just the opinion of Breyer. (However this does seem more relevant to me since this was the "landmark" holding of the overall case). The second quote says that the right is not unlimited. The majority opinion also states that, so that part is not particularly useful/important. the second quote goes on to say that the handgun ban/lock would be permissible - this is directly contradicted by the majority opinion, and it is the majority opinion that matters. the opinion of the dissenting judges is irrelevant until such time as the court makeup changes to put them into the majority during a time they want to overturn stare decisis. Has that dissent been found to be particularly notable by reliable sources? Are we quoting dissents throughout the rest of the article? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't clear the first is all ready in the article. It is wrong I would tag it ^{[failed verification]} if I thought any one would want to keep it. The second quote is true statement from the source. This is not about the lede just a correction of a bad edit in the body. J8079s (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Still confused. I realize we are discussing the body. The Breyer dissent is a fairly verbatim quote "I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.". His statement is reinforced by the Stevens dissent, which you partially quoted, which also said "The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an Individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right" - So we effectively have a unanimous opinion that it is an individual right.
The other quote from the Stevens dissent is directly contradicted by the majority opinion, and carries no weight, so I am unsure as to what value it provides, other than documentation that that portion of the majority opinion was not unanimous? Has that portion of the dissent been commented on or quoted by notable people or reliable sources? What is the rationale for inclusion? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Did Breyer make two dissents? The one used as a reference does not include my quote, but this other one does? http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf Gaijin42 (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what the question is. If it whether to cover the dissent, being the big decision, I think that some coverage of the dissent is in order for the body of the article but no the lead. And that is the current state of the article. Or is the question regarding the particulars of the coverage? North8000 (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The error is that Breyer's dissent is also signed by the three other justices I have bolded the change. J8079s (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah! You are quite correct then. the "speaking only for himself" part should be removed. (I swear I saw a copy of the dissent that did not list any joins! But on review I stand corrected!) Is that the extent of your suggested edit? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I used Wikipedia my source for starting from the premise of the majority (a big no-no) I see that is not entirely accurate. It should be fixed at Heller. J8079s (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
new lede

I have read the talk above and every source I could find this is what I came up with:

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. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights however The right to arms predates the Bill of rights as the Natural law right of self-defense and as the civic duties to act in concert as posse comitatus and or in defense of the state. The 2nd amendment recognizes this right. Neither the courts nor scholars paid much attention to the the 2nd amendment for many years. While the courts trended in a vague and paradoxical way towards a now discarded "States Rights" theory, they never denied an individual right to arms. Scholars have since demonstrated that the amendment was written to protect the rights of individuals, the "standard view". Accepted by the courts in Heller and incorporated against the States in MacDonald. The "Sophisticated Collective" or "Individual/ Collective" was endorsed by the disent in Heller.

I have a copy of this at User:J8079s/Sandbox2amnd with sources and will update as we go at User talk:J8079s/Sandbox2amnd
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.It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights

The right to arms predates the Bill of rights as the Natural law right of self-defense and as the civic duties to act in concert as posse comitatus and or in defense of the state.

The 2nd amendment recognizes this right.

Neither the courts nor scholars paid much attention to the the 2nd amendment for many years.

While the courts trended in a vague and paradoxical way towards a now discarded "States Rights" theory, they never denied an individual right to arms.

Scholars have since demonstrated that the amendment was written to protect the rights of individuals, the "standard view"

Accepted by the courts in Heller and incorporated against the States in MacDonald

The "Sophisticated Collective" or "Individual/ Collective" was endorsed by the disent in Heller.
Talking points line by line:
Full text because its short

explanation of the components of the right, with out this the "debate" is irrational

protects,concerns I went with recognizes as a compromise.

There are not many and this is what my sources say I could go with "Miller"

The "States rights" theory is dead, not surprising it was never strong. Obituary at sandbox.

The "Standard view" is in every source even in rebuttal. This will necessitate a short section on the historiography of the standard view

This is probably to short and should be linked

"Sophisticated Collective" could be moved might be extinct, check "McDonald"
Talking points in general:
WP:NPOV and WP:MOS I have included the major views Will need to add short section for "States right view" and "Standard view"

WP:NPOV I have avoided using "collective right" "militia" "Individual right" as there is not a one to one correspondence to "Standard view, "States right, and "Sophisticated Right"

I have made no attempt to include "The Bunker Guys" (Too fringe) no the view that "The Court is wrong" (not found in any source) nor the 9th amnd. theory of incorporation (not enough coverage for this page)

Anything I didn't think of
sources
SECOND AMENDMENT, BEARING ARMS CRS-LOC [6]

Vile, John R. (2010-02-26). A Companion to the United States Constitution and Its Amendments. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9780313380082. Retrieved 21 March 2013.

Halbrook, Stephen P. (1998). Freedmen, the 14th Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 9780275963316. Retrieved 19 March 2013.

Barnett, Randy E. (2004). Was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Conditioned on Service in an Organized Militia?. Retrieved 21 March 2013.

Scaros, Constantinos (2011-08-24). Understanding the Constitution. Jones & Bartlett Learning. pp. 402–. ISBN 9780763758110. Retrieved 21 March 2013.

Freedman, Adam (2012-10-09). The Naked Constitution: What the Founders Said and Why It Still Matters. HarperCollins. pp. 310–. ISBN 9780062094650. Retrieved 21 March 2013.
responding
Please read before responding

I am not call for a point by point response

I may be raising too many points for ease of response

If you dont like thats ok I'm not going to spam it all over thank for reading J8079s (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your hard, well sourced suggestion. Many editors seem to object to quoting the full text, but as you point out it is short – I have no problem using it. I think most will agree with using “recognizes”. Typo with "disent" and duplicate "the". I need a little more time to fully digest it. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I find the tone to be biased toward one interpretation. First, all rights in the bill of rights protected existing rights and that is clear in the wording of the amendment ("shall not be infringed"). But the actual origin of the right is disputed. There is a dispute about whether the English Bill of Rights protected or created the right. It is also not clear the right was based on natural law, because the authors of the 1689 bill said they were upholding rights derived from tradition, that is the sovereign had long allowed the right and therefore could not revoke it, just as if one allows a right of way through one's property one cannot revoke it. Posse comitatus is of course an obligation not a right, so it makes no sense to say that the amendment protects it. Saying that the court's decision reflects the "standard view" is questionable. Do scholars generally accept that? And throwing in "States Rights" seems to unfairly associate one side of the dispute with segregation. TFD (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The "other side" in this is not the alternative reading. Its that its a "limited" "Regulated" "Restricted" right. I "bolded" protected. Your objections are the very reason I went with recognized and "civic duty". The origin of the right is dealt with in the body. The Courts endorsement is widely documented. The "States right" or "national guard" theory is dead it is so dead that we could leave it out of the lead all together , you must be old like me to remember the racism of "States Rights", we could add "National Guard" or leave it for the body. J8079s (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Nice work on addressing the core issue, but IMHO the wording seems to do only that. IMO the lead needs to be more than that, it needs to be an introduction and summary. North8000 (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Be Bold but not reckless use the talk page at my sandbox if you like User talk:J8079s/Sandbox2amnd J8079s (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the rewrite is good but I'm not sure it adds anything and I worry about the ambiguity of this sentences, "Neither the courts nor scholars paid much attention to the the 2nd amendment for many years. While the courts trended in a vague and paradoxical way towards a now discarded "States Rights" theory, they never denied an individual right to arms. " Here is an example from Dred Scott v. Sandford where a SCOTUS compares and contrasts the rights of slaves vs the rights of citizens and addresses the right of citizens to bear arms (please excuse me bringing up such a polarizing figure like Chief Justice Taney, I mean no disrespect to my fellow citizens who happen to be black, but the quote clearly articulates the view of the court regarding the second amendment right and citizens), emphasis mine:

"it would give to persons of the negro race ... the full liberty of speech ...; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went." - 15 L. Ed. at 705 [Emphasis added]. And see id. at 719.

Very clearly here you have Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney discussing the Bill of Rights and the court's understanding that citizens have a right to not only keep but to carry arms wherever they go! His words were part of the ruling as I understand. It's only been in the 20th century that there has been clouding of this right by interested parties to inject phrases like collective and the so called sophisticated collective rights. If we pore over case law, which I'm not sure we've done here enough to say that the second amendment has not been treated. Certainly a Supreme Court Chief Justice is a scholar, even a controversial one, and him making an analysis of the Second Amendment in relation to the Bill of Rights constitutes at a minimum attention. So based on that, I think what is in the lede now is fine. Good effort though and attempt at quelling some parties who only want to present their view of history but that's just revisionism. I think we have to tread very carefully here.-Justanonymous (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
So my argument with what I present above is that I hold the opposite argument. There hasn't been long-standing ambiguity with respect to collective vs a personal right. When settlers walked west, it was completely 100% understood that you strapped a revolver to your side and took a good rifle -- you were considered insane if you didn't. My contention is that it has only been fairly recently in our history that certain groups have given birth to terms like "sophisticated collective" (a right to keep and bear arms is somehow devolved from the feds to the states, abhorrent top-down thinking btw ....devolvement is anathema to the bottom-up liberty we practice. Here the people grant government power!) and words like "collective."....no, this mindset is new. It's true that it wasn't settled law until recently but it wasn't settled law because nobody argued about it! Not because there was ambiguity. If there had been a big fight about what the Second Amendment meant in 1822 surely, we'd see a bunch of case law and rulings in that era about precisely that point. With the Taney court, we have a complete and utter agreement in the era that citizens could not ownly keep but carry arms anywhere they went which makes perfect sense because the right of self-defense should extend to wherever I can legally be (otherwise, they would have argued about it right and the people would have argued about it too?!). So, simple logic means that Heller and Mcdonald became settled law recently because it has only been in recent history that people have taken up a revisionist collective view to the second amendment. Just like we see a lot of case law with the Taney Court regarding slavery and the rights of the individual - it's what they were fighting about back then (keeping and carrying arms wherever you went was a non-issue - it was what sensible intelligent people did). The revisionists here would have us believe that the second amendment was always a collective right but Taney clearly articulates it as an individual right of the citizenry, how else to interpret his words? We need to make sure we keep the right context here and make sure that we don't accidentally inject a bias towards ambiguity just because it wasn't settled law until recently and because a group of people want us too. It's easy to inject relativist meaning in good faith - we must resist bias being injected in that fashion too. -Justanonymous (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I do agree it's not none It's just not very much. Kopel, David B. (1999). The Supreme Court's Thirty-five Other Gun Cases: What the Supreme Court Has Said about the Second Amendment. Independence Institute. Retrieved 24 March 2013. Please remember it's not our opinions that count while you are correct you need a source not an arguement As this thread has too many points I'm going to drop most of them (for new sections)

I am going to ask that this the first paragraph:

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. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights however The right to arms predates the Bill of rights as the Natural law right of self-defense and as the civic duties to act in concert as posse comitatus and or in defense of the state. The 2nd amendment recognizes this right.

Feed back on this paragraph has been positive,I will do more work on the rest J8079s (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
That presupposes that there is a natural law, which is a matter of opinion, and civic duties are not rights. Or did you mean common law? RE: Dred Scott. Comments by a judge that are not critical to the judgment have limited value and anyway we would need a secondary source to interpret it. Also, most people would not know what posse comitatus means. TFD (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Common law presupposes Natural law Barnes, Thomas Garden (2008). Shaping the Common Law: From Glanvill to Hale, 1188-1688. Stanford University Press. ISBN 9780804779593. Retrieved 24 March 2013. Every commentary on Common law explains self-defense as a Natural law right. Second point "Posse' is linked for just that reason. Third point belongs in the thread above.J8079s (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Natural Law as opinion? I guess you're of the mind TFD that slavery is ok then? I mean, equality of all is squarely out of natural law and folded into common law. Have you read the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution and studied their underpinnings? I guess we could degenerate here and argue about the divine right of kings too but how about if we just stay on topic and talk about the Second Amendment here as it relates to American case law, as the framers saw it, and its roots in relation to this article? I mean, unless you have a bunch of case law which states that the US Constitution and the Declaration are based on a false premise. To be clear these weren't comments by "a judge," these were comments by the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court in the concurring opinion on a very important case regarding citizenship and the rights of citizens where he articulated the right to not only keep but to carry arms around (and he meant the prevalent firearms of the day). America went to war in part over this ruling to correct a gross inequity in "natural law" to recognize that all men (and later we fixed it to all people) are equal. The main point is that the second amendment rights were being discussed, it's just that they were taken for granted. I agree that this is not about opinion, it's about facts. My caution is that the other side of the argument regarding the lack of case law can be interpretted not because someone saw some collective right but rather because everyone took for granted that the right to bear and carry arms around was an inanienable individual rights. -Justanonymous (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Again you are correct but please respond with sources not arguments. I realize that sources are not traditional on this page but thats the wikipedia way. These are sources that say the same thing Malcolm, Joyce Lee (1996-02-01). To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. Harvard University Press. pp. 130–. ISBN 9780674893078. Retrieved 24 March 2013. Cornell, Saul (2006-08-01). A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. Oxford University Press. pp. 227–. ISBN 9780199743643. Retrieved 24 March 2013. Bartholomees, J. Boone; Jablonsky, David; Holcomb, James F. (2010-07). The U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Issues. Strategic Studies Institute. pp. 267–. ISBN 9781584874515. Retrieved 24 March 2013. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) and every other source I could find 967 altogether [7]
None of the sources provided say that common law presupposes natural law. Natural law theories were developed hundreds of years after common law arose. Justanonymous's "I guess you're of the mind TFD that slavery is ok then...Have you read the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution" is bizarre. Slavery was justified under natural law and continued for almost a century after independence although it was inconsistent with common law. (See Somersett's Case 1772) TFD (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
you can justify anything.....it's a sophists skill. That doesn't mean it's just. Let's stay on topic, not interested in a philosophy argument. Wp:forum violation. What is your point regarding improving the article?Justanonymous (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The point is that your comments about the amendment that you wish to put in the lead are wrong and not supported by sources. You are the one who brought up slavery. TFD (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I am not looking for what is supported, I am looking exactly what the sources say and natural right is the most common construction. Was this your point? This is getting chatty. lets stay on point J8079s (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The approach taken when writing the bill of rights is described in Madison Vs. Marshall: Popular Sovereignty, Natural Law and the United States, pp. 73 ff.[8] They were divided between natural law and positive law groups. The first group believed that the bill protected inalienable rights while the second group believed that it protected rights that had become part of the law. The distinction is important because if they protected positive rights, then that supports an originalist position where judges would determine what the existing law was. If they protect natural rights then judges must go beyond that and may determine for example that abortion is lawful even though the authors of the bill of rights did not know that. That is my understanding from what I have read and if you disagree could you please refer me to a source.

Also there is a substantial opinion, for example in the dissenting opinion in DC v Heller, that the right does not derive from the right to self-defense. The most we could say is that the court has interpreted it that way.
TFD (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Tfd, Wasn't the original question here a basic one of lead formatting? Don't delve off into meandering points. The notion that the "collectivist" (not really a term until the late 70s, if that early) view of "bear arms" provisions was somehow untouched for 80 years is patently incorrect. If you're diving back into a case about the first U.S. Bank then you're clearly not on topic. Shadowjams (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
agree with Shadowjams, feels like I've been transported to a bad undergrad philosophy class where the assignment is to refute the constitution using alternative philosophical models from antiquity. This is not a forum for that. If there is substantive opinion Tfd prior to the 50s, start listing, I'll read. Not general philosophy but specific to second amendment. Regarding your argument read the ninth amendment and go to the natural law wiki page. They dabble in that stuff. I gave you the Taney concurring pre civil war opinion. Start listing relevant stuff to support your thesis or let's end the high school philosophy assignment, I'm bored. -Justanonymous (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I will also take your back pedaling and fallback to questioning the underpinnings of natural law as an acknowledgement that you acquiesce and accept defeat on a collective interpretation of the second amendment under natural law. It's a big step back you take. Also in the spirit of J8079s and providing citations, the whole "natural law is an opinion" bit was soundly refuted in a landmark decision, what was that called? Hold on, it'll come to me, ah yes.....a little rumble gregariously know as American Revolutionary War. Now, let's get back to topic shall we.....and quit the philosophy jokes.Justanonymous (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to be late to the party, I don't have internet at my new house yet, so I am catching up from behind at work.

"Standard View" - this is a term of art, and was originally put forth by gun-rights advocates. Although it is defensible with sources, I think we should avoid it, and go with the much more intuitive individual vs collective anywhere we are discussing those concepts.

"Natural right" - Cruikshank directly states that the right to bear arms does not proceed from the 2nd amendment, but does not go so far as to directly state it is a natural right. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence (It does say elsewhere that life and liberty are natural rights). I think we should absolutely say that the right is not dependent on the amendment, but classifying it as a "natural right" may be pov/or. Perhaps just quoting Cruikshank is the thing most defended by policy?
Here is a very rough draft of what I propose as the lede
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states 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. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The purpose, scope, and effect of the amendment has been controversial, and subject to numerous interpretations. In 1875 (Cruikshank), the Supreme Court noted that "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." In 1939 (Miller), they ambiguously^ ruled that the amendment [protected arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. This ignited a long-standing debate on if the amendment protected an individual right, or a collective militia right. In 2008 (Heller), they resolved that debate, and ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, but that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. In 2010 (McDonald) the amendment was incorporated against the states, overturning previous rulings stating that it only restricted the Federal Government. The exact scope of the protections provided by the amendment, and what restrictions on gun ownership and use, and how Miller and Heller interact with each other, are still under debate.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 25 March 2013
Sounds reasonable. It might be helpful to break it into paragraphs or abridge it. Re natural rights: Justice Antonin Scalia and the Conservative Revival, JHU, 1998, p. 335, "Scalia's modern law thus has tried to escape the law of the pre-modern past, especially the ideas of natural law and natural rights that influenced the Framers of the Constitution, judges in early America, and some conservatives."[9] We need a source that he based his decision on natural rights, and we cannot claim natural rights exist unless there is academic consensus. TFD (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Full protection thread
Full protection on this article is a massive over-reaction. The recent history that lead to protection is from established editors that if they're getting out of hand can easily be blocked, as appropriate. This has been full protected for entirely too long. I'm no fan of 3rr bickering, but full protection on this is absurd. There's almost nothing to warrant that here. (don't even think about bringing up substantive 2nd amendment or whatever arguments in this topic) Shadowjams (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
no there was edit warring going on here and this is a very important article. We have high school kids around the world coming here every day to use the resource. This needs to be a stable article. A war going on here about basic philosophy is distracting and entirely of place. I support keeping the article mainstream and stable.-Justanonymous (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with Shadowjams; this full protection is for edit warring, and edit warring took place. Yes, one could have blocked the edit warring (established) editors (after appropriate warning of course, and I am not sure who would have been ready to issue the warnings in the first place), but what would have been gained by that? Some more miffed editors complaining about admin misconduct, but no real progress in terms of article content. At least the full protection brought enhanced activity to this talk page, as it should be. Lectonar (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not regular here, although I know some familiar names. So maybe I missed some major vandal storm... however, looking at the history recently, I don't see anything that can't be handled by blocks, and semiprotection's a lot different than full protection. Shadowjams (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
yeah some of us are the same. locking down pages like this is standard protocol though. I've seen multiple admins locking down pages on these sometimes contentious pages. I support. It's too easy for people to destroy a lot of good work in a short amount of time through bad faith editing...I've seen it. It's also really hard on admins to warn specific editors and block because these are not normal edit wars, they're ideological sometimes. It's an endless battle for admins to police. Lock it down for three months and then only the real good faith hardworking editors remain. -Justanonymous (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm hardly unfamiliar with pp. I'm just bothered that the article's been locked down as much as it is. If the issue is a disagreement among regulars, which it seems like it is, perhaps there can be an agreement on that point first. I acknowledge that this proposal requires some back and forth, which might mean either 1) ceding to other people's opinions, or 2) not reverting someone. With some very small exceptions, I think the lead to this article right now is doing ok. It's not great, but it's not awful either. I would be more than happy to discuss actual improvements to the article, and I'd like to see it merely semi-protected, but I'm very open to discussion on that point. I have a lot of experience vandal patrolling, and so I know it's easy to miss things, so if full protection's required I"m fine with that. But my hunch is, given my limited exposure here, that semi protect is enough. Shadowjams (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, we shall see, we have less than 1 hour protection time left.....Lectonar (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
btw, here is the guidance/policy that Supports the admin action. WP:NOTNAS-ETHNIC.-Justanonymous (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I would not necessarily have based my decision on that (and actually I haven't....and it is only an essay, btw), but in a contentious area as this, blocks would only have disgruntled the editors, and drama at one of the admin noticeboards would almost certainly have ensued, with much spilling of virtual ink, nerve-wrecking tantrums etc. Lectonar (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
hahahahaha, the page I cited says that admins will never admit to this rationale. I was here and agree and support your approach (not that you need the support). :-) -Justanonymous (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I sense all good blood here... I'm morbidly curious like Lectonar is when pp expires. Maybe I'll be proven wrong (it won't be the first time). Shadowjams (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, just to help pass the time: if I get too caught up with all this here, Wikipedia:LIGHTBULB at least manages to make me smile a bit (as does Three men in a boat), btw....Lectonar (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I am concerned that this talk page is used as a chat room. WP:Forum. I don't know what to do about that. The other problem WP:Disrupt I have collected difs and I know how to handle that. J8079s (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
New first sentence rev 2
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. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights however the right to arms predates the Bill of rights as the natural rights of self-defense and to resist oppression and as the civic duties to act in concert as posse comitatus and or in defense of the state. The 2nd amendment recognizes this right.
This has broad support above and is found with out exception in WP:RS see [10]It's better than what we have. When the lock comes off I will Be Bold"" J8079s (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I am about as pro guns as you can get, and personally agree with the statement, but it is absolutely a POV/SYNTH/OR problem for the purpose of wikipedia. We are discussing the amendment, we should not be discussing posse comitatus (particularly since it wasn't passed until 1878). See my proposed lede just above. It covers all the same points, but much more neutrally. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
This just the first paragraph your rough draft is rough its going the right direction.would you accept as the first sentence: 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. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights however the right to arms predates the Bill of rights as the natural rights of self-defense and to resist oppression and as the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. The 2nd amendment recognizes this right. I think we are close enough to work in main space. J8079s (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I think this goes too far into POV " natural rights of self-defense and to resist oppression and as the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state". There are plenty of sources to back up this viewpoint (which I agree with). There are also plenty of sources to the contrary. We can't be picking who is right, and the needed level of detail is too much for the lede. I think we should save that for the body of the article, where we can discuss each viewpoint in detail along with the sources that defend it. My (updated) version above touches on this saying "The purpose, scope, and effect of the amendment has been controversial, and subject to numerous interpretations", but then going on to detail the SCOTUS rulings that help to narrow down the "truth".
The only debate I can find including dissent in heller is wich part of the "right" is protected by the amendment. do you have a source to the contrary? J8079s (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Could you be more specific about what you are asking me to source? I think my statement is pretty self evident, and should be considered "true" by everyone on all sides of the debate - it is just stating that there are in fact sides to the debate. Are you saying that is not the case? If you are referring to my first sentence, I would say that it is YOU that need to provide adequate sourcing for your version, as you are just stating as a matter of fact what the purpose and intent of the amendment was. (Again, to be clear, I agree with you personally, but think that our opinions are not sufficient sourcing for such a statement, and I admit there are source-able counter opinions) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, we need to use secondary sources, not individual editor's reading of a Supreme Court judgment. Note for example that Scalia never claims there is a natural right to self defense. TFD (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Heller said, "The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right," so I think the connection has been invoked by the court. The current intro might be more NPOV though.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I can find good sourcing for "auxilliary right", "natural right", "common law right" "ancient right (HELLER!)", etc. there does not appear to be consensus, even among pro-gun sources on how to characterize the right. (However, In light of the SCOTUS decisions, and subsequent commentary by notable reliable sources I think it is completely non-controversial to describe it simply as a "right".)

For example, I think there is equally good sourcing for "natural right" as "auxiliary right" (Blackstone) "[I]n vain would these rights [personal security, personal liberty, and private property] be declared, ascertained, and protected by the dead letter of the laws, if the constitution had provided no other method to secure their actual enjoyment. It has therefore established certain other auxiliary subordinate rights of the subject, which serve principally as barriers to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty, and private property. [........] The fifth and last auxiliary right [...] is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law", also discussed greatly in To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. By Joyce Lee Malcolm. or "ancient right" from Heller " deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms", etc. also good sourcing for "common law right" My point is we should not be picking ANY of these terms, as there is not consensus for any particular one (even among the most staunchly pro-gun sources)
similarly we should not be sating as a fact the purpose or intent of the amendment. The SCOTUS rulings are by definition the law. Everything else is an opinion which may or may not be supported by evidence and logic. However, we should outline arguments towards this in the body, including the plethora of quotes from the founders, alternative drafts, academic research etc Gaijin42 (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Risking WP:FORUM, but if I were to be arguing this personally, I would say that the right to self defense is the natural right, and the right to bear arms is a means to that end/auxilliary/common law right, but that it is not in and of itself a natural right. Plenty of room for everyone to disagree with me. The point is that any particular interpretation is nothing but WP:OR as there is not a wide consensus either within wikipedia, or in the world. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
We might be on the same page the origin of the right [11] 969 sources that all say the same thing (self preservation and resist oppression). The scope of the amendment was the debate. J8079s (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, It's WP:Primary but -- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Those are the kinds of rights that the accompanying Constitution is enumerating in the Bill of Rights...the inalienable kind - they are just Rights (things that nobody, no mob, can take nor legislate away and the Rights remain even if you burn the constitution and write 10,000 laws to the contrary). Some would argue that I have no Rights (the inalienable kind) but to them I say that many men have shed blood aggressively arguing to the contrary and Here I stand. I'll stop to not risk WP:FORUM-Justanonymous (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you, but it is SYNTH/OR to make the leap that the RTKABA is specifically being discussed as one of those unalienable rights. It is a right. the right existed before the 2A. The exact scope and nature of the right is debated. In the US the bounds of that debate is limited by SCOTUS precedent. Everything else is POV imo. It is completely uncontrovercial that the bill of rights protects some natural rights, and some "not-natural" rights. For example, Trial by Jury is clearly a legal right, but not a natural right (See Madison) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
To J8079s, The fourth and fifth amendments I see as being for the purpose of protecting natural rights, otherwise one person could just come and arrest me, try me, deprive me of my rights? No - The fourth and fifth are collective agreements between we the people to safeguard my Rights because that is the purpose of government and why we have the bloody document and government (Jefferson). On the arms front - also need arms to form government and to avoid mob rule and to survive. Aristotle said, "Let us then enumerate the functions of a state, and we shall easily elicit what we want. . . . thirdly, there must be arms, for the members of a community have need of them, and in their own hands, too, in order to maintain authority both against disobedient subjects and against external assailants" (Book 7, ch. VIII). So you need arms to survive (life), for self-defense (life), to form government (to form constitution), to avoid oppression and to guard the outside borders. You need arms to form constitution, bare hands make a very tennous foundation upon which to base your society (the next big man that shows up tears what you've built down).-Justanonymous (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
An interesting argument, that I am inclined to agree with, but not relevant to the discussion at hand. this is not a general article/discussion about the origin/purpose/effect of rights. It isn't even an article about the RTKABA. Its about the 2A, which is a much narrower topic. Within just the scope of the 2A, how do we describe the right? I think EVERY adjective is probably subject to POV issues. Do you have particular edits to either my proposed lede, or J8079s'?Gaijin42 (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
While the Declaration of Independence presupposes natural rights it is, as Scalia says, not part of the U.S. constitution. And if leading constitutional scholars from Madison to Scalia do not think natural rights exist, then we cannot treat it as a consensus view and certainly should not read them into Scalia's decision. TFD (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
TFD, please cite your sources to say that Madison and Scalia don't think natural rights exist. Scalia specifically says that the second amendment right is intimately tied to the right of self-defense. I think Scalia just resists giving birth to rights from the court (he's just careful and doesn't want the court to legislate but rather as a body that interprets - but I'm not a Scalia scholar so I also want to be careful at the thought of putting words in his mouth). I find that Madison thought some rights were expressed sometimes as things like the fourth and fifth amendment which are part of the social contract. I guess in that respect I agree with Madison, no I'm not born with the Right to trial by jury, we have to form a social contract among ourselves and agree on the manner in which my inalienable Right to priavcy or my right to not be entrapped or imprisoned is going to be protected through the process we agree in the fourth or fifth etc (other countries might agree on a three judge panel, ours likes juries to validate whether a transgression on another's rights has occurred etc but the intent is always to protect my Rights). I think saying that the social contract is necessary to protect Rights is a far cry from Madison not thinking that natural Rights exist. I think that might be a misinterpretation but to Gaijin42's point that's a discussion for the article Bill of Rights not Second Amendment. -Justanonymous (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
See "The Bill of Rights" in Madison Vs. Marshall: Popular Sovereignty, Natural Law and the United States, pp. 73 ff.[12] and Justice Antonin Scalia and the Conservative Revival, JHU, 1998, p. 335.[13] Scalia does not say that self-defense was a "natural" right, although he quotes Blackstone who used that terminology. Of course there is a right of self defense under common law. Again that is why we should use secondary sources that analyze what Scalia said. TFD (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I read Madison Vs Marshall and I just didn't read it the way you do. Madison didn't want a bill of rights because he worried that the Federal Government would turn the bill of rights into a bill of powers by usurping all non-enumerated (natural)rights retained by the people or the states. Madison wanted a bill of rights that protected non-enumerated rights....and they had over 200 candidates at one point. That's why he came up with the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution known early on as Article II which is Madison's own work and speaks to a classical liberal position, the amendment protected the people's retained unenumerated rights from federal overreach (like my inalienable right to drink a 64oz Big Gulp if I so choose! which at the time was #35,687 on Madison's candidates list of protected civil liberties) - for in depth read and the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which protected the States from federal overreach. Madison was just being an intermediary to the Federalists and Anti-Federalists who really neither wanted a Bill of Rights for different reasons. I hear you on Scalia, I think he dabbles with natural rights but he's worried about the underlying moral foundation necessary and he really doesn't want to legislate from the court so it makes it look like he is anti natural rights. Anyway, too chatty as J8079s writes but how else to gain consensus between rational people on a very complex topic if we can't debate the substance of the matter.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that we are trying to gain consensus on the meaning of the amendment/rights, by doing WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH on WP:PRIMARY sources, and should not be. The problem is way to big and complex for us to think that we are going to find the right, true answer in this forum. We need to go to secondary sources. Unfortunately the secondary sources are in conflict, and more modern ones are written specifically to advance a pro-gun or pro-gun control agenda, and therefore suspect. Therefore, we need to be much more neutral. We should not be declaring the "truth/fact" anywhere, except where there is true universal agreement, and we can outline various arguments that have been made in the body. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)3
Well the issue with this article is not about an event that happened where we get a WP:RS source or two and throw out the WP:Fringe guys who claim that aliens did it. This is an article about a political ideal. Aristotle is an author who had ideas. Is he WP:PRIMARY? Do we need another book on someone who analyzes what he said in the modern times....because we'll find all kinds of analysis. Why do I need analysis from the New York Times to determine what a ruling is? I don't and I shouldn't have to have that. Worse, the people can be redefined to be individuals or the government or the states depending on which position supports someone's argument! It's ludicrous and we'd get a lot farther if we just called out the people who make ludicrous claims. It's a complex topic and why it's more chatty. And no, I refuse to accept the Constitution as interpretted by MSNBC!
We can quote aristotle, the constitution, or scotus. But if they aren't directly saying something, then we cannot say thats what they "really meant". If it takes 2+ sources to make the argument, that is by definition WP:SYNTH, even if only idiots would argue otherwise. As GreekP pointed out, Miller was regularly interpreted contrary to Heller for 60 years. We disagree with those arguments. Now so does SCOTUS, but it is inherently obvious that our reading is not the ONLY reading. Interpretation is required. We are not allowed to do that ourselves. As far as SCOTUS is concerned, Cruikshank has said its a pre-existing right. It does not say a "natural right" etc. That is a reasonable assumption to make to fill in the blanks, but wikipedia does not allow reasonable assumptions. Heller says it protects a right to self defense. That does not mean we can say the INTENT was to protect self defense (or tyranny, or anything else we agree on). The intent and the effect are two separate concerns. The effect is very straight forward, especially in light of Heller. My proposed lede, using only direct quotes covers that ground quite well IMO. Where we start paraphrasing what founders meant or founders intended is where we cross the line. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Way too much chat
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. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights however the right to arms predates the Bill of rights as the natural rights of self-defense and to resist oppression and as the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. The 2nd amendment recognizes this right. The origin of the right [14] 969 sources that all say the same thing (natural right/right of nature,self preservation, and resist oppression). The point of my edit is to add the definition of RTKABA. I there is an alternate definition I cannot find it in any WP:RS The scope of the amendment was the debated because the bolded section speaks to "Scope" I will start a new thread. J8079s (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Blackstone says it is a common law auxiliary right. His saying so (and many people quoting him and discussing so) does not define the origin/purpose of the right. Any given opinion is just an opinion. There is no universal consensus on what the origin of the right is. At most we could say "which was described by Blackstone...". The right pre-dates the 2a. Yes, we have this from Cruikshank, and other sources definitively. The exact origin of the right is multiple. For us to enumerate particular ones is POV. Remove the second half of that sentence (or attribute it rather than stating it as a fact) and we are on common ground. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I agree with you that those are origins of the right. My objection is that in fact that LIMITS the origin of the right to those enumerated ones, and I believe the origin is in fact much wider and general, and that we (wikipedia) should not be attributing any particular motivation to the founders. Anything that relies on analysis of multiple documents is original research and synthesis. It was a pre-existing right, recognized and protected by the 2A. We all agree on this, (and more importantly so does SCOTUS). Lets get down to something we can all agree on, so we can get the Full protection turned off, and then we can debate the more detailed points later. Are the words " natural rights of self-defense and to resist oppression and as the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state" so important to the article that it would be faulty/misleading article to not include them? Boil it down to the essentials, and we agree, can move forward, and them make more surgical edits in isolation, rather than in the context of the entire lede/article. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think too that we should say the U.S. has interpreted the amendment to mean this. The dissenting opinion was that the amendment was not intended to protect the right of self-defense. TFD (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I am in absolute agreement that we can say the right protects self defense usage (per Heller) (see my proposed lede above). My objection is to statng specifically what the origin /nature of the right was, and what purpose the founders had - as that is a much more complex issue than we should bite off in the lede. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
In the first dissenting opinion, Stevens wrote, "Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution." The other dissenting judges all agreed. Obviously there is no consensus on the interpretation of the amendment. TFD (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Slight quibble. The dissent is valuable in terms of establishing consensus (or not in this case) of if we know what the framers intended originally. (this is much in line with my arguments just previous) However, in terms of interpreting the amendment as applied today, it is irrelevant. The majority opinion states plainly that the amendment protects the right of self defense. That is unquestionably the law as stands. These two issues are separate. What the law means today is easily source-able from a handful of SCOTUS decisions and reliable sources. The origin/intent of that law is much more complicated and entire careers have been dedicated to that effort. Sorry to be a nitpicker here, but we are debating the specific wording here, and minor misstatements such as that can get us quickly off track Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
We don't present the dissent in Roe v Wade, we just say what the common interpretation of the law or in this case the Right is. it's a violation of WP:UNDUE-Justanonymous (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
It is not "unquestionably the law as stands", because we do not know what bearing the doctrine of retroactivity would have were the decision to be reversed. As explained in "RETROACTIVITY: A STUDY IN SUPREME COURT DOCTRINE "AS APPLIED", p. 746, "Chief Justice Marshall assumed that a decision of unconstitutionality was simply a declaration of a preexisting state of affairs and rendered the law a complete nullity. This assumption was consistent with the concept of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that judges are discoverers rather than makers of law; thus, the need for any form of retroactivity analysis did not become obvious until well into the twentieth century."[15] The most we can say is that this is how the court has interpreted the amendment. Which is why we should use secondary sources that analyze the amendment rather than conducting our own original research.

Yes, we do present the dissenting opinion at Roe v Wade and phrase the decision in a neutral manner, "the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion." Neither do we say in the 14th amendment article that it protects a woman's right to have an abortion.

TFD (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Say that then, say how SCOTUS ruled and in the body talk about the dissent if you want. People are always going to argue about these things so we're not going to solve it here or in secondary sources just ask foxnews and msnbc both WP:RSes for most things but not this. Similarly an analysis in a biased book is just that, biased. That doesn't mean that we give equal weight to the dissent in the lede - the minority dissent doesn't merit equal stature to the prevalent interpretation.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
And respectfully, it is unquestionably the law as it stands. I think what you meant to say is that "You don't like it," which is fundamentally different. -Justanonymous (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
We do not know if that is the law as it stands, because we do not know if a reversal of the judgment would reinstate the DC law retroactively. In the meantime, we are left with OR based on primary sources. I have no opinion on which opinion is correct, but prefer that we use secondary sources and avoid OR and bias. TFD (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Aw shoot man, I guess that by that standard Roe v Wade means it could be overturned and retroactively we could charge a bunch of former 17 year old girls with murder all because they chose to take a morning after pill thinking it was legal?!!! We need to make rational arguments here. You're out in the Clietophon woods! We can't be 100% relative where all words mean whatever we want them to mean and where we can change the meaning of words on a whim. Words have meanings and usually the common meaning is the intended meaning. Yes, Heller is the Law of the land today regardless of what a bunch of old guys and gals decide in 500 years. And you repeating it 1,000 times doesn't make it any less so. -Justanonymous (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
It is physically impossible to have an argument with someone who can't comprehend that the supreme court ruling IS the ruling and that is the prevailing interpretation of the law. So I'll stop. I hope others read your position here and will similarly not argue with you. If I knew you were a 100% relativist, I would've have even engaged. Good luck out there.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

agree with Justanonymous here. You can argue that SCOTUS wrongly decided. You can make a counter-factual hypothetical about what might happen if they reverse themselves. If they reverse themselves, then THAT would be the law of the land, unquestionably, at that time. They have not done so. Their current ruling is indeed the law of the land at this moment. By using your standard, you could never comment on the meaning of any law ever, as laws and rulings are always subject to change in the future. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

When Roe v Wade came down it was retroactive, and therefore people who had abortions before the judgment were deemed not to have broken the law. If the judgment were struck down, the abortions would be deemed to be illegal, but prosecutions would be unlikely as unfair. :That does not mean that the judgment would have no retroactive effect, but we would need a secondary source to determine that. Certainly in civil procedure, judgments usually have retroactivity.

As for arguing, it is not unreasonable to demand that reliable secondary sources are used. Just because there are political implications to a decision does not make us all suddenly legal experts.

TFD (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
scope

Policy Per WP:LEDE:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.[2] The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many people only read the lead. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, but the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows. Instead, to invite reading more the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.

And most esp.WP:NPOV

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to the Flat Earth belief.

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from a September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
Per these policies it was once necessary to mention 3 theories: Sates Rights(National Guard) also known as “Henigan/Bogus theory,” in honor of its two major scholarly proponents; A hybrid Individual/collective Right endorsed by the dissent in Heller and; the Standard View or academic model. This is no longer the case:
The States Rights modle is dead and we need not concern or selves about hurting the feelings of those who liked this model it was disowned by its advocates:
Who says that even heated conflicts over constitutional meaning can never progress? Over the past ten years, the intellectual clash between those who claimed that, at the time of the founding, the "right to keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment was a "collective right" of the states to preserve their militia and those who maintain instead that it originally referred to an individual right akin to the others protected in the Bill of Rights has been resolved. That the individual right view prevailed definitively is evidenced by the fact that no Second Amendment scholar, no matter how inimical to gun rights, makes the "collective right" claim any more. All now agree that the Second Amendment originally referred to the right of the individual.
Indeed, the fact that the collective right theory was once so confidently advanced by gun control enthusiasts is on its way down the collective memory hole as though it had never been asserted. With its demise, the intellectual debate over the original meaning of the second Amendment has turned in a different direction. Although now conceding that the right to keep and bear arms indeed belongs to individuals rather than to states, almost without missing a beat, gun control enthusiasts now claim with equal assurance that the individual right to bear arms was somehow "conditioned" in its exercise on participation in an organized militia. Barnett, Randy E. (2004). Was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Conditioned on Service in an Organized Militia?. Retrieved 21 March 2013. Cited in Scaros, Constantinos (2011-08-24). Understanding the Constitution. Jones & Bartlett Learning. pp. 402–. ISBN 9780763758110. Retrieved 21 March 2013.Freedman, Adam (2012-10-09). The Naked Constitution: What the Founders Said and Why It Still Matters. HarperCollins. pp. 310–. ISBN 9780062094650. Retrieved 21 March 2013.
The hybrid Model concedes defeat and now the debate is about whether the law has changed or always the way it is now, my grammer is cautious if I had said as the page does now Written to protect that would violate Npov That the second amnd Recognizes is consistant with both views with out mentioning either one.
The standard view is the over all winner and we can say so (not in those words) so based on overwhelming support in WP:sources and the plurality of the Court
Judicial reluctance to consider seriously whether the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms from state infringement perhaps reflects a tendency to view the Second Amendment, with its apparent guarantee of gun ownership, as embarrassing and politically incorrect. Under the twentieth-century “State’s rights” view, “the people” have no right to keep or bear arms, but the states have a collective right to have the National Guard.9 However, the weight of serious scholarship supports the historical intent of the Second Amendment to protect individual rights and to deter governmental tyranny. From the Federalist Papers to explanations when the Bill of Rights was introduced, it is clear that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect individual rights.
Historically, the right to keep and bear arms has been a key Bill of Rights guarantee related to the defense of African Americans from racist violence. The Southern slave codes were the only significant prohibitions on firearm ownership in the antebellum United States.14 Any historical analysis of the Fourteenth Amendment must take account of its origins in abolitionist thought, a fundamental tenet of which was that “the people” in the Second Amendment included individuals of all races, and that freedom for the slaves meant protection in their personal right to keep and bear arms. Halbrook, Stephen P. (1998). Freedmen, the 14th Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 9780275963316. Retrieved 19 March 2013.
This is lot of text for the The second amendment recognizes this right but it will be useful further on as well. This is not an invitation to chat bring your sources or policies or just read. I assume good faith but stay on point. J8079s (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
No objections to "recognizes", but I think "protects" is even better, and is equally defensible. My debate prior was your elaboration about the origin of the right (natural right, tyranny, self defense) etc. That I think requires more WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and is more subject to alternate views. Today the supreme court recognizes that the amendment protects the right. We have this quoted directly from Heller, so Im not sure why adding your redundant "amendment recognizes this right" is useful? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The amendment giving women the right to vote was contested and the court ruled on it. While some may still disagree, it is definitively settled. Same with individual right and incorporation on the 2A. We can mention views against women's right to vote, against the individual right decision, against incorporation, or obsolete per-incorporation case finding, but that should be briefly in the body of the articles, not prominently in the lead. North8000 (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Right now the lede only mentions it in saying Miller was ambiguous, and there was a debate over individual/collective until Heller. That seems summarized enough to me? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Leser v. Garnett was a unanimous verdict of the Supreme Court and there has been no serious support for the plaintiffs hence the views are fringe. In any case it was not about whether the 19th amendment should be interpreted, but whether it was constitutional. I.e., no one questioned that the amendment protected women's right to vote. Nor does the article claim that it is a natural right. That is what NPOV is about - providing all mainstream views. TFD (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Nunn
I believe the material that has been added to the Text section regarding Nunn v. Georgia does not belong in that section. That material would be better placed in the part of the article referring to Heller. Rather than risk an edit war, I want to know what editors believe regarding this material. SMP0328. (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
It is quoted verbatim By Scalia in "Heller". I added Stevens reading. Still plenty of room for other readings if sourced properly. "both" povs represented. Good job coming to talk. I think we can all work in main space without edit waring. WP:Assume Good Faith. J8079s (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm talking about location in the article. I believe the material you added should be in Heller subsection rather than in the Text section. SMP0328. (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
how to read the amendment is debated I think we need a how to read section a subsection of text seems best still plenty of room for other readings it's best to build by addition. J8079s (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
It is entirely out of place. It's not even written what's going on. I had to click through several pages to realize that Justice Scalia was writing about a court decision (Nunn v Georgia) for the Columbia v Heller case. It needs clarification and then moved (or deleted). And by the way, neutrality isn't balancing 2 extremes; it's being neutral. Naapple (Talk) 02:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
WP:Neutral Point of View means we show every notable view. While Stevens view may be WP:Fringe someday its notable J8079s (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
A supreme court justice's view isn't fringe, lol, even if wrong. Naapple (Talk) 06:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I still think that this material should be in the Heller subsection, rather than in the Text section. That's a different issue from whether the material belongs in the article at all. SMP0328. (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I moved it to the "well regulated militia" section, but I can see good arguments for "the people", or "Heller" sections. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I am still looking for other readings I think it needed to be where it was. J8079s (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Just a note....
I see that everybody is working towards consensus. I appreciate the progress that has been made, but everybody keep in mind that 3RR is really, really a red line, regardless of noble intentions or perceived vandalism (and remember please, edit warring can consist of 1 single revert). I do not want to lock the article down again, but will do so if this continues. And I do not want to start dealing blocks out, but will do so at a pinch. Thanks for everybody's work here. Keep it up, and keep calm. Lectonar (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Article the Fourth
SMP0328 has twice now reverted my addition regarding "Article the Fourth", claiming it is trivia to state that this would have been the Fourth Amendment had other amendments also been ratified. That is not my purpose at all. My purpose is to explain the ACTUAL TEXT as written. Per the Image we have right at the top of this article, The words "Article the Fourth" appear directly before the words "A well regulated militia", and a description of that text is entirely appropriate in this article. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Additionally I would note that he is in violation of WP:3rr in doing so. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
would it fit better in this section? Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #Drafting_and_adoption_of_the_Constitution J8079s (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I can see good arguments for both locations. The potential confusion/discrepancy in the text is certainly due to the historical events of drafting and adopting. However, it is literally part of the text, so text also seems appropriate. I think either would be acceptable. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Then you need to reword the material you want to add. The way you have twice inserted that material, it appears to be about what number amendment the Second Amendment would have been if two other proposed amendments had been adopted with the Bill of Rights. BTW, the "actual" Bill of Rights is the one that is in the Constitution, not the proposed Bill of Rights. I haven't violated 3RR, as I've reverted you twice only. I like J8079s's suggestion. SMP0328. (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
3rr is for ANY 3 reverts, and you have made 4 such reverts in the last 24 hours. the two directly dealing with this issue, reverting my addition of the text of the amendment, and reverting J8079's addition of the Nunn case. You need to read my edit better. I am not anywhere discussing what number the amendment appears as. "On the actual bill of rights, the Second Amendment is listed as "Article the Fourth". http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/SecondAmendentoftheUnitedStatesConstitution.jpg
I deny edit warring. I won't revert on this article today. I believe your wording can be better. Your current wording is not clear and was/is misplaced. SMP0328. (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Maybe suggest alternate wording then, or ask intent here, instead of just blindly reverting twice... You are still in violation. I suggest you self-revert. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I hear you SMP0328, I brought it to an admin's attention. We'll let him judge and decide what actions to take on you, all of us, or the page. Breaking 3RR is usually a bright red line though regardless of how we try to phrase the action. The page looks like an edit war is going on and 3RR violations to boot, the hammer can fall swiftly here and getting the page locked again and you blocked doesn't advance getting consensus, it just silences you for a few hours.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
How about we agree on clearer wording? I don't like your wording, so I'm not going to put it in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

what do you suggest. You find fault with my wording, you propose an alternative. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Refer to what text was used when the Bill of Rights was proposed without referring to the possibility that the Second Amendment could have ended up being the Fourth Amendment. That would make the intent of your wording clearer. Also, don't refer to the proposed Bill of Rights as being the "actual" Bill of Rights. The actual one is the one that was adopted. SMP0328. (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that whoever broke 3RR to self revert now in good faith and open up a discussion on the talk to iron it out before the admin shows up. Because once he does, he might block the individual user or the entire page given the history. We have to show progress. If he shows up and sees the edit war going on or us being uncivil on the talk pages, the hammer could fall. Let's show good faith and work it out here.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no such thing as the "adopted" bill of rights. The amendments directly modify the constitution. There is no "Bill of Rights" except for as a historical piece of paper. The bill of rights consists of ALL the proposed amendments (including ones which were not ratified) as the words "Bill of rights" refers to the actual document written. The bill proposed several amendments. Some of them were approved. I believe my text already is clear in that it is referring to the actual text of the bill of rights. On the actual bill of rights, the Second Amendment is listed as "Article the Fourth" The rest goes on as explanatory text. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
It's the 2nd Amendment. Anything else could be a small mention somewhere, with an explanation. North8000 (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The term "Bill of Rights" is commonly used to collectively describe the first ten amendments to the Constitution, not the group of twelve proposed amendments submitted to the States by the 1st Congress in 1789. SMP0328. (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
This clearly is trivia and doesn't belong in the text section. Somewhere under history is where it should go. Naapple (Talk) 03:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
If there is a consensus in favor of having this material in the article, that material should be placed here. That section concerns the Second Amendment's passage in the Congress. SMP0328. (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I Agree. Naapple (Talk) 21:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree. North8000 (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
20th century views expansion
In general I am ok with the expansion, but I think that we should not be presenting Halbrook et al quotes as unbiased/wikipedia voice. At a minimum, we need to add attribution to those quotes, and probably add a quote from someone who was actually professing that view, rather than someone just arguing against that view.
This whole section obviously falls into the "problem" bucket that a good portion of the article does - historical debates/controversy are notable and sourceable, even though Heller has resolved the debate. It might be worth forking the article into a debates/controversy/alternative/historical interpretations of the 2A article, to keep the current article focused on "As currently interpreted" etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
If we can all stay on task (focusing on a quality neutral article) then I tend to think that "covering and condensing" rather than splitting is the way to go. BTW I've been skeptical of some of what's in the pre-Heller lead additions. But what I told myself is that I'm going to more fully read and absorb tha CRS report before saying anything. BTW that looks like an immensely good source. Secondary, thorough, expert, unbiased. The only problem is that it is so long. :-) North8000 (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you have something more specific in terms of the lede additions you see as problematic? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to wait until I did the above research, but my concerns are:
Cruikshank quote is so lacking context / explanation that it is misleading and confusing. I think that it was just basically a "Not (yet) incorporated" finding.

If so, Cruikshank S/B a minor note, not a part of the lead.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I see no need to Weasel per WP:NPOV esp NPOV#Due_and_undue_weight it is what WP:RS actually say that count. That most sources support the standard view and poke holes in other theories is what we are required to represent. It is not about hurting the feelings of Wikipedia editors who supported other views. As far as I can tell, from RS current "gun grabber" theory is that this is a limited right subject regulation and restriction no one of any reportable weight speaks to an unlimited right. We may need a WP:content fork to keep this page short and inline with other Amendment pages, I think this could be dealt with at Right to keep and bear arms but that page needs work. also some could go at "Heller" and at Firearm case law in the United States wich also needs work. Please reread the lede as if you didn't already know about the 2nd amnd. Then think what we need to change. J8079s (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
By that standard, I find the lead to be mostly confusing and uninformative. What is missing is a statement of what the two or the big questions were in order to make sense out all of the court stuff that is in the lead. These were:
Incorporation/ does it limit the power of the States? This was more procedural than debated, but was previously an important factor.

Individual right vs collective-only right

Are everyday folks "the militia"? This question has been rendered less important by Heller

North8000 (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Cruikshank, the main reason for including that in the lead is to back up the "pre-existing right" claim we make in the prose. I wanted to show that this was not a novel idea that was developed in Heller, but that even through the miller etc timeframe that was already the accepted view.
Your 3rd question is moot, as "who is the militia" only matters if it is a militia right, so I think we can skip that in the lede all together and just deal with it in the "historical debates"
We do address the first two questions in the lede (although SMP keeps reverting out the word incorporated). I think the miller "debate" is worthy of the lede, as the debate/controversy was very notable and Heller is relatively recent. In the long run, once Heller and its ramifications becomes more firmly established in the courts and minds of the public, the timeline in the lede may become less important.
The original "problem" I was trying to address was : How much do we need to cover the "3 viewpoints" etc (and other similar sections), as the entire framework in which that question is valuable has been washed away by Heller. That question is only valuable as a way of trying to dis-ambiguate Miller IMO. So do we keep it in place as a "1st class citizen" of the article? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Good points. And I don't have a certain opinion on the answer. My quick gut feel is leave Cruikshank and Miller out of the lead. Include Heller, and reduce McDonald to a sentence tacked onto the end of Heller. Add an intro sentence to Heller explaining the main open question which it ruled on. North8000 (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with North. The second paragraph deals with the controversy issue therefore Cruikshank and Miller do not need to be in the lede (perhaps add them as wikilinks after numerous interpretations). Citations 1, 2, 4, 5, & 6 need to be more specific i.e. page #’s, publisher, ISBN etc. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I think North is dead on. Naapple (Talk) 07:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Weight requires that we include all main views. The first poster's comment, "Heller has resolved the debate" is a triumph of optimism over reality and following the view is biased. Certainly we need to explain how the amendment was interpreted by the courts before Heller and also explain other viewpoints. TFD (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
IMO that falls short 2 times over from mandating that they be in the lead:
"All main views" refers to in the article, not in the lead.

Not sure until I research this more, but I don't think that those two Scotus cases weighed in on any of the alternate views. As I understand it, Cruikshank just ruled "not incorporated yet" (and nobody is debating incorporation) and Miller was ambiguous regarding any of the items with alternate views.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:LEAD, which is a guideline, says, "This page in a nutshell: The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight.... It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. (my emphasis)" While you may not have researched the Supreme Court judgment, four justices opposed the majority opinion. Surely you would want the judgments with which you disagree - Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, Miranda, etc., be presented in the same neutral manner. TFD (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, that's a different topic than pre-Heller court cases which we were discussing. (sidebar I don't understand your comment "judgements with which which you disagree" I agree with all of those judgements. And the comparison is not parallel. Those would be articles on the court cases, this is an article on an amendment) I think that mentioning the biggest question and the two views on it would be good for the lead. That's what I had in mind when I recommended a preface to Heller. But IMO describing dissents from a specific case is undue for the lead, but fine for the body of the article. North8000 (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Certainly there is a prominent controversy about what rights the amendment was intended to protect, in particular an individual right to self-defense. TFD (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes / agree. But if you go beyond the narrower question of "individual" vs. "collective only" you are getting into dozens of topics that Scotus has not ruled on. 14:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

In the lede, we should provide the relevant quotes directly from the cases, "individual right", "traditional lawful such as self defense ", etc and not provide any interpretation or analysis (especially our own). In the body we can expand to say that the exact ramifications of the ruling are not fully understood yet, and could provide contrasting upper and lower bounds for interpretation from reliable/notable sources. The followup heller case, that SCOTUS did not hear, about the assault weapon ban in DC may be instructive as part of the "allowed restriction" to that end, since it did have a chance to overturn that ban and did not do so.Gaijin42 (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I pretty much agree. But with the "individual vs. collective-only right" question being the gorilla in the living room on the 2A for the last 20-30 years, do you think we should mention it in the lead? As a summary of one of the major items in the article? I'm thinking yes. And should Miller and Cruikshank be in the lead? I'm thinking not, but would defer my answer until after I read and absorb the CRS report. North8000 (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights
A main focus in this section is on Madison and the Virginia delegation. There’s no mention of the Pennsylvania delegation that wrote about the individual right to keep arms for self-defense and for hunting ^[1]:
“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or for the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for the purpose of disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals.”
The actual text of the second amendment was lifted mostly intact from the Virginia delegation’s submission ^[2] which was succinct.
Sorry about the crude editing job here -- I'm a newbie talker.
Dingo495 (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Welcome Dingo – you’ll find the Pennsylvania delegation discussed in the Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution section. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

References

^ Ralph Ketchum, “The Anti-federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates,” Meridian-Penguin (1986), p. 240

^ Ralph Ketchum, “The Anti-federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates,” Meridian-Penguin (1986), p. 221

NPOV Dispute (Ratification Debates)
This section makes several biased statements that go beyond the supporting evidence provided. They are:
"Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny." This implies that this view was held by all "framers" of the constitution, but only one such person is quoted.
"The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected." Again, this implies that this was the standard, if not only, view at the time.
Additionally, much of the text is directly quoted from the opinion of Judge Sam R. Cummings, but is not directly attributed to him, instead linking The Providence Foundation website (link #92) or some other reproduction of his opinion. He was a Reagan appointee and likely biased, but any any rate, it should be clear that this is the opinion of a single judge and not a synthesis of several sources.
My sincerest apologies if any of this does not conform to Wikipedia etiquette, this is my first time disputing neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosfercho (talk • contribs) 18:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Generally the first step is to bring it up at the article talk page and discuss it. If it's not resolved then there might be a "dispute". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
As for the framers, the source is meant to be an example of the framers' belief. With that said, another example involving a different framer would be helpful. Do you believe Judge Cummings being a Reagan appointee make him biased? What if he had been a Clinton nominee? What you are pointing out are places in the article that can be improved, not signs of bias. SMP0328. (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
The Providence Foundation website (link #92) has been removed. I Removed POP tag while under discussion. Grahamboat (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Supreme Court cases
The article (8th section, 3rd paragraph) cites four cases, Robertson, Miller, Heller and McDonald, as "primary second amendment cases".
Robertson v Baldwin 165 US 275 (1897) a thirteenth amendment case about a claim of involuntary servitude by sailors who jumped ship. The only reference to the second amendment is one sentence in dicta, it is not a review of the second amendment itself. Therefore this is not a "primary second amendment case." So this case reference should be removed from the paragraph.
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010) is a fourteenth amendment case ruling that the second amendment applies to the states. It is not a review of the second amendment itself. So it should also be removed from that paragraph.
The detailed references to the two cases, occurring later in the section, should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoS Posts (talk • contribs) 11:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree on baldwin, disagree on McDonald. Incorporation is a major issue, and this ruling invalidated whole swaths of local and state gun laws. It is a major development in gun laws in the US. Gaijin42 (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Gaijin42 and so I have restored McDonald to that sentence. That case is a Fourteenth Amendment AND Second Amendment case. The issue was whether the Second protected a fundamental right and so applied to the States (including their municipalities) via the Fourteenth. SMP0328. (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Gaijin and SMP... McDonald is clearly a second amendment case (arguing otherwise seems to be trolling... I guess Tinker is a 14th amendment case too and should be removed from the 1st amendment article). Shadowjams (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

[1] Ralph Ketchum, “The Anti-federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates,” Meridian-Penguin (1986), p. 240

[2] Ralph Ketchum, “The Anti-federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates,” Meridian-Penguin (1986), p. 221

[1]

[2]