Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Comments of 4.156.x.x

The above anon has posted on this talk page more than once, but none of his comments are related to this article. Instead, he is simply making editorials regarding the Second Amendment and other issues. I believe that the editorials of 4.156.x.x (appears to be the same person) should be removed from this talk page. I tried twice to remove one of his editorials, but he put it back both time. I don't want to run afoul of the Three-revert rule, so I've started this new section. How do all of you feel about this? --SMP0328. (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Somebody thought enough of what I had to say to add a section on the word "infringe". Have you been as lucky?

4.156.252.6 (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

My comments are not about what you said, but where you said it. A Talk page is for discussing its article, not the subject of the article. For example, a Talk page for an article about a product is not where a review of that product should be placed; it's for discussing the structure and content of that particular article. --SMP0328. (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You abjection ARE about what I said. The subject of the article is the second amendment, the content therefore is about the second amendment. A discussion on the PLAIN meaning of the second amendment is therefore acceptable as this page. The second amendment by PLAIN reading is a prohibition on the federal government BARRING it from disarming state militias. Since every able bodied male aged 17 to 45 is a member of the militia BY US LAW then taking away the right to KEEP and bear ams of any such person is contrary to the second amendment. The fact that you don't LIKE that point of view or don't agree with it, or BOTH, doesn't not make that point of view less valid.

4.156.252.86 (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to what you are saying. I object to where you are saying it. This Talk page is about the article, not the Second Amendment. Do you notice how everyone else is discussing what should be the content and structure of the article. That's what you do on a Talk page. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

i'd propose that it's time to archive this talk page anyway, which will have the dual effect of setting aside such editorials, then future editorials can be dealt with individually - when they'll be more apparent than when inserted into the middle of the page. just a thought though.Anastrophe (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Militia

I have stated several times that the militia BY US LAW (US Code Chapter 10) is composed of every able bodied male aged 17 to 45. I ask that this be included in the article as a relevant item.

Link to US Code of laws showing that that definition still holds. The law was last revised in 2006. It also looks like I was partially wrong as "under 45" means 44. Many states have their own laws defining the militia which differ from the federal version.

text of the main body of the law follows from -- uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt

-EXPCITE-

   TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
   Subtitle A - General Military Law
   PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
   CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-

   Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-

     (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
   males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
   313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
   declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
   and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
   National Guard.
     (b) The classes of the militia are - 
       (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
     and the Naval Militia; and
       (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
     the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
     Naval Militia.

4.156.252.86 (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

informal vote for consensus; please answer 'yes' or 'no'

should the material added by user Yaf concerning historical state interpretations of the 2A be deleted from the article?

• No. Anastrophe (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Yes. Not actually state interpretations of the 2A, but of similar clauses in state Constitutions. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• No. State Constitutions usually use similar wording to the Second Amendment. Any differences from the Second Amendment could simply be noted in the article, rather than removing the material. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Yes SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• No The text clearly contains state interpretations of the Second Amendment of the United State Constitution; "as it existed at the time" for Bliss, and "both constitutions" for Buzzard clearly state that these cases texts refer to the Second Amendment in addition to being interpretations of state law. The controversy of the dichotomy of "individual" vs. "collective" rights regarding the 2A makes no sense without an historical perspective from whence it came. Content should stay. Yaf (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

commentary on informal vote above

WP:CONSENSUS is not obtained by counting votes, but by weighing arguments. Using just yes or no violates WP:VOTE — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

what part of "informal" isn't clear? i made no claim that this is formal, binding, irrevocable, or final. Anastrophe (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:VOTE suggests you should add "... or helpful." Restricting explanations to a sentence may be helpful, but suggesting that there not be any explanation is not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the restriction, while still requesting people answer "yes" or "no." Once a "yes" or a "no" is given, a short comment could be added to explain the vote. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That's quite reasonable. We have a number of editors who would add multiple paragraph explanations. (As an aside, is briefs an oxymoron?) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

i brought the informal vote because there has been significant discussion of the issues, with thus far one editor using obstructionist tactics to insist consensus cannot be found - by either moving the target whenever discussion engages - or by insisting that the existing discussion isn't really discussion of the issues. as has been pointed out, consensus does not require the explicit agreement of every involved editor. Anastrophe (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

further in response to your commentary in your informal vote. the reason the material is useful is this: if we presume that the second amendment 'confers a right' to states for the arming of their militias, then it is directly relevant to an examination of that interpretation to describe the manner in which the states historically responded to that conferral. Anastrophe (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between "significant discussion" measured in the number of words, and a productive discussion. Am I wrong for wanting direct answers to questions asked? Questions with answers, leading to a better understanding of an opponent's point of view, that is what makes a productive discussion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It is wrong to engage in "bring me another stone", ad infinitum, type questions, to keep an article perpetually in turmoil without providing any significant or productive edits. Likewise, since when does an editor become an opponent[1] instead of just being another productive editor. Your bias shows regarding your attitude towards all other editors with any edits that add cited content that doesn't precisely agree with your "collective" rights and militia-only-based POV. Yaf (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me. From my perspective the talk page discussion these last three days about my POV concerns has been a argument over whether or not we should discuss my POV concerns. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Article length

The article is nearly triple the recommended length. Can we discuss splitting out portions? SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Once the Supreme Court rules in the Heller case, a large amount of the article will have to be either reformed or removed. To do so now would lead to further charges of NPOV violations. --SMP0328. (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly a thinly-veiled approach attempting to removing any content that goes counter to a "collective" rights POV. Yaf (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

i agree that the article is quite long. i disagree that material should be split out, or that length is implicitly a problem. my recommendation would be that - rather than culling material en masse, existing material be condensed. saltyboatr has made no secret of his desire to remove material he believes is POV. that is an argument i reject, because most of the article deals with historical fact, and if the history favors one view over another, that's the history that must be told - you don't bend history to maintain "NPOV" - just as, for example, you don't cull examples of brutal racism from the history of the US simply because today we reject segregation, lynchings, etc. - to do so would be to misrepresent the historical facts. so, that said, my suggestion is simply one of condensation. many of the arguments and examples in the article could be written with greater brevity, without actually removing valid, cited material. all that said, there are article length guidelines on wikipedia, but we are not constrained as we would be in a paper encyclopedia. on a technical basis, the length of an article is less of an issue than is template and citation transclusion, which dramatically affects load times. for example, time how long it takes to load the Barack Obama article, compared with loading this article. both articles are about the same size, but the former takes a fair bit longer to load than this article due to the templates and large number of cites (as i write this the load times aren't too bad, but that's because it's sunday morning, and WP activity is low). Anastrophe (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

All three of you are painting this as a POV battle. How can we proceed with this as the basis? Perhaps? SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

so, rather than discussing any of the merits of the thoughtful arguments i just made, you'd rather meta-analyze it, reframe it, and take it to dispute resolution. once again, an exacting example of WP:SOUP. this is becoming incredibly tiresome. you are unwilling to discuss the issues, not "us". we have one editor who changes the discussion any time discussion ensues. a moving target that can never be hit. perhaps dispute resolution is the way to go, as it will shed greater light on these obstructionist methods, and perhaps bring some censure for abusing policy. Anastrophe (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. I ignored your argument, because I confess my discouragement at your refusing to discuss the issue of your use of the originalist method of constitutional analysis. In your post of 18:43, you argue the merit of "the historical facts", as if they should be given special weight. This is a form of originalist theory. The article is already heavy with this. You are presuming that heavy use of an originalist theory is irrelevant to POV balance. I disagree. Are you willing to discuss this? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

ahem. need i point out, again, that this is WP:SOUP? this section is discussing the length of the article. i have never ignored or refused to discuss the issue of originalist theory, you've simply refused to accept or acknowledge the discussion. i am not arguing that any theory should be given special weight at all, for that matter, i've not used 'originalist method of constitutional analysis' as i've added no material pertaining to that to the article. the material in question regarding the states presents historical facts, from which the reader can come to conclusions. but again - we're now discussing here matters from other sections of the talk page - the target has been moved. i can no longer indulge this madness. Anastrophe (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue of WP:SIZE remains. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Originalist theory

Anastrophe writes "i have never ignored or refused to discuss the issue of originalist theory". I must have misunderstood you here then[2]. Stop your repetitious SOUP smears please, I find them to be offensive, and a waste of bandwidth. Try some WP:AGF. If you have discussed the issue of originalist theory, show me the diffs please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

None of my edits have made any attempt to frame the 2A in terms of originalism or contextualism. Rather, I have focused on writing content using cited historical facts, with reliable sources, for a largely historical article regarding the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution that dates from 1791. Claiming that all such cited facts from reliable historical sources push originalist theory, and should be removed because these are historical sources, ignores the history of the 2A. Claiming that contextualism should be used to remove reliable statements based on reliable historical sources is an attempt to suppress the history associated with the 2A. Why can't we focus on cited content, rather than trying to mis-frame the argument in terms of esoteric theories of US Constitutional analysis. To attempt to frame the discussion in terms of "originalist" vs. "contextualist" theory is Original Research at best, and malice at worst, that attempts to suppress the use of cited, factual statements. Wikipedia is not censored, neither should our history be censored. An editor doesn't have to agree with all of the cited historical views and court rulings of our country (racism, slavery, Dred Scott decision rulings, etc.), but denying the history even exists is a false flag attempt to warp our collective history through deleting facts. Lets return to writing an article with cited historical facts, not push an agenda to suppress such facts. Yaf (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unaware that when you focus your writing content on the historical facts, you are giving emphasis and weight to an originalist view of constitutional interpretation. It is very possible that this process is unintended, and/or subconscious. Your intent doesn't matter as much as the effect of your pattern of edits. This appears to cause a systemic bias, where editors like you, bring their experience and learned conceptions about the 2A tend to skew the POV based on a implied importance of 'historical analysis'. You seem to have trouble seeing your own bias, which is not an uncommon human trait.

Specifically, address your footnote 52, which plainly is an attempt to give importance to the intent of the founders. Pervasive throughout the article is an subtext of heightened importance of the intent of the originators, hence the name 'originalist theory'. This skews the POV neutral balance point of the article. By a rough estimate, about 2/3rds of the article plays to the originalist method of constitutional interpretation.

This is not original research, see here[3]. I take offense at your suggestion of malice. And it is a straw man argument that I favor hiding history, all I am doing is pointing out that the article suffers from a skewed POV in violation of the WP:NPOV policy which has resulted from a too heavy emphasis on the importance of the originators. A skew made worse by your recent edit. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

How much of the article do you want deleted? Do you feel that the original intent of the Second Amendment is irrelevant, or simply that it's overrepresented in the article? --SMP0328. (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not advocating to delete properly sourced and non-OR content, as I think that the obvious solution is to split out portions of the article in to a detailed article History of the Second Amendment or some similar name. I am flexible and prepared to collaborate on the details etc.. As a start, I suggest that Yaf's recent commentary from early state courts should be split out. Probably also the "Early Commentary" Joseph Story and George Tucker material. This has a dual benefit of bringing down the ratio of originalist theory material neutrality imbalance, plus would bring us more in line with the WP:SIZE guidelines. No I believe that orignialist theory on the Second Amendment is very relevant, I just have a problem when it is disproportionately represented in the article skewing the POV balance. SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

if an article entitled History of the Second Amendment were created pursuant to the above, would we have your word that you would not attack that article after its creation as being POV and imbalanced because it didn't adequately represent contemporary theories you favor? i ask this because you state that doing so would have the "benefit of bringing down the ratio of originalist theory material neutrality imbalance" - but then, once all that information is in the History of the Second Amendment, it would implicitly then be even more 'imbalanced' than this article - and fodder for more POV-bombing. note that i'm not advocating creation of such an article - and further, i would strongly object if this implied removal of all of the historical information from this article, which would put this article at odds with those for the other amendments. for that matter, splitting off the history based upon a POV objection is what is commonly characterized here on WP as a "POV fork", which is generally disrecommended. Anastrophe (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a History of the Second Amendment article would not have the same 'originalist theory' concerns as the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article because by defintion, the 'history' article would focus entirely on 2A history. Predicting the future is impossible, but I am optimistic that this could easily serve as a path to workable compromise and solution to this POV dispute. And besides, we still need to deal with a WP:SIZE article split-out and this compromise could solve both problems. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So, SaltyBoatr's proposal is to remove all "OR content" that is simply any and all cited "historical facts" that happen to be counter to his POV, which he claims as being roughly "2/3rds" of the present article and that he states should be removed, or moved away, in a prohibited POV-fork. This isn't a question regarding the veracity of any cited source, or a discussion of improving citations. Rather, it is simply instead the rantings of an editor that wishes to impose his sole POV (without historical facts, I might add) into the article, with essentially the attitude that the cited historical facts be damned. Posting a non-reliable source here, then claiming it is relevant, is bordering on malice. On the other hand, advocating that we should not use cited historical facts in writing an article on the historical Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, is clearly disruptive, being contrary to the policies of Wikipedia to evaluate editors' content on the basis of cited reliable sources, questioning any content that is not cited, and is malice. Yet, with SaltyBoatr, it is not the citation that can be questioned as being reliable that is at issue, instead it is his sense of what is important that is important, contrary to cited reliable source content. Likewise, calling other editors "opponents" as SaltyBoatr has done is entirely unacceptable. Similarly, calling my contributions plagiarism and claiming that they are copied from "pro-gun websites" is likewise a personal attack. No more arguing; we should cease to feed the troll... I move that we take this to formal mediation, leaving the present article locked down until resolved, as arguing for the inclusion of high-quality, reliable, historical source data with cites is presently not permitted by one very disruptive editor. It is this disruption that is preventing the resolution of the present lock down of the article, preventing it from being improved. Enough is enough. Let's not feed the troll. What say other editors? Yaf (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ease up Yaf. We are both Wikipedia editors. We need to find a way to cooperate. We both have good intentions. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

as i said before, i believe the abuses of policy and obstructionist methods being used here need to be exposed, so i'm in favor of yaf's proposal. Anastrophe (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Is "formal mediation" a disciplinary procedure or simply a way to resolve disputes? --SMP0328. (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mediation. For an example, see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hunting weapon and especially Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hunting weapon, which is where the mediation discussion was conducted. Yaf (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is #4 on the list of Mediators are not:

Mediators are not advocates. Mediators will not take sides in the dispute or promote one person's point of view or request over those of another person.

So I'm not sure if they would change anything. They won't tell SaltyBoatr, or any of us, that he's/we're wrong. I'm willing to go to mediation if it will bring about a resolution of this dispute, but not convinced that would happen with mere mediation. What we need is arbitration. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration can only be pursued after formal mediation fails. See: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. ArbCom should be the last step, not the next step. Yaf (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

With the understanding that if mediation fails we will then go to arbitration, I agree to Yaf's motion. This has to end. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been in enough mediations that I know that they can be tremendously helpful. I would welcome the help of a mediator, yes. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

How and when will mediation commence? --SMP0328. (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Interested parties should go here to sign up to participate in mediation. Yaf (talk) 06:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Small change to "Creation" section

The last part of the following sentence should be changed.

The right to keep and bear arms was not to be inserted in Article I, Section 8 that specifies Congress's power over the militia.

Congress in not given power over the militia in Section 8. The OBLIGATIONS of Congress are spelled out in that section. Those obligations are "To provide for organizing, ARMING and disciplining and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States.

organizing refers to the way an army is organized in companies, battalions, regiments, brigades etc.

arming is self evident

disciplining refers to military law and punishments for infractions of such

"governing such part of them" implies providing leadership, probably at a higher then state level if multiple state militias are called into service.

A more accurate rendition would be

The right to keep and bear arms was not to be inserted in Article I, Section 8 that specifies Congress's obligations to provide support for the militia.

Needless to say gun control laws impacting members of the militia and passed by Congress are in direct opposition to the obligation of Congress to ARM the militia. 4.156.27.68 (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What you say is interesting. When this article is released from full protection, feel free to place your clarification in the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Pro-gun bias in sourcing for Yaf's "state court" section.

Looking at Yaf's eleven footnotes for his edit. I see two (#52 and #54) that are pure editorial commentary, and likely in violation of WP:NOR. I see six that make use of primary sources, four pointing to case law which are obviously primary sources(#50, #53, #56 and #59). And two (#51 and #58) that make use of a Senate report, and/or Senate testimony. I object to the use of a political hearing because it is a primary source and because it is a political action making a political statement and obviously lacks a 'reputation for fact checking and accuracy' as required by the WP:SOURCES policy. At the very least, Yaf should provide evidence that politicians have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and I am skeptical. I don't doubt that these men are honorable, but just that their actions are de facto political. I don't see that political documents are considered as reliable sources in WP:V, so it appears on its face to be a policy violation. I also tend to view political documents as being primary sources, in violation of WP:NOR.

The remaining three footnotes use secondary sourcing, but all three come from pro-gun websites, Footnote #54 comes from the website of the Second Amendment Foundation run by Alan Gottlieb a well known pro-gun and anti- tax political activist. The footnote #57 is cryptic, but I can guess it comes from the 'GiveMeLiberty.org' website of the We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, which clearly tends towards the pro-gun POV, and is sympathetic to the tax protest movement and involves Robert L. Schulz a well known Libertarian political activist who is obviously slanted towards an extreme POV. The third [footnote #60] comes from the website of Guncite.org which is a well known pro-gun website, totally anonymous, and obviously failing to meet the standards of WP:V.

Of course I acknowledge that this is not proof that these three websites are not reliable or not neutral per WP:Policy, but I don't have the burden of proof here. The editor seeking to insert the material has the burden of proof. Though I am clearly being reasonable to ask questions about the correlation between Yaf's edit and the use cites from the pro-gun websites at the extreme fringe of the POV and of dubious reliability. Therefore, I am reasonable to question the neutrality balance, per WP:NPOV. I would welcome constructive discussion of this appearance of lack of neutral balance and questionable reliability in this edit. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It is so very curious then, that SaltyBoatr inserted the same text into another article, especially if it were so objectionable, namely here and has no problems with the same text. But, as Mark Twain once observed, it is a weak mind that can think of only one way to spell a word, or, as perhaps Sam Clemens would say in today's application, to write an encyclopedia :-) Yaf (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What is your point? That I am not perfectly consistent? This is an ad hominem diversion, trying to focus on me personally instead of defending your edit. You have a burden of proof here. For what it is worth, I have remorse about moving that text last November, as I should have criticized it then too, as it has the same WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV problems then as it does now. I did not write that text, I just relocated it to the Right to bear arms article where it is more 'on topic'. For what it is worth, you and I discussed the move of that text[4] and you liked the idea then. Why do you find it so urgent to duplicate it back here in the 2A article now? If nothing else, it is redundant. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What happened is that the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari on Parker, and conditions changed. The issue of "individual" vs. "collective" rights should now be covered in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article directly, and this background is important enough now to be included in the article. When conditions change, I change my mind. What do you do? Yaf (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So, then you have the burden of proof, please make your case[5]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Case has already been made. In summary, there is a widely recognized dichotomy in terms of whether the right protected by the 2A is a "collective" or an "individual" right. Both points of view have a long-standing history, with the "individual right" pre-dating the "collective" interpretations that only commenced with "Buzzard" in Arkansas, and grew with the additional early 20th Century dated details mentioned and cited in the insertion. The histories of both are needed in the article to provide readers with a better understanding from whence the dichotomy originated, and to what it refers. Yaf (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The case has already been made? I don't think so. Show me the diffs. SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This also begs a new question: If your reason is because this info is important due to Parker/Heller, why not put this info in the Parker/Heller section? SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The historical information is necessary to understand the terminology of "individual right" contained in the Heller/Parker question that has been framed by the Justices in granting the case certiorari, and of the discussion that is currently at play in the media regarding points of view that support either a "collective right" or an "individual right" in amicus briefs that have been filed, depending on which side of the debate the brief was filed. Without an understanding of the historical origins of both of these points of view, a typical reader has no hope of understanding what the argument and dialogue is all about. We owe it to readers of this article to provide context behind the dichotomy. The historical data, however, is not in and of itself appropriate for insertion in the section that currently covers Heller/Parker; it is more appropriate for insertion in a section on the historical foundations behind the interpretations of the 2A, to provide sufficient background to understand the historical underpinnings. Also, it is worth noting that the present insertion is but a subset of the text that was originally in the 2A article, being but a summary. There is no need to belabor the details of the various interpretations of "individual right" and "collective right", differences of which exist in many bifurcations from just the two broad top level categories into more finely-divided interpretations of "individual" and "collective". Such fine-grained detail is probably not appropriate to a top-level article such as this one. Yaf (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet, you are trying to do this in such a way that violates WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

if cited material is to be culled if it references a 'pro gun' site, then we'd best remove the cited material that references 'pro control' sites, yes? so, "Legal Community Against Gun Violence" - out. "Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence" - out. "Open Society Institute" - out. furthermore, the senate hearing testimony is not a 'primary source', you're warping the meaning of the term. the material was published in California Political Review, and is archived and available at the UCLA School of Law.Anastrophe (talk) 06:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

so once again, the page is protected. i've never run across any editor on wikipedia who is quicker to resort to this tactic, ever. yaf made what appeared to be a good faith edit to trim for length, particularly the useless list of questions, which are actually quite inappropriate to an encyclopedia. but no, no editing will be allowed on this article without saltyboatr's blessing, quite clearly. this is untenable gaming of the system. Anastrophe (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not unreasonable in asking that Yaf's unilateral large deletions of text, with significant effect on the POV balance of the article, be discussed first on the talk page. I asked for this and Yaf refused to discuss his deletions, and reverted. Page protection is appropriate and preferable over edit warring. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

let's be honest here: you reverted yaf's edits, not the other way around. as i said, you're abusing policy to hold this and other articles hostage. you will not allow any significant editing on firearms-related articles unless you vet the changes. Anastrophe (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

furthermore, what about your unilateral large deletions of the state issues that you requested protection on this article last time? your claim was that the article is just 'too long', so the material needed to be removed. if someone other than you deletes material - well, that can't possibly be allowed, as it 'changes the POV balance' - though you provided no basis for that claim. intolerable gaming of the system, as i said. Anastrophe (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The word 'most' in the 3rd introductory paragraph.

Please see above, there are serious NPOV problems with a description of the courts over this as being merely a disagreement. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I repeat my question; what is the problem with the 3rd intro paragraph, in which every statement is cited? Is there a problem with one of the cites? Yaf (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As it presently stands, the 3rd intro paragraph states, "Another major point of contention is whether it protects against infringement of an individual right to personal firearms<ref>[http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf''Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right''], [[2004-08-24]]</ref> or a collective State militia right.<ref>{{cite book |last=Holder |first=Angela Roddy|title=The Meaning of the Constitution |pages=pp. 64|publisher=Barron's Educational Series |date=1997 |isbn=0-7641-0099-8}}</ref> The [[United States court of appeals|United States Courts of Appeals]] are in disagreement over the "collective" interpretation and "individual" interpretation <ref> ''[[United States v. Emerson]]'', ''[[District of Columbia v. Heller|Parker v. District of Columbia]]'', and ''[[Silveira v. Lockyer]]''</ref>. There is also a "modified collective" view that holds the right is protected for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a [[militia]].<ref>[[Michael C. Dorf|Dorf, Michael C.]] (2001),Findlaw-Writ[http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20011031.html]</ref>". Is there a problem with any of these cites? Yaf (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no word "most" in the 3rd paragraph. How is the word "most" at issue? Yaf (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yaf has removed the word 'most' on several instances, here is one example diff. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This intro must accurately summarize the article, and the article describes 9 to 2. It is a POV push to indicate that 9 to 2 is a mere disagreement. The accurate description would include the word 'most courts'. In short, your favored version, omitting the word 'most' is a POV distortion typical of a pro-gun POV push. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What is your WP:RS that states there is no "disagreement" among the courts, and that the Supreme Court has rescinded cert to resolve this disagreement among the courts? Yaf (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the text does not say "mere disagreement"; it says disagreement. Wouldn't "Mere disagreement" be a distortion? Are you now favoring a change to "mere disagreement"? Yaf (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you oppose the word 'most' in the third intro paragraph? You have removed it several times, why? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster dictionary lists disagreement as being:

• 1: the act of disagreeing
• 2 a: the state of being at variance : disparity b: quarrel

By this, I would say that def. 2a, the state of being at variance, is a proper summary of the present Supreme Court state of affairs after declaring cert on Heller/Parker, to resolve the variances of interpretation that historically have existed between the detailed historical viewpoints of the various courts. The last paragraph of the article, on Heller, discusses this; likewise, the detailed discussion in the article contains the information on the historical cases, including the more recent 2 cases that have gone at variance with the historical 9 cases treatment. Using "Most" as you propose would be a POV-push that the Heller case is not before the SCOTUS, and that wording would treat this case as being insignificant. It is more accurate to state "disagreement" in the sense of definition 2a with full disclosure in the article regarding the historical 9 cases, the more recent 2 cases, and the Supreme Court granting cert to resolve the variances (solve the disagreement) between these cases. But "Most" would imply that no summarization including the Supreme Court case content is at issue. This would not be accurate. Why do you not want an accurate article? Yaf (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Accurate? Then why did you mis-write: the historical 9 cases, the more recent 2 cases? You should have written 9 districts are unambiguously 'collective' and two districts are split 'collective' versus 'individual'. (And in the Fifth District, there are about eight 'collective' rulings subsequent to that rogue 'Emerson' case. See for instance United States v. Gipson (2006), United States v. Patterson (2005), etc.)

Ratio of 178 to 2. When measured in number of cases, the difference is even more stark. Of the roughly 178 cases in the history of the court that speak to the to the 2A. Of these 178 cases only two have found an 'individual right'. See here[6] for a summary of these 178 cases. By a vast amount, most of the case law has not been sympathetic to the 'individual right' hypothesis. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

All of the case law until 1905 was sympathetic to the "individual right" protections, except for that one little case in Arkansas from back in the 19th Century, if I recall correctly. And, it even had an individual right protection for travelers when "upon a journey" :-) Then, in 1905, the shift started, to rewrite history. The importance now is that there is a disagreement among the districts; this is factual, it is properly cited, and is properly noted in the article. The details on the key cases in each of the 9 districts against gun rights and in the 2 key cases in the 2 districts that revert back to the original interpretation are duly noted in the body of the article. Likewise, the granting of cert to resolve the variance (solve the disagreement) among the differences of opinion is noted in the body of the article, and must likewise be summarized in the lede. In legal parlance, quantity of wrong decisions does not presume correctness of these decisions, as you seem to want to push. Am removing the NPOV tagline, as the article is neutral, factual, and cited. If you wish to make changes to add more balance, that is fine, too, provided that additions are made with cites, but the summary is supposed to be factual, neutral, cited, and be a summary (i.e., be short). It is. Yaf (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not neutral, see my explanation above. You now claim 'all the case law until 1905', please cite. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Have restored the text containing the details of "until 1905" to the article, which you had previously removed. Now cited. Yaf (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing state law with federal law. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

State courts are permitted to interpret the United States Constitution, so such decisions are relevant to the article. It should be made clear in the article which decisions are from federal courts and which are from state courts. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Heck, international law, foreign national law, God's law, and imagined law are also often used by the Supreme Court. For the most part, the Supreme court 'votes' on cases rather than interpreting the law. Once they've voted, they support their position however they fell like. Usually, there is support for either side SOMEWHERE out there. Is there any debate about this fact? Pedophilia, believe it or not, has a small level of support in the courts. --Asams10 (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

<--My concern with "most" is, it's not a settled issue. SCotUS hasn't ruled, so it makes no difference if most of the Districts have ruled 1 way/another. That's the system, & you're bound to get a lot of variance. Tallying them gives undue weight, or the appearance of a decided issue, to one side. And don't go accusing me of pro-gun bias; that's an ad hominem, not an answer. Trekphiler (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Miller revisited

I thought that everyone knew the the 1939 decision in Miller explictly stated that the 2nd Amendment didn't apply because (Miller having died), no one brought the question of whether the arms (specifically, a shotgun of length less than 18 inches) had a relationship to a "well-regulated militia". The question of whether Miller had a relationship with a "well-regulated militia" was not discussed by the court. It also seems relatively clear, but dicta, that the Miller Court did find an individual right, as Miller was clearly not a member of an organized militia. Could you point me to previous discussions on this matter? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

States rights

From the Constitution

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

From the above it can be seen that while Congress has the authority to set standards (and provide at least some of the funding) for the militia, responsibility for training and leadership of the militia belong to the states. The fact that leadership is at the state level shows that the militia is a state institution.

Since the militia is (was) composed of all able bodied men of military age, any restriction on the people bearing arms would be an infringement on a state body (the militia). It would therefore follow that any restriction on arms MUST be at the state level.

Amendment 2 A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (The word State refers to the individual states making up the US) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.(if the right can be infringed by the federal government, then the federal government can disarm the states.)

It is probable that the 2nd Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming the states and to make a possible military takeover through use of the army and navy (both federal institutions), less likely. Such a takeover would result in the federal government turning into the "master" of the states instead of their tool and would result in greatly expanding federal powers and restrictions on state powers after such a takeover. One need only look at the vast expansion of federal power and restrictions on state powers after the Civil War to see that this has in fact happened.

The preamble to the Bill of Right states that the Amendments in the Bill are restrictions on federal power.

First part of the Preamble

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The only conclusion possible is that the federal government has no Constitutional power to limit arms and is specifically forbidden from doing so.

As the popular saying goes

which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." don't you understand?

4.156.252.88 (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I tend to agree with you as legal matter, SCOTUS does not agree, and we would need WP:RS to that effect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

SCOTUS has so butchered the intent and plain wording of the Constitution that every Supreme Court Justice for the last hundred years is guilty of breach of their oath of office.

As the popular saying goes

which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." don't you understand?

4.156.252.213 (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This article suffers from too much POV pushing and original research already. Re-read WP:Policy SaltyBoatr (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 44 states

By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government.

Notice the word "taught" as used above. That word implies a widespread awareness of the idea of a military takeover. Add in the various warnings regarding the dangers of standing armies and there can be no doubt that the idea of a military takeover by the federal government had occurred to the founding fathers.

A militia controlled by the states would act as a bar to that type of power grab. A militia disarmed through federal law, would not.

As the popular saying goes

which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." don't you understand? 4.156.27.67 (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

4.156.27.67 and 4.156.252.213, you need to add references to what you are saying. References would make your arguments stronger. --SMP0328. (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are unaware that Federalist 44 IS a reference then you should not be a referee (or whatever you are) on ANY topic involving the Constitution.

I advise you look up "The Federalist Papers" in order to expand your knowledge of sources. I also advise you to take some time and actually read then to increase your understanding of the Constitution. The previous assumes that you have read the Constitution, which the vast majority have not. If you haven't, then you should start by reading that.

as for warnings against standing armies, here are a couple

Thomas Jefferson on Standing armies

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789.

James Madison on Standing Armies

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

The Declaration of Independence even had standing armies as one of the complaints

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

As the popular saying goes

which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." don't you understand?

4.156.252.250 (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I know of The Federalist Papers. You need to understand that at Wikipedia you need to provide a link to a source, even if that source is well known. --SMP0328. (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Federalist Papers are not a WP:RS for current legal issues. They may be relevant for legal issues of the time. Again, I agree with you, but what you've written cannot be placed in the article without appropriate cites. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

i've removed the 'unreferenced' tag on this section. ref tags are for use in article space only. talk pages have no requirement for citations. that said, talk pages do have a requirement that they be focused specifically on article improvement - they are not generalized forums for debating the issues, and on that basis, most of the commentary in this section could be reasonably deleted. please, fellow editors, keep commentary brief and on the point of improving the article. Anastrophe (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Here we have a 2nd Amendment case going to the Supreme Court any day now, and we can't cite source material on the 2nd Amendment and why it was created.

and lets not forget that this section is probably going to be deleted.

JOY!!!!!!!!!!

Anyway!

The correct paper for the Hamilton quote is 29 not 44. My mistake.

www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm

The US law defining the "militia". Many of the states probably have their own definitions.

www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Since the ANTI-Federalists managed to create enough opposition to the Constitution that the Bill of Rights was created due to this opposition and was a REQUIREMENT by many of the original 13 states in order to approve it, here are quotes those opponents

Fderalist Farmer letter 18

www.constitution.org/afp/fedfar18.htm

it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them

Patrick Henry - also an ANTI-Federalist is cited with the following quotes

quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/patrick+henry

Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

Hope the above links make you happy, but I seriously doubt any of them will be used.

As the popular saying goes

which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." don't you understand? 4.156.27.227 (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

These sources could support a history or origin section, or I'd suggest summarily archiving as a discussion about the subject rather than about article improvements. I'm afraid it has nothing to do with the current (20th century and following) interpretation sections, much as we would like SCOTUS to actually read the Constitution they are defending. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely DENY that that the Supreme Court is DEFENDING the Constitution. The Constitution lists GOALS and powers delegated to the federal government, by the states, to meet those goals. Those powers are exclusively for organizing the federal government, creating a postal service, for regulating interstate commerce and for dealing with foreign powers. Regulation of gun ownership and membership in the militia fall under NONE of above.

The Bill of Rights was passed as a UNIT, and the preamble is a part of what was passed. That preamble thus applies to the second amendment.

The fist part of the Preamble of the Bill of Rights states

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The second Amendment consists of BOTH a declaration and a restriction.

The restriction being "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

and instead of an "origin" or "history" section why not a section showing either that the Supreme Court either hasn't the brains to find its collective ass with both hands, directions, a map, and a GPS or is in willful violation of the oath of office.

As the popular saying goes

which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." don't you understand?

4.156.111.52 (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of just about every word of the second amendment seems to be listed in the article except for the most important one. Why not add it!

www.thefreedictionary.com/infringement

1. A violation, as of a law, regulation, or agreement; a breach. 2. An encroachment, as of a right or privilege.

Noun 1. infringement - an act that disregards an agreement or a right; "he claimed a violation of his rights under the Fifth Amendment"

2. infringement - a crime less serious than a felony

WOW! Infringement is a CRIME!!!!!!! Who would have thunk it!

As the popular saying goes

which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." don't you understand?

4.156.111.52 (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

as a matter of etiquette, and in general policy, users are discouraged from using lengthy 'signature lines on talk page posts. please stop repeating the 'As a popular saying goes' signature. while i happen to share the sentiment, it becomes tiresome seeing it repeated. wikipedia talk pages don't hide read comments as on a typical forum. thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

To further complicate the issue, doesn't the definition of "militia" (a collection of armed citizens) imply private ownership & possession of firearms? Trekphiler (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Why yes! Yes it does. The PLAIN intent and purpose of the second amendment was to bar the federal government from disarming the state militias. As shown on this page (in a different section), by LAW the militia is every able bodied male of military age. Further, per the US Constitution Article 1 , Section 8, the federal government is OBLIGATED to ARM the militia, not to DISARM it.

Having personal weapons is a part of your right to self defense and was considered by the founders an INALIENABLE right. In my opinion this personal right was not the subject of the second amendment. Under the State Constitutions, the states are granted powers by the residents of those States. The States, through the Constitution, transfer some of their granted powers to the federal government. Since no State at that time was given, or claimed, the power to disarm a law abiding citizen, then such a power could not have been passed on to the federal government. Laws disarming a law abiding citizens by either the states or the feds are therefore contrary to the powers granted by the US Constitution and the various State Constitutions. I feel it is safe to say, even without reading all of them , that NO Constitution grants such a power to ANY State.

I dare ANYONE on this board to tell me which of the listed powers of the US Constitution GIVE the feds the power to take away the RIGHT to self defense.

If no one can cite such a power, then this lack should be included in this article.

4.156.252.195 (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you claiming that there's a RKBA for individuals and for State militias? --SMP0328. (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

IMO they are different offshoots of the BASIC right of self defense. The individual has the right to defend himself and has the right to obtain and keep weapons for that reason. The States have the right to defend themselves (and per language in the US Constitution retain that right) and by retaining power of the militia can do so. One is an individual action and the other a group action at the state level. Both are applications of the right of self defense. Both the individuals and the militia have a RKBA for that purpose.

4.156.252.230 (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

From the Pennsylvania Constitution

Right to Bear Arms Section 21. The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

from sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html 4.156.252.230 (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

from the Delaware Bill of Rights

§20. Right to keep and bear arms.

Section 20. A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. (4-16-87)

www.state.de.us/facts/constit/welcome.htm

Massachusetts Constitution - not as clear and concise as the above - but shows that the right of personal self defense was considered separate from the collective right to defend the State.

Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property;

Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. 4.156.252.230 (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to mulitple State Constitutional provisions dealing with the RKBA.[7] --SMP0328. (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Shortening article

Rather than hammering out a small edit first, amounting to a possible savings of at most a few hundred bytes, lets start with the large things, and perhaps shorten the article by 6,559 bytes. What are the comments that editors have regarding removing/shortening the lists that are presently uncited, and probably represent considerably OR content, that was attempted in this edit, which was reverted. What are the problems with implementing a variation on this edit first. It was reverted for reason of "shifting the POV balance", but I'm not sure if this edit actually moved any POV balance point all that much, removing "Lautenberg Amendment" content as well as "militia" content about equally. It is a larger impact by a factor of 12 or 13 on article size, relative to addressing the state interpretations of the 2A, for which a reduction of a few hundred bytes may ultimately be possible. Lets focus on getting the big edits done first, to fix the size issue sooner, rather than focus on smaller sized edits amounting to a potential savings of a few hundred bytes, and that may take longer to hammer out. Comments? Suggestions for reducing the lists? -- "Wikipedia is not a list." is a fundamental maxim to keep in mind, here. Yaf (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry your rather large edit of March 4th was more than an simple trimming of lists, it also included several 'pro-gun' shifts of POV obscured behind a trimming of lists. While I don't oppose the principle of trying to avoid lists. That is a relatively minor guideline which shouldn't jump to in front of the major policy violation. The major policy issue here here is WP:NPOV. Can we not move off the larger topic, and can we address the issue of the heavy use of originalist theory having an imbalancing effect on POV balance? SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The larger area of agreement was the size of the article, being that was a key part of the attempt at reaching a consensus as discussed above, and which would additionally help to trim the article size and fix perceived POV problems. Once more, when we get close to reaching a consensus, and actually start trying to implement edits of any kind, you once more change the target, thereby preventing reaching a consensus. The ad hominem "pro-gun" attacks have not stopped, either, I see. Every edit to the article is tagged by you as "pro-gun" this and "pro-gun" that. It doesn't matter whether the edit attempts to remove "Lautenberg Amendment" content which many consider to be "pro-gun-rights" labeling, and then you label the entire edit as being "pro-gun" and hence YOU will not permit the edit, any edit. This is getting old. (But not unpredictable.) Yaf (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Something is not adding up here, you added about 1,500 words here[8], and then leaving those 1,500 words in, you then deleted about 1,000 other words here[9]. Yet, you claim this net increase of 500 words is in the interest of article shortening. Anastrophe, above, suggested that you trim down your 1,500 word edit[10], to about 1,000 words, but you didn't respond to him. (And, the sum effect of your edits incidentally also skew the POV balance towards the 'gun-rights' direction, making the POV neutrality imbalance policy violation even worse.) Both of your large edits were made without any prior discussion on the talk page.

My suggestion is that we agree to:

1) To go back to this stable version of the page[11].

2) To be patient.

3) To work slow.

4) To be civil.

5) To not make anything but the smallest of change

without first discussing, negotiating, and working

out differences on the talk page.

6) Agree to a moratorium on unilateral edits,

except the simplest of grammar and punctuation corrections.

7) Agree to lift the article edit block, but to reinstate the

edit block if any of the above 6 agreements are broken.

Working together, in much smaller chunks, lets discuss on the talk page first, before putting agreed revisions into the article. I am sorry that in discussing the issue of bias, that I have no choice but use the terms 'pro-gun' versus 'gun-control', I have little choice. Try not to take offense and these terms are not ad hominem but rather descriptions of the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You do not WP:OWN this article! It is inappropriate for any editor to demand all other editors "to not make anything but the smallest of change" without your permission! As for the edit sizes not adding up, get a calculator! The proposed edit involved going from 115,603 bytes to 109,044 bytes, while additionally attempting to address perceived POV issues that you had previously identified. It appears that you have a practice in calling all edits by editors other than you make personnally or approve personally to be labeled "pro-gun" and that they must be removed by your royal decree. No one made you King of Wikipedia! I do take offense in having all edits to this article, other than ones you make, be falsely labeled "pro-gun" edits, and POV-bombed or reverted immediately by YOU. You even reverted my single period move punctuation edit, moving a single period made per the MoS guidelines relative to references, in your latest edit warring. These unilateral demands that you be crowned King of Wikipedia and that all edits must be approved by YOU on this article must stop! Yaf (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I make a suggestion, and you call it a demand. Anastrophe made a suggestion[12], and you ignored it. I plead for cooperation and you accuse me of violating WP:OWN. You rephrase my suggestion into a straw man, calling it a 'royal decree' and then labeling me King of Wikipedia. Can't we at least agree to be civil? I did use a calculator, and the size of the article prior to this POV dispute was 107,289 bytes (not 109,044 bytes). SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

lets back up here. first, yaf, do you think you can trim the 'states' section by 500 words? if so, please give it a try and post it here. second, saltyboatr, you did not make "a suggestion", you provided what essentially amounted to seven demands in an escalating list. how about we stay on point and stick to just this ONE possible place for agreement, that is, reducing the size of the 'states' section, per your statement that you'd be agreeable to that as a means of us all moving beyond this impasse. once that section has been reduced in size, the article can be unlocked. we can then move on to other discussion as needed. Anastrophe (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that Anastrophe's suggestion would be movement in the right direction. I object that my suggestion 'essentially amounted to seven demands', (one of which was let us agree to be civil). By the way, I did not lock the article. It was locked twice by two different administrators, with the reasons given: edit dispute and more edit warring. That is the core problem. Your suggestion might fix the edit warring problem, we will see. My suggestion (which you call a demand) was crafted to fix an edit warring problem. I still believe that working first on the talk page, and avoiding large unilateral edits, is the surest way to resolve edit disputes and to avoid edit warring. I welcome the trimming of Yaf's 1,500 word 'state court' section as movement in the right direction, and we will see if can fix the POV imbalance problem. Though it would be better if we were just go back to a version of the page prior to the POV dispute, as that would certainly fix the POV imbalance problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

please don't equivocate. no, you did not lock the article, but you did request that admins lock the article. there is precious little difference. arguably, you were the person who initiated the edit warring in the first place. by engaging in carefully crafted edit warring followed by requesting page protection, you are essentially holding this article hostage, and have done so on other articles. it's an abuse of process. now, let us return again to what we in principle attempted agreement upon: i suggested that yaf try condensing the 'states' portion by 500 words. it should be possible to do so without significantly affecting the material of importance. once that's done, the length will have been reduced in compromise, then we can agree to have the article unlocked. yes, ideally, there won't be more edit warring. i'd like to see the article shortened, but more importantly it needs to be reorganized, as right now it's a very long, meandering cluster of sections without a good overriding structure. historical material will likely continue to have an 'individualist' leaning, as that's what the history clearly shows, and hopefully we won't have to put up with arguments that this is "POV" when in fact WP:NPOV doesn't make any claim that the history has to reflect a particular POV - that would constitute revisionism. furthermore, also under NPOV, 'The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV"'. so, along with ideally having edit warring stop, we can also have POV-bombing stop. Anastrophe (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Not true, rather I pleaded for discussion on the talk page. "...discuss this on talk first please. ", and "please discuss these major changes on talk page first". Discussion, understanding, civility and compromise is the remedy for edit warring. I am still asking: Can we discuss the heavy reliance on the theory of Original intent? Are you open for discussion? SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

that's still not a valid reason for reverting properly cited and sourced material. your edit summaries simply state your desire to "talk about it first", but editors are not constrained by your desire to negotiate every change to the article. however, by gaming the system in order to keep articles locked, you are in practice preventing other editors from editing. once again, let's stay on point: 'we' will try to reduce the length of the 'states' section by 500 words. our agreement in principle is that this is our compromise, upon which the article will be unlocked. ideally, we won't have "POV" slapped at the top of the article immediately, and then have it locked by crafted edit warring again. we are aware that you don't like the fact that the history of the second amendment leans towards an individual right. but the history cannot be revise to reflect your point of view without doing damage to the facts. again: 'states' section reduced by 500 words, article unlocked. this was our agreed upon compromise. Anastrophe (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

1) Not if that material causes the article to violate wikipedia policy. Editors are also allowed, and duty bound, to question material pending talk and also have discretion to revert. 2) Yaf's 'state court' section is not properly cited, or at the least has many unanswered questions, see my questions above (questions presently ignored). 3) Simple citing does not make the state court material 'on topic' for this federal article. 4) Have the respect to read above for what 'my agreement' is, no need to twist my words. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

so, if i'm reading the above correctly, you are now reneging on the compromise that was agreed upon in principle above, is that correct? Anastrophe (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Which? Show me the specific diff. SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

no need for diffs old boy. here, do you agree to the following compromise, stated multiple times, and which you described as "progress towards resolving this impasse":

'we' will try to reduce the length of the 'states' section by 500 words. our agreement in principle is that this is our compromise, upon which the article will be unlocked.

agree or disagree? Anastrophe (talk) 06:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

i ask again, agree or disagree? Anastrophe (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

See above, it depends on which 500 words. Give Yaf and I a chance to discuss and work our our differences, see above[13]. So, presently, I disagree. At some point in the future when we know which 500 words, I may agree then. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What is interesting is that you, SaltyBoatr, and I, were the two original editors who originally crafted this entire disputed section several years ago in this very article, including the now disputed cites. We went back and forth over many weeks, going into months, adding these cites and this content, until all the POV issues were addressed to both our mutual concerns for achieving NPOV. The article then remained stable for several years before you felt that the POV balance was no longer neutral. OK. If the material was crafted to be NPOV and stable then, and the NPOV quality lasted for so many years, a fair question to ask is "what changed" to tip the POV balance point? Understanding the large shift in your opinion regarding NPOV concerns perhaps could help us all work towards achieving a new NPOV balance. We once were WP friends with diverse viewpoints who shared in achieving NPOV balance in this and related articles. I, for one, miss those simpler, early days of Wikipedia, when user names were Real Life names. WP:TEA Yaf (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You keep dancing around my main point, which is that the article when viewed as whole must be neutral. And, that the undue weight given to the 'originialist therory' tips the neutrality balance. The addition of 1,500 words tipped that balance. Removing 500 words is movement in the right direction (depending on which 500). Until anybody sees the proposed 500 word removal, how can anybody know if the neutrality balance will be fixed and the POV tag removed? (I am waiting to see a the proposal for removal of even the first word.)

The page protection is not in place due the neutrality imbalance or the POV tag. The page is protected due to our edit disputes and our edit warring. Viewing our pathetic failure to communicate, understand, cooperate, and compromise with each other (see above), we certainly have some room to improve so we can someday coexist as co-editors. Our progress and success at that task is key to avoid future edit wars. What do we need to do next to heal our rift as co-editors? Whether or not we can avoid edit disputes and edit wars is the key issue as to whether the page needs protection, or not. I am willing, are you?

I made a proposal[14] which would avoid future disputes, and was rejected vigorously[15] by Yaf. So Yaf, do you have a counter proposal of how you and I can avoid future disputes? Please answer. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose we both start by reading the talk page containing our proposals and comments. The proposed shorter version has already been posted here, and is on the talk page above. Comments? Yaf (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. Thank you for beginning a talk page discussion on specifics. I have asked you some questions above[16], please answer there. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Have responded there. Yaf (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Several days have passed, with a small amount of real progress. It looks like there may not be a quick resolution in sight. Considering the large number of WP:V questions[17][18][19][20], still pending answers, can we agree to temporarily move the 'State courts'sectionout of the main space of the article while we are working on it? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This should serve as an incentive for us to reach a consensus sooner. Whether the wrong version or the right version is protected, the goal is to reach a consensus such that protection may be lifted. A quick resolution is entirely possible provided that all editors agree on the current consensus. Consensus appears to be that all editors agree but you; meanwhile, all editors appear to be working towards addressing the perceived "problems" that you believe exist. Progress is real, but slow. Meanwhile, have you received the Kruschke book through inter-library loan yet? Yaf (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I ordered the book, it is coming, in a few days. None of these WP:V questions about your passage have to do with Kruschke[21][22][23][24], so why wait? SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually they do, as noted in the new version of the proposed wording to address your "perceived" POV issues listed above, that uses Kruschke as a reference. As noted in other discussions underway relative to this article, meta-topics should, in general, be avoided for fostering cooperative work with other editors and to avoid getting bogged down. Yaf (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to Parker v DC

The link at 7 has 'Parker v DC' but the third paragraph has 'DC v Heller'. The Parker v DC article has been renamed DC v Heller, but the sidebar in the other article has info on Shelly Parker, et al. v. District of Columbia and Adrian M. Fenty, which was decided March 9, 2007. This makes it confusing. Perhaps everything could be made to match.

The appropriate part of the other article is http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Supreme_Court_review

--Sln3412 (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Text portion of article

There must be some question as to why the House and Senate passed a seemingly more open to interpretation version with commas, but what appears to be a plainer (more direct) version without commas is what the states actually ratified. Might have there been a reason behind it? In any case, perhaps the commas section could be referenced.

--Sln3412 (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue of the meaning of the sentence structure is well covered here: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution#Grammar. Recently, there is interesting commentary about this topic written here[25](see bottom of pg 5). SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but certainly separating phrases with commas make it less clear, well, at least to us. It seems back then it just didn't matter which way perhaps, or sloppiness, as it seems with the transcriber changing the semicolon to a comma on Auguest 25th.

But see the Creation: Confilct and Compromise section in this article, it has only one comma in both the House and Senate versions, with different wording. It says the version that came from the Senate was "A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." and the one from the House ending up "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." ^ Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, Volume 1: pp. 305 has it with one comma. I don't see one with multiple commas in there, so perhaps the references are a bit off. It certainly looks like "Article the fourth" has 2 more commas in it. But shouldn't we refer to what was ratified and in the journal? Anyway, just mentioning it. --Sln3412 (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Impasse

It appears that SaltyBoatr has a very rigid view of what should be the content of the article. Either SaltyBoatr has to be blocked (unlikely), or we have to let him own this article (unlikely). Gentlemen, welcome to the world of the impasse. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least there is one thing we agree about: We are at an impasse. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we probably can find a compromise. The origin of the dispute is this diff, and that is probably the best place to look at what can be adjusted. Presently, it seems, that three editors are solidly opposed to any easement on that diff. Is there no room to compromise with that diff? Or, are you three totally unwilling to give an inch on that? SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, that is almost 1,500 words, and you guys cannot compromise even a single word? And, you blame me for an impasse. You cannot compromise even a single word of that giant text insertion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we have a consensus, then, what with 3 editors wanting the cited content to remain, and only 1 editor wanting to remove any traces of "individual" rights from the article. Consensus does not require agreement, only that everyone can live with the outcome. SaltyBoatr, can you live with the outcome of leaving this edit, and additionally adding any necessary "collective" rights or other modern interpretations (using contextualism, or whatever) to balance the article? If so, then the impasse is over, mediation is not needed, and editing can resume to improve the article, to address the various concerns all of us as editors have. (In my case, this would immediately be correcting punctuation per MoS, and fixing the cite for footnote 26, for an edit that largely dates from April 2005 and which was made by another editor.) Yaf (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Rather, I strongly oppose the removal of "any traces of 'individual' rights from the article". Stop fighting a straw man. I just want a neutral POV balance. And, the editorial interpretation of the Noah Webster quote has a WP:NOR violation which need to be fixed. Plus, the Noah Webster passage is part of the undue weight problem where the article has too much material that relies upon the theory of Original intent. That must be brought back into balance through the removal of the excess. I am flexible as how this should be done exactly, but I insist on a better balance. I fear this won't be easy to negotiate, and a mediator could be extremely helpful. (If we are lucky enough to find one who is willing to help us.) SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

actually, it appears that saltyboatr is claiming that his objection is simply to the length of that diff, because it is "1,500 words", and asks whether 'you guys cannot compromise on even a single word?'. okay. so, if the material were condensed - made more terse, and reduced to 1,000 words, that should be a reasonable compromise, based upon this claim that you'd like the material shortened, yes? can you live with that, yaf and saltyboatr? simply make the segment more terse and to the point, and try to bring the text down in size by one-third? Anastrophe (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If SaltyBoatr's only objection is the length of the article, then a consensus can easily be reached. The problem I see is that SaltyBoatr has made many objections unrelated to the length of the article. If a consensus is reached regarding the length of the article, would SaltyBoatr agree to drop his other objections? If not, then I reiterate my belief that we are at an impasse. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Anastrophe, yes, making it more terse would definitely be progress towards resolution of the POV dispute. Consistently, my complaint has been the issue of the balance point of the POV, and reducing the amount of originalist material is what is needed to bring this back to a neutral balance point. I never have held that all of the originalist material must be excluded. (Indeed, I would object to removing all of the originalist material because that would be a POV violation in the opposite direction.) I just want POV balance. And, SMP0328, yes I can compromise on any and all issues which are up to editorial discretion. Though, none of us have the liberty to violate the non-negotiable aspects of WP:Policy. Lets start this process of compromise. I am relieved to see some movement that the entire Yaf text insertion is not set in stone, an all or nothing proposition, but rather can be negotiable. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

yaf, can you please take the existing 'states' section, and attempt to trim it for length down to 1,000 words or less, and post the abbreviated version here? if we can get all parties to agree to a more terse version of that section, perhaps the article can be unlocked and we can move forward. Anastrophe (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Let's start from the following shortened version:

In Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, KY), which evaluated the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state pursuant to Section 28 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799), the right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state was interpreted as an individual right, for the case of a concealed sword cane. As stated by the Kentucky High Court, "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." The "constitution" mentioned in this quote refers to Kentucky's Constitution. As mentioned in this quotation "as it existed at the adoption of the constitution" was the pre-existing right in force when Kentucky's First Constitution was drawn in 1799.

The case prompted outrage in the Kentucky House, all the while recognizing that Section 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799), which stated "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." did guarantee individuals the right to bear arms.

The result was that the law of the Commonwealth of Kentucky was eventually over-turned by constitutional amendment with Section 26 in Kentucky's Third Constitution (1850) banning the future carrying of concealed weapons, while still asserting that the bearing of arms in defense of themselves and the state was an individual and collective right in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This recognition, has remained to the present day in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Fourth Constitution enacted in 1891, in Section 1, Article 7, that guarantees "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980’s, vol. 10, no. 1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, . . ." This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified. In contrast to this, all states currently regulate the possession and use of firearms to some extent."

In contrast, in State v. Buzzard (1842, Ark), the Arkansas high court adopted a militia-based reading of the right to bear arms under state law, and upheld the 21st section of the second article of the Arkansas Constitution that declared, "that the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense", while rejecting a challenge to a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. Buzzard had carried a concealed weapon and stood "indicted by virtue of the authority of the 13th section of an act of the Legislature prohibiting any person wearing a pistol, dirk, large knife or sword-cane concealed as a weapon, unless upon a journey, under the penalties of fine and imprisonment." The Arkansas high court further declared "That the words "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State", and the words "common defense" clearly show the true intent and meaning of these Constitutions [i.e., Ark. and U.S.] and prove that it is a political and not an individual right, and, of course, that the State, in her legislative capacity, has the right to regulate and control it: This being the case, then the people, neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms." Joel Prentiss Bishop’s influential Commentaries on the Law of Statutory Crimes (1873) took Buzzard's militia-based interpretation, a view that Bishop characterized as the “Arkansas doctrine", as the orthodox view of the right to bear arms in American law.

Modern gun rights advocates have disputed this history, claiming that the individual right was the orthodox view of the right to bear arms under state law in the 19th century, citing the previously-mentioned Bliss v. Commonwealth, and even State v. Buzzard, which recognized the right of an individual to carry a weapon concealed, when upon a journey, in an affirmative defense. Since 1873, some legal and constitutional historians have sided with Bishop and not the individual rights model. Other legal and constitutional historians have sided with the individual rights model.

In 1905, the Kansas Supreme Court in Salina v. Blaksley made the first collective right judicial interpretation. The Kansas high court declared: "That the provision in question applies only to the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law, is also apparent from the second amendment to the federal Constitution, which says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.""

The modern formulation of the debate over the Second Amendment as an individual/collective rights dichotomy entered Federal law and scholarship when it was employed in a widely-cited Harvard Law Review article in 1915 by the Chief Justice of the Maine Supreme Court, Lucilius A. Emery. He noted that "the right guaranteed is not so much to the individual for his private quarrels or feuds as to the people collectively for the common defense against the common enemy, foreign or domestic."

This reduces the size, considerably, while still providing citations. Comments? -- Yaf (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

also, if condensing the section proves workable, and we get agreement, it may be worth revisiting many sections of the article and making them more terse. there's no question that the article is long, and just as 'brevity is the soul of wit' (and lingerie), it is also the soul of an accessible encyclopedia article. if what is said in a hundred words can be said in fifty, then the information can be shared with far more facility and impact by the latter. Anastrophe (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your effort to compromise. The other section needing consolidation is the "Early Commentary" section which is heavily loaded with originalism, and which contributes to the POV imbalance even more than the recent "State courts" insertion. Again, I view that we should leave in a significant amount of originalism, which is a significant POV, but presently orignialism is too heavily weighted causing a POV neutrality imbalance. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The proposed edit is acceptable to me. Dare I dream that the impasse could be ended? --SMP0328. (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I appreciate that we are discussing edits on the talk page. It would be a good faith gesture to remove the 'states court' passage from the article while we discuss this. OK? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is not to make any changes to protected articles unless they are trivial changes or unless consensus shifts to change it, even if it is the wrong version or the right version, until content disputes are resolved. The fact the article is blocked and has a {{POV}} label is considered adequate warning to readers. OK? Yaf (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You got that right, there is no consensus about good faith gestures here. <smile> SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your proposed edit breaks into four sections. 1)Bliss, 2)Buzzard, 3)Salina and 4)Emery

Can we start with Bliss and then move on to the other three?

Bliss

Checking the referencing, I see six footnotes and three paragraphs:

First paragraph: The first footnote is pointing to the primary document, which OK, but is merely a convenience link and does nothing to meet the requirements of WP:NOR. The second footnote describes that this pertains to 'Kentucky', and I agree that sentence is cited, but this does nothing to give sourcing to the thesis of the rest of the passage. The third is entirely a statement of original research, and to this I object based on WP:NOR and ask that it be removed.

End of first paragraph, except for the 'pertains to Kentucky' sentence what is the secondary sourcing for the first paragraph?

Second paragraph: The fourth footnote in the second paragraph is pointing to the primary document, and seems to violate WP:NOR, I ask that the second paragraph be cited with a secondary source, or be removed.

Third paragraph: The third Bliss paragraph is the meat of it, and has two footnotes. The second footnote, is an editorial comment, plainly in violation of WP:NOR and should be removed. The first footnote is to a journal article, reprinted by Alan Gottlieb, a well known pro-gun partisan. Is this an accurate reproduction? Please confirm.

The key quote of the third paragraph is: "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue ". I don't see that you have shown with reliable sourcing that "the right to bear arms" issue (in Kentucky) is the same as the topic of this article which is rather: the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. Your attempt to associate a Kentucky 'right to bear arms' with a federal 'right to bear arms' appears to be improper synthesis and therefore WP:OR. And more to the point. I see these two rights as obviously and totally different things. In any case, you have the burden to show that these two different rights are the same, and you have not done so yet using reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Before making changes, lets consider what constitutes an acceptable source in this article's context. The reason I ask is that E. Kruschke in his book Gun Control, that I know you have previously used many times to cite gun politics issues on Wikipedia -- claiming it was a reliable source, mentions both Bliss and Buzzard as being the first two state cases regarding the Second Amendment, and categorizes them both as promoting an "individual rights" position, by reason he does not look beyond the initial lower state courts' decisions. In Bliss this is OK, since the KY Supreme Court upheld the lower court's interpretation of the Second Amendment and upheld the decision. However, in Buzzard, the AR Supreme Court overturned the lower court's decision, going from an "individual rights" position to a "collective rights" position in so doing. Kruschke, however, doesn't address the final decision of the AR Supreme Court, and (erroneously, I would say) leaves readers the false impression that both cases were pure "individual rights" cases. I could certainly make the necessary citation changes necessary for addressing many of your stated concerns using Kruschke's book as a reference, with properly cited citations, hence, it would be verifiable, it is a reference that you haved claimed is reliable but with which I have disagreed, but citing Kruschke here would make the (erroneous) case that both cases were pure "individual rights" interpretations of the Second Amendment. Still, would this be an acceptable reference to use or not? Yaf (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Not. You are improperly blurring five things: 'Gun politics', 'the right to bear arms in Arkansas', 'the right to bear arms in Kentucky', 'a federal right to bear arms' and 'The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution'. If Kruschke reference something relative to 'gun politics' that does not automatically associate with 'The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution'.

There may be 'individual rights' or 'collective rights' in Kentucky, or in Arkansas, but that is totally irrelevant to the topic of this article. I reject your original research, that a 'right to bear arms' is a universal, fluid, interchangeable thing. Indeed, I reject your assumption that the term 'a right to bear arms' is synonymous with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear. OK. Let me try again. Kruschke clearly states that both Bliss and Buzzard are state interpretations of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. No problems here. This, properly cited, would fix some of the problems that you have mentioned. Kruschke then goes on to state that Bliss further was an "individual rights" interpretation of the 2A. Again, no problems here. Kruschke then goes on to state that Buzzard was an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. There is a slight problem here; Buzzard was an "individual rights" interpretation only at the lower court level in AR. However, upon reaching the AR Supreme Court, the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution was overturned, with the case then becoming the first state interpretation of the 2A that switched to a "militia-based", collective rights, interpretation of the 2A. The blurring occurs from Kruschke being incorrect in summarizing Buzzard as being a pure individual rights interpretation of the 2A. It was actually a mixed interpretation at the AR Supreme Court level, from virtue that it characterized the 2A as protecting a collective right, with an individual right only applying for the case of an "affirmative defense" when "upon a journey." As for the "right to bear arms" wording, this was a phrasing that you had added a few years ago over my protests, but to which we had ultimately compromised. My objection then was that the 2A protects a pre-existing right to bear arms, but does not, in and of itself, grant a "right to bear arms" or a right to "keep" arms. However, this point of view is not universally held, hence we had compromised on the "right to bear arms" wording. A slightly different wording can be worked on this phrasing upon deciding on the appropriateness of select sources for citing facts in this paragraph. Getting back to using Kruschke as a cite here; my fear is that, unless we are very, very careful, both Bliss and Buzzard will become "individual rights" interpretations of the 2A, which is a subtle POV push to the "gun rights" side. I favor correctness over pushing any POV. So, asking once again, would using Kruschke as a reliable source here be considered by you as an acceptable reference, in light of his getting Buzzard slightly incorrect? And, I agree with your assumption that the term 'a right to bear arms' is NOT synonymous with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Rather, a right to bear arms is but one of the rights protected by the 2A. If anything, the right to keep and bear arms are but two of the unenumerated rights given by God that are recognized by the 9th Amendment, but lets keep on topic, and leave the 9th Amendment out of this discussion. OK?) Yaf (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Which page(s) are you reading in the Kruschke book? And, can you please quote the exact passage you are reading? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I am not going to type all the pages that are applicable, but they are in Chapter 4, Legislation and Statistical Data, that "provides an annotated list of selected court cases" (p.125). "The courts have tended to hold that the right guaranteed in the Second Amendment and the clause stating that such a right shall not be infringed is applicable to Congress." (p.125) It then starts a subsequent section titled "Some Cases Illustrating the Individual View" on p. 140, with the first case being Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90 (1822). The 8th paragraph down the page then contains, "The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; ..." (p.140). There is a lot of other discussion, but I won't type this content here. Then, on page 141, "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." The very next case is State v. Buzzard, which commences at the bottom of p. 141. It starts with "Lacy J., dissenting. Then, it goes on, stating: "The question now to be determined is, does this provision of the statute violate the second article of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, or the 21st section of our Bill of Rights? The language in both instruments is nearly similar: the two clauses are as follows:..." (pp. 141-142). Then lots more detail. It ends with, "We derive this right from our Anglo-Saxon ancestors..." But, as I stated earlier, Kruschke doesn't go on to summarize the high court's ruling on this case, and leaves the distinct impression that the case ended with the lower courts individual rights only rulings. This is a problem in terms of absolute accuracy. There are several other areas of pertinence through the book that can also be used to clean up several of the concerns that you believe exist regarding Bliss and Buzzard. Yaf (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You are using a syllogism. You cite that Bliss pertains to a primal right to bear arms. You cite that the Second Amendment pertains to a primal right to bear arms. (No dispute from me.) You then make a illogical jump that Bliss pertains to the Second Amendment. If A => C, and B => C does not proof A => B. Keep your Bliss material in the Right to bear arms article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Second Amendment is what specifically protects, as you phrase it, the "primal right to bear arms." Actually, the 2A protects a God given right to keep and bear arms, but it certainly does protect a right to bear arms, too, as a subset of what it protects. The infringement of these "primal rights" is what the 2A protects against. (The rights are recognized by the 9th Amendment, being unenumerated rights, but I digress.) Bliss was about an attempt to infringe on this "primal" right to keep and bear arms, and this attempt was found lacking due to the 2A, in the first individual rights interpretation of the 2A in a judiciary setting. It just happened to be at a state level, but it is in a section on state level commentary on the 2A, which predated Federal court discussions and decisions. The Bliss material belongs in both this article, and in the Right to bear arms article because it was directly commenting on the 2A. No syllogism here, just an honest individual rights interpretation of the 2A, which some find offensive or distasteful, albeit true. Yaf (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You haven't satisfactorily cited your opinion. It also defies logic. You claim "the first individual rights interpretation of the 2A in a judiciary setting". On what jurisdictional grounds can a state court interpret federal law? State courts interpret state law. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

State courts can interpret federal law and the U.S. Constitution. For example, read Michigan v. Long (1983). --SMP0328. (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion looks like WP:OR. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You asked a question and I answered it. Now you claim my answer is invalid, because it's Original Research. You are truly unbelievable. State courts can interpret federal law and the U.S. Constitution. If my citing a Supreme Court decision is Original Research, and therefore invalid, then I guess a whole lot of articles need major editing. --SMP0328. (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You point to a Federal Supreme court decision. How does that 'answer' anything? At the best, I am supposed to read and interpret it to figure out an answer to the question of whether state courts have jurisdiction over federal law. The 'reading and figuring' you did, and expect me to do, is WP:OR. See also Jurisdiction. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

please stop conflating discussion on the talk page with content in article space. it is totally inappropriate to label as OR someone's comments on the talk page. if what the person wrote was a segment of copy intended for inclusion in the article space, then an OR label might be appropriate and useful. as it stands, calling a fellow editor's commentary OR is little more than the WP:SOUP behaviour that i have warned you about numerous times. it's a roadblock to discussion, and not at all helpful. please. stop. Anastrophe (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Along the same line of thought, could you ease up with WP:SOUP personal commentary? You are falsely attacking my good intentions. Over, and over, and over, starting here, and at least a dozen times since. I object and take offense. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

i'll ease up on it when the behavior stops. i realize you may not find it pleasant, but if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck....do you acknowledge the (utter) inappropriateness of slinging about claims that an editor is engaging in "OR" when discussing matters on a talk page? if not, there's not much hope that the characterization of WP:SOUP will go away any time soon. Anastrophe (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

that said, i'd be willing to refactor my commentary, and instead of asking you to stop WP:SOUP behaviour, rather request that you stop wikilawyering and being tendentious. Anastrophe (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have done very little 'behavior' which is contrary to WP:Policy. Specifically here, we are discussing whether the Bliss court state case is on topic in this federal article. SMP0328 argued that because of the court case Michigan v. Long that State courts can interpret federal law and the U.S. Constitution, therefore the Bliss passage should be allowed to be included in the article. I object that SMP0328 argument is based on WP:OR, his interpretation of the Michigan v. Long court case, (interpretation of a primary source). Somehow you take offense at this, calling it WP:SOUP. What did I do wrong? Actually, your dogged attempts to refocus the discussion away from WP:Policy and onto my personal behavior is what is counterproductive here. If you and I disagree much more about this, (both your behavior and mine), I am willing to seek the opinions of uninvolved editors over at WP:WQA. What do you say? SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't interpreting that case. You claimed that state courts couldn't rule on federal law or the U.S. Constitution. I wanted to show you that wasn't the case. So I referred to a case that dealt with state supreme courts and when they interpret federal law or the U.S. Constitution. It isn't necessary for you to interpret the case. For our purposes, that case shows that state courts do sometimes interpret federal law, including the U.S. Constitution. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK then, even granting that it may have happened, does nothing to show that it does, or did. Foremost Bliss was directly interpreting Section 23 of that Kentucky State Consitution which says: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.". The "defence of themselves" status with the Kentucky right and Bliss is not found in the US 2A right, and therefore is a syllogistic logic error in the context of this article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

knock yourself out. wikilawyering is an abuse of policy. your methods are obstructionist and tendentious - you initiated the edit war on this article, then you requested the page be locked. that's WP:gaming the system, and a violation of the spirit of wikipedia's policies. i'm fed up with it. this article has been locked for weeks, pending your willingness to compromise - which you've shown precisely zero, as offers of compromise have been tendered, but each time you move the target so that agreement cannot be reached. you are holding this article hostage, interminably. enough. Anastrophe (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Against policy? Look again at WP:WL. Your assertion of WP:GAME amounts to an accusation of bad faith, which is offensive and wrong. Anyway, can we resume work on the article instead of talking about me? Where we left off, Yaf (I think), was working on his response, and a re-write, to the WP:RS questions I have posed about his "State courts" edit. Yaf, any more progress on this? SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, when I read the Kruschke book a month ago, I don't remember it saying what you now claim it says. I have since returned it to my public library. Let me try to ask this gently, but I question if you have actually read the Kruschke book which you are citing as your source. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I own my own copy of this book, having bought a used university library copy for around $4 as I recall, having purchased it quite some time ago (including shipping!). It was a dropped holding by many college libraries, evidently around the same time, so there are lots of used, cheap copies around if you but look. I never used it to cite any WP issues until after you started insisting that it was a "reliable source" and started using it as a reference. I have read it 3 times, now, the 3rd time being just last month when we were discussing this book previously, but I should mention that I have spotted lots of small errors in the book over the 3 readings, and generally prefer not to use it to cite WP "facts". Upon a first reading, incidentally, I missed lots of the details, and only pieced together the complete threads upon a second reading several months after the first reading. The 3rd reading really helped me understand the book better. That said, I don't much like the "scholarship", as it is a bit disjointed, missing the differences in lower court case records vs. high court rulings, for example. Also, the NRA provided considerable historical evidence that seems to have only wound up in the definitions in the back of the book, and that contradicts some of the statements of fact that are contained in the first introductory parts of the book. More messy scholarship. That said, there are times it does make some good points. It just gets hard to establish fact versus verifiable citations with this book; the truth is not always what Kruschke says in the first part of the book, but that he does get right around the middle of the book, and then again, near the end of the book. The editing leaves lots to be desired. Overall, the first part of the book seems to placate anti-gun POV pushers. The middle through 3/4ths of the book then corrects the facts, for anyone with enough patience to actually wade through the book. Messy, very messy. Yaf (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You have had several chances and failed now. If you can't specifically quote a reliable source that clearly makes your claim "...that both Bliss and Buzzard are state interpretations of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution", then I object to the inclusion of those paragraphs in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No failure, just laziness on my part in my not typing all the details in a lengthy discussion first, rather than in a draft of this section of the article. The question remains which you have not answered, do you consider Kruschke a reliable source, despite the shortcomings I have identified. If so, then it will be easy to make the case. But, before I spend all the time necessary to craft the wording to make the case, I want to know if you will accept Kruschke as a reliable source, or will you force all the work be done once again that is necessary to address your evolving "concerns", by denying acceptance of this book as a reliable source. I (actually, I suspect, many editors) already know you object to the inclusion of any individual rights discussions, so your statement on this is redundant. What is at issue here is whether or not Kruschke is a reliable source in your mind? If so, then it will be easy to make a solid case. If not, then I will have to select an alternative source, (there are many), and repeat the questions whether or not you will accept an alternative source. Yaf (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:RS reliable sourcing depends in part on context. So, I cannot immediately say. If you can wait, I have sent away for that Kruschke book again to read your citation in full (I just made an interlibrary loan request, it takes about four days, they will ship the book to my local library). Also, I am willing to accept the opinion of the reliable source noticeboard, who I recall have already said that a book by a university professor, published by a mainstream publisher is generally a WP:RS. And, I do share your opinion that his writing style is disjointed at times. I believe that you, (and perhaps also Kruschke), are guilty of a syllogism logic error. Proving that (Bliss => RTKBA), and (The 2A => RTKBA) does not prove that (Bliss => The 2A).

Let me thank you again for engaging in talk discussion of this passage you seek to include in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Buzzard

I see two paragraphs and three footnotes for the State v. Buzzard section. The first footnote is a convenience links to the primary source, and while that is OK, it does nothing to meet the requirements of WP:NOR. The second footnote may or may not be a published 'secondary source' but it only says "See the symposium in Chicago Kent Law Review 76 and the Fordham Law Review vol. 73". There are no page numbers given, and no indication of who is the author or which article is being cited. Symposium? In what context? The fourth footnote seems to be 'secondary sourcing' but when you click through, it points to a cryptic claim that seems to be describing the Arkansas right to bear arms, not the Federal Right to bear arms. In short, I am asking that you provide quotations from these secondary sources which back up your claim that Buzzard pertains to the federal 2A. When I check what you provided, I don't see it verified. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The use of primary sources does not violate WP:NOR. As for "see the symposium", this is merely a "see also" link for further scholarship, on volumes that had numerous discussions regarding this topic; this is not a cited source. So, there is not a problem mentioning this here. Yaf (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Salina

I see one paragraph, and one footnote. The one footnote is a convenience link to the primary document. As such, this is plainly in violation of WP:V. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The source is valid; a convenience link does not violate WP:V. Yaf (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Emery

This one paragraph and one footnote pointing to a Harvard Law Review article solidly meets reliable source standards, and I find the second half to be acceptable. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that the claim made in the first half of the paragraph "The modern formulation of the debate over the Second Amendment as an individual/collective rights dichotomy entered Federal law and scholarship when..." is found in the source. What is the sourcing for the opening clause? If not adequately sourced, please remove it. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Every word need not be sourced. Is there some question on what is being said? If so, then a {{fact}} tag is appropriate until a cite is made. Yaf (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-write

Yaf, I am still interested in working on this. Could you please re-write your passage in compromise, taking into account my concerns? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Am planning on doing this, once we address what sources are acceptable to you. (Kruschke or ?) Yaf (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As extraordinary claims required extraordinary sources, and ordinary claims do not, my answer is: It depends. Specifically cite your claims and your sources, (include page numbers please) and I will check the claim against the source and answer. Answering a blanket question is tougher. My impression is that Kruschke is nominally reliable, again, cite specifics please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Still a work in progress, but certainly worth discussing the progress while you wait for your copy of Kruschke to arrive via inter-library loan:

In Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, KY), which evaluated the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state pursuant to Section 28 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799), the right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state was interpreted as an individual right, for the case of a concealed sword cane. This case has been described as being “a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons” that “was violative of the Second Amendment””. As stated by the Kentucky High Court, "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." The "constitution" mentioned in this quote refers to Kentucky's Constitution. As mentioned in this quotation "as it existed at the adoption of the constitution" was the pre-existing right in force when Kentucky's First Constitution was drawn in 1799.

The case prompted outrage in the Kentucky House, all the while recognizing that Section 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799), which stated "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." did guarantee individuals the right to bear arms.

The result was that the law of the Commonwealth of Kentucky was eventually over-turned by constitutional amendment with Section 26 in Kentucky's Third Constitution (1850) banning the future carrying of concealed weapons, while still asserting that the bearing of arms in defense of themselves and the state was an individual and collective right in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This recognition, has remained to the present day in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Fourth Constitution enacted in 1891, in Section 1, Article 7, that guarantees "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980’s, vol. 10, no. 1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, . . ." This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified. "

In contrast, in State v. Buzzard (1842, Ark), the Arkansas high court adopted a militia-based reading of the right to bear arms under state law, and upheld the 21st section of the second article of the Arkansas Constitution that declared, "that the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense", while rejecting a challenge to a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. Buzzard had carried a concealed weapon and stood "indicted by virtue of the authority of the 13th section of an act of the Legislature prohibiting any person wearing a pistol, dirk, large knife or sword-cane concealed as a weapon, unless upon a journey, under the penalties of fine and imprisonment." The Arkansas high court further declared "That the words "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State", and the words "common defense" clearly show the true intent and meaning of these Constitutions [i.e., Ark. and U.S.] and prove that it is a political and not an individual right, and, of course, that the State, in her legislative capacity, has the right to regulate and control it: This being the case, then the people, neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms." Joel Prentiss Bishop’s influential Commentaries on the Law of Statutory Crimes (1873) took Buzzard's militia-based interpretation, a view that Bishop characterized as the “Arkansas doctrine", as the orthodox view of the right to bear arms in American law.

Modern gun rights advocates have disputed this history, claiming that the individual right was the orthodox view of the right to bear arms under state law in the 19th century, citing the previously-mentioned Bliss v. Commonwealth, and even State v. Buzzard, which recognized the right of an individual to carry a weapon concealed, when upon a journey, in an affirmative defense. Similarly, political scientist Earl Kruschke has categorized both Bliss and Buzzard as being “cases illustrating the individual view.” Since 1873, some legal and constitutional historians have sided with Bishop and not the individual rights model. Other legal and constitutional historians have sided with the individual rights model.

In 1905, the Kansas Supreme Court in Salina v. Blaksley made the first collective right judicial interpretation. The Kansas high court declared: "That the provision in question applies only to the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law, is also apparent from the second amendment to the federal Constitution, which says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.""

The modern formulation of the debate over the Second Amendment as an individual/collective rights dichotomy entered Federal law and scholarship when it was employed in a widely-cited Harvard Law Review article in 1915 by the Chief Justice of the Maine Supreme Court, Lucilius A. Emery. He noted that "the right guaranteed is not so much to the individual for his private quarrels or feuds as to the people collectively for the common defense against the common enemy, foreign or domestic."

Comments? Yaf (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Bliss

And how does Bliss pertain to the 2A? I don't see that you are making that claim. Then, why put your passage in this article? (As an aside, if Bliss was really important to an 'individual' rights theory, I would have expected it to be prominent in the dozens of amicus briefs for Heller, and it is not.) Why is this passage so important that we should expend scarce space in this article? It already is covered throughly elsewhere in Wikipedia, can't we just link to it? SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been described as being a case about “a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons” that “was violative of the Second Amendment””. The text and citation is listed. Because this was a critical interpretation of the meaning of the Second Amendment, and was the first such interpretation, it belongs here. This is the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article; hence, interpretations of it belong here. As for why this case is not mentioned in the amicus brief in Heller Case, that is because this early case was concerned only with concealed weapons; no such CCW issue is before the SCOTUS in Heller, hence there is no reason for it to be mentioned. Yaf (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Previously, you argued[26] that coverage of Bliss was vital here because the SCOTUS had granted cert for Heller case. Now you say that Bliss isn't important to the Heller case. Which is it? And, you spliced two quotes together from the 1967 Congressional hearing to make your point. Can I read that full quote in context? Is it available online, or can you give me an ISBN so I can seek out a printed copy? Also, in the process of searching for your 1967 reference, I ran across this discussion of Bliss from the Drake Law Review: "This decision (Bliss) has subsequently been severely criticized by other courts and its declaration that the right to bear arms is absolute has never been accepted by another court." The Bliss decision is far out on the fringe, yet you want to feature it prominently. This appears to violate WP:UNDUE. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The concealed carry issues and perspectives associated with CCW raised with Bliss are not important for Heller, as Heller is not about CCW issues. No contradiction here. The individual right interpretation of Bliss, however, is important for the historical perspective it provides in that individual right interpretations pre-existed the later "collective right" interpretation of the 2A and this historical fact is important for understanding Heller, as Heller is about the meaning of what is meant by an "individual right". As for Bliss being criticized by some courts, yes it has been. However, two states retain to this day the original Bliss interpretation of the 2A, permitting concealed carry without any permit being required, as a fundamental God-given right that is protected by the Second Amendment. Calling the position of these two states "far out on the fringe" is a gross oversimplification, to the extent that you advocate the removal of the original 2A interpretation to give WP:UNDUE weight to 48 states while additionally suppressing the interpretation remaining in two states that happens to agree with the original 2A interpretation. Yaf (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the 90th Congress reference Hearings, reports and prints of the Anti-Crime Program First Session Ser. 1-3 are available at most any regional US library that holds US Government records in hardcopy form, which is most suitable for seeing the full context. That said, this statement is also available online in a snippet from a scan, but without the text in context, and is virtually impossible to find on Google Books without actually having access to the hardcopy, requiring a double-ended, complicated, specific phrase, search to find it. If you don't know the specific and exact phrase, you can't find it on Google Books. Yaf (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And, of course, no ISBN applies, as 1967 pre-dates the issuance of ISBN numbers. Yaf (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I see that the snippet includes the clause "that point of view is virtually extinct". As, this boils down to a POV neutral balance dispute, might you be willing to include that neutralizing clause in your passage? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if consensus is that we should go into this much detail. But, if we include "virtually extinct", then we probably should also mention and cite the two states that have retained this "virtually extinct" view regarding what they consider to be the "proper" interpretation of the Second Amendment. States are sovereign, so differences among states do matter. Fundamentally, though, it appears we are largely re-hashing Federalist versus Anti-Federalist dogma. The souls of Madison, Adams, Webster, Jefferson, et al, must surely be stirring :-) Yaf (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The differences among the states do not matter, (to this article), which is about the federal 2A. SaltyBoatr (talk)

Perhaps this is something we may have common ground about. You mention that the issue of 'individual rights' needs new attention resulting now with Heller in the news. I can agree to that. I would prefer that the 'individual' issue be more directly addressed though. For instance, after reading the Heller amicus briefs I see that both sides agree to various degrees of the issue of 'individual rights'. The distinction rather is what type of 'individual rights'. With your Bliss passage you are focusing far too much on a very outlying type of individual right, the absolute individual right. All the pro-Heller briefs stop short of 'absolute' and advocate simply for an expansive individual right. And the remand-Heller briefs tend towards the 'limited individual right'. I think all the amicus briefs, pro and con, agree that reasonable federal regulations are allowed by the 2A. Therefore, I think a better approach (which might be a workable compromise between us), would be to refocus your 'states court' passage off of the state courts, and onto the differences within the 'individual rights' 2A definitions, giving accurate weight balance to the POVs. Basically, I object to the undue weight you are trying to bring to the 'absolute' version of individual right. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Bliss, second footnote

The second footnote to the Bliss section is making a somewhat extraordinary claim. Could you help please by identifying the person, or agency giving that testimony at that hearing? I have located a copy but it is not available by interlibrary transfer, and it would take several hours by car for me to go read it. Also, could you provide a bit more of the context of the quote you are citing? Who is speaking, and what was the question asked of the speaker. Also, who asked the question? Thank you in advance for your response. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

discussion of Yaf's March 12th re-write

I now have the Kruschke's Gun Control book in hand. After a re-reading, and looking at the big picture, I ask what article are we writing? A broad article about the issues of 'gun control'? An article about the interpretations of types of rights to bear arms in each of the states versus the federal? No and no.

You make one cite from his book, from Chapter 4, which declares in the opening sentence "This chapter provides an annotated list of selected court cases relevant to the subject of the right to keep and bear arms...". (pg 125) I believe we all agree that "the right to keep and bear arms" is a much broader topic, and is not synonymous with the Second Amendment. So, the Kruschke book seems to meet WP:RS standards, but it does not answer the question as to why discussion of state court indictment and rulings about acts of state a legislature is relevant to the federal Second Amendment.

You place a very high focus on the Bliss case, which Kruschke describes (pg 140) as "(Bliss v. Commonwealth) was an indictment founded on the act of the legislature of this state (Kentucky)". Yet, the right to bear arms protected in Kentucky at that time was different than the federal. Kentucky: "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State". The federal 2A does not say "...defense of themselves...".

I object that this article about the 2A needs such a detailed and confusing coverage of protection of the Kentucky "in defense of themselves" type of right. That is obviously different than the federal right and is easily misleading and confusing. (And, I argue, causes a skew of the POV away from the neutral point.)

That is not to say that there are things here we cannot agree upon. I do agree, for instance, that the article could use a better coverage of the topic of types of 'individual rights', especially in the context of widely disparate uses of that term in the run-up to the Heller SCOTUS ruling. But long winded discussion of the history of concealed weapon law in various state courts is not the best way to approach this task. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

edit request

{{editprotected}}

Until this dispute is resolved, I ask that the {{POV}} tag be added back to the article. The tag was inappropiately removed[27] 3 minutes prior to page protection by Adams10, with the edit summary "(rv: though it's disputed, there is NEVER going to be a concensus." It is also notable that Adams10 is a declared partisan in this NPOVdispute, but he has since not participated in any discussion to resolve the dispute. The fact that a NPOV dispute exists was known even to Adams10 while removing the POV tag! Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

 Not done The presence of full protection should be more than enough warning that something is wrong with the article. Please read meta:The Wrong Version for a light-hearted explanation of why the protecting admin did not modify the page (as mandated by WP:PPOL). If you think the page protection was inappropriate, you should post on WP:RFP. Happy‑melon 15:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

furthermore, i formally object to the blanket use of the POV tag at the top of a long article. the POV tag should be applied to the section or sections the editor has a concern about. current use of the POV tag recently has been as a 'POV bomb' that gets dropped the minute this editor objects to a particular edit. it's a form of edit warring. Anastrophe (talk) 17:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, except in the cases where the POV issue is pervasive throughout the article. Like in this instance, there is disproportional use of the originalist hypothesis throughout the article causing a POV neutrality problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

um, no. you're ignoring that you've been dropping the POV tag like a bomb for individual changes to the article. a single edit does not make the entire article POV. reserve use of the tag for the specific sections you have a problem with. Anastrophe (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel that it would add userfriendliness and ameliorate the length problem to have the actual text of the second amendment at the head of the article. 06:20 19 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.67.90 (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

i'm unclear how moving text would affect the length; be that as it may, there is no length issue, as has been established in the mediation. Anastrophe (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well-Regulated

I am told that in the language of the day, "well-regulated" simply meant "well-armed", perhaps with some linguistic relationship to military meanings of the word "regular". I can't find any mentions of this, which leads me to suspect it's just a myth. Can anyone confirm or deny? --Malimar (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia isn't the best place to ask general questions of this nature. this article is locked to prevent editing, so nobody can add information relevant to your question, not that it would even be 'allowed' into the article without a horrendous fight. that said, yes, there's a fair bit of historical linguistic info that suggests that 'well regulated' simply meant 'well armed'. Anastrophe (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

well regulated can also mean "smoothly operating" or "well trained". The meaning as in the phrase "a well regulated engine runs smoothly".

4.156.252.148 (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

bot assisted archive?

Is anyone tech savvy enough, and willing to volunteer, to set up a bot assisted archiver, such as User:MiszaBot II, to help with the archiving task on this talk page? Also, does anybody that it is time to do an archive? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

the couple of times i've proposed employing miszabot on talk pages i got a surprising amount of resistance - main claim being that none of the bots are very good at the archiving. i dunno. i don't know how to set it up, but i also have no objection to its use.Anastrophe (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have User:MiszaBot III on my user talk page. I have no objection to setting User:MiszaBot II up, provided there's a consensus it should be used. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to User:MiszaBot II being used, as long as it would function correctly. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Added Mitzy. Archives anything older than 2 weeks. --2ndAmendment (talk) 04:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Original version

If the original only has one comma, then what's the one in the picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.118.1 (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That picture is of the Bill of Rights as passed by the Congress. See the text section of the article for the wording and punctuation of that version of the Second Amendment. --SMP0328. (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad Reference in origin section

{{editprotected}}

Footnote 26, dealing with the Noah Webster quote "...force superior..." is mis-attributed to Federalist #46, which was by PUBLIUS and not by Noah Webster. The correct reference should be to Noah Webster, changing the reference from Federalist #46 to:

<ref> A Citizen of America (Noah Webster) October 10, 1787 Pamphlet: An Examination into the leading principles of the Federal Constitution; The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights 1787-1792, 2nd Ed., Editor. David E. Young, Golden Oak Books, 2001, ISBN 0-9623664-3-9, pp. 38-41.</ref>

This applies to the following, only:

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[26]"

Thanks. Yaf (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

 Not done Looks uncontroversial, but can I ask you to stick it in a citation template please? Happy‑melon 14:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Sure.

<ref>{{cite book | last = Young | first = David E. | title = The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights 1787-1792 | edition = 2nd Ed. | year = 2001 | publisher = Golden Oak Books | pages = 38-41 | isbn = 0-9623664-3-9 | quote= A Citizen of America (Noah Webster) October 10, 1787 Pamphlet: An Examination into the leading principles of the Federal Constitution}}</ref>

Thanks. Yaf (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the issue of undue weight and reliance on originalism, like this quote from Noah Webster is part of the ongoing mediation. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So, if you agree that this quote is by Noah Webster (and it is), then why do you insist on mis-attributing it to PUBLIUS? The goal is to have an accurate encyclopedia. Yaf (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

it is a misattributed quote. fixing a misattribution, regardless of your concerns, is not a matter of dispute, it is a matter of accuracy. Anastrophe (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a quote of a founding father, use of the POV theory Originalism. The excessive use of originialism is part of the ongoing mediation. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a different issue than preserving accuracy in the article. The correction needs to be made for accuracy. Yaf (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There is another reasonable option, which is to move that section to the talk page until resolution of the mediation. Readers will know to look to the talk page to get information due to the page protection banner. Nothing is lost. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done The presence or absence of the section in the article may be a matter for dispute, but the need to ensure that what content is there is reliably and accurately cited is beyond question. Happy‑melon 11:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, have you actually read that book? I see that it is a very rare book. I tried to find a copy and discovered it is not available in any of the libraries in my local county-wide library system. I am guessing that you have only read the table of contents, which is readable online at the author's pro-gun website[28]. Is David E. Young a reliable source? Is the publisher Golden Oak Books of good reputation? This book appears to be a vanity press book. A Google search[29] [30]finds very little about this publisher which is located in the author's house in a tiny town on the Michigan Upper Penninsula[31][32]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Will you please stop the personal attacks? Yes, I own a copy of the book, and yes, I have read the book. It is a thick book, with a blue cover; I own the paperback version. (There are two ISBN numbers, depending on which version of the 2nd Edition it is that one refers to.) It is not a rare book, but is in print. I own a copy of the second edition. David E. Young is a reputable source. It is not a vanity press book, but it is a scholarly work that is not often found in other than college libraries and law school libraries. If you are looking for a copy in the local elementary school or high school library, then, yes, you will have problems finding a copy. Your tendentious, disruptive attitude needs to stop, or else administrator action to prevent further disruption needs to occur. The book has even been used in several of the briefs to the Supreme Court of the United States in Heller/Parker, and is very well respected in the legal community as being a significant historical resource book on the Second Amendment. Your POV pushing and continuous disruption needs to stop. Yaf (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I made no personal attack. One editor challenging another editor about their sourcing is appropriate. It also would be appropriate if you answered my questions instead of threatening me with administrative action. Would you address my question as to whether Golden Oaks Books is a reputable publisher? It appears to have only published books by the author David E. Young, and that publishing company appears to be located in the same house in which that author lives[33][34]. One address is on the corner of Michigan and Houghton St. And the other on the corner of Houghton and Michigan St.. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

you've determined these are homes how? it appears to be a light-commercial area to me. furthermore, if a book was used in briefs for Heller/Parker, i think that trumps any "concerns" you have about the quality of the source. crap usually isn't presented to the supreme court. Anastrophe (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Implying scholarly impropriety ("Yaf, have you actually read that book? ") is certainly a personal attack, unrelated to questioning the veracity of the source. As for the veracity of the source, here is an amicus brief that uses this book as an authoritative source. If the book is worthy for inclusion into an amicus brief (from associates of the legal team of Mayor Fenty of D.C., no less) to the Supreme Court of the United States, under a list of authoritative sources relative to the Second Amendment in the first directly applicable Second Amendment case to hit the high court since 1939, then the book is certainly considered reliable. The book/quote is also certainly verifiable. The continuous tendentious, disruptive, and personal attacking attitudes need to stop. Yaf (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you answer my question about the publisher? By the way, your evidence that you have read the book: 'blue cover', thick book, second edition, two ISBN numbers is all information available from the author's website. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Careful SaltyBoatr, you are coming very close to calling Yaf a liar. What makes you so sure that Yaf does not possess a copy of that book? --SMP0328. (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. I asked if Yaf owned a copy, and he answered that yes he did; and offered evidence by using information easily available from the author's website. Feel free to reach your own conclusion as to whether Yaf is telling the truth. I don't know enough to be sure either way. I still would like to hear discussion about whether a publishing company, whcih seems to have only published four books, all by one author and which seems to share the same location as the residence of that same author is considered a reliable soruce per WP:V policy. I don't think it even comes close to meeting our policy standard for reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is nice to know that SaltyBoatr is trying to hold Wikipedia to a higher standard than the text of the Emerson decision, where the book is cited 99 times by my count, plus is mentioned once more in an Appendix overview. Granted, this is original research on my part, counting the number of times that "Young" is referenced with a global regular expression search, but it is still obvious that the book is held in rather high esteem among legal professionals in the Federal judiciary. That should suffice to prove it is a reliable source. Incidentally, can SaltyBoatr prove he even has a brain over the Internet? At least with Young's book, I can quote meaningful content. :-) Yaf (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Even has a brain"? Stop your insults. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Footnote Correction

Once protection is lifted, this footnote correction needs to be done. Yaf (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A WP:NPOV problem, due to excess usage of originalism, remains with that footnoted passage: "One example given by Webster of a "power" that the people could resist was that of a standing army:", an editorial conclusion which violates WP:SYN and because the footnote relies on a primary document, WP:PSTS. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There are no WP:SYN issues in making this claim, as that is what was said by Webster. As for primary sources, they are perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia in a case such as this, where it is simply a quote and can easily be verified by a reader. In short, there is no problem with correcting this footnote, other than WP:OWN issues. Yaf (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} (Correcting a bad reference shouldn't be considered a POV dispute, but if it is, this can wait.) Yaf (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 26, dealing with the Noah Webster quote "...force superior..." is mis-attributed to Federalist #46, which was by PUBLIUS and not by Noah Webster. The correct reference should be to Noah Webster, changing the reference from Federalist #46 to:

<ref> A Citizen of America (Noah Webster) October 10, 1787 Pamphlet: An Examination into the leading principles of the Federal Constitution; The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights 1787-1792, 2nd Ed., Editor. David E. Young, Golden Oak Books, 2001, ISBN 0-9623664-3-9, pp. 38-41.</ref>

This applies to the following, only:

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[26]"

Thanks. Yaf (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't pointing directly to a 1787 document (regardless if you point to the reprint) the same a pointing to a primary source? Unfortunately, you still persist in working on your originalist theory material in the article. Wouldn't it be better to engage in a discussion about the effect on POV balance caused by disproportionate use of originalist theory material in the article? In short, I rather request that the offending passage just be removed (or relocated to a sandbox), pending resolution of the POV discussion and dispute. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please answer.

nothing in that usage in the article violates PSTS. what is your point? Anastrophe (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A direct quote of Noah Webster in 1787 is use of a primary source. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

quite correct. what is your point? you seem to be under the mistaken impression that primary sources are prohibited. they are not. the usage in the article makes no synthesis or other OR. it merely describes the plain english text. that's entirely legitimate usage of a primary source. please stop bringing up red herring arguments to forestall progress on this article. Anastrophe (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See the prelude clause just prior to the footnote 26 quote, "One example given by Webster of a "power" that the people could resist was that of a standing army:" This is interpretive of the primary source, in violation of WP:NOR, and is using the theory of originalism contributing to the POV neutrality imbalance. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, how can I be more clear? I am questioning POV balance caused by the heavy reliance on quotes from the founding fathers, which serve to advance the POV theory that the intent of the originators of the Second Amendment should be give an extra heavy weight. Yes, you are attempting to correct a 'bad reference', but the coincidence is remarkable. Repeatedly, you are focusing on your 'originalist theory' references. Instead, lets discuss and resolve our dispute. A good faith gesture would be to relocate the excess of 'originalist theory' material from the article to achieve POV balance. With such a compromise, our dispute could be resolved today, and the protection block lifted immediately. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

saltyboatr, how can the other editors of this article be more clear? you are attempting to foist your contemporary views of the meaning of the second amendment upon the historical background of the amendment, essentially attempting to rewrite history (by insisting it not be acknowledged) in order to cram your particular POV onto the article. you are holding this article hostage, and violating - if not the letter - the spirit of consensus, by trying to WP:OWN any content changes within the article. your suggestion that the history of the second amendment be culled from this article because you consider it POV is specifically and clearly disrecommended by policy, as a "POV fork". there is no "compromise" at work in your efforts here - what you call "compromise" constitutes you making demands to which other editors must accede. Anastrophe (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Enough of the personal attacks, please, SaltyBoatr. This quote was put into the article 3 years ago. [35] And, it wasn't put there by me. Hence, this is not my "originalist theory" footnote that needs a citation correction, but rather what needs correcting are WP:OWN issues that seem to exist regarding this article. No one editor owns this article. No editor has the right to keep this article in perpetual lock down through initiating an edit war each and every time it comes out of lock down. For example, in your recent revert edit warring that caused a lock down, you reverted a punctuation change I had made per the MoS, that should have been no problem. But, it apparently didn't appear I was editing in good faith in correcting this "hallowed" punctuation. The dispute could be resolved today for sure, provided that ownership of the article was relinquished to the Wikipedia Community at large, to permit constructive edits to take place by all editors, instead of only one editor. Yaf (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I get it that you just want me to go away. Rather, can we find a compromise that solves the POV balance problem that I have identified? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have worked at length to assume good faith, even carrying on a dialogue on this issue [36] with you, while addressing another discussion into which you jumped. It was in the course of that discussion that I realized the citation was incorrect on the present article, while verifying a reference, and so I identified it for correction using {{editprotected}} procedures here. But, your "ownership" of the article precluded this. It is impossible to re-write history to solve a perceived POV balance problem, through ignoring history, ignoring references, ignoring citations, ignoring quotations, and the like. No compromise can re-write history, or delete history, through either using "newspeak" or other 1984'ish techniques. An historical topic deserves historical cites and references. It is neither fitting or proper to attempt to rewrite an article on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution starting only around, say, 1994, while ignoring the history from the 18th Century until 1994, to address perceived POV problems that do not exist outside one editor's mind. It would be equivalent to rewriting an article on Slavery over the centuries, say, while deleting any mention of the historical practice in the United States, for example, and focusing only on Somalia, which is the only country that permits slavery today, because the mentioning of slavery in the US is a POV that one editor could not tolerate, the historical facts be damned. The use of historical facts is entirely permitted and encouraged with proper citations, provided mainstream sources are used. Wikipedia is not censored. Attempting to censor history is not permitted either. All that said, it is still entirely proper for you to add additional material supporting "collective" right viewpoints that are more modern, with proper cites, of course, when the article is unlocked. If this is not possible, then seeing a disruptive editor go away would certainly be preferable to continuing to watch one editor hold an article hostage ad infinitum. Yaf (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

actually, you have not identified a POV imbalance. you have claimed a POV imbalance by saying that "most" of the article is weighted towards a pro-gun POV, but that doesn't constitute identification - merely one editor's opinion. in the most recent edit that yaf made, which was to remove a fair bit of material, most of which was material that you would probably characterize as "pro gun", you reverted him, claiming it 'altered the pov balance'. so - again, you are holding the article hostage. any change to the article by any editor other than you is claimed to be a change to the POV balance, you revert twice, then request protection. you are gaming the system, and subverting the process. Anastrophe (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's start by removing the 'state courts' section. It is already entirely duplicated verbatim elsewhere in Wikipedia. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

let's start by you ceasing to make demands of what content will or will not exist within the article. let's start by you perhaps actually adding substance to the article, rather than acting as arbiter of all other editors work. Anastrophe (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing history is not going to change history. Removing this summary content would remove the basis for a reader to understand the present dichotomy that fills the courts regarding "individual" vs. "collective" rights regarding the 2A (Heller/Parker, et. al.). We owe it to readers that come to this article to learn more about the Second Amendment to explain in a summary what the key hot-topic terms mean, at a top level. As I have mentioned before, breaking out this top-level taxonomy down further is not appropriate, both from a reader confusion standpoint, and from a total filesize standpoint. But, rewriting history to remove the "individual" right history, while leaving only the "collective" right discussion in the Judiciary section, would not be NPOV. I do not favor this change for this reason. Yaf (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I object to the 'originalist theory' that by giving weight to the words (intent) of the founders, that somehow this is to be given extra weight of importance. Not that I entirely object to a use of the reliance on originalism, but I object that disproportionate use of one constitutional interpretation method at the expense of others skews the appropriate POV balance, and therefore is in violation of WP:NPOV. The addition of Yaf's 'states court' section tipped the POV balance. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"disproportionate use of one constitutional interpretation method". if that is the case, then add counterbalancing discussion using another constitutional interpretation method. you are violating the letter and spirit of NPOV - NPOV is not an excuse to delete. whenever discussion comes back around to this point, you shift the target to "the article is too long". when an editor removes material, you claim that the POV balance has been changed (isn't that your stated intent?) and then have the article blocked to prevent other editors from making any substantive changes at all without your approval. this must stop. Anastrophe (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This obvious solution to this impasse is to discuss, understand, negotiate and compromise. Are you willing? I am. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

claiming willingness is different than showing willingness in action. you have shown no willingness to actually compromise. "remove all material i don't like, then we'll have a compromise" is the short version. the long version comprises the facts in evidence above and in the edit history, of your unwillingness to accept anything less. no other editors here have forbade you from adding material in support of your contention that there are other constitutional interpretation methods that are under-represented. you however have forbade any other editors here from making any edits to this article if they disagree with your personal opinion. that's not compromise, that's not cooperation, that's not consensus, and it's not collaboration. it is one editor gaming the system to own an article. it is unacceptably uncivil behavior. Anastrophe (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your characterization of me is wrong, personal, and offensive. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

But, I see, you do not claim it is inaccurate. Yaf (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong=inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.130.88 (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad Reference in Grammar Section

{{editprotected}}

Contained within the "Grammar" section is an assertion that: "The significance of this grammar was certainly understood to the framers who were more schooled in Latin grammar than is common in modern times." While this assertion ought to have a reference, the reference listed does not support the assertion. Instead, the reference offers a quotation that pretends to have discovered the exact meaning of the Second Amendment ("The linguistically correct reading of this unique construction ... is ..."). This citation ought to be removed or moved to a section on subjective interpretations of the Second Amendment.

The following is a reference that actually supports the assertion that the "Founders" were classically trained:

Winterer, Caroline The Culture of Classicism: Ancient Greece and Rome in American Intellectual Life, 1780-1910. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2002. Page 25.

Sonof76 (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To which passage on page 25 are you referring? SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Mea Culpa; I had just caught the error myself. Page 18: paragraph beginning with "Just as ..." Also, Page 21: paragraph beginning with "Knowledge of Greek and Roman classics ..." Thanks. Sonof76 (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that your reference is excellent. I would also point first to pages 1 and 2 of the introduction which describes that educated people of the founders era were extremely familiar with Latin grammar, and would certainly have understood the 2A being phrased with ablative absolute construction.

I support adding your footnote in place of the existing footnote 12;

Winterer, Caroline The Culture of Classicism: Ancient Greece and Rome in American Intellectual Life, 1780-1910. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2002. Pages 1-21.

The existing footnote 12 actually belongs at, and should be moved to, the end of the second sentence in that paragraph. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"The opening phrase is known to grammarians as an ablative absolute construction" There is no ablative absolute in English, only in Latin. The correct designation in English grammar is a nominative absolute. Dforaste (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There are many corrections that need to be made to the article, but the article is currently in mediation and remains indefinitely protected until mediation is successful. I do not support making this change and not making another previously-identified bad reference change. That way, this can serve as incentive, too, to reach a resolution of the points under dispute in mediation sooner. Yaf (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's no reason not to fix the problems that can be fixed without mediation, without mediation. I've made this change. Happy‑melon 15:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

er, i'm unclear why you moved the reference. it belongs after sentence three, not sentence two. it does not support sentence two in any way. Anastrophe (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I agree with Anastrophe. Admin; Please flip the locations of footnote 12 and footnote 13. Thank you, in advance, for helping. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 14:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Obligation of the feds to ARM the militia

Reference needs to be made as to the federal governments obligation to ARM the militia as specified in the body of the Constitution and how this is in direct contradiction to any and all laws that bar gun ownership to members of that group.

Article 1 Section 8 states

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia,

By US law the militia is composed of all able bodies males of military age. See US Code Title 10 Chapter 13.

It is my opinion that this law defines the composition of the militia in non state territories under the administration of the feds. The militia within the various states are state institutions and therefore state laws defining the militia would take precedence over federal law. 4.156.252.44 (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How is what you are saying related to the Second Amendment? Do you believe that the Second Amendment in any way altered the affect of the Militia Clauses (Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16)? --SMP0328. (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

To some extent the Second Amendment CLARIFIED the militia clauses.

The Second Amendment has been used to defend the personal right to own arms and much of the arguments on this page are about that. That is not its PRIMARY purpose. As shown by its language, it's primary purpose was to make sure that the powers conferred to the feds by the states with respect to the militia was not abused or misconstrued to include the power to DISARM the militia.

The personal right to own arms is a right that flows from your right to DEFEND your life, liberty and property and not from a RESTRICTION placed on the federal government. Again, YOUR rights do not flow from THEIR restrictions. Their restrictions are to prevent THEM from infringing on YOUR rights and are NOT the source of them.

From its own language, the Second Amendment is PLAINLY a restriction placed on the Federal government barring it from DISARMING the various State militias. The clause reference above PLAINLY states that the federal government is OBLIGATED to ARM the various militias. Gun control laws impacting members of the militia are contrary to both those clauses. The militia is defined in US law as all able bodied males of military age.

The States continue to retain the power to wage defensive war (engage in war) as shown by language in the Constitution. The states passed on the power to initiate or DECLARE war to the feds. However they can WAGE it if attacked or in imminent dagger of such. The state armed forces used to wage war are the various militias. I hope that the concept of waging war with an unarmed militia strikes you as ludicrous. It does me!

the Constitution PLAINLY states

No State shall .... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

The Preamble of the Bills of Right PLAINLY states that it is composed of declarations and restrictions. The Second Amendment has both a declaration and a restriction.

referenced portion of the preamble follows

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:

the declaration and the restriction is PLAINLY evident

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.

I hope from the above that you can now make the connection between the referenced section and the second amendment.

4.156.252.31 (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

During the oral argument in the Heller case, Justice Scalia brought up the idea that the reference to militias in the Second Amendment was, as you suggest, to guarantee that the States would always be armed and also suggested that the second part of the Second Amendment was for mandating how that was to be achieved (individual right to keep and bear arms). Effectively, Justice Scalia was suggesting that the "collective right" and "individual right" interpretations of the Second Amendment are two sides of the same coins. --SMP0328. (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see that someone at the Supreme Court level is able to figure out that self defense can be exercised at both the individual and the group level. Most of the rest of us figure that out by kinder garden.

4.156.252.195 (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Notation of the questioning of the wording of "the people"

It seems the only amendment that is questioned when it comes to the wording of "the people" or the punctuation is the Second amendment. Perhaps this should be noted.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Or perhaps it should be noted where the phrasing of "the right of the people" was questioned in the other amendments and the outcome of the questioning. --71.82.134.111 (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been brought up in the Heller case. I'm sure "right of the people" will be mentioned in each opinion when that case is decided. --SMP0328. (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstood in the opening part of the wiki is opinionated

Somehow, I feel that the opening paragraph, stating that the second amendment is among the most "misunderstood" amendments needs to be taken out. First of all, it is clearly opinionated as cited in citation number one. However, since Wikis I thought were supposed to be factual, it should be noted as an opinion and not stated factually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.180.160.142 (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Your right, but the article is fully protected. That means only an administrator can change the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, 'misunderstood' is well sourced, did you check the two footnotes? One points to www.guncite.com, (an American Bar Association statement). The other to an article in the Brigham Young University Law Review. And, just from common sense, could something that is well understood by all also be subject to such powerful disagreements? SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This is one source of two for the word "misunderstood" in the Introduction. The anon's argument appears to be that the sources are opinions, rather than facts. I think of them as sourced opinions, rather than conjecture. Maybe the Introduction should be edited to make that clearer. --SMP0328. (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"Misunderstood" is inappropriate. Even the guncite.com source doesn't attempt to state such an opinion as undisputed fact. Many things are controversial without being in dispute. This is what happens when someone considers something to be "wrong," and I'm fairly certain that many partisans on either side consider themselves to be philosophically correct on the issue (even beyond what the true meaning or intent of the amendment might've been). 24.184.97.102 (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the single word "misunderstood" has brevity which is helpful in the introduction. The full quote is "There is probably less agreement, more misinformation, and less understanding of the right to keep and bear arms than any other current controversial constitutional issue." ≈ "misunderstood". And, if anything needs to change, I argue that we need to include that there has been much disinformation too.[37][38] [39][40] [41] SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the body of the Constitution states that the US Government is obligated to ARM the militia and not to disarm it, I can only agree that the Amendment is misunderstood.

Especially by those supporting those disarmament actions. 4.156.252.52 (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstood is an unhelpful word here. It implies there is some true, consensus understanding that is not correctly "understood" by many people, organizations, the public, etc. That is not the case here; the fundamental meaning of this amendment is still hotly debated by all authorities. There is as of yet no canonical "understanding" to be "misunderstood". - Merzbow (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Merzbow has brought up a very good point. Since the source doesn't use the term "misuderstood," and also because of its implications, it should be reworded. --Hamitr (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and reworded that section of the lede, removing "misunderstood" (which is PoV) and did a little bit of copy-editing to clarify the prose. Horologium (talk) 11:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The reworded version is definitely an improvement over the previous text. The new text follows the referenced citations more closely, thereby making it more neutral point of view. Good edit! Yaf (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)