Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 5

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Bliss

Yaf just reverted[1] with the edit summary "(rv; restoring balance with properly cited content)". Considering that Yaf has steadfastly evaded answering questions about his 1967 cite, it is not accurate to describe this as 'properly cited'. Yaf, please answer and please explain your revert. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The source can be verified in context online here. The only interpretation involved in the cited statement is that Bliss has been recognized as being a case involving a statute that was deemed "violative of the Second Amendment", which is the only point of the reference, namely, Bliss, according to some sources, is an interpretation of the Second Amendment. The complete and voluminous Anti-Crime Program hearings from 1967 are not needed to verify the claim made in the article; the online quote is adequate to verify the context. I have not evaded answering your questions; you have simply refused to accept that some sources believe that Bliss was about the Kentucky Constitution as well as the Second Amendment. The 1967 Hearing was only concerned with the Federal interpretation, and not with the state constitution interpretation. The current text clearly is balanced, showing that some believe it was about the 2A, whereas others believe it was not. This is true balance. Removing properly cited content is not presenting a balanced article. Yaf (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

False. We can see no context in your link. Neither can we see the answers to my questions in your link. Please answer my questions. You have evaded this far too long. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yaf reverted again[2]. Please answer the questions. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

the report is available at many university and law libraries according to worldcat. Anastrophe (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you read it? Has Yaf read it? SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

i have not read it. what makes you think i would know whether someone else has read it? have you read it? if not, why not? Anastrophe (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have already answered that question[3]. If we are to cooperatively edit, and if Yaf has read this source he is using, it seems common courtesy for Yaf to answer these few simple questions about his sourcing. Yaf does have the burden of proof, (being the editor that wants to insert the material). It speaks volumes to Anastrophe POV push that he only questions me whether I have read the source, but that he does not question his cohort. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

and it speaks volumes to your POV push that you have wikilawyered this minor point endlessly. a statement documented in a congressional report, which has been cited in amici to the supreme court, more than meets WP:V. that you don't like what that statement says is quite clear. oh lordy is it clear. it speaks volumes to your POV push that you refuse to accept this patently reliable source. Anastrophe (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason this has taken so long is that my simple reasonable questions have been unanswered and evaded endlessly most recently here[4]. My complaint is based on WP:V, and cannot be fairly dismissed as "wikilawyering". SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Article re-write/clean-up

Have finished a massive re-write and clean-up of the entire article, followed by removing the {{POV}} tagline. If there are any issues remaining, please put the tagline back and leave comments on the talkpage identifying the issue(s). Thanks. Yaf (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edits, combined with my contributions (hope that doesn't sound egotistical), have given the article a nice flow and have made it easier for people to get to other sources of information. --SMP0328. (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

restoring POV tag

Have restored the POV tag. See above (and in talk archive) for my explanation given earlier. The biggest problem is the over-reliance on an originalist theory of constitutional law. Also, a general trend (made worse with the recent flurry of edits), towards an undue weight given to an individual gun rights point of view. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The above mentioned tag restoration has been reverted by Yaf. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Reasons given prior to the massive rewrite are now very dated. If you haven't read it yet, please read the new article. The older concerns were largely addressed in the rewrite; the earlier collective/militia rights only version was heavily biased towards a collective/militia right only, and there clearly was a POV problem in that there was no significant individual rights content. The current edit is more neutral, making some mention of an individual rights point of view (with documented cites, of course). Wikipedia articles should contain content representing all major points of view, with appropriate cites, of course. The article currently does do that. That said, you are free, as is any editor, to add cited content addressing any concerns that you feel exist with the article. However, censorship of major points of view simply because an editor "doesn't like it" is not in accordance with Wikipedia policies. All major points of view should be represented in Wikipedia articles. Yaf (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I dispute that the POV is represented with proper weight and balance. See my explanation given previously above, which remain unaddressed. I am not interested in engaging in a discussion about the merits of gun rights, just that the article meets the weighted neutrality required by WP:NPOV policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yaf revertedagain. Can we approach this disagreement in some other way that edit war please? WP:DR? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What are the current issues that you see with the article? Dropping a {{POV}} bomb as is your normal practice, to start an edit war with the community, and to then request page protection to lock the article against editing, is decidely ineffective. Likewise, you getting blocked for 96 hours again (or longer the next time, I'm sure, for even higher repeat numbers of edit warring violations on the same article) is likewise ineffective. It would be better for you to communicate your concerns, rather than edit warring with the community. So, what are your concerns? Censorship, I should mention, is not a valid proposal for you to make, to remove cited content representing a major point of view that is properly cited but to which you object on your principle of "I don't like it". Adding balancing content, instead of censoring content, would be the best approach. The solution to perceived imbalances of free speech is usually more free speech. I don't think the community would object at all to you adding properly cited content to address any perceived imbalance(s) that you see with the article. Yaf (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your encouragement to add properly cited content is a bit sly when viewed in context of your campaign to get me banned by falsely calling[5] my constructive edit[6] a 'revert', like you did on May 6th. If I make constructive edits will make that false accusation again? Will you stop your campaign to get me banned[7][8]? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This is Kafkaesque, that you and I dispute whether there is a dispute. Instead of your edit war tactics, will you agree to WP:DR to resolve the question: Is there a NPOV dispute? SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Focus, please. What are the current issue(s) that you see with the article? (Or, if you prefer, as Kafka might have said, in a rough translation from low German (i.e., Nederlander taal) into English, "With the article, Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, after massive re-write, current issues, not old, exist?") Yaf (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't feign ignorance of our long recent discussion (see above). Do you dispute that we have a dispute? If yes; will you agree to WP:DR to resolve the question: Is there a NPOV dispute? Answer please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Focus, please. The first step to dispute resolution is discussion on a talk page. What are the current issue(s) that you see with the article? If you cannot identify or express what the issue(s) is(are), other than you "don't like it", how can we find resolution? I don't even know if we have an actual dispute, since I can't read your mind. Yaf (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, focus. The point in dispute (subject to your revert war) is the question: Is there a NPOV dispute? Please re-read what I have written these last several months for the details of the dispute. You insist on removing the NPOV dispute tag. Do you dispute there is an ongoing POV dispute? Answer please. SaltyBoatr (talk)

Focus, please. The first step to dispute resolution is discussion on a talk page. What are the current issue(s) that you see with the article? If you cannot identify or express what the issue(s) is(are), other than you "don't like it", how can we find resolution? Yes, there was a dispute with a much earlier version of this article, before the major rewrite. I contend that this major rewrite addressed all of those issues. However, you have evidently not read the new version of the article, or are unable to express what the remaining issues, if any, are with the article. Hence, I don't even know if we have an actual dispute currently, since I can't read your mind. What are the current issue(s) that you see remaining with the article? Going back to rehash a version from months ago relative to POV issues that existed then is not germane to understanding what remains, in your mind, in terms of current POV issues. Focus, please. Yaf (talk) 03:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I take it that you accept there is a POV dispute. Restoring tag. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. There was an historical POV dispute. Those issues were all fixed, and no POV label was on the article for nearly a week. Yet, you evidently have not read the revised article upon returning from a 96 hour block for edit warring. What are the current issues, if any, with the article? Since no current POV issues have been identified, have removed POV tagline. Yaf (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yaf is edit warring[9] yet again. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I currently dispute the neutrality of the POV! Specifically too. See the top of this section, I continue to have a big concern about the over reliance on the originalist theory. Also, I have POV concerns about the improper bluring of the right to bear arms in defense of themselves in Kentucky with the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment, an issue which you continue to stonewall. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You still have not identified any problems with the current article text other than to say, "I don't like it"; I see no mention at the top of this section other than "I don't like it" in what are admittedly rather broad brush complaints. What specific concern(s) do you have with the article? I don't see originalist theory mentioned anywhere in the article. Likewise, I see no blurring of the interpretation of Bliss, other than there are two cited points of view in the article, and you evidently again effectively say, "I don't like it" in regards to just the one cite from the Hearing before Congress that makes the case that Bliss has been regarded as being about the Second Amendment. You don't reject the other cite that makes the case that some saw no issue with the Second Amendment with Bliss. There are two, clearly-cited, yet differing points of view about Bliss. This is balance. This is NPOV. On the other hand, evidently, you favor censorship of all major points of view that are cited with reliable and verifiable sources other than your own favourite POV. That is counter to fundamental Wikipedia policies; Wikipedia is not censored. It is not stonewalling to insist that we not censor Wikipedia. Rather, it is a clear sign that you are edit warring for you to insist on the removal of all content that you don't like, be it cited with reliable and verifiable sources or not. This is not defensible by any Wikipedia policies, to require that all content must pass the approval of one SaltyBoatr, else it be considered POV and requires tagging the article in perpetuity with a {{POV}} label. NPOV implies that all major points of view must be included, including individual rights, gun rights, etc., not just gun control, gun bans, gun grabbing, collective rights, militia rights, and similar points of view. Censorship of Wikipedia, of points of view you disagree with, is not in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Yaf (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have identified current problems. I presently dispute the neutrality of the article. The tag says: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.." Yet, you insist on a revert war repeatedly removing this tag. Explain why you must repeatedly remove the tag. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Because you still have not identified any current problems with the current article text other than to say, "I don't like it" (in rather vague terms of "neutrality"). Please identify what the issues are so that they may be addressed. Otherwise, there is no reason for tagging the article. The tag doesn't say "SaltyBoatr doesn't like this article. Please leave this tag on this article forever, because there are no identified issues with it other than SaltyBoatr doesn't like it. The purpose of the POV tag is to identify disputes, not dislikes. Identify a problem, please, so that if there is one, it may be fixed. "I don't like it" doesn't suffice. Yaf (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested quote from source for Bliss passage

In the 'State courts' section, my request for a quote from the source has gone ignored for about two weeks now. Please provide a more full quotation from that 1967 document, indicating who is speaking, indicating what question they were answering, and giving more context. All I can see is a partial sentence fragment, and I would like to see a few paragraphs please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Have included a more complete quote, and removed the quote request tagline. If you want to see a few pages for the complete context, please go look it up in any large library. The complete cite is in the article, making it easy to find at the library. Yaf (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit ignored my question. Please answer the two questions highlighted in yellow above. You inserted the this passage in the article, you have the burden of proof. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Your refusal to verify a cite ignored my response. You can verify the quote here: Anti-Crime Program. Hearings Before Ninetieth Congress, First Session. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off, 1967, p. 246. You can also verify that the cite is valid with this courtesy link here. I am not going to type page after page, while you forever demand more and more "context", and refuse to accept what the quote says, just because it goes counter to your personal POV. Look it up yourself. Yaf (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The federal government's obligation to arm the militia

per the body of the Constitution, Congress is obligated to ARM the militia

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

per the body of the US Constitution the states retain the right to wage defensive war

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

per the preamble to the Bill of Rights

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 second amendment PLAINLY contains BOTH a declaration and a restriction.

As the power to ARM is related to the power to DISARM the second amendment makes it clear that the related power to DISARM has NOT BEEN GRANTED to the feds by the states. The preamble PLAINLY states that the purpose of the Bill of Right is to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. 4.156.27.155 (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with the text of the article? This is a talk page. That means it's about this article, not the Second Amendment in general. Limit your comments to the content of the article, or what should be in the article, not what you think is the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all I have posted the above several times here in the hopes that when you people stop bickering I can get the fact that the second amendment protects the rights of the states to wage defensive war included as a part of the article. Don't act surprised.

To clarify yet again, this has to do with a point of view MISSING from the article which I want included. Namely that the second amendment lists a PROHIBITED action on the federal government designed to preserve the state right to wage defensive war. If you read your history, you will find that the Founders considered the possibility that the states would at some point have to wage defensive war against the federal government. If you don't think that has ever happened, you can tell me what you think of the Civil War or as some like to call it, the War of Northern Aggression.

The following is from the Federalist papers. It makes fun of the point of view that the Federal government would abuse its powers in order to subdue the various states by force of arms. FYI the Federalist papers were written BEFORE the Bill of Rights was written and in fact were a direct response to those OPPOSED to the Constitution. It is a historical fact that without the Bill of Rights the Constitution would not have been accepted by the States.

A to whether the author (I believe Alexander Hamilton) was right or wrong to make fun of this point if view, was not the militia of Massachusetss called up to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians during the Civil War?

Why I do believe it was!

From the Federalist Papers

In reading many of the publications against the Constitution, a man is apt to imagine that he is perusing some ill-written tale or romance, which instead of natural and agreeable images, exhibits to the mind nothing but frightful and distorted shapes discoloring and disfiguring whatever it represents, and transforming everything it touches into a monster.

A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths? 4.156.27.66 (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If there is information specifically relevant to the Second Amendment that you can add to the article, provided it is presented from a neutral point of view, backed by verifiable sources, and does not constitute original research, by all means contribute it. --tc2011 (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that 4.156.27.66 wait until the Supreme Court hands down its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. That decision will determine to what extent 4.156.27.66's proposed material will be germane to the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet that SCOTUS won't even address most of what 4.156.27.66 is saying, and consequently won't confirm or refute it. But we'll have their ruling soon, so I guess we'll find out. --tc2011 (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You are probably right, but the Court is expected to declare that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. If that occurs, then any discussion of militias will likely be irrelevant regarding the Second Amendment. --SMP0328. (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the second amendment protects the state right to wage defensive war by barring the feds from disarming "the people", many of whom are members of "the militia" is much more "on topic" then many items already in the article.

To quote the Preamble to the Bill of Rights

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,

The second amendment does in fact deal with the militia, and does in fact PROHIBIT the federal government from disarming "the people" of whom "the militia" is a subset.

To confirm that, all you have to do is read it.

4.156.252.86 (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Salty Boatr

I added substantially the above to the article, as well as some comments by Patrick Henry for background and you deleted my addition, stating that it was original research.

WHAT part of my addition was original research?

If you can't answer I will undo your deletion. If you delete it again I want an unbiased referee. From my reading of this discussion board over the past few months, you seem to have a problem understanding PLAIN ENGLISH. 4.156.111.31 (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

When I check policy, see WP:NOR andWP:RS, I see that your quotation of those primary documents seems to violate WP:PSTS and WP:SYN. Per policy, edits to Wikipedia should be based on published reliable third party sources, and your edit made no reference to published reliable third party sources. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr is right. You make an interesting argument, but Wikipedia is not the place to present interesting arguments. What you say puts together multiple sections of primary sources in order to draw conclusions in a way that really has to be cited to a published source in order to include it in a Wikipedia article. PubliusFL (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I again ask

WHAT part of my addition is original research?

4.156.27.173 (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to consider that Wiki has the following to say about Patrick Henry and ask why his opinions, per wiki INSTRUMENTAL IN FORCING THE ADOPTION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, should be disregarded

wiki on Patrick Henry - notice he held HIGH political office

During the war, he served as the first post-colonial Governor of Virginia, from 1776-79, an office he held again from 1784-86.

After the Revolution, Henry was an outspoken critic of the United States Constitution and urged against its adoption, arguing it gave the federal government too much power. As a leading Antifederalist, he was instrumental in forcing the adoption of the Bill of Rights to amend the new Constitution.

This quote of his is MOST CERTAINLY related to the Second Amendment

Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence 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?

This quote gives some background on his thinking

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 ruined.... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!

and I COULD have added the following as well, but I figured it would probably give you a heart attack. Salt IS bad for the blood pressure. So respecting you probable high blood pressure, I didn't.

The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun. 4.156.27.173 (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Original research" cites primary sources to make a point. Even if the point is maddeningly obvious or self-evident, Wikipedia policy is that statements (especially in controversial articles such as this) be cited to verifiable secondary sources. Basically, if you know of an author (of a book, journal article, etc.) that says what you are saying, you are welcome to cite that author and add his or her interpretation of the issue. As contributors to Wikipedia, we're not writing journal articles or books, but simply presenting in simplified form what such authors are writing. If you would like to contribute to this article, you can take a look at the existing secondary sources for additional information, or, even better, bring additional secondary sources into the discussion. I hope this helps. --tc2011 (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I stated at the beginning of my addition that what I was adding was little discussed these days and it frankly is. However ALL of my addition is FACT not original research.

The FACT the the states RATAINED the power to wage defensive war is FACT, not original research. Read the Constitution.

The FACT that the states are barred from having an army or navy is FACT not original research. READ the Constitution

The FACT that that CONGRESS is supposed to ARM the militia is FACT not original research, Read the Constitution.

The FACT that many thought that with Congress having control of the army ,the navy, and the arming of the militia, way too much power was concentrated in the hands of the federal government is also FACT not original research and the quotes from Patrick Henry demonstrate that. So does the EXISTANCE of the Second Amendment which per the preamble of the Bill of Right is designed to LIMIT federal powers.

More from Patrick Henry from his speech Shall Liberty or Empire be Sought of 1788 where he speaks of a possible takeover BY the feds and the futility of resistance when the feds control all the guns.I repeat the enemy discussed is the federal government. It doesn't take many brain cells to connect the last two sentences to the prohibition of the Second Amendment.

A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? In what situation are we to be? The clause before you gives a power of direct taxation, unbounded and unlimited--an exclusive power of legislation, in all cases whatsoever, for ten miles square, and over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, etc. What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness. You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies; their garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan; they will therefore act as they think proper; all power will be in their own possession. You can not force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the State? For, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them.

Yet again I ask

WHAT PART of my addition is original research.

4.156.252.77 (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not necessarily reflect reality, rather, it reflects what secondary sources say about reality. Since you're not citing secondary sources, and are instead presenting an argument based on primary sources, what you're doing is technically original research. Your energies would probably be put to better use by preparing a research paper to be submitted for publication in a scholarly journal or similar medium. Or, you could take citations from secondary sources (being sure to avoid WP:SYN) and add those to this article.

Perhaps you could register for a Wikipedia account? I'd be happy to help point you in the direction of secondary sources appropriate for this article. --tc2011 (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I did not say your edit was original research, I said your edit appears to be original research. You have the burden of proof to specifically identify citations to reliable published secondary sourcing for your edits, and you have not yet done so. Additionally, the article needs to meet policy regarding neutrality, and presently the article relies too heavily on the theory of Constitutional interpretation of Originalism, and your addition of even more quotes from the founding fathers would skew the balance even farther off balance. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

yet again

What part of my addition APPEARED to be original research.

and what part of

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, do you find difficult to understand?

4.156.111.241 (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just get some citations for verifiable secondary sources. --tc2011 (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

FOR WHAT????

I have continually asked WHAT part is original research

NOBODY has answered. 4.156.27.87 (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Source of quotes used now referenced. Although I didn't include the second one in my addition as I was considering Salty Boars blood pressure.

Again wiki has the following to say about Patrick Henry, As a leading Antifederalist, he was instrumental in forcing the adoption of the Bill of Rights to amend the new Constitution.

   *  "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of 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?"
     -- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

   * "The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
     -- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

   * "O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."
     -- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms

4.156.27.87 (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Since we obviously can't be trusted to understand the written word in the PLAIN ENGLISH it is written, and need someone to interpret it for us, here is an interpreter.

In his book A Detailed Analysis of the Constitution, Edward F. Cooke states about the Second Amendment

This is another protection against a possible abuse by Congress. The right protected is really the right of a state to maintain an armed militia

Additionally he states

In the eighteenth century people feared that Congress might, by passing a law, prohibit the states from arming their citizens. Then having all the armed strength at its command, the national government could overwhelm the states.

Are there any more objections? 4.156.252.95 (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

for verification purposes

Per Amazon books, there are 7 editions of this book with the last published in 2002. I seem to have run across what is probably the first one published in 1958. I frankly have no idea if the following 6 editions contain the same text. 4.156.252.95 (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read up on the difference between secondary and primary sources.--tc2011 (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to provide a secondary source. I believe I have done so.

Are you trying to imply that a book called A Detailed Analysis of the Constitution, that has had 7 editions and who knows how many printings of each edition, over a period of time in EXCESS OF 40 YEARS is NOT an Acceptable secondary source?

As to the quotes attributed Patrick Henry, they can be confirmed by looking at Elliots Debates per above. Further numerous quotes are uses throughout wiki from ORIGINAL sources. Why is Patrick Henry different, when wiki itself states he was instrumental in forcing the adoption of the Bill of Rights to amend the new Constitution. and his opinions certainly are relevant to the article. Why are quotes by FEDERALISTS like James Madison and Noah Webster allowed onto the article yet quotes by ANTI FEDEARALISTS are not allowed, when it is historical fact that the ANTI FEDERALISTS and NOT the FEDERALISTS were responsible for the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment?

WHY are the AUTHORS of the Second Amendment being SILENCED?

Why does this policy look like blatant two faced favoritism to support an agenda? Said agenda being support of gun control?

and yet again

WHAT about my addition is original research?

Despite repeated requests I have yet to see an answer.

4.156.252.70 (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally believe that the only bias here is yours.

and yet again

WHAT part of my addition do you believe APPEARED to be original research?

4.156.252.70 (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You have not mentioned any reliable sourcing what so ever, so all of it. Plus, the discussion of Article 1 of the Constitution appears off topic here, and rather it might be on topic in another article. You make a big presumption, using what seems like original research that Patrick Henry is discussing the Second Amendment. You also seem to be using synthesis with this direct quote to make a personal point of view statement. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say a book on the Constitution with 7 editions and an unknown number of printings of those editions running over a span of time in excess of 40 YEARS as not a reliable source. The author of that book was (and might still be) a professor of political science at a major university. I frankly can't see why you object to this source.

Please expand on you objection to this source.

Do you consider Elliot's Debates (a 5 VOLUME set of books recording the debates that led to the signing of the C0onstitition) as an unreliable source and if so WHY?

Please expand on you objection to this source.

THERE is no discussion of of Aticle 1. The Second Amendment is a AMENDMENT. I added WHAT it AMENDS and WHY. It Amends section 1 in order to PREVENT the feds from disarming the State militias in support of the retained power of a State to wage defensive war through the use of that State militia.

You know the militia don't you? It's that there thingie that the Second Amendment calls necessary to the security of a free State.

Further I did not state that the Patrick Henry quotes were on the Second Amendment. I said they were "on the right to "KEEP ARMS AND THE REASON FOR IT". My addition stetes Patrick Henry, an opponent of the Constitution, speaking on the right to keep arms and the reason for it wrote'

Why are you distorting/misrepresenting my position?

There is NO assumption made that the following quotes were objections to the Constitution BEFORE its ratification during debate on that ratification from someone that wiki calls one of those RESPONSIBLE for the Bill of Rights. There is also no ASSUMPTION made that those quotes were made because Patrick Henry believed that the Constitution granted too much power to Congress.

The quotes in question were made PRIOR to the Second Amendment, and LED to the Second Amendment. They therefore have a place in the ORIGIN section of this article and THAT is where I placed them.

The quotes are below. Watch your blood pressure.

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of 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?

Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun.

Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ...

Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms

If you believe that the words of Patrick Henry do not conform to his thinking please provide proof of that assertion. 4.156.252.142 (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, those are primary sources. So far as Wikipedia is concerned, primary sources are mostly meaningless. You have to use secondary sources. --tc2011 (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Per wiki

Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event.[3] Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims.

The book referenced is in fact a GENERAL OVERVIEW of the Constitution and per wiki it is therefore a secondary source. As for the Patrick Henry quotes they are in fact primary sources. That is what a QUOTE IS!

again WHY are FEDERALISTS allowed to be quoted in this article while the ANTI FEDERALISTS who are in fact the AUTHORS of the Second Amendment, NOT ALLOWED to be quoted.

Why are the AUTHORS of the Second Amendment SILENCED by Salty Boar and his ilk? What reason is there besides "book burning"?

Book burning being the INTENTIONAL destruction of the printed word with the objection being to SILENCE those not in agreement with the "burner".

Over the many months I have followed this discussion board, I have yet to see Salty Boar add anything to this article. His only reason for existence seems to be to "burn" the work of those not in agreement with his position. 4.156.252.3 (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Does the book provide analysis or "make a point" in its general overview, or does it simply record the text of the debates? If it does more than just transmit the text of the debates, then I guess it sounds like a usable secondary source. So, just be sure to avoid WP:SYN. If there's a point to be made about the primary texts, use the author's (Elliot) words as far as possible. If Elliot quotes Patrick Henry to make a point, then it's fine to quote Elliot quoting Patrick Henry to communicate Elliot's point. Also use the book citation template to include a proper citation. If you avoid original research and properly use a true secondary source (avoiding WP:SYN), you might think about reporting editors that inappropriately revert edits per WP:3RR. Also, it'd be helpful if you were to register for a Wikipedia account. --tc2011 (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A Detailed Analysis of the Constitution by Edward F. Cooke is the general overview and not Elliot's Debates. On the Second Amendment Cooke states

This is another protection against a possible abuse by Congress. The right protected is really the right of a state to maintain an armed militia

Additionally Cooke states

In the eighteenth century people feared that Congress might, by passing a law, prohibit the states from arming their citizens. Then having all the armed strength at its command, the national government could overwhelm the states.

Elliots Debates are the source of the quotes for Patrick Henry and is not a general overview. This 5 volume set is a record of the debates and the source of Patrick Henry's comments.

Since you now accept that a general overview of the Constitution is an acceptable secondary source, I will use it.

As to the quotes from Patrick Henry I will refrain from adding them for NOW.

BUT

The exclusion of his quotes in in FACT POV bias and needs to be corrected.

For Proof of that bias

My addition was to the Origin section of the article. That section has FIVE quotes by Federalists, the OPPONENTS to the Bill of rights, yet not one single quote by an anti Federalist. Two quotes are from a secondary figure like Noah Webster. Why are those responsible for the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, like Patrick Henry, not allowed onto this section when fairness would dictate that they should be the ones quoted and not those who lost the fight. Why are the LOSERS of this fight the ONLY ones allowed to be quoted?

This not only smacks of POV. It is in FACT POV.

Anything LESS then equal time for those responsible for the Bill of Rights compared to the opponents of the Bill of Rights is BLATANT POV bias!

The two quotes I added are from LEADING anti-Federalist Patrick Henry, and were made during the Virginia debates to ratify the Constitution. While they are not enough to bring this section into POV balance, it is certainly a start.

Tell me if you AGREE or DISAGREE and why? 4.156.252.50 (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Edward F. Cooke is an appropriate source to use for Wikipedia articles. Regarding the "Origin" section, you raise valid concerns. --tc2011 (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

4.156.252.50, would you kindly add a reference for the Cooke source using the book citation template? If you are not familiar with the format of that template, please just fill in the applicable info:

|last=[author's last name]
|first=[author's first name]
|title=
|origdate=
|edition=
|series=
|volume=
|date=
|publisher=
|location=
|isbn=
|pages=
|quote=

And would you please consider registering for an user account? Thanks. --tc2011 (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

|last=Cooke
|first=Edward F.
|title= A Detailed Analysis of the Constitution
|origdate=1958
|edition=1st
|series=The New Littlefield College Outlines
|volume=
|date=1958
|publisher=Littlefield, Adams & Co
|location= Ames, Iowa
|isbn=????
|pages= 144 , quote is page 96
|quote=In the eighteenth century people feared that Congress might, by passing a law, prohibit the states from arming their citizens. Then having all the armed strength at its command, the national government could overwhelm the states.

There is only 1 volume and the Book itself does not have an ISBN mumber, so I don't know how to help you there.

Considering it is part of the "New Littlefield College Outlines" and has been in print (7 editions) for over 40 years, I strongly suspect that this book was used in introductory political science course all over the country for decades. 4.156.252.194 (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --tc2011 (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding getting an account

I have the STRONG urge to call a Jackass a Jackass and would probably get kicked out is short order for using "inappropriate" language after the whining Jackass in question kisses someones ass.

So I will pass for now.

Regarding the LACK of Quotes from Anti Federalist

that is MORE then a Concern, it is BLATANT POV bias. Do you know of ANY reason why Quotes cannot be added to the Origin section from anti Federalists?

17:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you continue to be hostile, I'm guessing your IP will be banned, anyhow. Since you clearly have valuable contributions to make to Wikipedia, the project would benefit from your input in that regard. I hope you reconsider your hostility and instead continue to provide verifiable sources for inclusion in Wikipedia. --tc2011 (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering what it took to get a simple point onto this article, wiki is not worth the effort. Let me know when you get rid of the self appointed censors and I will reconsider.

Still waiting for a clear answer on the POV issue. That "it is of concern" is not a clear answer.

I firmly believe that having quotes ONLY those who were opposed to the Second Amendment is BLATANT POV that needs to be corrected. Do you agree or disagree? 4.156.252.35 (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you would, please propose specific edits that you believe match the present content (which I assume follows WP policy) in sourcing depth and quality. Maybe start a new section for each proposed edit, because this section's getting long... --tc2011 (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Quotes

I would like the bold portions added. The rest is for context. I don't expect ALL the following bold quotes to be used and obviously, I am a fan of Patrick Henry. I have no objection to quotes from other anti-Federalist, but Patrick Henry is undoubtedly the most famous person in that group and his opinions should be well represented.

Opening remarks from the Virginia Ratification Convention Elliot's Debates, Volume 3, pages 45 and 46 showing the belief of Patrick Henry that arms are needed to secure rights and liberties from those who wish to take them away and his distrust of the Constitution and preference for the Confederation.

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. I am answered by gentlemen, that, though I might speak of terrors, yet the fact was, that we were surrounded by none of the dangers I apprehended. I conceive this new government to be one of those dangers: it has produced those horrors which distress many of our best citizens. We are come hither to preserve the poor commonwealth of Virginia, if it can be possibly done: something must be done to preserve your liberty and mine. The Confederation, this same despised government, merits, in my opinion, the highest encomium: it carried us through a long and dangerous war; it rendered us victorious in that bloody conflict with a powerful nation; it has secured us a territory greater than any European monarch possesses:

Patrick Henry continues with

The honorable gentleman who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America. A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?

Comments from Mr. George Mason during the Virgina Constitutional Ratification Debates, Elliot's Debates, Volume 3, page 379 and 380 discussing the disarming of the militia and the futility of an unarmed people resisting a standing professional army intent on depriving then of the rights and freedoms.

The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless--by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them, &c. ... Should the national government wish to render the militia useless, they may neglect them, and let them perish, in order to have a pretence of establishing a standing army. ... But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence,--yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed,--what chance is there for preserving freedom?

James Madison countered with (page 382)

I cannot conceive that this Constitution, by giving the general government the power of arming the militia, takes it away from the state governments. The power is concurrent, and not exclusive.

Patric Henry in response to James Madison (pages 385 and 386)

The militia, sir, is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it. ... he says that the power of arming and organizing the militia is concurrent, and to be equally exercised by the general and state governments. I am sure, and I trust in the candor of that gentleman, that he will recede from that opinion, When his recollection will be called to the particular clause which relates to it.

As my worthy friend said, there is a positive partition of power between the two governments. To Congress is given the power of "arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States." To the state legislatures is given the power of appointing the officers, and training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." I observed before, that, if the power be concurrent as to arming them, it is concurrent in other respects. If the states have the right of arming them, &c., concurrently, Congress, has a concurrent power of appointing the officers, and training the militia. If Congress have that power, it is absurd. To admit this mutual concurrence of powers will carry on into endless absurdity--that Congress has nothing exclusive on the one hand, nor the states on the other. The rational explanation is, that Congress shall have exclusive power of arming them, &c., and that the State governments shall have exclusive power of appointing the officers, &c.

I did not see any indication that Mr Madison retracted his statement that the arming of the militia is a concurrent or SHARED power. 4.156.27.206 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone objects I will add the quotes above as follows

Patrick Henry during the opening debates of the Virginia Ratification Convention stated his strong belief that arms are required to secure rights and freedoms from those that would take them away

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. ... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; ... Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? ... Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?

Mr. George Mason during debate showed his distrust of Congress and the possibility that it would not fund the arming for the militia as an excuse for the creation of a standing army, which could later to be used as an instrument of tyranny by Congress.

The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless--by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them, &c. ... Should the national government wish to render the militia useless, they may neglect them, and let them perish, in order to have a pretence of establishing a standing army. ... But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence,--yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed,--what chance is there for preserving freedom?

Patric Henry during debate states

The militia, sir, is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it.

Currently ALL quotes in that section are from Federalists who were OPPOSED to a Bill of Rights and therefore the Second Amendment. The principle of POV neutrality DEMANDS that those is favor of the Bill of Rights and the Fifth Amendment be at LEAST as represented as those opposed. Currently only those opposed are represented with quotes.

Is there anyone out there that objects to the use of the above quotes by Patrick Henry and George Mason for purposes of RESTORING POV neutrality in the ORIGIN section of the article? If you object to the above quotes or would like others added instead, please submit additional quotes or quotes that you believe are better suited for that section. I count 5 quotes by Federalists in the Origin section. To me that means that at least 5 quotes by anti-federalist should also be added to that section.

Since this is the ORIGIN section all quotes should be from a time BEFORE the Bills of Rights was passes into law. 4.156.252.110 (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, since these quotations match what's already in the article so far as WP:PSTS goes, I see no problem with adding several of these quotations, as long as they are not interpreted or synthesized any more than what's already in the article. So, maybe if you add them simply in contrast to what's already there (e.g., "On the other hand, anti-federalist Patrick Henry says:"). That's what I think, anyhow. Anyone else have some thoughts on this? --tc2011 (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, they would be quotes that are explicitly about the 2nd Amendment, so we avoid the potentially subjective issue of deciding which quotes discussing militias, arms, etc are directly relevant to this article. PubliusFL (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This is going to get messy, I think. But I basically agree. If a quotation comes from discussions that are objectively identifiable as being "about" the amendment, then they should be ok. However, I'm not sure that this process has been applied thus far, so we might want to revisit all of the primary texts cited. Or, preferably replace them with secondary sources. Or, I suppose, just delete them.

4.156.252.110, do those quotations come from debates that are "about" the second amendment? How about the federalist quotations, are they explicitly "about" the second amendment? I'm not as familiar with these sources as perhaps I should be. --tc2011 (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

By definition you can't have a quote "about" the Second Amendment until you "have" a Second Amendment.

The Origin section deals with the landscape PRIOR to the creation of the Second Amendment. The quotes I cite are background for the fact that there was a widespread fear at the time, of the possible federal use of a standing army for the purpose of either conquering the states or making them bend the knee through force. They can easily be connected to the Second Amendment as they clearly deal with the importance of an armed militia and the "keeping" of arms to defend against those who would take away rights and freedoms. 4.156.252.226 (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

By "about," I more or less meant leading up to. I see your point, and it makes sense to me, especially if talk of "militia" appears in discussions about a bill of rights. --tc2011 (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the above. A bill of rights certainly came up during the Virginia Debate and I'm sure the debates of the other states as well. That's why we have one now.

Some additional background on George Mason. Wiki lists him as the author of the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was later incorporated into the Virginia Constitution. A portion of the Declaration is below. Its language and the language of early versions of the Second Amendment is striking.

SEC. 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. 4.156.252.137 (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as the information is sourced, isn't OR, and isn't redundant (material already in the article), I don't see a problem with any such information being added to the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't actually thinking of placing that section of the The Virginia Bill of Rights in the Article but now I believe it would make a good addition. Similar language was included in a number of the early State Constitutions.

The Pennsylvania Constitution -

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Maryland Constitution

XXV. That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.

North Carolina

XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Massachusetts

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.

The New York Constitution has different language but similar sentiment

XL. And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service. That all such of the inhabitants of this State being of the people called Quakers as, from scruples of conscience, may be averse to the bearing of arms, be therefrom excused by the legislature; and do pay to the State such sums of money, in lieu of their personal service, as the same; may, in the judgment of the legislature, be worth.(12) And that a proper magazine of warlike stores, proportionate to the number of inhabitants, be, forever hereafter, at the expense of this State, and by acts of the legislature, established, maintained, and continued in every county in this State.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," is basically a short version of the above language from the State Constitutions.

4.156.252.210 (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I will wait a few more days before making the above changes in order anyone objecting additional time to state their concerns. 4.156.252.198 (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I recommend you wait a week, so that your changes can be part of a greater reform of the article that will probably be necessary following the Heller decision. --SMP0328. (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Can do that! 4.156.252.232 (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

On second thought I decided to add the above changes now.

A widespread revision will likely result in Salty Boar claiming POV abuse and could possibly result in yet another freeze of the article. After having to wait about 5 months to get in a simple reference to the widespread fear of a military takeover by the feds, I'd prefer not have to wait that long to get a few quotes inserted. 4.156.252.25 (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The reference to the Virginia Declaration of Rights may be more at home in the "Precedent" section then the "Origin" section. If someone wishes to move it there, I have no objection.

4.156.252.25 (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Informal Poll

To all regulars of this discussion board

Please vote on who is the worst POV offender on the Second Amendment article

I vote Salty Boar. 4.156.252.35 (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather than posting informal polls, if you truly believe an editor is disrupting Wikipedia with their POV, it would be more appropriate to follow procedures outlined for disruptive editing. Just a suggestion. --tc2011 (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please review the comment by other posters to the "burning" of their work. I am disgusted with him after only a few months of OBSERVING this board. I'd hate to think of having to actually have to deal with him for an extended period of time. I would most likely walk and I am sure made people with no ax to grind have already walked away from this board out of sheer disgust.

A comment that should start alarm bells in your head is the following made just last week when Salty Boar "burned" yet another persons hard work.

00:25, 7 June 2008 Hamitr (Talk | contribs) m (112,671 bytes) (SaltyBoatr, please don't start this again.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 22:33, 6 June 2008 SaltyBoatr (Talk | contribs) (112,679 bytes) (Article relies too heavily on the theory of originalism, also the Bliss passage is POV push, see talk.) (undo)

Let's not even get into the fact that when he "burned" my addition it took something like 10 tries over a period of a week to find out his objection. Aren't you supposed to KNOW the reason WHEN you "burn" something, instead of having to make it up a week later? 4.156.27.206 (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

District of Columbia v. Heller

The opinion has been released and held that 2A protects an individual right. One majority opinion (Scalia w/ Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito) and two dissenting opinions (Stevens w/ Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer AND Breyer w/ Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg). Opinion is online here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf - Hoplon (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Incorporation

- Does the recent SCOTUS decision mean that the 2nd amendment is eventually protected under the 14th amendment's umbrella, making it a federal government DUTY to uphold the people's right to bear firearms?

- Does this mean the White House can send in the US Army if a state or district governor repeatedly refuses to allow citizens to bear firearms?

- How does the recent SCOTUS decision affect ownership of fully automatic or "destructive" firearms (those with 12.7mm or larger bullet caliber)? 82.131.210.162 (talk) 09:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

These are interesting questions, but I'm guessing they probably have no place in this article, currently. Unless you have appropriate sourcing that suggests otherwise? --tc2011 (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The answer is that we don't know the answer to any of these questions yet. The Court explicitly stated that they weren't ruling on whether the 2nd Amendment is incorporated by the 14th Amendment, and that they weren't ruling on types of arms or restrictions other than those directly at issue in the case (although they did say that restrictions on weapons not "in common use" are more likely to meet constitutional muster than restrictions on commonly-used weapons). It's certainly not appropriate to speculate on the answers to these questions in this article, but if an appropriate scholar or expert expresses an opinion about the likely answer to these questions based on hints in the Court's opinion, that might be worth mentioning if reliably sourced. PubliusFL (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Heller did not involve a State or local government, so the Incorporation Doctrine was not involved. Footnote 23 of the Opinion of the Court did mention Incorporation:

With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

This issue will likely come before the Supreme Court in a future case. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

Another major point of contention is whether it protects an individual right to personal firearms[5] or a collective State militia right.[6] At present, two of the thirteen federal circuits have adopted an individual rights view. District of Columbia v. Heller is currently under review by the Supreme Court, to resolve this jurisdictional split.[7] 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.[8]

I can't see why the two rights mentioned above are exclusive to each other and would like to see a comment that the Second Amendment protects the state militia right by protecting an individuals right to keep and bear arms. Is it too much to ask that people understand that if an individual cannot be disarmed, then the state militia, made up of many individuals, also cannot be disarmed?

The article already mentions that the prohibition on Congress was originally supposed to be added to a part of the Constitution dealing with individual rights.

The change I would like to see is below in bold

Another major point of contention is whether it protects an individual right to personal firearms[5] or a collective State militia right.[6] At present, two of the thirteen federal circuits have adopted an individual rights view. District of Columbia v. Heller is currently under review by the Supreme Court, to resolve this jurisdictional split.[7] 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.[8] Others believe that by barring Congress from disarming the people, the Second Amendment bars Congress from disarming the various state militias which, by both state and federal laws, are composed of the people. The protecting the individuals right results in the protection of the state right.

I would also like to point out that in Revolutionary days, personal arms were in many cases superior to the arms provided to armies and the various militias by the states and Congress. The standard military arm of the times was the musket, which in many ways was substantially inferior to the rifles that many kept for personal use.

To put this in clear language, in those days an individual had the right to have personal weapons SUPERIOR to standard military arms.

I guess the above puts me in the camp that states that Congress has no right to ban assault weapons, since those are in fact equal to today's standard military weapons. 4.156.252.154 (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This article, including the Introduction, is being updated in light of the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. SMP0328. (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the second sentence of the introduction should say that historically there has been a disagreement over the meaning. I think it is biased in its current form. I think it should start out by saying that the second amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. Then, say that historically there had been a debate about whether the amendment protected an individual or collective right. However, that debate was put to rest in the Supreme Court case D.C. v. Heller. I'd edit it myself but I'd like to hear what others think first because I've never edited before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.198.159.117 (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

District of Columbia v. Heller in Introduction

Hello, while I believe that the ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller is significant and spells out the individual right to bear arms, does it really need to occupy 2/3rds of the introduction text? In 10 years, I am certain it will remain an important court case and precedent but I don't think it has the staying power to dominate this much of the introduction and would be better served in a subsection with a good sentence or two in the introduction as to its significance. RTRimmel (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

At this point in time, Heller is the single most important case ever decided by the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment. Because of this, I think the case deserves to occupy a large portion of the intro. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but most of the other articles on the amendments intro with basically the amendment and move onto other sections such as supreme court decisions below. If the 2nd is ... controversial enough to merit special treatment then I have no issues with it but it is a variance. RTRimmel (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a variance, but remember that the last case, before Heller, that the Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment was in 1939. That makes Heller the definitive case regarding the Second Amendment. --SMP0328. (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Then flipping that, as the definitive case shouldn't there be more in its section of the article? There I find the single paragraph insufficient considering the level of significance of the ruling. I believe that there were three key sections behind it and I think a bullet point or sentence per would not be out of line. RTRimmel (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that, as Heller is the landmark case that has really begun to define the second amendment, it (or its wording) should feature prominently in the lead. I agree, though, that the bulk of its discussion should take place in the following sections. The other cases should probably not feature in the lead very heavily, if at all. --tc2011 (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Article reform

I removed the following section, because I did not find the point in Heller and because the tendency of the point was not clear and I do not think that the author cited was specifically discussing interpretations of the Second Amendment in detail.

The prefatory clause is similar to a Latin grammatical construction known as an ablative absolute. Latin grammar was known to nearly all educated men in the Eighteenth Century and can be expected to have informed their writing and how they wished it to be understood.[8]

The reference cited was:

Winterer, Caroline (2002). The Culture of Classicism: Ancient Greece and Rome in American Intellectual Life, 1780-1910. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 1–21. ISBN 0801867991.

Robert A.West (Talk) 18:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's probably time to rewrite the page, to make it more "encyclopedia." To do that, everybody needs to take a deep breath, step back, and start with the basic premise that the court determined that Amend II is an individual right. Given the text of the opinion, it will also be incorporated by Amend XIV, when the NRA suits are heard. But the page now needs a major redo because of the ruling of the court. JimZDP (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a start-from-scratch approach? Regardless, before major changes start happening, I think we should attempt something of an outline. Here's a start:

Lead: basic definition of the amendment, etc.
Text: text of the amendment.
Detailed definition.
History and background (proposal, ratification, etc.) of the amendment itself. Save the modern controversy for later.
Case law: list and descriptions of prior case law.
Modern controversy surrounding the amendment.

Just a start, please make suggestions. --tc2011 (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed 99% of the Judicial branch subsection of the Federal government section. I have also removed a great deal of material from the History section (formerly entitled Historical interpretations). In general, that material discussed the Second Amendment in the "collective right" context. Since the Heller decision, that material no longer accurately referred to the Second Amendment. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Post-Heller cases

I'm trying to organize the post-Heller litigation at McDonald v. Chicago. Mackensen (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

A lawsuit has been filed by the NRA in San Fransisco. You may want to change the name of the McDonald v. Chicago article, so that it refers to all post-Heller Second Amendment litigation. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

How about having a "Post Heller litigation" section that simply links to the various court cases, like McDonald v. Chicago? Regardless, McDonald v. Chicago shouldn't be about all post-Heller litigation, but rather just that case. --tc2011 (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. How about a central post-Heller article that would have links to all articles about any such case. Such an article could give a brief description of Heller and each post-Heller case. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

We could do that. Personally, I think we should just put the links in this article, but I suppose it doesn't matter. What would we title the article? --tc2011 (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The name isn't important to me, as long as it is clear. Putting such links in this article, in addition to the central article, is a good idea. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine. How about Litigation following Heller? --tc2011 (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Post-Heller litigation? Chances are it would eventually be renamed to whichever case moves on to the Supreme Court (I'd be very surprised if one did not). Mackensen (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it may not be renamed, since (at least my understanding is that) it will list and summarize all post-Heller litigation, and at least each prominent case would have its own article. --tc2011 (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring of the article and lead

The lead as it stands is poorly written, and does not present a concise summary of the article. Instead, it is rather disjointed and haphazard. I began making some changes to restructure it, but was reverted. Perhaps we should hammer out that outline, first, before restructuring the lead. Because the lead does need a lot of work. --tc2011 (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the quick revert, but I didn't know you were planning on adding more back to the lead. If you are planning on doing some work on it I'll try to be less trigger happy about the reverts. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I started off with some drastic changes, and I should have announced them and my intentions on the talk page first. --tc2011 (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've restructured and cleaned up the lead, loosely following the outline above. --tc2011 (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

State Gun Laws

Let's not forget that the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment contained in it, were restrictions placed by the States on the feds as part of the ratification process. The majority of the states would not have accepted the Constitution without a Bill of Rights.

So if the STATES say that a person has a right to keep and bear arms, and enforced that principle on the feds through the Second Amendment, how can a state then pass laws that TAKE AWAY those rights?

States to the feds: The people have a right to keep and bear arms. Don't mess with it!

States to the people : You don't have the right to keep and bear arms.

Does anyone else find such state laws two faced, or am I the only one? 4.156.252.84 (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the issue in McDonald v. Chicago and Guy Montag Doe, et al., v. San Francisco Housing Authority, et al. (District Court Northern Division docket 08-3112). --SMP0328. (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Incorporation in intro

The second paragraph of the intro says: "Because Heller involved the District of Columbia, which is not a state, controversy remains concerning whether the Second Amendment prohibits only the federal government from infringing upon the right, or whether it extends to state and local jurisdictions by way of incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment." This was changed to state that no federal court has yet ruled on whether the Heller precedent applies to the states. I reverted because 1) it should be obvious that a body of federal case law has not yet been built up around a decision that was only issued last Thursday, 2) under those circumstances it's misleading to refer to what "no federal court has yet" done when federal courts have ruled numerous times that the Second Amendment is not incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Heller court did implicitly question the continuing precedential value of these cases, but until the issue is explicitly readdressed in a future case I think it's fair to say that what we have is "controversy." Plus, that's closer to what the sources cited for that sentence of the intro say. PubliusFL (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert of Cooke citation

Unless someone can legitimately validate this revert of the Cooke source, it should be restored. Simply removing verifiable citations of reliable sources because they do not adhere to a particular POV is unacceptable. If the Cooke information is brought up elsewhere in the article, this citation should at most be relocated to that place. Removing reliable sources to advance a POV is detrimental to Wikipedia. --tc2011 (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have not contributed to this article, although I am interested in the topic. Doesn't the recent Supreme Court decision which directly rules that analysis such as that provided by Professor Cooke, in this instance, is dead WRONG. Given this new revelation I would say that the current discussion in that edit which is still attributed to Professor Cooke is sufficient historical perspective on this point. --GoRight (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Please reread the quotes of Patrick Henry and George Mason. They support Cooke's view on this issue. You can also find Alexander Hamilton trying to ridicule this point of view in the Federalist papers. If it had to be addressed by the supporters of the Constitution in their attempt to sway opinions and votes, then it must have been an issue of at least "SOME" importance.

The quotes by Patrick Henry and George Mason are there to have a semblance of POV balance to the Origin section. Previously only quotes attributed to Federalists were included in that section. At this time there are 5 quotes attributed to Federalists and 3 from anti-Federalists. 4 if you count the reference to the Virginia Bill of Rights. I personally don't consider a portion of a historical document to be a "quote".

IMO the AntiFederalists are still underrepresented. They were after all the ones the ones responsible for the Bill of Rights and should be quoted more then those who opposed it. 4.156.252.119 (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional rebuttal to GoRight

In Heller the Supreme Court states - page 2 slip opinion

The Antifederalists feared that the Federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved.

The Supreme court also states page 25 opinion

The history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated militia consisting of all the able bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the peoples arms.

I think they cribbed George Mason when that part

The Supreme Court also states - also page 25

During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric.

I hope the above satisfies any and all concerns that you may have that the accuracy of the Cooke quote was negated by the Heller decision 4.156.252.119 (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Self-defense as the central component of the right

The opinion utilizes primarily "Right of the People" to describe the right as an individual right (i.e., to whom the right extends). Self-defense (and defense, generally) is used to describe the nature of the right. --tc2011 (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that self-defense is the right protected by the Second Amendment. However it is not ONLY about individual self defense but also about the right of the individual to go to war to protect his "community".

There are two rights protected in the second amendment.

the right to KEEP arms for self-defense

and

the right to BEAR arms in defense of the "community". 4.156.252.119 (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"it is not ONLY about individual self defense but also about the right of the individual to go to war to protect his "community"."

From the lead: in case of confrontation. As far as I can tell, this wording is general enough to include "confrontation" along the lines of "defense of the community" as well as individual self-defense. I don't remember if Heller addressed this aspect of defense (I think it did, but how directly, I can't recall). Anyhow, if you can find some verbatim text from Heller, or reliable sources, stating this, perhaps it has a place in the article somewhere. The lead (from Heller) seems to address this, though, even if not explicitly: since history had shown that a tyrant's ability to suppress political opponents was accomplished by simply taking away the people's arms. Implied? Maybe. Let's not do original research, though. --tc2011 (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how this is original research. The second amendment reason for existence is to make sure that the militia is not disarmed. The militia is plainly an organization for community self defense and not individual self defense.

The WAY that the militia is preserved is to bar the feds from disarming the individuals making up the militia. Even if the feds do not "provide for the arming" of the militia, their responsibility per the Constitution, then the individual members of the militia are still able to "bear" arms already in their possession or purchases with their own funds. 4.156.252.34 (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Militas were under the jurisdiction of a free state, as that is the body that the militias were organized to defend and whom they served under and for. And the states had every right and ability to regulate the militia as they pleased such as controlling who joined or providing for arms, tents, materials, etc. Should the individuals not have been of a militia, they were not necessarily guaranteed their arms.--66.66.212.182 (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Responsibility for the ARMING of the state militias was transfered to Congress within the US Constitution. The states feared that Congress would choose not to arm the militias and the states could not do so, by Constitutional law. The Second Amendment provides SOME protection against the disarming of state militias by the feds, in that it bars the feds from disarming the INDIVIDUAL, who per his right to defend himself, can use his own funds to purchase arms.

The militia is a group of INDIVIDUALS who by the second amendment cannot be disarmed and can under their right to self defense purchase arms using their own funds. You will notice that since the states forced the Bill of Rights onto the Constitution as a condition for agreeing to it, that they by definition also declare that that the individual has the right to keep and bear arms.

That the simple and plain meaning and purpose of this amendment has been warped beyond recognition by control freaks in Washington is also fact. 4.156.252.242 (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, but this is not the place for it. Please, people, this is not a debate forum. PubliusFL (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Would it be an improvement on the article to point out that Heller, after winning his case at the Supreme Court level, tried to register a 7 shot pistol, was denied under Washington DC regulations classifying 11 shot and OVER pistols as machine guns and has now filed a new case?

To repeat a 7 shot pistol was classed as a machine gun under local laws classifying 11 shot and OVER pistols as machine guns. 4.156.252.179 (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Models of interpretation

This section was just removed from the article. I think the removal was unwise, because the article should have at least some information about all the major schools of thought on the Second Amendment. We shouldn't delete all references to, say, the "modified collective" theory just because a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court rejected it. By comparison, articles relating to eminent domain provide coverage to theories of the 5th Amendment's "Takings Clause" that disagree with the Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, and the article on Roe v. Wade covers the POV that that case was wrongly decided. The article should make it clear (as it now does) that the individual right view has been endorsed by the Supreme Court and is therefore currently the law within the U.S. court system, but it should also address the important minority POVs regarding the Second Amendment. PubliusFL (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed that section. Because of Heller, that section was no longer necessary. None of the nine Justices endorsed the "collective right" interpretation. To show I'm reasonable, I have added to the Introduction a footnote that was in the Models of interpretation section. That footnote links to an article that describes the types of interpretations mentioned in that deleted section, so that anyone that wants to know about them can do so. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

District of Columbia v. Heller comments

@SMP0328. : Please try to find any article published (or to be published) in a law review that praises Heller, before you again revert the comments (by Federal judges, I can't say it often enough) I added. I choose Posner and Wilkinson, but it could've also been Shaman or Walker. ––Bender235 (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly trying to place the Heller decision in a bad light by only placing negative comments. Can't you find any positive comments about Heller? It doesn't need to be a law review article. Also that part of the article is describing U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding the Second Amendment. There aren't any personal comments about any of the other decisions. SMP0328. (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it's not about personal comments, it's about scientific comments by legal scholars. So your choice of citing Heller's attorney wasn't a pretty smart one, actually. Wikipedia prefers academic and peer-reviewed publications (in case of legal scholarship, that would be HLR, YLJ and others) over some newspaper interview or something like that.

I'm not trying to "place Heller in a bad light", I'm just adding academic comments from legal scholars, which—for some reason—happen to be negative on the decision. That's just how it is. You won't find any positive comments on McCleskey v. Kemp or Bush v. Gore either. ––Bender235 (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW: I bought into your point that we don't have comments on Miller, Presser and Cruikshank as well. So I'll remove both comments and move yours to the Heller article. ––Bender235 (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Moving those comments to the Heller article is fair. I'm glad we were able to work this out. SMP0328. (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The Individual's Right to own a Pocket Warship

To put some perspective on assault weapon bans, not only did the individual during the time of the Revolutionary war have the right to purchase a rifle, a weapon superior to the musket which was the standard infantry weapon of the age, but individuals had the right to to own WARSHIPS.

The proof you ask?

Consider the implication of the Constitutional prohibition on the States with respect to granting Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

and I can bet you that if an individual had in his possession a first line ship of war many members of Congress would have kissed both his feet while granting that letter.

A far cry from the current batch of control freaks running Washington! 4.156.252.32 (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Not disagreeing with any of the above, but what does this have to due with the article? Talk pages aren't for editorializing. SMP0328. (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The article has links to various legal issues relating to the Second Amendment including the ban on assault weapons.

In response to the above I now ask

What does a link, on the article page, to the assault weapons ban have to do with the Second Amendment?

If you answer that question, I am sure you will find an answer to your own. 4.156.252.186 (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You need to say to which part of the article you are referring; otherwise it appears you are editorializing. SMP0328. (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think IP's referring to the sidebar "U.S. Firearms Legal Topics," but I'm still not sure what the point is.

IP, could you provide some secondary sources for the point you're making about ships of war? --tc2011 (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In some respects I was editorializing, but my point is valid. During the Revolutionary War private ownership of guns, superior to normal military issue, was considered a BLESSING. The same for private armed vessels (warships) that were used to raid British shipping. Today, even with a Supreme Court ruling in his favor, Heller can't get a gun registered in Washington DC. In current news.

WASHINGTON (WUSA) -- District residents can start registering their guns today. But at least one very high profile application was already rejected.

Dick Heller is the man who brought the lawsuit against the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns. He was among the first in line Thursday morning to apply for a handgun permit.

But when he tried to register his semi-automatic weapon, he says he was rejected. He says his gun has seven bullet clip. Heller says the City Council legislation allows weapons with fewer than eleven bullets in the clip. A spokesman for the DC Police says the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to their interpretation, all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns. 4.156.252.247 (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Re Private Ships of War

Assuming the link below has accurate numbers, Naval vessels of the various states and Congress captured or sunk 200 British ships per link below, PRIVATE warships captured or sank 10 times that number.

http://americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/SEA.HTM

Before the end of 1775, the majority of colonies had commissioned several craft, and Congress had established a navy and marine corps. The Continental Navy eventually put into service 50 or 60 ships; the Colonies' navies added another 40 or so. In contrast, the British Navy in 1775 had 270 ships and by 1783 had increased the number to 468. Although the combined American navies were unable to cope with the British fleets, they sank or captured nearly 200 royal ships.

Late in the war more than 400 American vessels operated as privateers in the waters off the Atlantic coast, the West Indies, and even those surrounding the British Isles. They inflicted severe damage on British ships and trade, costing Britain about 2,000 ships, £18 million, and 12,000 men captured. 4.156.252.71 (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This site is in agreement with the number of British ships sunk or captured but list the numbers of privateers as MUCH higher then the one above

http://www.usmm.org/revolution.html

Arguably without privateers the Revolutionary War would have been lost due to a shortage of gunpowder in the Colonies.

Because of British policy regarding import of gunpowder, the colonists did not have enough to repel the third British charge at Bunker Hill. A survey by George Washington at the time showed army stockpiles were sufficient for 9 rounds per man. By 1777, the privateers and merchantmen brought in over 2 million pounds of gunpowder and saltpeter.

A moment of silence for those that died to secure your freedom.

About 55,000 American seamen served aboard the privateers. When captured by the British Navy, they were given a choice: join the British Navy or prison. The conditions of captivity aboard the prison ships, mostly abandoned ships moored in New York harbor, were inhuman. The most infamous of these was the HMS Jersey. About 11,000 privateers died of disease and malnutrition, their bodies dumped onto the mud flats of Wallabout Bay, where Brooklyn Navy Yard now stands. 4.156.252.71 (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that was at a time when the US was fearful of incorporating a national army and was hard pressed to do it anyhow. However, the US now has a standing army national army, as well as the National Guard and various services that evolved from the militias and has taken its place. Might I also note there was heavy regulation even in the times of the Colonial period on weapons ownership, and those people who did posses weapons were often in militias under the jurisdiction and monitoring of the states for the purposes of the state and nation. So people weren't left willy nilly to do whatever they wanted with weapons. They were allowed weapons under the jurisdiction of the states, were often put through some test or regulation such as declaring allegiance to the nation or state or stopped from possessing a weapon should it threaten the security of the state ("a well regualted milita, being necessary to the security of a free state") or should they be found criminal in some manner, and if they served in a militia (to whom the constitutional protection of absolute firearms ownership may only apply), that militia was controlled by the state and organized under the state, and was little more than a state army than some sort of individual enclave formed by people unaligned or unwatched to serve simply their own purposes.

Now I could get into all sorts of constitutional diatribe, but since Heller cemented some view of this amendment (whether valid to what the amendment actually means or simply the opinion of the Supreme Court), it would be all useless anyway and likely get a slap on the wrist for being a POV, regardless of the fact that I have seen some slights at POV here as well. So I am therefore stuck in historical contexts to get some point across. (Frankly, I think there were earlier decisions by the court on this issue which conflict with the one recently passed and were as powerfully stated as Heller and should be noted as well. Also, the fact that the decision only applied to DC as a federal enclave should play some role in the national legal standing of the decision and whether it applied nationally or simply bureaucratically to the amendment in DC. Therefore, it could still be an issue of debate on the national level.)

Finally, this is all useless gobbledygook in any case as it is more blog than encyclopedia.--66.66.212.182 (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The United States of America does not have a 'standing army'. This is why the Congress must go through budgeting for the Armed Forces every two years. It may be an 'effective' standing army, yet Congress, who controls the money, rules and equipment, and declares wars, could abolish the army in a flash. There would a fleet of ships with little crew. NantucketNoon (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Please reference your claims regarding the heavy regulation of weapons prior to, during and shortly after the Revolutionary war period. BRITISH regulations limiting powder imports into the colonies have been referenced above. Those were PRIOR to the Revolutionary War and by definition BRITISH law had no force after the War.

I ask you, Did Daniel Boone have to go to City hall or the local police station to get permission to purchase his rifle? or even to register it?

Did Lewis and Clark have to do the same before starting their trek across the continent?

I somehow can't quite picture it. 4.156.252.242 (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

To NantucketNoon

Regarding your comment that the US does not have a standing army

What do you think a standing army is? and did the Founding Fathers agree with YOUR interpretation?

This is what wiki has to say

A standing army is an army composed of full time career soldiers who 'stand over', in other words, who do not disband during times of peace.

When do you recall the US Army disbanding in a time of peace? I personally can't recall something like that at all and believe it last happened sometime before the War of 1812. 4.154.237.13 (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning to responders of the above: Some bug is making additions at the end of this section (the right to own a warship) show up at the end of the next section (GA Review). Check your edits AFTER posting to make sure that they appear where you want them to. 4.154.237.13 (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Origin of the right section, why does the first sentence start with just "England"?
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Dates need to be unlinked, per here. In the Text section, are the quotes supposed to be bolded? In the English Common Law section, it would be best if "common law" and "Boston Massacre" were linked once, per here. In the Early commentary section, italicize "Commentaries on the Laws of England", per here. Same section, link "Joseph Story" once. In the State ratification conventions section, is "The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents" a book? If so, italicize it.
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
It would be best if References 40 and 41 used the {{cite web}} template, and other references that don't have the cite web usage.
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
Is there a source for this ---> "This remained relatively unchanged until 1671, when Parliament created a statute that drastically raised the property qualifications needed to possess firearms. In essence, this statute disarmed all but the very wealthy. In 1686, King James II banned without exception the Protestants' ability to possess firearms, even while Protestants constituted over 95% of the English subjects. Not until 1689, with the rise of William of Orange, was this reversed by the English Bill of Rights which declared that "Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law"?
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Can this article have the usage of free-use images?
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the above statements can be answered, I will pass the article.

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, after reading the article, I have gone off and passed the article. Congratulations. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all who worked hard to bring it to this status. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying meaning of where the 2nd Amendment language was originally going to go

I get confused when I read the section of the article I've quoted below:

The right to keep and bear arms was not to be inserted in Article I, Section 8 that specifies the Congress's power over the militia. The sentence that became the Second Amendment was to be inserted in Article I, Section 9, between Clauses 3 and 4, which list individual rights.

On first read it seemed (to me) that the subject of the first sentence was referring to something different than the subject of the second sentence. But if they're referring to the same thing then I think it might to less confusing to word it like this:

The sentence that became the Second Amendment was not to be inserted in Article I, Section 8 that specifies the Congress's power over the militia. Instead it was meant to be inserted in Article I, Section 9, between Clauses 3 and 4, which list individual rights.

Or, like this:

The sentence that became the Second Amendment was not to be inserted in the portion of the Constitution that specifies Congress's power over the militia (Article I, Section 8.) Instead it was meant to be included along with the other individual rights (Article I, Section 9, between Clauses 3 and 4.)

What do others think? Hoping To Help (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have clarified that sentence to read:

The sentence that became the Second Amendment was to be inserted in Article I, Section 9, between Clauses 3 and 4 (which list individual rights), instead of Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16, which specify the Congress's power over the state militias.

Is that satisfactory to you? SMP0328. (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Great!! Hoping To Help (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yaf Please explain

Yaf, please explain your repeated deletions of my discussion page entries. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal ad hominem attacks unrelated to improving the article, directed at a specific editor, have no place on an article's discussion page. They were removed. Please do not engage in such entries on an article's talk page. Instead, focus on making constructive contributions on article talk pages that are related to improving the article. Thank you. Yaf (talk)

Thanks for the explanation. Discussion of your long documented history of pro-gun POV push at this article is not an ad hominem attack. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Code words "individual right" in opening sentence cause POV skew

With topics as politically hot at this, the use of the term "individual right" is in itself a POV skew because it frames the topic from the perspective only one side of the viewpoints. This is analogous to discussion of the topic of abortion, should the opening sentence be phrased "right to choose" as a means to frame the topic. See[10]. The term 'individual right' is not defined, indeed the Heller ruling goes on at length describing wide ranging allowed limits on the right. Additionally, I object to the selective quoting from the primary document because the cherry picking a quote to favor a POV bias amounts to WP:OR. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no issue with the "individual right" phraseology. This is because it is the Bill of Rights that provides protections for individuals within the US Constitution. The first ten amendments are what form the Bill of Rights that collectively protect the rights of individuals, enumerated and unenumerated. Quoting from a secondary source that is both reliable and verifiable (the Heller decision, which interprets the Second Amendment) is clearly appropriate, as the Supreme Court is what determines the meaning of the US Constitution. Yaf (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, I have issue. How can you say "there is no issue"? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Pursuant to Kentucky constitution

This recent edit by SMP0328 [11] introduces yet more neutrality bias into the article. Serving to blur the distinction that the Bliss decision was only pursuant to the state constitution, not the federal. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That was a "wordiness cutdown", not a substantive change. The meaning of that part of the article was the same before that edit as it was immediately afterward. SMP0328. (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I realize that you might not be able to see opposing point of views. The issue at hand is the blurring of distinction of whether Bliss has any bearing or relevance on the Federal Second Amendment. Your wording increased this blurring. And therefore increases the pro-gun POV slant of the article. You seem to dispute my point of view, true? Please answer: Do you dispute that a neutrality dispute exists here? SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Pro-gun bias in the Antebellum period section.

The wording the discussion about the Antebellum period has a skewed pro-gun bias framing the issue with code language "the rights of individuals". There is another valid point of view, revolving around the issue of arming black militias. This causes neutrality bias, in violation of WP:NPOV policy. See the Otis A. Singletary book for discussion of arming black militias. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Otis's book documented the arming of black individuals who collectively formed militias. (A good, scholarly work, I might add, by an historian who later turned into an adept administrator, but I digress.) Cornell references this earlier work in his book. Yaf (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I respect the "individuals who collectively formed militias" is the pro-gun side of the point of view. The trouble is that we are required to maintain neutrality. Again, and again, and again, this article shows effects of a pro-gun neutrality bias. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is the "pro-rights" side of the point of view, relative to the recently-freed black men who were now full fledged citizens with a need to protect their rights and families against those who would take them away. There was a 14th Amendment, ahem, that was supposed to address these wrongs. Yaf (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Your 'ahem' personal opinion violates WP:NOR, and affects the neutrality balance here. Yaf, direct question please answer: Do you dispute that there is a neutrality dispute? Please answer. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer. Yes, there is a neutrality dispute. As long as you are a Wikipedia editor, there will be a neutrality dispute. You disagree with the article referring to Heller. You disagree with the article referring to an "individual right", even though all of the Justices in Heller said the Second Amendment did so. You will always believe this article isn't neutral, unless it reads as if Heller had come out the other way. The article is properly sourced and there is no justification for removing material from it. Your belief that one editor believing an article isn't neutral justifies a neutrality tag would lead to almost every article being so tagged. SMP0328. (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

See above[12], I am not the only editor that disputes the neutrality of this article. Instead negotiating neutrality, you stonewall and attack my character. Do you object to the addition of a POV tag to the article during discussion and negotiation? SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Two editors find a neutrality problem out of countless others who have not found a neutrality problem with this article. This article does not deserve to have a POV tag on it. Is it a pro-right article? Of course. So is the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution article. Should that article have a POV tag? SMP0328. (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not whether you consider the article to have a neutrality problem. The issue is whether there is a dispute about neutrality. The 4th Amendment article has no dispute, therefore, no POV tag. This article, we all agree, has a neutrality dispute, therefore a dispute warning tag is appropriate. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I second the comment from SMP0328 above. After reading Salty Boatrs comments for the past year I almost wish I had a split personally so I could third it as well.

4.154.234.125 (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Prefatory clause vs. Ablative absolute

The emphasis in line 18 on the prefatory clause hypothesis is a pro-gun POV push. The neutral position would give balanced emphasis to the ablative absolute hypothesis. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That line shouldn't be there at all in the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The reference to the prefatory clause is based on how the Supreme Court interpreted it to mean. Since Marbury v. Madison, a Supreme Court interpretation of a Constitutional provision is the official interpretation of that provision. So the article's reference to the prefatory clause is proper. SMP0328. (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing whether the reference should be there. I think it should be mentioned. However, it doesn't seem like something that should be in the intro. It belongs in a textual analysis section, but I see there is none... most unusual for articles discussing the 2A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

See here and here for analysis of the prefatory clause within the article. SMP0328. (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's not what I meant by a textual analysis. Such an analysis delves into the meaning of the words, clauses, etc. and is normally contained in one section. (I'm not proposing that however). (By the way, do you agree that the snippet I refer to above concerning Buzzard is original research and should be snipped?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I still don't feel comfortable removing that material. That material is well sourced. On what grounds is that material original research despite being sourced? SMP0328. (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Quoting Yaf: "Reading original text and interpreting it is considered Original Research" The quote in question from judge Lacy is exactly that. It's a quote taken from a court opinion, quoted out of context and incorrectly interpreted. To repeat, the article says the dissent "declared..." The dissent did no such thing and no citation is given for that interpretation. Reading the out of context quote in the article, anybody would come to the mis-conception that the dissent concluded that "This being the case, then the people, neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms.[68]" However, what the dissent actually said in context is that given the two other justices' opinions, the Second Amendment neither protects a collective nor individual right. Thus judge Lacy wrote that the individual citizen anytime may bear arms of any variety. The final words from the same opinion: "To forbid a citizen, under the penalty of fine and imprisonment, to carry his own private arms about his person, in any manner that he may think proper for his security or safety, is, in my opinion, an unauthorized attempt to abridge a constitutional privilege, and therefore I hold the law in question to be of no effect." Finally to repeat, the quote is taken completely out of context and is not cited by any authority claiming that the dissent declared "the people neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

So all you want is for the article to state that Justice Lacy believed individuals could bear any firearm "of any variety"? BTW, if it didn't protect a collective or individual RKBA, what did Justice Lacy believe the Second Amendment did? --SMP0328. (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't clearly explain. It's not that Lacy believed the 2A didn't protect a collective or individual right, it's what Lacy said would be the consequence/end-result, when one takes the two other justices at their word. Lacy, himself, believed, as the quote I provided explains, that the 2A protected an individual right and could not be infringed, period. Just as I tried to explain above.

If we're now on the same page, as far as understanding what was written in the article, then I'll post a couple of modest changes here, tomorrow or the day after.

I don't think we are "on the same page" in agreement. The present text with citations is

"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."[68] 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.[68][69]

All of these statements are cited and pass fact checking. Cornell's book (cited) clearly makes the case for which these statements that are here make, but to which you apparently object. However, unless there is some other interpretation, with cites, then I don't see what the issue is. You state that the interpretation by Cornell is incorrect; OK, then we need a cite for a reliable and verifiable source with a different point of view than what Cornell makes. But, removing cited information because one editor disagrees with the reliable source is Original Research and is not permitted by Wikipedia policies. All major points of view, supported by reliable and verifiable sources, should be included in articles for balance. Yaf (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, you clearly do not understand. As I have repeatedly stated, the dissent, as quoted in the main article, is not cited by Cornell nor is the paragraph that cites Cornell referring to the dissent's opinion. I will post a proposed re-write some time later in the week.

Two huge problems: 1) The Supreme Court ruling is a primary source. 2) The POV balance of the article is skewed towards a pro-gun position given the high visibility of the grammar hypothesis favored by the pro-gun point of view and the deletion of the opposing point of view out of the article. This is evidence of the effect of systemic bias of the pro-gun editors. Re-read the NPOV policy, the is to have a neutral point of view reflecting the balance of reliable sourcing, not the balance of the energy level POV partisan editors last June. I suggest the addition of a POV dispute warning tag to the article while this problem gets worked out. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The primary source for the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is the United States Constitution. Supreme Court rulings, interpreting the Second Amendment, are secondary sources relative to the US Constitution. Hence there is no problem with content mentioning the SCOTUS ruling with regards to a use of a "primary source" in this article. As for the claim of "deletion of opposing point of view out of the article", this has not occurred for statements cited with reliable and verifiable sources. Only uncited and apparently OR content and commentary has been deleted. This is entirely in keeping with Wikipedia policies. Original Research is not permitted. As for claims of systemic bias, I fail to understand just what it is that indicates systemic bias; the cited content is not indicative of systemic bias, rather it is indicative of citing statements with reliable and verifiable sources. A POV dispute warning is not appropriate simply to advocate the insertion of uncited Original Research. If, on the other hand, there are additional points of view that need to be added, then it is clearly fine to add the appropriate statements that support such viewpoints, provided the statements are not Original Research and that they are cited with Reliable and Verifiable sources. If you feel there is unbalance, please contribute to Wikipedia instead of just complaining. Yaf (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Regardless, deletion of the Ablative Absolute grammar discussion results in a pro-gun POV skew. The high emphasis (line 18) of the pro-gun view on the grammar hypothesis contributes to a neutrality NPOV violation. I dispute neutrality. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Some people can't quite get over the fact that a provision in the Constitution DESIGNED to protect a right is NATURALLY PRO that right! 4.156.78.54 (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Salty Boar

The Second Amendment obviously exists and is designed to protect a right. Notice that it is part of "The Bill of Rights"

Before continuing your long lasting POV attacks on this article, please advise WHAT right it is designed to protect?

and why did the Founding Fathers consider this right of such importance as to merit this protection. 4.156.78.54 (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Instead of discussing our personal opinions, can we read the reliable research on the topic of the Second Amendment and then write the article to reflect what we find in that research? Which books are you reading? I am willing to discuss those books. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering you deleted some of of my additions to this article without any discussion, I VERY MUCH doubt your willingness to discuss anything unless it agrees with your opinions.

as for what I read, I believe Patrick Henry said it best

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. … O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; … Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? … Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?

You heard of Patrick Henry haven't you?

Between the opinion of a Salty Boar and a Patrick Henry, I'll take Patrick Henry, thank you very much! 4.156.78.223 (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As a baseline, can we agree to avoid insulting each other? My username is SaltyBoatr, not Salty Boar. We have work to do, collaboratively editing this article, and insults impair our ability to edit. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I also object to the word "WE" in your comment above. As you continue to advocate that I don't have the right that the Second Amendment clearly states I have, I don't want to be linked in any way to you. I have a STRONG disliking of people that attempt to take away what is mine.

Besides Patrick Henry I also read Supreme Court decisions. As is usual, sometimes I agree with them and sometimes I don't.

Here are some Supreme Court statements from Heller that I completely agree with

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

I do hope that at some point you get over your anti gun bias. Any number of studies show that guns reduce crime. Something about criminals not wanting to be at the wrong end of a gun. 4.154.234.125 (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't actually about gun politics, or the wisdom of various gun public policy theories. It is about the Second Amendment, and I suggest we fix the bias problem with the grammar section by going back to a relatively stable version of the 'Ablative Absolute' construction that existed for a long time, from six months back. Any complaints about this proposed edit? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The version of 6 months ago was locked in continuous NPOV disputes for months and months, failing to be resolved in both Arbcom and MedCom activites, and the article was unable to achieve Good Article (GA) status when the wording was so badly skewed. The wording was changed to the present version, and there was tremendous progress upon Heller being decided by the Supreme Court. The re-write, upon Heller providing an interpretation of the 2A, was what permitted the article to achieve GA status. The present version has been reviewed as part of the Good Article criteria and was found to be neutral. Why go back to a version that was so badly skewed, and which would force us to go back into locking the article for months at a time once more, and force enduring yet another round of MedCom and ArbCom activities relative to this article? For what reason? Doing so makes no sense. Yaf (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

While I would change a few items here and there, I find the article as it currently reads quite acceptable.

Again please advise: What in your opinion DOES THE SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECT? It obviously protects SOMETHING! 4.154.233.81 (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, I, too, believe the present article is quite balanced, it being documented/cited well and containing both of the major interpretations of the 2A that existed prior to the Heller decision, as well as the SCOTUS interpretation of the 2A coming from Heller. Because one editor disagrees with the Second Amendment interpretation by the Supreme Court of the United States, we now have an NPOV dispute. By all reasonable interpretations of the comments on this talk page, it appears the NPOV dispute is with the Supreme Court, not with the documentation and cites of this article. Tagging the article with an NPOV tag because of this disagreement with the SCOTUS is a bad misuse of the NPOV tagline. The NPOV tagline should be removed. Yaf (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Part of the neutrality problem comes from the pro-gun editors scrubbing the "Ablative Absolute" grammar passage from the article. That passage presented a significant credible point of view, and the deletion by the pro-gun editors contributes to the neutrality balance problem now. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the opening sentence

The opening sentence has two major problems, 1) It is sourced to a primary document in violation of WP:RS. 2) It carries a disproportionate pro-gun point of view weight in violation of WP:NPOV. I dispute neutrality. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Elsewhere I suggested that the opening sentence should read "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the section of the United States Bill of Rights protecting the right to own firearms."--Fizbin (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The opening sentence has no problems. It is sourced to a secondary source interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, namely a Supreme Court ruling. The viewpoint expressed is the ruling by the Supreme Court. If you have a dispute regarding the neutrality of the Supreme Court ruling, this is irrelevant to the present article. As for the other proposal, "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the section of the United States Bill of Rights protecting the right to own firearms"; this statement is technically correct as far as it goes, but the amendment actually does much more than this, as stated by the present wording. The 2A protects the right to keep and bear arms by individuals. "Keep" refers to a right to own arms, which includes firearms, but also includes much more than just firearms. "Bear" refers to a right to use these arms, including firearms. The existing introduction is thus much more factually clear, is cited, and is a neutral expression of the meaning of the 2A, than the proposed changes. The current wording is superior to the proposed wording. Yaf (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I also believe the opening sentence and indeed the entire opening paragraph violates the NPOV policy. A ruling of the Supreme Court should be cited as a ruling of the court, not the ultimate truth. An even more egregious example of this shows up later in the second sentence beginning with "history had shown...". This information should be given as part of the court's justification for the Columbia v. Heller opinion, to be sure, but only in that context. It is disturbing that Justice Scalia's assertions about history are being presented as pure fact in an encyclopedia. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Nwlaw63's comment is a perfect statement about what is wrong with this entry.--Fizbin (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a neutrality dispute? For history, Yaf has a record of edit warring this, in other words: disputing there is a dispute. Progress collaboratively editing in such an atmosphere is impossible. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a difficulty in discussion of the systemic effect of bias of editors affecting the neutrality balance point, without discussion of editors. Yet, Yaf refused to even allow such discussion, viewing it a 'personal attack' and repeatedly deleting the discussion from the talk page. This is a Catch 22 problem, if we cannot discuss the effect of editor systemic bias on a talk page. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Salty Boar now calling the kettle black.

He has himself deleted discussion material in the talk page that was not complementary to his actions. I was a victim of that action. 4.156.78.223 (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no problem in discussing ways to improve the article. Name-calling, and repeatedly penning personal attacks against editors on the article talk page, calling every editor to which you disagree "names", is not the way to influence the article's progression. It is not a "Catch 22" problem if civility is maintained and problems with the article are discussed, instead of focusing on personal attacks against editors. Yaf (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I direct attention to the revision history of this page to see the talk page entries which Yaf deleted. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks are routinely removed from talk pages. They are nonproductive and are not intended to improve an article, and, so, were removed numerous times. They serve no useful purposes. Yaf (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of long term patterns of POV pushing by editors is a legitimate topic on the talk page. It is a discussion of patterns of personal behavior, and not a discussion of persons. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, that reminds me... --tc2011 (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Systemic bias

The neutrality of the article reflects the energy level of interested editors, which bias towards the pro-gun viewpoint. The NPOV policy is that the neutrality balance point should be the balance point found in the balance of reliable sourcing. Not, the balance point of the energetic editors' viewpoints. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The tone of the article is currently pro-rights, aligned with the protections provided by the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. Do you object to the Bill of Rights? Is that the problem (that you perceive) with this article? Yaf (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No. I have explained the problems I see. Your question is a straw man. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I call attention to Yaf's statement[13] "The tone of the article is currently pro-rights...". This amounts to a stipulation that the article has a pro-rights neutrality skew. With that stipulated, we can then move on to the second issue: Does a pro-gun tone in the article meet the policy of WP:NPOV? Comments please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Strawman, tin man, or lion, I don't follow what you are saying. We are not in Oz, but the language sure is starting to sound like it. The tone of the article is currently pro-rights, aligned with the protections for individuals provided by the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. Of course, states have powers, derived from the consent of the citizens, whereas individuals have rights and not powers. A "pro-rights" tone is entirely fitting for any article on any one of the Amendments which together form the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, that individually and collectively protect the rights of individuals. Not sure how "pro-rights" somehow becomes "pro-" anything else, as you evidently believe, though. Are you proposing the article should be re-written to become "anti-rights"? I don't see how this would ever be possible, in view of trying to find Reliable and Verifiable sources to support such an extremist point of view. More likely, it would be utterly impossible, considering what the Bill of Rights is. The current article is written in a neutral point of view, as found by the Good Article review that has been conducted. Changing the article to become "anti-rights" does not appear to be a viable avenue, considering the subject matter, and would destroy the neutral point of view of the article, negating the Good Article rating. This would be counter to Wikipedia goals. Yaf (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Except, that editors dispute your belief that this article presently holds a neutral point of view. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is properly cited and well-written as it presently stands. It would not have achieved Good Article status had it not been. That said, it is always possible to improve articles. Therefore, why don't you contribute to the article, with properly cited information, based on Reliable and Verifiable sources, to balance the perceived imbalances you see with the article. Considering that this is an article about an amendment that is in the Bill of Rights, protecting an individual right (per the Heller decision), it is natural that the article focuses on being "pro-right", as that is precisely what the Bill of Rights do, individually and collectively, and this focus also agrees with the Heller decision. Being focused on being "pro-right", however, is not grounds for claiming a neutrality bias exists for the article because you disagree with the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, or because you disagree with the Heller decision. As I have said before, consider this an opportunity to contribute to Wikipedia! Yaf (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The article should be reassessed as it presently fails WP:GA standards. Many editors, including Yaf and SMP0328 have all agreed that presently there is dispute about neutrality. Therefore, the neutrality should be reassessed at this time. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Systemic bias remains a major problem with this article, this deserves more attention. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Unresolved dispute about article neutrality

I don't understand why the article doesn't simply start with the actual text of the 2nd amendment, which is of course very brief, note it as ratified on 1791, followed by some equivalent to "has been recently interpreted by the supreme court" to affirm a pre-existing individual right to possess weapons... blah. Seems to me that you start with what it is, in itself, then go directly to its current interpretation. As it is, it will read as very biased to many. 69.242.38.116 (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC) random visiting reader

This article follows the same basic format as other articles on the Bill of Rights. The text of the amendment appears to be placed appropriately. --tc2011 (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I continue to dispute the neutrality of the article. I have explained this in detail above, but major elements are 1) Systemic bias. 2) Excessive use of originalism. 3) Improper mixing of the Bliss Kentucky right to bear arms, with the Federal 2A. Unfortunately, this dispute has been stonewalled for months, but it still remains unresolved. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I pointed out that YOU are the most biased person on this discussion and you deleted that.

Why?

4.156.252.142, please tone down your rhetoric. Simply state the information that should be added and provide the citations. Doing so will help improve this article. This rhetoric is not helping. Thank you. --tc2011 (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The comment you see above is in response to Salty Boars "burning" of a negative comment against him, pointing out that HE is the worst POV offender on this article. I'm sure if a poll was taken most of the people here would agree with that.

in fact lets try it out

4.156.252.35 (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights that declares a right to keep and bear arms by individuals." That is currently the opening sentence of this article, and is completely POV (not to mention blatantly false). The text of the second amendment does not, anywhere, clearly define "a right to keep and bear arms by individuals." All controversy over the amendment is specifically about whether or not there is an individual right at all. Certainly, it states that there is some fashion in which the people have a right to keep and bear arms, but nothing in the text clearly states that there is an individual right. Why not open the article with say... the amendment? Instead, I open this article and am reading opinionated statements. Now, I'm not saying it doesn't imply an individual right to bear arms, but it certainly does not state it clearly and, to open this article with such a statement seems dishonest and particularly POV.

Yesterday you would have been right. Today the Supreme Court ruled, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. SMP0328. (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The intro does need some work, though. It starts out: The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights that declares a right to keep and bear arms by individuals. It also refers to a "well regulated militia" as "being necessary to the security of a free State" and prohibits infringement of "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms." It declares a right to keep and bear arms by individuals AND prohibits infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms? The conjunctive language is confusing. PubliusFL (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right and so I have greatly condensed the Introduction. Much of the Introduction needed to be removed in light of the Heller decision. The wording of the Introduction is no longer confusing. SMP0328. (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As the amendment is still something hotly contested, can we not say that it is a amendment the Supreme Court has "ruled" to mean individual self defense or whatever it was instead of just flatly saying that "this is what it definitely means? That way, you get the best of both worlds so to speak.--66.66.212.182 (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The amendment is not "hotly contested". As Al Gore would say, "the debate is over" *waves hand*. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.51.230 (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why the entry doesn't begin with a more neutral frame. There is an ongoing debate in the historical and legal scholarship about the context and meaning of this amendment. The debate is not over. A single Supreme Court case does not end the debate any more than _Dred Scott_ or _Roe v. Wade_ settled the underlying disputes in those cases. So, why not put the supreme court in the subject position and say that it "recently ruled that..." One's current position on gun rights (I personally support gun rights) should not shape the article. This kind of blatant bias will convince no one. Please just give the information. Embededinclosure (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The article if allowed to begin with "protects the INDIVIDUAL right" does not appear neutral. This article should begin with the actual text of the second amendment and the disputes as to how to interpret the amendment should follow. You are doing Wikipedia an injustice by hi-jacking this page for your own agenda. 75.54.116.122 (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, there is WAY too much opinion in the lead-in, and it is too long. The body, with careful allowance for each of the MANY sides of the debate (Why can't I have artillery at my house? Why must I go through so many gyrations to mount a machine gun on my roof? etc.) I am NOT volunteering to rewrite the intro, though, my talk page is already spammed enough just from vandalfighting. sinneed (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "pre-existing right" leads me to wonder what pre dated the second amendment of the constitution? Please provide some reference or identify a common law that pre dates the second amendment which guarantees "the right to bear arms". If you are unable to provide that then we must agree the phrase "pre-existing right" is incorrect.

This article in order to remain un-biased should only state the facts about the second amendment. Instead it opens with quotes by one supreme court justice in a very recent ruling, Ignoring the fact that the supreme court split on the decision by a very narrow margin of 5-4. And even in that decision it was stated that the "right" to own guns can be limited. i.e. "restrictions on Military style assault rifles, Certain types of ammunition, etc.

Keep the pro/con arguments in an appropriately titled section and refrain from any misleading opening statements. 69.227.153.239 (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A provision of the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. Regarding the Second Amendment, Heller is what the Supreme Court says it means and so the article reflects that. The fact that it was a 5-4 ruling doesn't change the legitimacy of the decision. So it is perfectly legit for the Introduction to refer to that decision, just as the Introduction in Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution refers to Mapp v. Ohio. The term "pre-dating" is a reference to common law in America prior to the Constitution's adoption. That common law recognized the individual right to keep and bear arms. The article refers to this common law recognition. SMP0328. (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "pre-existing right" leads me to wonder what pre dated the second amendment of the constitution? Please provide some reference or identify a common law that pre dates the second amendment which guarantees "the right to bear arms". If you are unable to provide that then we must agree the phrase "pre-existing right" is incorrect. - - This article in order to remain un-biased should only state the facts about the second amendment. Instead it opens with quotes by one supreme court justice in a very recent ruling, Ignoring the fact that the supreme court split on the decision by a very narrow margin of 5-4. And even in that decision it was stated that the "right" to own guns can be limited. i.e. "restrictions on Military style assault rifles, Certain types of ammunition, etc. - - Keep the pro/con arguments in an appropriately titled section and refrain from any misleading opening statements. 69.227.153.239 (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC) - - - - The article if allowed to begin with "protects the INDIVIDUAL right" does not appear neutral. This article should begin with the actual text of the second amendment and the disputes as to how to interpret the amendment should follow. You are doing Wikipedia an injustice by hi-jacking this page for your own agenda75.54.116.122 (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.159.98 (talk)

Re: Pre existing rights

Under the Articles of Confederation, Article 6, it was up to the states to arm the militia.

but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

As for the individuals right to "keep" arms, it is a natural extension of the right to self defense (your property included). You CAN'T effectively defend yourself unless you have access to weapons equal to or greater then those normally found in the hands of criminals. You can of course choose NOT to defend yourself, but the right to self defense is a recognized constitutional right.

Do YOU want to bring your fists to a gunfight?

At the time of the revolutionary war, the individual could own a rifle, a weapon substantially superior to the musket, which was the common weapon of armies of the period.

Also, it is likely that just about EVERY private ship of any size was armed during that time period, for defense against pirates if nothing else. Thus, at the time of the revolutionary war, the individual could own the equivalent of a pocket warship. 4.154.232.250 (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there remain large problems with the neutrality of this article. I suggest that this be discussed and resolved on the talk page. In the mean time, I suggest that a neutrality dispute warning be added to the article, directing readers to this discussion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Without identifying specific reasons why there is a problem with neutrality, adding a neutrality tagline appears premature. As this article is presently rated as being a Good Article (GA), with no prior evidence of NPOV issues for half a year now, including through the GA review process, arbitrarily adding a neutrality tagline does not seem warranted. Yaf (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This article displays a lack of neutrality that anyone not wearing NRA blinders can see. The recent edits to the intro help a bit, but it is still heavily slanted.--Fizbin (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This article reflects the current interpretation given to the Second Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court. If you don't like that interpretation, your argument is with five of the nine Justices, not with this article. SMP0328. (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, 5-4 of the Supreme Court. And, in any case, the Supreme Court ruling is a primary document, reflecting the point of view of the slimmest majority of the justices. By your logic you assert that the SCOTUS meets WP:RS standard, then the minority opinion would carry weight too and qualify as WP:V sourcing for the article, right? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Supreme Court ruling is not a primary source regarding interpreting the 2A of the US Constitution; it is a secondary source to the US Constitution. As for giving weight to dissents in SCOTUS rulings, that is not how the SCOTUS works. 5-4 up to 9-0, the result is the same regarding the outcome. The individual interpretation of the 2A is the current "law of the land" based on the Heller decision. Yaf (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Pardon. Cherry picking out of a court ruling, in favor of one bias, is misuse of a primary source, and violates NPOV. Stick with high quality secondary sources please. I dispute neutrality. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Supreme Court ruling is clearly a secondary source relative to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Are you disputing whether or not the Supreme Court is a reliable "hiqh quality" secondary source? I don't understand your concern, here. Are you really saying that we should not abide by the Supreme Court ruling, by virtue that you believe it not to be a "high quality" secondary source? What higher quality source is there, than the Supreme Court, to interpret the US Constitution? Yaf (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem in not the source, but rather the editorial process of cherry picking selective quotes from the source. That process of picking out passages selectively is a form of original research advancing your pro-gun point of view. It is a WP:NOR policy violation. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Writings published in peer reviewed journals from well respected publishing houses are a high quality sources. Your cherry picked quotes directly from court documents reflects your pro-gun editor bias. This caused a neutrality bias skew problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to authors adding content to this article based on writings in peer-reviewed journals, as well as other reliable and verifiable secondary sources such as Supreme Court interpretations of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Yaf (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a separate issue. The neutrality problem occurs because of the biased selective quoting from primary court documents is in itself a form of original research due to 'cherry picking' selection by POV editors. Also, the prominence of this bias at the top introduction level given undue weight to that point of view at the expense of other points of view. This neutrality bias should be fixed to bring the article into compliance with WP:NPOV policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr is dead on here with regards to the lead of the article. The "facts" presented in the first paragraph of the lead are simply Scalia's opinion from the Heller decision. Clearly this view should be aired in the article, but as the court's view in this decision, not as undisputed historical fact. On the subject of the lead, the whole thing seems confusing, and does a poor job of summarizing its topic - The second and third paragraphs would be confusing to an observer who doesn't know anything about the cases involved. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I really don't feel that the article is very biased. Even if it is slightly biased I don't think it bad enough to warrant the tag. I think it should be removed SpencerVR (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The determination of neutrality should not (and is not) based on what individual editors feel. Neutrality is measured by the balance of opinions found in credible reliable sources. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

I think there should be a more general introduction... one that talks about the Amendment in more general terms rather than referring specifically to a Supreme Court interpretation. Thoughts? Quark1005 (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Insofar as Heller is the one Supreme Court ruling that defines the amendment, that Court's findings should factor prominently, if we are to remain NPOV and encyclopedic. Looking at the other Bill of Rights articles, the leads are similar in structure and detail to this article. (Which tells me this article is on the right track.) Whether editors like it or not, Heller defined the amendment the way it did, so that's what the amendment means. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia presenting facts, not the "I likes" and "I don't likes" of various editors. --tc2011 (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much all of the text related to Heller is out of place in the intro. Having a separate section related to Heller is fine, but the intro should be much more general in nature.--Fizbin (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

In any article about a Constitutional amendment, it is common for the Introduction of that article to reference at least one important Supreme Court decision interpreting that amendment. For example, see Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Why should this article be any different? SMP0328. (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The two examples you cite have no reference to court cases in the initial paragraph, whereas this page refers to Heller in the first sentence. In fact, if you remove all of the Heller stuff the intro is pretty much a blank, as if this amendment had no significance until Heller was decided a couple of years back. The intro is totally slanted - a sham, really. --Fizbin (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I've de-emphasized Heller in the lead. This article is, after all, about the amendment itself and not a particular court case, so the repetitive Heller qualifiers are unnecessary for defining the amendment. --tc2011 (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel tc2011 has found a fair compromise. The Introduction still refers to Heller, but doesn't give the impression that the individual right to keep and bear arms is solely based on Heller. Also, the Introduction is now more concise. SMP0328. (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the edits by tc2011 are a major improvement. I would add that an even more neutral intro sentence would read something like this: "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the section of the United States Bill of Rights protecting the right to own firearms." --Fizbin (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The intro places a far too heavy weight on Heller, and specifically on the 'tyranny' aspect of Heller. There is 219 years of history about the 2A, and Heller is only one year of that history. Heller was fundamentally a case about the right of firearms for self protection. The focus on the tyranny concept is a POV push and imbalance. Also, the POV position articulated in Heller that the right to firearms is limited like all rights should be given higher weight for NPOV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Heller is a landmark decision. Dismissing it as merely "one year of that history" makes as much sense as referring to Brown v. Board of Education as merely "one year of [the] history" of the Equal Protection Clause. It's place in the Introduction is proper. SMP0328. (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Per George Will, the better analogy is Roe v. Wade[14]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It still is a POV push to give the 'tyranny' hypothesis such high emphasis. Rather, the lead section should summarize the article. The effects of the Pro-Gun editors have skewed the neutrality balance point of this article. This lack of neutrality harms the reputation of Wikipedia. Knowing your history, I don't expect a neutral response from SMP0328. Consistent personal bias and refusal to stand down from a pro-gun POV push. Hopefully for Wikipedia, you might change. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I am always reasonable with my responses. You need to learn to be polite with people with whom you disagree. The Second Amendment means what the Supreme Court says it means. The Supreme Court says it protects a right to keep and bear arms which existed before the adoption of that Amendment. The reference to "tyranny" is from the Heller decision and is referenced in the body of the article. If the "tyranny" reference was removed from the Introduction, would you be satisfied with the Introduction? SMP0328. (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, per Wikipedia policy the introduction should summarize the article, not summarize the most recent Supreme Court ruling. I appreciate your conciliatory words, though your words would carry more weight if they were followed with action, such as editing out the 'tyranny' hypothesis from the introduction. I don't dispute your reasonableness, I dispute your pro-gun editorial bias, which is 'reasonable' but (seemingly unintentionally) violates the neutrality weight requirements of WP:NPOV policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You're making a distinction; splitting a Constitutional amendment from Supreme Court case law regarding that amendment. That's a false distinction, because they are one and the same. Heller is the official interpretation of the Second Amendment. The meaning of the Second Amendment is Heller. If the "tyranny" reference was removed from the Introduction, would you be satisfied with the Introduction? SMP0328. (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Official interpretation? What does that mean? The only concrete effect at the present time is in the District of Columbia. We are facing decades of litigation before we can see through the fog of what Heller truly means. The heavy emphasis on the tyranny hypothesis is just a small portion of the pro-gun bias in the article. SMP0328 show good faith by adding a POV tag to the article, and then lets discuss the fixing of the neutrality bias problem in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the fog largely lifted with the Supreme Court Heller decision. The current tone of the article, following the Supreme Court ruling, is pro-rights, supportive of the Bill of Rights, as one would tacitly assume the Supreme Court would always rule, thereby reaffirming the US Constitution. No real surprises here. Are you suggesting the article should ignore the Supreme Court ruling altogether and favor an anti-rights tone to the article? I don't understand why you believe the article should skew away from the Bill of Rights, nor why you feel the article needs to reflect a non pro-rights POV, especially without cites. I am puzzled. Yaf (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Answering your question. After reading expert opinions on the Heller decision I see it is far from definitive. Many decades of litigation will likely ensue to resolve the ambiguity of which limits on gun rights are allowed and which are not. (No surprise, I guess, considering the 5-4 court split.) We know very little about the concrete effect of Heller presently other than on one insignificant ordinance in the District of Columbia, and the definitive statement (page 53) that the Heller ruling does not prohibit the government from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. Clear as mud. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, do you dispute there is a dispute about the neutrality of this article? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Salty Boatr

Please look up the meaning of the word "infringe" before continuing the POV dispute. 4.156.78.54 (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

When I look in books I see that there is debate over the meaning of the word infringed. Per WP:Policy, we should include all credibly reliable sides in that debate in the article. Presently the article suppresses the side of the debate which is not pro-gun. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

When I look at a dictionary I can't quite find a debate on the meaning of the word. I do find the MEANING however. Why don't you start with that? 4.156.78.223 (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence of suppression of properly cited content supported by Reliable and Verifiable sources by any editors contributing to this article. As stated previously, if you feel that there are points of view that need to be added, then, by all means, add them. This is an opportunity for you to contribute to Wikipedia. Yaf (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The proper procedure is to discuss revisions, find a consensus, then add them to the article. If I were to just unilaterally add changes to this article I risk starting an edit war, which I seriously want to avoid. A key element is the discussion, are you willing to discuss? SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the reference to post-Heller litigation from the Introduction to the part of the article describing Heller. SMP0328. (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Yaf's has declared[15] "The tone of the article is currently pro-rights...". This amounts to a stipulation that the article has a pro-rights neutrality skew. I and other editors dispute[16][17][18] that the biased tone of the article is presently meets neutrality per WP:NPOV policy.

Counting Yaf, myself, and these three editors, a total of at least five editors claim the article is neutrality biased. I am adding the "POV" tag based on this fact, to alert readers that neutrality is disputed and being discussed on the talk page. The tag also says: Please do not remove the message until the dispute is resolved. Please read WP:NPOVD and respect. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed that tag and will do so everytime you, or anyone else, adds it. This article is not biased. You are a bully. Yes, that is a personal attack, but it's also accurate! Every part of the Bill of Rights protects an individual right. Even the dissenters in Heller agreed that the Second Amendment protected an individual right. The Supreme Court is the final word on what a part of the Constitution means. The Court has said the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing individual right to keep and bear arms, subject to certain conditions. This article reflects that ruling, as it should. SMP0328. (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Even SMP0328 declared on November 14 that editor(s) "...are claiming the article isn't neutral." It appears unanimous, everyone here agrees there is a neutrality dispute.

This is silly then. We dispute whether there is a dispute. I ask SMP0328, will you participate in WP:DR to resolve our dispute about whether we dispute? Please answer. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That was from Yaf's user talk page. You're like a secret police force; nobody can feel comfortable saying anything to anyone. We entered disputer resolution once and it didn't work. Why don't you add material which you feel should be in the article? That would be preferable to removing properly cited material. SMP0328. (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Is that a no answer? Would you please answer my question? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, this article is so biased that only those with NRA blinders on would miss it. SaltyBoatr is not a bully; SMP0328, on the other hand . . .--Fizbin (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I ask again, considering that we all agree that there is a dispute here about neutrality, can we agree to add the POV warning tag be added to the article directing readers to the talk page to refer to the discussion of the dispute, and to participate in the resolution of the dispute? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

How about, once it's possible, you add properly sourced material so as to fix any problems you perceive to be in the article? That way, any reader of the article can see both sides of the dispute. Wouldn't that be preferable to removing material? The answer to free speech is more free speech, not censorship. SMP0328. (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is wise to discuss changes on the talk page, reach a consensus, then make the edits into the article. That way we can avoid edit wars. That is the reason I favor adding a notice to the article, to direct readers to this talk page to participate in the discussion about fixing the neutrality balance in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Forget the tag; the article is fully protected. Do you have sourced material which you would like to add? SMP0328. (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no way this article can be described as neutral. I am far from an expert on the subject (different continent, not interested in arms control), but here are some obvious problems:

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution#English Common Law: "The rights of British subjects to possess arms was recognized under English common law." As a summary of the following quotation ("having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law") this is incomplete to the point of being a crass misrepresentation. (Relevant definitions from the OED: condition: "state in regard to wealth, circumstances; hence, position with reference to the grades of society; social position, estate, rank"; degree: "a stage or position in the scale of dignity or rank; relative social or official rank, grade, order, estate, or station".)
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution#Early commentary extensively discusses a text that clearly distinguishes between the individual and the collective right to keep arms, while hiding this distinction for transparent political reasons.
In Second Amendment to the United States Constitution#Text, the misleading (from a modern point of view) comma in some versions of the amendment is given undue weight because it appears in a prominent position, while the historical context (extremely irregular comma setting at the time, which is in no way comparable to modern rules) is not even discussed.

The article needs a clear neutrality warning, and it needs cooperation of editors from a wide range of backgrounds who cooperate to make it neutral. Currently it reads like the result of tendentious editing plus a few tiny fig leaves. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is neutral. As for equating the article with "arms control", that is actually a dead giveaway of a rather extreme, non-neutral, editing bias, in and of itself, typically used for indicating a codeword for advertising one's advocacy of extinguishing individual rights protected by the US Constitution. As for using the modern day Oxford English Dictionary to "decode" legalese English from a few centuries past, that is a fool's errand. English has changed over the time frame in question. As for the comma usage, again, you are using modern day English punctuation rules, with modern eyes, to critique historical English punctuation practices that were done differently. As Mark Twain wrote in the 19th Century, it is a weak mind that can only think of one way to spell a word. By modern day rules, however, such creative spelling and punctuation commonly seen in historical English only looks alien to eyes that have only read modern day English extensively. The English Language is dynamic, changing over centuries. The US Constitution, however, is written in a language that locks into print the English practices and word usages and beliefs of an earlier time. Being a constitutional form of Government, the protections provided by the US Constitution do not change like what is seen with countries having parliamentary supremacy, under which rights are not protected in perpetuity, but under which individual rights can be extinguished by a simple edict from Parliament. This extinguishing of basic individual rights is not possible under the US Constitution. Likewise, the wording of English law from the 17th Century may look alien as well. The current article can surely benefit from adding additional points of view. There is always room for improvement. However, censorship of cited information, that is somehow "offensive" with regards to modern day views of "arms control" resulting from living under a Government in which Parliamentary Supremacy has extinguished basic human rights that formerly were the hallmark of every Englishman (including, lest we forget, the Colonists who locked the then extant rights of Englishmen into the US Constitution), such censorship is not a worthwhile path to trod. This article should not be censored. Yaf (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your problem with the Text section. Wouldn't picking only one version to be in the article be a form of bias? As for your other concerns, I'll say to what I said to SaltyBoatr: The answer to free speech is more free speech, not censorship. If you have properly sourced and germane material you want to add, do so without removing other properly sourced germane material (once the article is no longer fully protected). Let's all give the benefit of the doubt regarding what is "germane". SMP0328. (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about misrepresentations, including misrepresentation of sources. They need to be removed or replaced by neutral statements, not balanced with statements representing the opposite point of view. In ~~a dictionary~~ an encyclopedia (sorry, I have been looking up too much), "free speech" is no excuse for tendentiousness. And what was your argument, again, for not tagging the article as POV until the problem has been solved? --Hans Adler (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not constructive. We should work this out, rather than placing a tag. A tag many times is a way to deligitimize an article. What do you feel should be in the article. Should it say the Second Amendment protects an individual right? SMP0328. (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Constructive, absolutely, lets be constructive; separate issue. The issue at hand is simple: Is the neutrality disputed? Yes, everyone agrees there is a dispute. Then a tag is warranted. Simple. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Forget the tag; the article is fully protected. Let's fix this. How about the article giving both sides regarding the various issues covered by the article? If both sides are in the article, it should be balanced. That's easier than making each passage be balanced. SMP0328. (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

For some reason the full protection was removed, so I restored the POV tag per WP:NPOV dispute and WP:TAGGING. There isn't even disagreement as to whether we have a valid POV dispute here (we do), so the fact that POV tags are sometimes used to "delegitimise" a neutral article is not a valid argument. There is an obvious systemic bias here, with one side caring a lot more about the article than the other (or neutral editors), and so doing a lot more work.

Note that this is not about making the article "balanced". That's the easy way out chosen by journalists. If you just tell the story of two opposing viewpoints you don't have to check the details. The way we do it in Wikipedia is to get the details right and to present them appropriately, taking care to give everything its due weight. The juxtaposition of two biased parts doesn't make an NPOV article.

I would consider removing the tag without a very good reason a very unconstructive act: an attempt to "delegimitise" the dispute. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with group projects is that a small minority, even a minority of one, can gum up the works, due to being continually at odds with everyone else.

I can only repeat what I have said before, an article about a PROTECTED RIGHT is NATURALLY PRO that right. This article SHOULD sound PRO gun ownership because that is what the Second Amendment protects. If it is not then the editors are failing to do their job. 4.154.234.125 (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:DFTT --Hans Adler (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a set of trollish comments to me. Name calling good faith comments by an anonymous editor, by saying don't feed the trolls, looks like rather poor practice, in my opinion. The comments express an opinion of how the article should be written. Nothing wrong with making good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia articles, including recommendations on how best to write articles. Yaf (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Splitting hairs about what is a troll and what is not a troll doesn't help. The anon editor keeps drumming the talk page with comments like "This article SHOULD sound PRO gun ownership because that is what the Second Amendment protects." Comments like that are prime example of the systemic bias problem with this article. I invite the anon editor to understand all the credible points of view on this topic, even those that don't match his/her personal point of view. Until that happens, the anon editor seems to be hoping to engage in an argument about gun rights. Take that argument elsewhere please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Should the article about that Amendment barring the quartering of soldiers in my home include arguments supporting the quartering soldiers in my home? I would HOPE NOT! I most certainly think it would be NATURALLY biased toward NOT QUARTERING SOLDIERS IN MY HOME!

The same goes for the Second Amendment.

As to whether I understand all points of view, I understand enough to have added section of this article which are still there. It just so happens that my understanding is not to your liking.

Sorry! Can't help you there! Nor do I want to!

Unless of course you change what you like.4.154.237.179 (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If Heller is not the official (i.e., legally binding) interpretation of the Second Amendment, then should every article about a Bill of Rights amendment which has been applied to the States have material claiming that is not the case. After all, we wouldn't want to push a pro-incorporation point of view? There are many people (foolishly in my opinion) who claim the Sixteenth Amendment was not adopted, because of alleged irregularities regarding its ratification. Should such tax protesters place a POV tag on that article for having a pro-ratification bias? SMP0328. (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

SMP0328, are you willing to edit neutrally? It appears that you are only willing to edit and defend your own personal point view. The policy at Wikipedia is to set aside your personal point of view, and to try to understand opposing points of view, and then to craft an article that presents, with balance, all the credible points of view including those that are not your own. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

To Salty Boatr

It is not in the LEAST credible, to bias an article about a protected right to make it ANTI that right.

For SMP - 16th Amendment - others may wish to skip the following as it is WAAAAAAY off topic.

Researchers have found at least one state being counted as voting PRO 16th Amendment, when in fact that vote was ANTI 16th Amendment. Mentioning this type of voting irregularity in its enactment is acceptable, but reports of this type should not DOMINATE the article.

An additional concern is that the 16th Amendment was declared passed with many states not officially informing the feds of their vote. One of the arguments by which the ORIGINAL 13th Amendment was declared null and void, after being in place for some 30 years, was a failure to officially inform the feds of the various state votes.

The ORIGINAL 13th Amendment, appeared in pre-Civil War era constitutions reads

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

It should be obvious why those who lust after power and money wanted this Amendment to disappear.

Wiki has an article on this Amendment, See 'Titles of Nobility Amendment" but it is POOR at best and fails to mention that this Amendment was considered enacted till it was declared null and void by the feds some years prior to the Civil War. The declaration more then likely was a contributing factor to the Civil war, which was was NOT about slavery, but about the feds infringing on state powers. When it comes to infringing, you can't get much worse then declaring null and void a Constitutional amendment in place for 30 some years.

Fairness dictates that if one Constitutional Amendment was declared null and void due to a failure of various states to inform the feds of their votes, then another cannot be ENACTED when it suffers the same failings.

Aside from voting irregularities, it is my personal opinion that the 16th Amendment is invalid because many if not all of the states at the time of the vote, had not been granted the Constitution power to tax income by the inhabitants of those states. We the people through various contracts, those being the state Constitutions, have granted certain powers to the states. The states then SUBCONTRACTED a portion of those powers to the federal government through the US Constitution. It is a given that if a contractor has NOT BEEN GRANTED authority to take a certain action, in this case tax income, then it most certainly has no legal basis to SUBCONTRACT that authority.

Feel free to call me foolish for holding that opinion!

More on topic, fairness dictates that some sort of mention should be made of minority opinions. That does not mean that minority opinions should skew an article NATURALLY PRO something, to a neutral point, or even worse, skew it to being ANTI what is should be naturally PRO.4.156.78.195 (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Bliss

Article re-write/clean-up

restoring POV tag

Requested quote from source for Bliss passage

The federal government's obligation to arm the militia

Quotes

Informal Poll

District of Columbia v. Heller

Incorporation

Introduction

District of Columbia v. Heller in Introduction

Article reform

Post-Heller cases

Restructuring of the article and lead

State Gun Laws

Incorporation in intro

See also

Revert of Cooke citation

Self-defense as the central component of the right

Models of interpretation

District of Columbia v. Heller comments

The Individual's Right to own a Pocket Warship

GA Review

Clarifying meaning of where the 2nd Amendment language was originally going to go

Yaf Please explain

Code words "individual right" in opening sentence cause POV skew

Pursuant to Kentucky constitution

Pro-gun bias in the Antebellum period section.

Prefatory clause vs. Ablative absolute

Problems with the opening sentence

Systemic bias

Unresolved dispute about article neutrality

Introduction

Neutrality tag