Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Over emphasis on Heller, stop fighting.

The introduction is skewed to a pro-gun bias due to the over emphasis on Heller. While Heller uses the politically charged term "individual rights" is does very little to define what that term means. The ambiguous term "individual rights" unfortunately also serves as a pro-gun rights slogan. Is the meaning as used in the article a political slogan serving to frame the issue? The answer for most readers is a loud yes. For that reason, we need to find a more neutral way to introduce the article.

Additionally, the meaning of 'bear arms', to 'carry weapons' was advanced with Heller, but Heller did not wash away the various other significant points of views, for example the point of the that 'bear arms' implies military service, or that 'bear arms' in the 2A means militia use. The fact that the latest SCOTUS court case may have leaned 5-4 in the pro-gun direction does not mean that the alternative POV should be scrubbed out of existence in this article. The introduction gives undue weight to just one of the POV's that should be covered in this article. The article also gives undue weight to one of the POVs that should be covered in this article.

Further, I see credible expert opinion that Heller has been misconstrued by the pro-gun advocates. There is another point of view about Heller that historically it serves as a major milestone towards the legitimizing and advancement of wide spread "reasonable regulation" of firearms[1]. That point of view deserves coverage in the article, and presently it receives none.

And worse, as long as the pro-gun Wikipedians treat this article as political battlefield to advance their pet political cause, the process of achieving neutrality seems impossible. The goal here should be for editors to set aside personal points of view, and to begin to understand and edit the opposing points of view. Presently, the pro-gun editors are fighting for their personal points of view only. Show some good faith and make a few edits that emphasize the opposing point of view. Please, stop fighting. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what is ambiguous about the term "individual right". A natural reading seems to be that this is about the distinction between

• "Every citizen may have a gun, so that he may defend himself" (e.g. against a robber; individual right), and
• "The people may collectively have as many arms as are necessary to defend themselves" (e.g. against a state that has become totalitarian, or against an external aggression; collective right).

Can you explain how your and/or the pro-gun interpretation differs from mine? --Hans Adler (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You put your examples within quotations, but it is not clear who you are quoting.

An example of the ambiguity is the concept "individual right to own and use firearms, free of public regulation.", described for instance on the back cover of the Uviller and Merkel book on this subject in the quotation of Jack Rakove "...misguided view that the amendment unequivocally recognizes and protects a strong individual right to own and use firearms, free of public regulation." Yet, the Heller ruling includes blunt statements that firearms are not free from public regulation, for instance on page 53 of the ruling: That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. Yet, as Jack Rakove suggests, many pro-gun advocates equate the slogan "individual rights" with the political belief "free of public regulation". While Heller appears to state exactly the opposite. Prominent gun control spokesmen like Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to prevent Gun Violence, actually praise the Heller ruling because the SCOTUS "...made it clear that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on access to firearms" It would be most neutral to avoid the slogan in the introduction, and explain the ambiguity carefully and neutrally down in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

We are not in article space here, so I felt free to use quotation marks in what may be a slightly idosyncratic way. Think of it as somewhere between marking a made-up quotation and scare quotes.

After your explanation I don't think "individual right" is ambiguous at all. On the other hand, I agree that certain readers may be misled into thinking that the SCOTUS completely endorsed an extreme POV. Perhaps we can solve this problem by rephrasing. I will think about this. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be open to a re-phrasing option. What I want to avoid is the risk of framing the article with code language. Sort of like the words "freedom to choose" when discussing something as contentious as abortion. The English language is versatile enough that we should be able to fairly describe the Second Amendment using words that are not worn out slogans commonly used as partisan political tools for framing this issue. At least the 'individual rights' term should not be needed to be used in the article until after the term is defined. This could avoid the 'framing' and projection of appearance of of pro-gun bias. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

For instance, perhaps the term "personal firearms subject to reasonable regulation" or "right of self protection firearms" could communicate the concept without using the slogan "individual rights". Additionally, I don't see that the concept of a right of arms for collective militia use does not still exist (in addition to the self protection firearm right), but the introduction suggests otherwise. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Blogs, such as Paul Helmke's post to the huffingtonpost.com that you reference above, are not considered reliable sources, being they are self-published. With proper cites, though, I don't think any editor would object to adding additional points of view, including some points of view even such as Helmke advocates in his blog. The sources, however, would have to be reliable and verifiable. Newsgroups and Blogs do not meet acceptable inclusion criteria on Wikipedia for use in citations. Also, I object to every point of view that differs from yours being labeled with your automatic "pro-gun" label, as you are wont to do. The Second Amendment is about more than "guns", it is about the protection of the right to keep and bear arms, which includes much more than guns. Your discussion above appears to focus on your disagreement with the Supreme Court case Heller, more than with the article itself. Can we focus instead on improving the article, instead of you quoting ad nauseum from blogs and labeling everything with which you disagree "pro-gun"? This is not an advocacy blog or anti-US Constitution website, but instead is a talk page that should focus on improving the article about one of the Amendments to the US Constitution. As for equating "individual rights" with "free of public regulation", that is not what Heller says, nor is it what most reliable sources indicate Heller says. The libertarian viewpoint, believing the 2A protects a right to keep and bear arms that are concealed from being in violation with the 2A, largely ended in the 19th Century despite having been the original interpretation set forth in Bliss in Kentucky. That said, the right to carry concealed arms is still the point of view in 2 states among the 50 states even to this day, without any requirement to license a right, consistent with the original libertarian interpretation of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution that dates back to Bliss. Similarly, you are exaggerating the point of view of those with whom you disagree, in a transparent attempt to discredit all disagreeing viewpoints. This is a rather juvenile debating trick, unworthy of inclusion on this discussion. Lets focus on using Reliable and Verifiable sources, not blogs, OK? And, lets drop the automatic "pro-gun" label for everything and every editor for which, and to which, you disagree. Yaf (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The opinion of Paul Helmke, who is the most prominent spokesman for the 'gun control' point of view is definitely pertinent, regardless if that statement was issued in online media or not. Your personal smears aside, I have provided the reliable sourcing of Jack Rakove regarding the neutrality problems with the slogan "individual rights" as used in the introduction. Are you willing to work together to resolve the neutrality problem with the article? It appears that you are stonewalling this work. Instead of continuing your fight, offer some compromise. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The sourcing of Jack Rakove's opinions, from a publisher's book jacket no less, is not a high quality source. I am not even sure precisely how it relates to the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Content from an author's own words, found inside a published book, should be used to convert a point of view into a high quality source suitable for use in an article on Wikipedia. Blogs and book jackets are not high quality sources, typically having undergone much less review than is the case for actual court decisions, published books, and peer-reviewed papers, for example. Besides, book jackets are also not typically verifiable for long, book jackets typically being lost almost immediately after a book is sold. I am not stonewalling, only asking that you use high quality sources, not blogs and book jackets (poor quality online media), for any content you add to the article. The requirement for maintaining high quality standards for Wikipedia is not negotiable; rather, you will need to find high quality sources that are Reliable and Verifable, and worthy of inclusion in a Good Article on Wikipedia. Otherwise, the content will destroy the Good Article evaluation, which should not be the intent of adding content to an article. Blogs and book jackets are just not high quality sources. As I have said repeatedly, this is your opportunity to contribute to Wikipedia. Yaf (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

[outdent]
Yaf. Stop fighting. Can you not see opposing points of view? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I clearly see opposing points of view. However, it appears that you cannot, advocating in perpetuity the removal of cited information you don't like simply because it doesn't agree with your point of view, instead of just adding high quality content to the article containing additional points you feel are missing. Wikipedia is not censored. There is room for all major points of view. As I have repeatedly said, you should view this as an opportunity to add high quality content to this article. When authors complain incessantly, while never adding content, it starts to look like what Hans Adler said perhaps another point is pertinent, namely WP:DFTT. Lets not go there. Yaf (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I object strongly to being quoted out of context in this way. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Objection noted. (It was a pertinent point, though, that you had made.) Yaf (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, If you can see opposing points of view then you have a duty to advocate inclusion of opposing points of view even if you personally disagree with those points of view. You fail at this. And, I prefer to take the advice given to me that I should work out revisions to the article on the talk page before I make the edits directly in article space. This 'talk first' editing process is very slow when dealing with tendentious editors. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

And have I not advocated repeatedly the inclusion of all major points of view in this article, asking you to please contribute to Wikipedia article space on this article, instead of just complaining? Again, I state you should consider this an opportunity to contribute to Wikipedia. Please do so. Yes, I have failed to read your mind. However, I cannot read your mind to transcribe your thoughts into article content with cites. The article currently appears neutral, but more detail can always be added, with proper use of Reliable and Verifiable sources, to increase the quality of the article. But, blogs and book jackets just are not the same quality as published Supreme Court decisions, published peer-reviewed papers, and published books by well-respected academics/historians/political scientists/et al. Your preferred editing mode, of suppressing all cited content against which you disagree, despite it being well written and reliably cited, while whining about systemic bias of historical records and published material, needs to change. Yaf (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

[outdent]
Your long history of seeking to get me banned from Wikipedia for editing in article space belies the good faith of your assertions today. The 'book cover' Yaf disparages was published by Duke University Press a well respected academic publishing house. Additionally, extensive discussion of the point summarized on the book cover is found on page 80 inside the book[2]. In short, the "individual rights" slogan emphasized in this 2A article is given undue weight relative to an opposing credible point of view regarding the orthodox view of the framers regarding the legitimacy of state police power which authorizes broad governmental firearm legislation in pursuit of public health and welfare. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"Now, we are making progress, being that the book has actually been opened! I have no fundamental objections to adding additional "balancing" content that you feel is necessary. But, being this is a historical viewpoint, pre-dating the clear interpretation of the Second Amendment given by the SCOTUS in Heller, perhaps it should be added in detail under the historical commentary section, with a short summary in the lede? Would this balance the short summary of Heller, in your opinion, in the lede? Yaf (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is offensive and appears to be deliberately obtuse considering your long knowledge of our study of that Uviller and Merkel research work. And wow, clear interpretation in Heller? In fact, Heller makes extremely strong statements (see especially page 53 of that ruling) about the Constitutional legitimacy of governmental legislative bans and regulations of firearms. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Heller does make these points. As you may recall, though, I was the one who also added, "The Supreme Court stated in Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897):

“The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;..."

and Heller builds on this earlier SCOTUS history. But, what does this have to do with the summary lede? Yaf (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, and again, and again your armchair interpretations through direct readings of court documents crosses the line of original research to advance your pet political cause. This original research and POV push has no place in Wikipedia. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should be honored that you think I wrote this opinion in 1897, but I am not that old. Hence, quoting this statement is not Original Research in the Wikipedia definition of the term. Neither is it synthesis, being only a quote that is interpreting the 2A. Clearly, this statement is an interpretation of one meaning of "infringed" relative to the Second Amendment. It is also historical in its interpretation of the 2A, in that it made the case that at least some restrictions on arms did not "infringe" the right protected by the 2A. Yaf (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

So you say. Your personal opinion about the meaning of that court ruling has no weight. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Federal obligation to ARM the militia

I brought this up many months ago as a worthwhile addition to the article, and I believe discussion was dropped as nobody wanted to do any major (or even minor changes) before seeing what the Supremes would say on Heller.

Per the US Constitution, Congress is OBLIGATED to ARM the militia. This power was transferred to the feds upon the ratification of the Constitution, when previously it was a state power under the Articles of Confederation.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

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

I would like to see some sort of mention on this OBLIGATION.

It is clear that the power to ARM is related to the power to DIS-ARM and that the Second Amendment was a CLARIFICATION of the above power, LIMITING it sorely to the ARMING of the militia.

There is currently language in the article that the Second Amendment language was supposed to be included in the body of the Constitution and I believe that this would be a good place for a reference of this OBLIGATION to ARM. 4.154.234.125 (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This hypothesis seems like original research and might be inappropriate on that grounds, and might also be inappropriate for this article belonging more 'on topic' in Militia (United States). What reliable sourcing are you reading for this idea? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that you object to mention of the Federal OBLIGATION to ARM the militia on an article dedicated to an amendment which CLARIFIES that federal obligation? Your anti-gun bias is showing.

The second amendment clearly is related to the above referenced language and that relationship is already mentioned in the "Conflict and Compromise" section of the article. See current language below

The Bill of Rights introduced by Madison on June 8 was not composed of numbered amendments intended to be added at the end of the Constitution. Instead, the Bill of Rights was to be inserted into the existing Constitution. 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.

As for original research, this quote by George Mason already appears in the article (takes a bow for a job well done) and it doesn't take ANY brains to figure out what Mr Masons concern was. He speaks quite clearly on the matter.

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?

and in case you are concerned about POV bias, please note that there are STILL more quotes in the article from the Federalist camp then from the anti-Federalists camp, when in fact the anti-Federalists were the prime movers for enacting the Second Amendment. For proper POV bias the authors of the Second Amendment should have more quotes then the people opposing it.

If you wish to be a "contributor" to this article you could try finding one or two more worthwhile quotes from the anti-Federalist camp. Who knows! You might even learn something while looking.4.154.233.81 (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Reliance on snippets of quotes from the founding founders to interpret the meaning of the 2A is a valid point of view, but Originalism like that is only one point view which is presently given undue weight in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't be avoided! The Second Amendment was written over two hundred years ago so to understand it's purpose you need to know the opinions of the people who wrote it.4.154.237.179 (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your point of view, but there is also another Contextualist point of view that the Constitution should be interpreted based on modern day realities and context as times and circumstances change. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

[Personal attack from anonymous editor removed]

I actually agree with what you write about criminals and some politicians. That said, this discussion belongs somewhere else. This encyclopedia talk page is not the place to discuss foolhardy public policy, please stop. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is ACTUALLY WHY THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS ENACTED. The main concern of the anti-Federalists was that crooks would gain public office, enact laws disarming the citizenry, and then through the use of an army, seize permanent power because the citizenry could not effectively resist.

Referencing quotes from Patric Henry in support - pay particular attention to the line, will your mace bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment. In case you didn't know a mace is a glorified CLUB. Do you want to face someone armed with a gun with only a CLUB?

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?

See also the comment by George Mason regarding an untrained unarmed yeomanry resisting an army.

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?

On a more personal level, are you aware that Washington DC, also known as the District of Columbia was the murder capital of the US for many many years and for all I know still is?

What is you opinion of the ability of an UNARMED common citizens ability to defend himself against an ARMED criminal? Mine is that it is somewhere around slim to none, and that slim is on vacation. The politicians of Washington DC forced that situation on the citizens that they ARE OBLIGATED TO PROTECT AND SERVE resulting in the untimely death of many of those citizens.4.154.239.26 (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

To Amatulic

This is a DISCUSSION page about the Second Amendment article and a discussion of the arguments used in the ENACTMENT of that Amendment are certainly germane to this article. I have added material to this article (and several other articles) and can therefore be classed as an editor (although I am not a REGISTERED wiki editor). Salty Boatr is a registered editor.

This article has a neutrality dispute and one of the ways that dispute can be ironed out is to convinse the one making the dispute of the error of his position. Such can only by done through a discussion of that dispute.

Please refrain from deleting any portion of those discussions.4.154.235.12 (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Argument based on one's personal opinion about history, whether that opinion is justified or not, really don't carry any weight in an encylopedia article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Quotes from two leading anti Federalist indicate THEIR opinion.

and what kind of a discussion can we have on the the reasons for the enactment of the Second Amendment, if we cannot reference the opinions of leading political figures whose concerns it was designed to satisfy?4.154.235.12 (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous user: No. Follow the talk page guidelines or recuse yourself from this page.

I will continue to delete diatribes and soapboxing, per the guidelines WP:REFACTOR and WP:SOAPBOX. This isn't a forum. Restrict your comments to improving the article, rather than debating personal interpretation and points of view about the 2nd amendment. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

NO to WHAT? Are you trying to bar me from quoting source material ALREADY IN THE ARTICLE?

I was under the impression that attempts to resolve a POV NEUTRALITY DISPUTE falls under an improvement on an article.

Do you disagree?

last I checked there are only 3 ways to resolve that type of dispute.

1) to convince one side of the error of their position

2) To change the article

or

3) a combination of the above

Do you disagree? and if you do, What is your disagreement? Is there a 4th method I don't know about?

FYI:I am engaged in method 1 above. Others are engaged in method 2 and still others in 3.

I personally find the current article quite acceptable and can therefore only honestly engage in method 1.4.154.238.222 (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

4.154.238.222 Could you please read and follow talk page Wikipedia:Etiquette? Your 1-2 method isn't working, trying following etiquette as a method 4 to get what you want. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

When I used method 2 it worked quite well thank you. It got the quotes I reference above included in the article. That is one of the reasons why I currently have no major beef with the article. The other reason is that the Supreme Court stated gun ownership is an individual right and that Supreme Court ruling is well reflected in the article

even barring your continuing attempts at revisionism.

and speaking of etiquette; I don't remember receiving any response as to why you deleted my addition to the article regarding the Cooke citation. see footnote 37. I believe I asked you for a reason half a dozen times and not one peep out of you in response. Bad etiquette on your part? or should that be lack of etiquette? Were you aware of those etiquette rules back then or is etiquette something that only other people should follow? You being too good to follow rules meant for lesser mortals.

Isn't it funny how the US Supreme Court used almost that exact same language from Cooke that I tried to add, and YOU deleted, in the Heller ruling!

Also nice to see that the Supreme Court, in Heller, used language almost exactly the same as the quote from George Mason. I was responsible for getting that quote into the article in as well.

Now back on topic, while I personally can't see method 1 working on you, that does not mean I can't try.

Now, in order to understand your beef with the article and see if it has any basis in fact, lets go back to on question you keep avoiding

What do YOU believe the Second Amendment protects?

It obviously protects SOMETHING!4.154.232.169 (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not delete your edit. My opinion of what the 2A protects is totally irrelevant here on this talk page. Quit yelling. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You did IN FACT delete my edit.

Of course that fact that you have deleted so many OTHER edits probably makes the fact that you deleted mine a bit forgettable to you.

To refresh your memory, For a month or so after that deletion, I was referring to you deletions as the BURNING of other people good faith efforts to improve this article.

Does THAT ring a bell?

Your opinion on the 2A is TOTALLY relevant to you disputing the neutrality of the article. As stated before I find this article currently quite acceptable. You obviously don't seem to.

Again: WHAT do YOU think the Second Amendment protects? It obviously protects SOMETHING!4.154.232.10 (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I strongly doubt SaltyBoatr is ever going to answer your question. If he wants to answer he will, but don't repeat the question. The repetition serves no purpose. Responding to what he has already said is more productive. SMP0328. (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

He certainly didn't answer my repeated questions as to why he deleted the Cooke reference. I mean that was only from a book in print for some 40 years.

and frankly I resent a lecture on etiquette from someone who not only crawls under a rock to hide whenever he gets called on something unethical, but lies about it to boot!4.154.232.10 (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Incorporation, uncertain?

Regarding the last sentence in the introduction: The issue of incorporation of the 2A is by all accounts something that may happen in the future. See for instance Harvard's Professor Amar discussion of this[3] where he describes the process in the future tense. Yet, the introduction of this article is vague that the issue of incorporation is somehow split, leaving the open implication that incorporation may already exist. This is a powerful pro-gun bias skew in the introduction that the issue is simply a matter of "uncertainty". No. The Second Amendment has not been incorporated. There is plenty of speculation that it should be incorporated, or will be incorporated, but it is not uncertain that it has not yet been incorporated to the states. I suggest that we strike the incorporation sentence in the introduction entirely as a step to help fix the neutrality bias problem in the article. Alternatively, that sentence can be rewritten to say that incorporation will likely happen at some point in the future, (an option which I don't like because that involves a crystal ball prediction). Comments? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the word "uncertainty" is biased, but it is vague. How about saying "since Heller, federal cases have been filed requesting the Second Amendment be made applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment"? Appropriate wikilinks and sourcing would be added. SMP0328. (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable, as it appears that it is not so much an attempt to find out whether the 2nd Amendment is incorporated, but rather a political struggle about whether to make it so. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally find the states two-faced in this matter. Many states refused to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights. By definition, when the states forced the inclusion of the Bill of Rights into the Constitution, that recognized those rights and bound themselves by the language.

The states to the feds: The people have these rights - don't mess

The states to the people on the exact same matter- You don't have these rights and we can mess.

Either the rights exist or they don't. Further a right is not a right if it can be taken away. The Bill of Rights states that these rights exist, and it is superior to state laws and Constitutions. Invoking the 14th Amendment should not be necessary. 4.154.233.81 (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

At the time, as now, each State enumerated its citizens' rights in its State Constitution. The call for a federal Bill of Rights was so those limitations would apply to the federal government. The States viewed the U.S. Constitution as simply one more Constitution. They didn't want a federal Bill of Rights to override each State's Bill of Rights. So people had rights at the State level, even though the federal Bill of Rights didn't apply at that level. SMP0328. (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The Second Amendment has not yet formally been incorporated. That said, it is impossible to know whether or not the 2A is incorporated since there is an absence of Supreme Court rulings one way or the other in the recent past to decide the matter. Short of a case coming before the SCOTUS, in which this is decided anew, we cannot say one way or the other. The original reason for the "uncertainty" wording in the last paragraph of the intro was to accommodate the ambiguity existing after Heller. That said, there is clearly Wikipedia policy against being a crystal ball regarding future events. One of the original purposes of the 14th Amendment was precisely to incorporate the 2A, to guarantee the rights of self defense to recently freed black men in the South after the Civil War, but there was a good bit of case law by Southern courts that succeeded in largely blocking this effort. The Civil Rights movement of the 1960's started the incorporation effort with regards to other rights of individuals; in many ways, the current post-Heller era appears to be headed in much the same direction with regards to the 2A as seen in the 1960's for other Civil Rights. However, it is entirely inappropriate for this article to claim the 2A is positively incorporated or not incorporated. Historically, it was not incorporated in the 19th Century, but, likewise, neither were lots of other rights incorporated back then, rights that are today considered incorporated by the SCOTUS. Yaf (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Who should we believe, you or Professor Amar? It would be helpful if you could stop your pushing of your personal agenda based on your personal beliefs. Though after knowing you for a few years, I am skeptical that you have the ability to do this. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks, such as this, unrelated to improving the article, need to stop. They serve no useful purpose. That said, are you now saying you believe the 2A has been incorporated, contrary to what I said above? Yaf (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Professor Amar describes the incorporation of the 2A using future tense language. Clearly, the incorporation has not happened yet according to that preeminent expert on this topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

SMP0328 made some changes[4] to the the 'incorporation' sentence in the introduction, which are a modest improvement. Still, the coverage of these NRA lawsuits is not mentioned anywhere in the article, so high profile inclusion in the introduction gives undue weight to these 'pro-gun' advocacy lawsuits and contributes to the overall pro-gun neutrality bias in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:32, 9 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) 02:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Errors in Case law section

"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]

This is an incorrect interpretation, regardless of the source.

The phrase "for the common defense" is not in the US Constitution's 2nd amendment, and was explicitly rejected when proposed in the US Senate:

Journal of the First Session of the Senate of the United States 77 (Washington 1820) ("On motion to amend article the fifth, by inserting these words: 'for the common defense' next to the words 'to bear arms'; it passed in the negative."). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.149.153.82 (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

From the Case Law section:

"The Arkansas high court further declared:

"That the words "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State", and the words "common defense" clearly show the true intent and meaning of these Constitutions [i.e., Ark. and U.S.] and prove that it is a political and not an individual right, and, of course, that the State, in her legislative capacity, has the right to regulate and control it: This being the case, then the people, neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms."[68]

The Arkansas high court did not declare the above. It's from a dissenting opinion. Further, footnote 68 refers to this link: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndcourt/state/191st.htm but it does not contain the dissenting opinion (and as a result the above quote). However this link does: http://www.guncite.com/court/state/4ar18.html

I will remove the above passage next week if this talk section doesn't receive any rational response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Edited to add: Not only is the quote misleading because it is a dissenting opinion but the judge concluded his opinion with: "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." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the link in footnote 68 and made a wording tweak so as to clarify that the "That the words" quote is from Justice Lacy's Buzzard dissent. SMP0328. (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That was fast! However, upon further review that commentary on Buzzard is misleading. First, why include the quote at all? As I stated above the judge further wrote: ""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." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This is also misleading: "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]

Modern gun rights advocates have disputed this history, claiming that the individual right was the orthodox view of the right to bear arms under state law in the 19th century"

There were two separate opinions in Buzzard. The first merely held an individual may bear arms suitable for militia use and that the carrying of concealed weapons could be regulated. This squares with some individual rights readings.

Bishop's commentary doesn't say either way whether the decision was individual or collective, but merely cites Buzzard as upholding restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons.

Therefore I'd like to remove the reference to Bishop's Commentaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Except that the "misleading" statement is cited with a Reliable and Verifiable source. Disagreeing with a cited source is common, but it is Original Research to state it is wrong without a cited reliable and verifiable source that makes an opposing claim. Bishop's commentary clearly has been interpreted by some in the way the present article has been written, as the cites clearly show. If you have another cited source that claims otherwise, then we can add that too. However, removal of "misleading" content that goes against your Original Research is not the way Wikipedia works. Reliable and Verifiable sources are the requirement on Wikipedia. Is there a source that states that the statement in the article is misleading? Yaf (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Please think of a solution other than removal. I'm not comfortable with removing that material. I think a clarification would be better, if needed. SMP0328. (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

But the citation is incorrect. Bishop's Commentary makes no mention of which interpretation the Buzzard court took. It appears to have been an "augmentation" by the author whose work was cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

@SMP --- I'll run some stuff by you later. It's possible to keep the mention of Bishop in there, but in a different fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That is the way Wikipedia works. Statements must be cited, and the author to which you object is quoted from a reliable and verifiable source. If there is another source that makes a different interpretation or claim, that is fine. But, calling the present cited wording "incorrect" is not the way Wikipedia works. It is very much correct and can be verified by the cited and reliable source. It is original research to make another claim without a cited source that is reliable and verifiable. Yaf (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to your proposed wording regarding Bishop. SMP0328. (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Before doing that, I'd like to re-visit the usage of judge Lacy's quote. It's taken out of context. That quote is actually a snippet of Lacy's interpretation of the two majority opinions. Lacy is in fact stating that the court's decision which would allow the regulation of bearing arms, eviscerates the right such that it becomes no right at all. Thus, Lucy opined that the individual citizen anytime may bear arms of any variety (see his concluding remarks that I quoted above). So if you wish to keep Lacy's remarks this needs to be explained. I think it'd be far more readable to give a sentence summarizing the three opinions and relegating the rest to a footnote at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What about this quote from Justice Lacy's dissenting opinion (in the last paragraph of that opinion):

I cannot separate the political freedom of the State from the personal rights of its citizens. They are indissolubly bound up together in the same great bond of union, and, to my mind, they are incapable of division. The distinction may be in names, but it cannot be in the nature and essence of things. SMP0328. (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you proposing to replace the Lacy quote cited in the article with this quote? The trouble is twofold. Out of context the quote could be interpreted as pro-individual or pro-collective and neither the quote from the article nor this one succinctly summarizes Lacy's dissent. I think it's pretty safe to say that most if not all readers will fail to grasp the main thrust of Lacy's dissent. The quote I provided better summarizes Lacy's dissent. So again, especially in an article of this nature, I think it'd be better to summarize the 3 opinions in a single sentence. It's easy to do and clear. Buzzard's minutiae probably should be relegated to a footnote at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The present wording in this section was the result of a lengthy arbitration involving several Admins, and numerous authors, and the locking of the article for well over a month. We must be careful in editing this section, or else we will once more become embroiled in a lengthy locking of the article and another cycle of arbitration. The last one took the better part of 6 months. Let's work carefully here, to avoid that outcome. Yaf (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet, despite all of that "lengthy arbitration" and the involvement of "several Admins, and numerous authors" it resulted in a quote that was incorrectly attributed to the majority opinion!

Did you notice that Yaf? That change has already been made. However...

The passage is clearly quoted out of context such that nobody reading the original article would have realized that the dissenting judge actually believed that the right to bear arms could not be infringed at all! The rest of the passage commenting on Buzzard is almost as equally misleading, in other words, factually incorrect.

Thanks for the warning, though. I'm only trying the get the facts straight. We'll see how far I get... (I don't plan on going any further than Buzzard and I see I may not get that far.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The material you dispute in the Case law section is properly sourced. If you could find a proper source for your reading of that quote, then your (and that source's) reading of that quote could be added to the article. Remember, it's not Wikipedia's job to determine what is correct. SMP0328. (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether something is properly sourced. It's a matter of whether material has been correctly quoted. And as mentioned the dissent's quote in Buzzard is entirely misleading and is quoted out of context. So if you don't wish that quote removed then I should be able to include a quote with clearly states the judge's actual opinion. And I do have a source for an interpretation of that judge's opinion, so if that quote can't be removed, I will add my source and the additional verbiage from the opinion stating the judge's opinion as I quoted above.

Yaf wrote:

"Except that the "misleading" statement is cited with a Reliable and Verifiable source. Disagreeing with a cited source is common, but it is Original Research to state it is wrong without a cited reliable and verifiable source that makes an opposing claim."

All one needs to do is read the original text. The original text, ie., Bishop's Commentaries does not say what the cited source claims it says.

"Is there a source that states that the statement in the article is misleading? Yaf (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)"

There is a source that claims the opposite of the cited text in the article. However, if one reads the Commentaries for oneself, it is obvious, that both sources have left something out of their "interpretations." It would be then best to put the original text in the article instead of two incomplete interpretations. However, if that is not acceptable then an interpretation from another source with a different interpretation should be allowed.... Or better yet include the original source with both interpretations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You can certainly add properly sourced material regarding Buzzard. Alternatively, you can place a proposed edit here so I can help you with it. SMP0328. (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd place it here first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Reading original text and interpreting it is considered Original Research, and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is built upon using quotes and/or citations based upon Reliable and Verifiable sources. If you can find a Reliable and Verifiable source that interprets Bishop's Commentaries the way you believe it should be interpreted, quote/cite this interpretation, and there is then no problem with having done Original Research (OR). Different reliable and verifiable sources often make different interpretations; all such major viewpoints should be included in a well-written Wikipedia article. But, one Wikipedia author's interpretation of an original source is clearly OR and is not permitted. Yaf (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case then this text that is clearly a violation of the rules according to you:

"Justice Lacy, in a dissenting opinion in Buzzard, declared:

"That the words "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State", and the words "common defense" clearly show the true intent and meaning of these Constitutions [i.e., Ark. and U.S.] and prove that it is a political and not an individual right, and, of course, that the State, in her legislative capacity, has the right to regulate and control it: This being the case, then the people, neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms."[68]

As I mentioned previously Lacy did not declare this. That is an incorrect interpretation without a source. The footnote merely refers to the opinion itself. So by your definition the above is OR. And as I've already pointed-out Lacy did not declare that. One could be a smart-ass and change "declared" to "wrote" however this is still quoting his opinion out of context such that it is misleading. Personally I don't really care. However, it is such a stunning display of ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

What does a state law case like Buzzard have to do with an article about a federal constitutional amendment? None that I see. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

All three judges seemed to assume the Second Amendment applied to the states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209

[I have copied the following from another section]

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.Eaglecloud (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The 'early commentary in state courts' section contributes significantly to the neutrality skew. Considering that this passage is replicated almost identically over in the Right to keep and bear arms article (and belongs more appropriately there too) I suggest that we eliminate the duplicated text here in the 2A article. Any objections? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to the removal of cited information that is pertinent to the historical interpretations of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. States can and do interpret the US Constitution all the time, and such information as contained in this article is entirely appropriate to achieving neutrality for this article. The removal of 2A history regarding state interpretations, which formed the basis of the two predominant interpretations that have existed to this very day, would seriously skew the neutrality. Yaf (talk) 04:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I object as well. It's virtually self-evident that early state court decisions discussing the Second Amendment are relevant. Salty Boatr asserts, "The 'early commentary in state courts' section contributes significantly to the neutrality skew." However, the rationale given in another section is deficient. Lifted from another section:

SaltyBoatr writes:
"I call attention to a neutrality bias in the hypothesis that discussion of gun rights in state law (Buzzard, Bliss, etc.) pertains to the federal Second Amendment."
It is fact that some state courts discussed the Second Amendment.
"I don't dispute that this point of view is valid and that it exists."
It's not a "point of view." It's a fact.
"(primarily found on pro-gun blogs, too)"
Whether "anti-gun" blogs choose to ignore it, doesn't mean the presentation of such material (if it is presented objectively) is biased.
"I simply object that inclusion of the pro-gun hypothesis material skews the POV balance of the article towards a pro-gun point of view in violation of WP:NPOV."
So basically you're expressing a desire to eliminate material that favors one side because another side ignores it.

Eaglecloud (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

GA & the POV tag

SaltyBoatr, do you still believe the article is not neutral? Do you still believe the article is not a Good Article? I ask in light of the "pruning" that has recently been done to the article. SMP0328. (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

At least a half a dozen other editors complain of POV weight problems besides me. I still see a large problem with POV bias and OR in the introduction, cases where Heller is directly quoted as "historical fact" and with the overemphasis on the hypothesis of originalism, and more (see above). NPOV isn't the only disqualifying issue for GA status, Geometry Guy identified more than a dozen other problems over at the reassessment page. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned you because you were the first to raise those issues; I know there are others. SMP0328. (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I checked this morning (UTC) and of the issues I raised at the GAR, precisely zero have been addressed, so I intend to delist the article soon. Concerning the neutrality, I think the main problem is that this article is attempting to tell readers what the second amendment means. That isn't Wikipedia's job. Instead, the article should discuss what the second amendment says, why it was introduced (according to reliable secondary sources and a balance of scholarly analysis), its history (per RSS), how it has been interpreted over the years by the Supreme Court and other notable bodies; the article should also describe (not engage in) the controversies surrounding the second amendment (again using RSS). With this information, the reader can decide for themselves what it means. Geometry guy 21:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Legislation

Is firearms legislation appropriate for this article? Aside from the McClure-Volkmer Act, the amendment isn't even addressed in the legislation section. I suggest removing this section to links, except perhaps for the McClure-Volkmer and legislation that directly relates to the amendment (most of which, I'm guessing, should show up in case law). --tc2011 (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have pruned the formally named Congressional legislation section. It is now named McClure-Volkmer Act and is only about that federal law (which dealt with alleged Second Amendment violations by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives). SMP0328. (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this direction is that all the SCOTUS rulings on the 2A have to do with firearm legislation, and all the SCOTUS rulings, including Heller say that broad ranging legislative restrictions and bans on firearms are allowed. It is hard to talk about the SCOTUS rulings without also talking about the allowed legislation that the rulings rule upon. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about this more, the slant of the article should be neutral, which should include both the 'firearms' aspects and the 'miltia' aspects of the 2A. Another giant piece of 2A related legislation[5] was the Militia Act of 1903. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be the act that created the National Guard as a SELECT militia. By both US law and various state laws, the General militia is composed of all able bodied males of military age. 4.156.78.208 (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There's an entire article devoted to federal gun laws in the United States. These pieces of legislation belong there. We can include a link to that article. --tc2011 (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I've improved the "legislation" section, but the federal firearms legislation is redundant to those respective articles, and should be removed. --tc2011 (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

TC2011's recent edit[6] reveals an improper bias. The Second Amendment does not equal simply "firearm rights". Gun law does not equal second amendment law. This is a good example of the problem with gun oriented editors being drawn to this article and resultant systemic bias in the ariticle. There is good quality reliable sourcing that identify the Militia Act of 1903 as Second Amendment legislation, but TC2011 anon IP edited this out[7]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You falsely accuse me of removing the section on the Militia Act of 1903, when in fact that edit was made by 70.119.255.215. Please do not make Wikipedia such a hostile environment in which to edit. Further... The firearms legislation does not address or add to the topic of this article. To say that it does requires sourcing; to do otherwise is original research. --tc2011 (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I confused the IP edit with your edit. I consider your exaggerated 3RR warning to me[8] to be hostile. If you can't tell, I am trying to work collaboratively here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Answering your question, the relationship of firearms legislation and the Second Amendment is widely discussed in reliable sourcing, see for instance Chapter 5 of The Bill of Rights in Modern America By David J. Bodenhamer Published by Indiana University Press, 2008 ISBN 0253219914 page 100 etc.. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

To conclude that a particular piece of legislation is germane to an article on the second amendment simply because it deals with firearms is quite a stretch, absent a verifiable source indicating such. Please add specific citations and quotations. --tc2011 (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you read page 100? The Indiana University Press meets WP:V standards. What do you mean by "germane"? Do you really believe that the National Firearms Act is not germane to the 2A? It was the subject of U.S. v. Miller for gosh sakes. Incredible. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't read page 100, because I don't have ready access to that book. Please provide a quotation. If it was the subject of Miller, its mention belongs in the case law section. A link can also be included at the bottom or within the Miller discussion, because that Act does have its own article... --tc2011 (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

For those interested in what p.100 actually says, try this. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 17:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. --tc2011 (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, I encourage you to add verifiable citations to the article. --tc2011 (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This is difficult to do in a hostile editing environment. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to see verifiably-sourced and fairly represented additions to this article, no matter the editor's POV. It is your repeated false accusations[9][10] that make a hostile editing environment for others. Shall we seek dispute resolution? --tc2011 (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. As a start, would you answer questions that I ask? You pointed to two diffs[11][12] where I expressed my concerns and ask questions about trouble here, as if it is proof of hostility? What it shows is that I asked a question which you didn't answer. If WP:DR will get us to actually answer each others concerns and address each other as co-editors, I am all for it. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Saul Cornell

Found the following summary of his book disturbing. I haven't read the book, but if the summary is correct about the book, then it is more then likely a bunch of self serving ivory tower bullcrap by someone looking to make a name for himself.

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Law/ConstitutionalLaw/~~/dmlldz11c2EmY2k9OTc4MDE5NTE0Nzg2NQ==

Cornell, a leading constitutional historian, shows that the Founders understood the right to bear arms as neither an individual nor a collective right, but as a civic right--an obligation citizens owed to the state to arm themselves so that they could participate in a well regulated militia. He shows how the modern "collective right" view of the Second Amendment, the one federal courts have accepted for over a hundred years, owes more to the Anti-Federalists than the Founders. Likewise, the modern "individual right" view emerged only in the nineteenth century.

First there is no such thing as a "civic right" where one OWES something to the government! That is called a civic OBLIGATION! An obligation is most certainly NOT a right! In the same vein, you have the OBLIGATION to pay your taxes, you do not have a RIGHT to pay them. The mere thought of calling an obligation a right makes me want to puke in big chucks.

Second the book is out of date as the Supreme Court has ruled that gun ownership is an "individual right". Mr Cornell therefore got it wrong according to the Supreme Court (and according to 75% of the people, per the Brady Campaign).

Third he seems to use the term "well regulated militia" to mean the laws and regulations that call for the creation, organization and running of the militia. That term was not used in that way by the Founders. Well regulated was used to mean "well trained". At some point in this discussion page I even pointed out that Hamilton, the most pro big government of the Founding Fathers, used the term that way in the Federalist Papers.

Fourth, per the summary, he is disparaging of the Anti-Federalists, and excludes them from being Founding Fathers. Not including such notable figures as Patrick Henry and George Mason as a Founding Father is revisionist history at its worst (or best depending on your point of view). Lets not forget that many Federalists also wanted protections against abuse of powers by the Federal Government and were in favor of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment. Considering that the Second Amendment exists (as does the Bill of Rights) there can be no doubt that a MAJORITY of the Founding Fathers (whether Federalist or Anti-Federalist) were in favor of them.

As he seems to represent a small fringe group, possibly with only 1 member, I don't believe that he deserves mention in the article and references to his book should be deleted.

Again I have not read his book and the summary may be wrong. If anyone can find ONE SINGLE SOLITARY CASE where a court considered his opinions and AGREED with him, then I take back the comment that he is a fringe group so negligible that it does not deserve mention. Until that time I believe all comments to his book should be deleted as gun control POV push from a negligible fringe group.

What I think is a FREAKING HOWL, is that any court case based upon his views would FORCE a person to PURCHASE a gun if he did not already own one, and that his views is being advocated by the editors pushing gun control. By US law every able bodied male up to age 45 is a member of the militia. As members of the militia, per Cornell those people ALL NEED TO OWN A GUN!

Assuming that the summary is correct of course!4.154.232.160 (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Not beating a dead horse, just one in pain

From Federalist 29 by Hamilton - on what is a well-regulated militia

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

while browsing the web, I ran across the following quote which seems to state that the Federal Farmer, a well known Anti-Federalist writer who wrote extensively against enactment of the Constitution, was Revolutionary War hero Light Horse Harry Lee. Not asking that he be cited in the article. Just an interesting factoid for history buffs.

Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." (LIGHT HORSE HARRY) LEE, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788)

4.154.236.164 (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Above quote attributed to Light Horse Lee more then likely wrong. Wiki and another site attributes it to a relative of his by the name of Richard Henry Lee. Among other things, this Lee served as President under the Articles of Confederation. The wiki article on him shows he was the one writing as Federal Farmer. Sorry for any inconvenience to those who only want to edit the article and have no interest in history.4.154.236.164 (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The following quote has no place under the section "case law" since to my best knowledge, no court has ever considered this argument in an actual case. It is therefore untested opinion and not case law. I should therefore be deleted from the "case law" section.

According to Saul Cornell, the simplified choices of only two models was an error: "The original understanding of the Second Amendment was neither an individual right of self-defense nor a collective right of the states, but rather a civic right that guaranteed that citizens would be able to keep and bear those arms needed to meet their legal obligation to participate in a well-regulated militia."[83]

Further, with the Supreme Court ruling of Heller that the Second Amendment protects an "individal right" it will more then likely be a cold day in Hell before any US court hears a case based on this argumnet. Assuming that any editor finds such a miniscule minority opinion to be worth space in the article, he has to find a home for it in another section. I personaly think it is not worth inclusion.141.154.72.56 (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the article is now unprotected I took action and deleted the Saul Cornell Comment re: gun ownership is a "civic right" (see above for full quote). Unless that argument was heard by a judge and agreed with, it does not belong under "Case Law". Anyone wanting to include it in the article needs to find another home for it. With the Supreme Court ruling that gun owneship is an individual right, I personally don't see the need.141.154.72.56 (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional review of the article has brought up another questionable quote attributed to Saul Cornell

The individual rights viewpoint did not emerge until several decades after the Second Amendment was drafted and was later followed by the collective rights viewpoint.[41]

While this may be the authors opinion, it does not seem to agree with historcal fact. The article currently has a quote from John Adams showing that the individal rights viewpoint was current and in use as of the Revoltion. It must therefore have pre-date the Revolution. As currently reading, the article includes the following

John Adams, lead defense attorney for the British soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre, stated at the trial:

Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offence

As the Saul Cornell quote seems obviously in error, it should be deleted from the article. I will wait a week or so before doing it myself in order to give people time to muster any objections to that deletion. Hopeflly the article will not go back to being protected in that time fame.

Please do not use as an objection the lack of trials on this issue durig the early years of the United States. During those years all militia memberswere REQUIRED to own firemarms per the Second Militia Act of 1792

From wiki article on that Act

Second Militia Act of 1792 The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were required to arm themselves at their own expense with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[3] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.

From the above it can be clearly seen that gun control laws were not an issue duing those years.

The quote I wish remove should be furter replaced by somethig along the lines of, The individual rights viewpoint pre-dated the Revolutionary War and the writting of the Constitution. I cite the John Adams quote reerenced above as sufficient backing for this change.141.154.72.56 (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Let any man man who obects to the above proposed change state it now or forever hold his peace!141.154.72.56 (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted incaccurate quote from Cornell described above and and replaced it with a more historically accurate version.141.154.72.56 (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Corrected abbreviation of BATF (old abreviation) to ATF (the current abreviation).141.154.110.178 (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Militia Act of 1903

An anonymous IP editor has twice[13][14] removed the passage about the Militia Act of 1903. Discussing this earlier, I pointed to many books[15] that identify the Militia Act of 1903 as Second Amendment Legislation. One which summarized the POV issue well is Barak ISBN:9780313340406 which states(pg330):

"Supporters of gun rights believe that the Second Amendment applies to individual-level possession of firearms, whereas supporters of gun control argue that the intent was to provide for the formation and readiness of peacekeeping forces such as the Army and state militias(1). Since the federal Militia Act of 1903, individual state militias have been organized into the National Guard and have been tasked with supplementing Army units overseas and providing domestic support in relief of natural disasters."

Barak describes the two major points of view. It appears the anonymous IP editor holds just the pro-gun view, and is choosing to edit out the disagreeable point of view. To have a neutral point of view, both these views should be represented in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

So add the citation. Problem solved. --tc2011 (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You threatened[16] to get me banned from editing yesterday for similar. Hostile environment. Is editing today safe? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I made no threat. Please assume good faith. --tc2011 (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering the history of false/exaggerated 3RR accusations, from you, and from Yaf, it is hard to assume good faith. It would be easier to assume good faith if you were to actually show good faith and make this edit yourself. An edit if I were to make, which could be misconstrued as a "revert" (as you misconstrued yesterday). You also called my revert of profane vandalism[17] to be a 3RR violation. In light of your false/exaggerated 3RR accusation for which you show no remorse, now you invite me to assume your good faith? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Another false accusation: I did not identify that revert as a possible violation of 3RR. Please get the facts straight. --tc2011 (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Any mention of the Act must mention that it creates a SELECT militia known as the National Guard. US law and state laws continue to define the militia as all males of military age.4.156.78.208 (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

POV bias on quotes

Looks like we are down to one quote from the Founding Fathers and that is from the most pro-big government of the bunch (Hamilton). That is a POV violation as there are NOW no quotes from anti-Federalists, whose concerns the Second Amendment was designed to satisfy. I ask that the quotes from anti-Federalist Patrick Henry and George Mason and the quotes of the more "centrist" Federalists be reinstated.

Hearing the points of view of the players, in their own words, is a plus to the article and not a minus. I believe that the article has now been lessened by the removal of their words.4.156.78.92 (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I further find it grotesque that the only quote appearing is from the only one of the major Revolutionary Era figures shot to death in a duel over his HONOR.

Make that his LACK of honor. See Hamilton Burr Duel4.156.78.51 (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I am uncertain how Hamilton's duel with Burr is germane to a discussion of what quotations are included in this article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I know about the duel, but why do you feel Hamilton was without honor? To me, the lose of the duel doesn't mean Hamilton was without honor. SMP0328. (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

A sitting vice president of the US thought that the death of Hamilton was better then enjoying his high office. I'd say that is pretty indicative.

More on track, and back to quotes cited in the article, what is you opinion of retaining the most extreme position of the loosing side of the Bill of Rights/Second Amendment debate and the removal of quotes from more "centrist" Federalists and anti-Federalists?4.156.78.30 (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A man so despised by his fellow man that he is killed due to his lack of honor, is NOT someone I would want on my side of an argument. Do you admire him for some reason?

I notice EVERYBODY else's quotes got short shift at your hands. Funny how the most extreme viewpoint on the LOOSING side of the Second Amendment (and the Bill of Rights) was retained. Looks like blatant POV favoritism to me. Couldn't you have even found something by the more mainstream Madison? Did you HAVE to keep Hamilton? Are you really THAT ignorant of the positions of the Founding Fathers?4.156.78.122 (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Infringed

The meaning of "infringed" from a REALIABLE source, Marriam-Webster DICTIONARY!

For Salty Boatr, who seems to thing that meanings can be changed.

transitive verb

1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>

2 obsolete : defeat, frustrate

I would like to point out that 2 hundred years ago, the meanings that are now listed as "obsolete" were not.

The second amendment was designed to STOP those who would "defeat" and frustrate" the exercise of a right.4.156.78.149 (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Congressional legislation

There are a whole host of legislations mentioned under this section of the article (i.e., National Firearms Act, Federal Firearms Act, Post-assassination, Gun Control Act, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act), that all appear to have nothing to do with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Only the McClure-Volkmer Act has any content pertinent to the Second Amendment. I propose removing the non-pertinent sections, as including these nonpertinent acts of Congress, just because they deal with firearms legislation, is bordering on OR (conflating firearm legislation somehow with the 2A). Any objections? Yaf (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Who said "firearm legislation"? I agree that conflating just firearm legislation with this topic is POV push. The Congressional legislation is integral to this topic. Indeed, the first legislative act of Congress on this topic occurred September 21, 1789. Checking several of the major books on this topic, Gottlieb, Levensen, Kruschke, Utter, Uviller/Merkle, they all devote large passages to the history of Congressional legislation on this topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Have removed non-relevant "firearm legislation" to remove "POV push." Yaf (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As long as that section consists of only one piece of legislation, it should be named after that legislation (McClure-Volkmer Act Firearm Owners Protection Act). SMP0328. (talk) 04:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Of course, if other Congressional legislation content should be added, then the title would likely need to be changed again. But, for now, the current title is good. Yaf (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

To be clear. Yaf 'finds reasonable' to delete[18] all reference to legislation which placed limits on firearms. And then to include only one reference to legislation, the Firearm Owners Protection Act aka the McClure-Volkmer Act. Objectively, this is a improper POV balance. The most important legislation and court case of the 20th Century was the National Firearms Act which was litigated to the Supreme Court with the case United States v. Miller. Per the vast majority of reliable sources, including Spitzer[19] pg 35: "The most important Supreme Court case in this sequence is United States v Miller"..."The Miller case was founded on a challenge to the National Firearms Act"..."claiming that it was a violation of the Second Amendment". Emphasis on the legislation protecting firearm rights and suppression on legislation limiting firearms rights is an undue neutrality balance relative to the neutrality balance found in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of the National Firearms Act (with a wiki link to its article) properly appears under the United States v. Miller heading in the case law section. To say that the National Firearms Act is relevant to the second amendment in the same manner as McClure-Volkmer (which specifically and explicitly addresses the amendment) requires sourcing. However, the National Firearms Act's relevance to the amendment is that it was challenged in Miller... and so it is most properly discussed under Miller's heading... where it is, in fact, discussed... --tc2011 (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It still is silly to devote a whole section to the discussion of the McClure-Volkmer Act which is an amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968 while deleting[20] the mention of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Even sillier, the obscure McClure-Volkmer Act is given higher emphasis above the National Firearms Act which is the most major piece of 20th Century 2A legislation. This is extreme POV imbalance. Yaf has a very long history of dogged pro-gun POV push and this is but one example. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act explicitly address the subject of this article. McClure-Volkmer does. If your citation identifies the National Firearms Act as the most major/important piece of second amendment legislation in the 20th century, please feel free to add that information with relevant quotations. --tc2011 (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You ignore my Spitzer reference provided above. I cannot edit the article in this hostile editing environment. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

...your reference identifies Miller as the most important court case, not the National Firearms Act as the most major/important legislation. Perhaps you have another quotation from Spitzer that identifies the National Firearms Act as the most major/important piece of second amendment legislation in the 20th century? --tc2011 (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

POV drift

The recent flurry of edits by Yaf are making the article drift yet further towards a pro-gun point of view. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The recent flurry of edits by yourself and nwlaw, due to your anti-gun POV, have resulted in a distorted intro and lessened the neutrality of the article.4.156.78.30 (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

McClure-Volkmer Act one-sided wording

The wording in the McClure-Volkmer Act section seems cut and pasted from NRA talking points. Checking reliable sourcing on this topic, there was highly notable controversy about the McClure-Volkmer Act omitted by Yaf. For instance, the Law Enforcement Steering Committee organized opposition to this bill? See pages 176-177 of the Bruce/Wilcox book[21]. If the article is to cover McClure-Volkmer, it should do so in a neutral way, and presently is worded with heavy pro-gun bias. Indeed, it is notable in that it marked a milestone in 20th Century 2A politics where for the first time there was a widespread support for gun-control from police groups in opposition to McClure-Volkmer. This event is significant as a turning point for the radicalization of the NRA and pro-gun lobby. This important factor is totally omitted from Yaf's biased wording. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, but your paranoia hoplophobia is showing, again. The wording for the McClure-Volkmer Act section content is the same as it has been for weeks if not months. I didn't edit it during the recent set of edits I made over the last couple of days. Please stop the personal attacks. The hostile editing environment, to which you object so strongly, appears largely to be self-generated in your own mind, perhaps as a result of the personal attacks you continue to flame other editors with and the rampant hoplophobia. Lets focus on discussing the content of the article, and how to make it better, instead of spending so much time ascribing motives to other editors, and instead of labeling all edits made other than yourself as "pro-gun", OK? -- Yaf (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Your use of the term hoplophobia is pejorative, wrong and offensive. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Two versions of the text

This requires more explanation. How can there be more than one original version? You can read the correct version in the image of the Bill of Rights. If another one was written then the article should say so. Richard75 (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Have attempted to address this confusion. If there is need for additional explanation, it can certainly be added. -- Yaf (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Heller's footnote 23

Footnote 23 of the Heller decision said:

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.

The Supreme Court was saying the issue of incorporation was not before the Court (D.C. is not a State or part of a State). It was also noting that Cruikshank's holding "that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government" was "reaffirmed" in two later 19th Century Supreme Court decisions. The Court was not saying that its Heller decision was reaffirming Cruikshank. SMP0328. (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The court said "Our later decisions ... reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government." That is pretty blunt. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

SMP0238, Please self-revert your revert[22]. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

SMP0238 is correctly quoting from the ruling in his quotation. [23] No revert is needed. On the other hand, the bullying of other editors here, and on their talk page, needs to stop. [24] Bullying does not help in creating an environment for editors to engage in constructive discussions necessary for improving the article.

By putting in an ellipsis into the quote, one reads more into the quotation than what is there if the quotation is read in its entirety. The SCOTUS is just giving a history of what the interpretations were at the time of Cruikshank and Presser. Nothing more. It is OR to assume that the SCOTUS is saying more than just this, with implications for what an interpretation would be for today. Yet, that is just what happens when one reads the passage without the historical perspective of the fact that what is being discussed within the ellipsis is simply an historical footnote of what the decisions were at the time of Cruikshank and Presser. Lets focus on reading what is there, not on reading more into the words through omitting words, OK? This is POV pushing at its worst, and it needs to stop. Yaf (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

What is disputed here? The SCOTUS has boldly stated that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government. Explain why that fact was reverted? SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

More clearly, the SCOTUS was stating what it had done in the 19th Century regarding the Second Amendment and incorporation. It was not, and could not (issue not before the Court), rule on incorporation in Heller. SMP0328. (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. And, the topic here is the history of the 2A not Heller. It is exactly correct and on topic what the SCOTUS wrote in footnote 23. They wrote about the fact that their multiple prior rulings reaffirm that the 2A only applies to the Federal Government. So, why did you revert this? Please undo your revert. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The part of the article describing Heller now includes the full text of footnote 23. Let each reader decide what footnote 23 means. That avoids any POV or OR problems. SMP0328. (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)'

The intro needs to describe the issue of incorporation fairly. Presently in the second paragraph it describes this issue as a "controversy". Considering that Heller footnote 23 stated flat out that the SCOTUS has reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government, it is plainly a gun rights POV push to diminish this issue as merely a controversy in the introduction. It is a settled matter in the opinion of the SCOTUS, not a controversy. Can you help propose some new wording to the second introductory sentence to phrase the issue as settled? SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There are ongoing federal lawsuits trying to get the Second Amendment incorporated. Also, as noted in footnote 23, Cruikshank "did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by ... later [Supreme Court] cases." This strongly suggests the Court will revisit this issue in a later case. So this issue should not be considered to be "settled". SMP0328. (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Strongly suggests? Which crystal ball? Read the second sentence of footnote 23 which starts with the words "Our later decisions...reaffirmed". What part of "reaffirmed" is ambiguous? What indication what-so-ever (beyond wishful thinking) is there that the SCOTUS will take any "pending" case about this in the future? Footnote 23 the SCOTUS declared they have ruled, and reaffirmed twice on this already. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Cruikshank and Presser did not deal with incorporation as it was ruled on in the 20th Century and so federal lawsuits calling for their overruling have been made. That's why there's still a controversy. SMP0328. (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You evade. The SCOTUS in 2008 stated plainly, "reaffirmed". These lawsuits you speak of have been denied, over and over and over, for more than a century. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Heller did not deal with incorporation (no State or local government was a party to the case). It's use of the word "reaffirmed" was regarding Presser. SMP0328. (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

So what? You evade with double talk. Footnote 23 of Heller declares without any ambiguity that the SCOTUS has reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government, past tense, already done. There is nothing vague about the status of the SCOTUS here. Please undo your revert. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You either don't understand, or are refusing to acknowledge, what footnote 23 said. The Supreme Court was simply saying (1) that Cruikshank and Presser had ruled against incorporating the Second Amendment, (2) those cases were decided before the formulation of the modern incorporation doctrine (e.g., Palko v. Connecticut) and (3) those cases had been overruled to the extent they dealt with the First Amendment. If the Court had said anything regarding the Second Amendment and incorporation, that part of Heller decision would have been obiter dictum and so wouldn't have been binding of any court (including the Supreme Court). So there was no way for the Court to rule on incorporation in Heller. Please don't add material to the article claiming the Supreme Court did so in Heller. SMP0328. (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why believe your WP:SYN far reaching extrapolation of what they meant? Better to believe what they wrote literally, without reading in your hopeful POV. They wrote: "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." SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Heller explicitly stated that the Supreme Court was not addressing the issue of incorporation (i.e., a question not presented by this case). To say that Heller reaffirmed non-incorporation when it explicitly said it wasn't even addressing the issue is a gross misrepresentation of the source. Stop the OR. --tc2011 (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

So what? Of course Heller was not addressing this, because as they said clearly, it has already been reaffirmed. No need to address it, they simply restated the reaffirmation. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The Court was stating that Cruikshank had been reaffirmed twice, even though Heller was not reaffirming or overruling that decision. The article already says this. SMP0328. (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This revert warring, yet again by SMP0238[25] is extreme POV pushing and must stop. This extremist position is that the 2A might apply some day (hopefully) in the future to the States. 1) It is a fringe idea. 2) It involves a crystal ball wishful prediction. The present day mainstream point of view, as reaffirmed recently by the SCOTUS is that "...the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government". Please stop the egregious POV push. The statement by the SCOTUS is important and should not be suppressed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This is embarrassing. SMP0328's recent edit[26] revises the second paragraph to a single summary sentence, based on a citation pointing to the extremist[27] Second Amendment Foundation website, with SMP0328 claiming his edit "Made reference to incorporation neutral". Shameless POV pushing. The Second Amendment Foundation is the "research arm" of a well known extreme pro-gun advocacy group. Appearances matter, and this important high profile introduction pointing to a pro-gun advocacy website looks like plain pro-gun POV push. And plainly, POV balance has been taken out of the second intro paragraph. The mainstream opinion is that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government. Why has that been edited out? Answers please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What's embarrassing is that you never assume good faith. That sentence now notes there's dispute over whether the Second Amendment should be incorporated, without saying it's "likely" or that anti-incorporation decisions have been "reaffirmed". That's neutral! As for the source, it's from the Yale Law Journal, not the Second Amendment Foundation. SAF is only the source for the link to the SAF's copy of the YLF article. Is that YLF article now have a "pro-gun" bias because it is on the SAF website? I will assume good faith and so will assume you simply misread that footnote. SMP0328. (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What should I make of your acceptance of pointing to the URL of an extremist POV group website from the introduction? How does your repeated edit war deletion of the mainstream POV, that the 2A applies only to the federal government show good faith? At some point assumption fails and observation takes precedence. Actually show good faith by self reverting your edit war. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of POV pushing aside. How does that 1992 Yale Law Review article describe the sentence it is citing? Which passage in that 1992 article are you referring? The current state of affairs is that the Second Amendment continues to limit only the federal government, and that presently post-Heller there is a lot of speculation that this may be reconsidered by the SCOTUS at some point in the future. In short, the second paragraph is an outdated POV pushing mess. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have now reworded that part of the Introduction so that it refers to the fact that the SCOTUS has ruled three times in the 19th Century that the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government. It also notes that there are federal lawsuits trying to get it incorporated. There is no longer a footnote for this part of the Introduction; sourcing isn't necessary for the Introduction. SMP0328. (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks SMP0328 that is an improvement. I think the fact that the SCOTUS recently reaffirmed their position about this is as important as the mention of the 19th Century. Your emphasis on the 19th Century is undue weight on the prop-gun POV. Also, I don't see why pending court cases are important enough to rate for inclusion in the introduction. All we have is wishful crystal ball reading that these cases might be granted certoriari. The could be like countless others and be denied cert too. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

An opinion that a right can be taken away by those that specifically called for its protection seems to be somewhat clouded!

Somewhat!4.156.78.115 (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro Continues to reflect extensive anti-gun POV

an intro is supposed to cover the main points of the article. The current hijacking of the intro by those with an anti-gun POV has totally destroyed the impartiality of that intro.

The latest addition only reaffirms my point. The paragraph quoted from Cruikshank belongs under that case and not in the intro.4.154.235.197 (talk) 15:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Have attempted to address these concerns, moving the detailed Cruikshank and Heller minutia into their appropriate detailed discussion sections. Yaf (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro now even more biased to the in favor of gun control.

It seems that with every new edit, neutral or pro gun ownership language gets deleted and pro gun control language becomes more and more predominant. This REEKS of POV bias.

In order to counter this blatant POV bias, I ask that the following from Heller be added to the intro

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 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.

I repeat my previous position that such blatant POV bias is uncalled for and I will delete all anti gun rhetoric in the into once this article becomes unprotected.

I feel it is safe to say that no other wiki article on a Amendment is so ANTI the protections of that amendment.

Again: this article REEKS of POV bias.4.156.78.115 (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Firearm Owners Protection Act section

The inclusion a whole section on this obscure piece of pro-gun legislation, while not mentioning the National Firearms Act, or the Gun Control Act of 1968, or the Militia Act of 1903 or the Militia Act of 1792 is very much a NPOV undue weight problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

with the exception of the characterization "obscure", i agree with this assessment. there are articles for each of the above, as well as the Firearm Owners Protection Act. the extended discussion of the FOPA as its own section in this article doesn't seem to add anything substantive to the article that isn't covered in its own article. Anastrophe (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Scope of lede

Suggestions: general article guideline is that the intro should be as brief as possible, and generally, the intro is not cited (cites to the specifics in the intro to be found in the body of the article where the specifics are discussed). i would recommend removing paragraphs two and three - yes, leave it at just paragraph one - and remove the cites (as they must certainly be covered in detail in the body). none of these additional issues merit inclusion in the intro. short. to the point. the second amendment is XYZ. it remains one of the most hotly contested of the amendments. the rest goes in the body. Anastrophe (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Have attempted to address these concerns through moving details contained in intro into text of article. This also fixed the cite issue in the intro. It also looks like this edit addresses the POV concerns. Have removed the POV tagline at the beginning of the article, as it doesn't appear that the whole article should be tagged, although there may still be perceived issues with a section near the end of the article. Yaf (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The bare mention the text leans too heavily on the pro-gun originalist hypothesis. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I still have an issue with quotes. Hamilton by no means shares the general opinion of the times concerning the militia. As pointed out, many, many times already, his was the most extreme position of the LOOSING side of the Second Amendment/Bill of Rights battle.

I ask that the quotes from Madison, Webster, Henry and Mason be reinstated in full, as they were showing about a month ago.

I also noticed that the link to Elliot's Debates was screwed up (likely by newlaw) and no longer points to Elliot's Debates. I would HOPE that this was a simple error, but it is also possible that it is an underhanded move to later remove references to Patrick Henry and George Mason whose cited opinions and quotes are recorded in that document.

I can quite easily picture newlaw or Salty Boatr deleting the opinions of Patrick Henry and George Mason due to a lack of citation. If changing the link to make it nonworking was intentional I would say it falls WAY SHORT of any code of conduct for wiki editors.

To correct the link someone needs to copy a working version from a month or two ago. I would do it myself, but the article is protected.4.154.235.13 (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The Broken link is currently in footnote #43. I believe the links in 44 and 45 always pointed nowhere and never worked. They should point to the same place as link 43.4.154.235.13 (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

i've removed the citations and example from the lede. the exact sentences, and exact refs, and the exact example, all exist within the BODY of the article. MOS recommends not citing the lede. the actual content of the lede has not been modified, with the exception of removing 'has' from 'has ruled' as it's an anachronism. i'll look at refs 43/44/45. Anastrophe (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if you are responding to me, but the link to Elliot's Debates for Patrick Henry and George Mason is still broke. And Hamilton is still the only one being quoted!4.154.237.200 (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I object to Anastrophe's revert[28] requesting discussion. I believe I did discuss this here[29], elaborating, the push-pull of the POV involves striking a balance between the pro-gun emphasis on outdated SCOTUS rulings (hence the 19th century emphasis) and the crystal ball problem of hopefully maybe someday the SCOTUS will overturn. I was trying to achieve balance by de-emphasizing the first, while keeping in emphasis of the second. The bottom line here is that now without any qualifications, the Second Amendment only applies to the Federal Government. The present wording of the second paragraph has too much emphasis on qualifications of that fact to be considered neutrally balanced in point of view. Anastrophe, please self revert, thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

a better compromise would be removal of the paragraph. i'm unclear what an "outdated SCOTUS ruling" is - you mean old rulings are invalid? that's a new one on me. eliminating the mention of the "outdated" scotus rulings, and the pending lawsuits attempting to get incorporation, would be more balanced, since neither requires mention in the lede. i still maintain that the first paragraph is more than adequate. the second amendment is xyz, and it is highly contested and debated. Anastrophe (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

let me amend that. the current paragraph three merits inclusion in the lede, with minor grammatical modification. paragraph two essentially dovetails into what is stated by para 3. Anastrophe (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

By outdated, I am referring to the pro-gun hypothesis that somehow these 19th Century rulings are deprecated because they preexist other incorporation rulings. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A huge misconception is that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to guns. In fact, per current SCOTUS rulings (and described concisely with footnote 23 in the Heller ruling), for the most part, it does not. Unless you live in the District of Columbia and remain inside your house with a handgun which you already own or have built from scratch: the Second Amendment does not presently do so. This is such an important fundamental point in the article that it merits attention in the intro. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is now moot. As suggested by Anastrophe, I have pruned the Introduction down to only what was its first paragraph. Any reference to footnote 23 can now only be found in the U.S. Supreme Court section. In that section, each decision refers to when it was decided and its location in the United States Reports. SMP0328. (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Attacks & counterattacks

The recent SMP0238 intro edit, deleting mention of allowed regulation and mention of 'Federal only' drastically shifts the POV balance towards the pro-gun hypothesis. This is a major POV balance shift, seriously objectionable. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

your personal opinion that it is "A huge misconception" is interesting but not relevant to the discussion. you're attempting to frame the article in terms of your own personal opinion. its nice that you place all your personal weight upon footnote 23 of the ruling. your personal weight is immaterial - it suggests a desire to impart your own POV imbalance upon the facts. the court held in its ruling: "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". are you suggesting that the courts actual holding in the case is moot? you are of course entitled to that opinion. you are not entitled to attempt to warp this article to conform to your (incorrect) opinion. Anastrophe (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Every edit that isn't exactly as SaltyBoatr would want is accused by him of being a "pro-gun" edit. SaltyBoatr wants to own this article and refuses to respect the good faith of fellow editors. SMP0328. (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Your ad hominem logic is incorrect. The neutral balance of points of view I argue for is that found in reliable sourcing, not mine personally. The effect of systemic bias of pro-gun editors being attracted to this article in correspondence to their personal POV interest causes the tendency of my edits to appear in opposition. In reality, my edits are neutral per the balance of reliable sourcing. For instance, the point of view that the current interpretation of the Second Amendment being federal only, and being that gun regulations are allowed is a mainstream reliable point of view. Yet, your pro-gun tendency chooses to edit[30] that POV out. It is your POV that is unfounded in the balance of reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. Any edit that doesn't perfectly fit your desires is labeled by you as "pro-gun". You don't assume good faith and you don't work toward consensus. Instead, you make demands and complain when other editors don't acquiesce to those demands. SMP0328. (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

saltyboatr, enough. your relentless, and reckless, accusations that all other editors who do not edit in conformance with your opinion are therefore "pro-gun" must stop. you toss that out at virtually every juncture; it is patently devoid of good faith - you are essentially stating in the open nearly every time you add a comment here that you will not assume good faith, not even for appearances! stop. cease and desist referring to any and all other editors who make edits you disagree with as being "pro gun". we are not. we are no more than fellow editors, and are to be referred to as same. you are making assumptions and stating them as fact - that's bad faith, pure and simple. what is pathetically amusing is that in the edit you refer to above as being due to 'pro-gun tendency' SMP0328 removed the entire section about the Firearms Owners Protection Act. Removal of that is not a "pro-gun" edit, it is merely an edit you didn't notice because your prejudice and assumption of bad faith regarding your fellow editors precludes you from even seeing it. again, i ask you to never more refer to your fellow editors as "pro-gun editors". it is offensive, just as offensive as if editors were to always refer to you as an "anti-gun editor", which by my recollection happens only rarely. stop. follow wikipedia policy and assume good faith. Anastrophe (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Anastrophe writes: "your prejudice...precludes you from even seeing it". In truth, I neglected to hit the "page down" key. Anastrope sees bad faith instead. Please set this ad hominem aside. Can someone respond why the paragraphs about "allowable regulation" and "federal only" needed to be scrubbed from the intro? Why does the intro need to heavily rely on the originalist hypothesis? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

i again ask that you agree to cease referring to your fellow editors as being "pro-gun". will you do so? you overtly show bad faith at every turn - why are you allowed carte blanche to ascribe motive to your fellow editors by labeling them as "pro-gun", without sanction? regardless of whether or not you forgot to hit 'page down', you ascribed motive to the edit by characterizing it as "pro-gun". this page is littered with your claims that edits are "pro-gun".

the intro does not rely on any hypothesis. it states what the second amendment says. your desire to read meaning into the plain, clear words there is interesting but not an editorial matter. 'federal only' is your personal opinion. the lack of a formal holding of incorporation does not mean that rights codified in the constitution are not held by the people. your words suggest that you would be against incorporation of the second amendment. are you desirous that incorporation be revoked for the other amendments? Anastrophe (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, setting your ad hominem attack aside. The fact remains that the issue of "reasonable regulation" and "federal only" has been buried. My personal opinion has nothing to do with this. The textural meaning of the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" (mentioned twice in the intro, why?) key to the originalist 2A hypothesis and also has been taken up as a popular political slogan[31]. The article should deal with this in a neutral way, presently it does not. I have no problem with coverage of the originalist hypothesis, and of the modern politics, I just have problems when the originalist hypothesis is presented as "truth" and when there is a lack of balance of the various points of view. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

similar to your carelessness and recklessness in mischaracterizing SMP0328's edit as "pro-gun", while simultaneously being careless and reckless while taking the time to directly cite ( [32] ) the edit, perhaps the same is at work here, so i'll repeat my request: will you agree to cease referring to yoiur fellow editors as being "pro-gun"?

i have reworded the intro to remove the double-use of 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms', which i agree is essentially silly, and have boiled it down to the pure essence. the intro now states what the amendment states, and acknowledges that the meaning and scope are hotly contested, which is clearly codified in the body of the article. Anastrophe (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you stop attacking my character please? It is a distraction. Your present pared down Intro, separating the "militia" phrase from the "bear arms" phrase, matches exactly just one point of view. And separating these phrases is a common modern political tactic "framing" the meaning of the Second Amendment. We should avoid giving this tactic undue weight to one point of view by featuring it in the introduction. (Though I support discussion of the issue in the article.) Another major and significant point of view[33] is that the purpose of the "militia" phrase modifies the "bear arms" phrase like an adjective modifies a noun. This whole discussion of the 'ablative absolute' hypothesis was long ago scrubbed from the article, and the collective right hypothesis has been buried and improperly weighted causing WP:UNDUE problems. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

will you agree to cease referring to your fellow editors as being "pro-gun"? Anastrophe (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you stop attacking my character please? Your hypocrisy is astounding. You call multiple editors "pro-gun" (an attack on our characters) and then accuse Anastrophe of attacking your character when he calls you on it. SMP0328. (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't mind being called pro-gun. After all I am pro-gun! However, being called a pro-gun NUT when that right to own a gun is constitutionally protected rubs me the wrong way.4.154.234.114 (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

When Salty Boatr refers to an edit as "pro-gun" he means that edit is illegitimate. That's showing bad faith on his part, because he calls all edits, to which he does not agree, as "pro-gun". SMP0328. (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I realize that, but I have no objection to being called pro-gun, it is the NUT part afterwards that bothers me. Whether spoken or implied. And speaking of nuts, what kind of squired food attempts to deny that the second amendment protects SOMETHING and tries to remove all references to what it protects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.234.114 (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you say we take the meaning of footnote 23 to dispute resolution? Surely we don't want to make gross misrepresentations of a source, or conduct original research by making assertions not present in the source? And as for editor conduct, could we solicit comments or mediation of some sort? I know a certain editor has made several demonstrably false accusations against me, and I have to say one editor in particular does make this feel like a hostile editing environment...it really does make this quite a discouraging and unpleasant place for me. Anyone know what the procedures are? --tc2011 (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I've gone to dispute resolution (mediation and arbitration) with SaltyBoatr regarding this article. He no more seeks consensus or assumes good faith there than he does here. In this case, dispute resolution would be a waste of time. SMP0328. (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The goal of the amendment is to make sure the states have an armed militia should the need arise to resist a federal takeover.

The method to that goal was to forbid the feds from taking action to disarm militia members by making the right to "keep and bear" arms constitutionally protected.

What other views is there?

and do the Founding Fathers share that "other views" as to why the Second Amendment was incorporated into the Constitution? or were those "other views" created by someone looking for his ass with both hands, a map, a GPS, and explicit direction, and then FAILING to find it?4.154.234.114 (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Lots of name calling, but no answer to my substantive question[34] about the WP:UNDUE problems with the current version of article and the intro. Based the balance of reliable sourcing, it is apparent that one significant point of view would phrase the intro: "...and prohibits infringement..." and another significant POV would say "...therefore prohibits infringement...". The distinction is critical, as in the first case both conditions exist independently. In the second case the first condition is necessary before the second condition becomes necessary. This is also the crux of the difference between "collective right hypothesis" versus "independent rights hypothesis" dichotomy. The intro should neutrally accommodate both of these significant POV's. Presently it favors one and downplays the other. Subjective personal opinions has nothing to do with this problem. It is an objective issue of WP:NPOV policy, all major opinions should be represented. Can we at least agree that all major opinions found in reliable sources should be represented? SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

i have addressed your concerns with my most recent edit. will you agree to cease characterizing your fellow editors as being "pro-gun"? absent an affirmative response, it's time to register a formal complaint, as the characterization - as found numerous times here on this page, is an in-your-face overt expression of bad faith. Anastrophe (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Being pro-gun is not a bad thing. Editing with undue balance is a bad thing. Discussion about editor bias is a valid topic as all editors have bias, and bias effects are a real problem in Wikipedia. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

nobody has suggested that being pro-gun is a bad thing. what is a violation of policy is you claiming you know other editors motives by describing the editors themselves and their edits as being pro-gun; doing so is overtly and explicitly an expression of bad faith, since you are ascribing motive by that characterization. you are not "discussing" editor bias when you call an editor "pro-gun", you are ascribing motive. you frequently claim that there is systemic bias with this article, yet you are unable to quantify it with objective metrics - only your subjective characterization that other editors are "pro-gun", which is no more a metric than if i were to suggest that your interest in this article is due to systemic bias by those who are attracted to this article because they are "anti-gun". will you agree to cease characterizing your fellow editors as being "pro-gun"? Anastrophe (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Will you agree that the neutrality balance point should be determined by the balance seen in the reliable sourcing, not by the balance of personal opinions of the editors? Systemic bias is a real problem in this article, and I cannot agree to ignore the problem of systemic bias until after it is fixed. I look forward to the day we can stop being concerned about the effects of the personal opinions of editors contributing to this problem. You and I have made significant progress already fixing this problem and you and I continuing to work together can finish this task. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

as per usual, direct requests are ignored, or worse, "answered" with new questions and diversions. nobody has asked you to "agree to ignore the problem of systemic bias". that 'request' has been conjured from thin air by you. your disproportionate attraction to this article and other firearm-related articles could just as easily be ascribed to systemic bias, since no objective metric obtains - it's a rhetorical ploy, and nothing more.

i of course agree that the neutrality balance point should be determined by the balance as seen in the reliable sourcing, not by the balance of personal opinions of the editors. will you agree to cease characterizing your fellow editors as being "pro-gun"? Anastrophe (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What question did I ignore? Editor bias is central to the problem of systemic bias. So, no, I will not ignore fellow editors who edit with bias. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOUP. what question did you ignore? this question: "Will you agree to cease characterizing your fellow editors as being 'pro-gun'?" you've ignored it nearing a dozen times now. you were not asked to ignore fellow editors who edit with bias, you were asked if you will agree to cease characterizing your fellow editors as being "pro-gun". will you? a simple yes or no to that question would be desireable. Anastrophe (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree to focus on the edits not the editors. Do you? SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

yes. see how easy it is? Anastrophe (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You have attacked me personally repeatedly over the last few days, so I look forward to the change in your behavior. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

likewise. i'm pleased that you won't be referring to editors as "pro-gun" based upon your personal interpretation of their edits. 02:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Better said, I will continue to focus on edits, not editors. You have never really pointed to a specific diff of mine that you view as "referring to editors" as opposed to referring to their edits. In contrast, you have falsely accused me personally of bad faith[35], and you owe me an apology for that false accusation. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)soup. characterizing an edit by use of the sweeping term "pro-gun" is implicitly characterizing the editor as same. you cannot divorce the edit from the editor, not when you are making a characterization that goes beyond the text of the edit itself. you claim relentlessly that there is systemic bias in the article, yet that claim is devoid of any and all objective fact - it's merely a claim you employ to suggest there is bias without having to quantify it. "saltyboatr's inordinate attraction to this and other firearm-related articles clearly shows systemic bias by those intending to inject that POV into the article". that has no more validity than when you say that people with a pro-gun POV are attracted to the article. when you accused yaf and SMP0328 of conspiring to push a "pro-gun POV", you were most certainly focusing on editors (never mind that the claim of conspiracy and collusion is about as bad-faith a claim as i've seen in a long while, particularly considering the evidence you proferred was of public comments by one editor asking another editor to participate in public discussion. hell of a way to conduct a conspiracy!). i expect no apology from you to yaf and SMP0328, nor should you expect an apology from me. let's move beyond the faux hurt feelings, and discuss the freaking article. Anastrophe (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice you again attack me and my character with generalities. You have never really pointed to a specific specific diff of mine where I attacks. Great, you smear me again with implicit generalities and outrage at a straw man of "I expect no apology from you", (without giving me a chance). Then you admonish me to discuss the freaking article? Wow.

OK, an open issue is whether there is reliable sourcing that says that the Federal Second Amendment applies to the states. Do you have an opinion on this? The inclusion of a large amount of material based on State law about state rights to bear arms seem off topic unless it can be reliably sourced that the Federal 2A applies to the states. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

this is being discussed in another section. rather than changing the subject of this discussion, i'll make my comments in the appropriate section. Anastrophe (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You still owe me an apology for falsely accusing me[36] of bad faith. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

no false accusation obtains. further, please cite the wikipedia policy that requires me tender an apology. thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible new item for the article

With the US Supreme Court declaring that the right to own a gun for self defense is constitutionally protected, a mention that it is not the job of the police to protect you, it it YOUR job to protect you, may now have a place in the article.

I can look up cases if others see the need. One extreme example happened in Washington DC (of all places). An apartment was invaded, neighbors hearing a commotion called the police, who then failed to respond. The invaders then for the next 14 HOURS beat up and raped the inhabitants of that apartment. In a lawsuit against the police, the court found that the police have no OBLIGATION or DUTY to defend those beaten up and rapped.

Is anyone surprised that after DC made it practically impossible to own a gun for self defense, that it became the murder and crime capital of the US?4.154.234.114 (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of states rights.

Considering that State rights to bear arms is a totally different topic than the federal right to bear arms. And considering that the Federal Second Amendment gives zero protection of state based rights to bear arms. Why are the state based rights discussed so heavily? There are a few people that get confused that it does (or hopeful that it will) but that belief appears totally unfounded in reliable sources. Rather, it seems to be a political statement. The coverage of State based rights to bear arms appear 100% off topic in this article. And worse, it appears to be a political statement advocating for one political cause. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

State courts can and do interpret the Federal Constitution. For interpreting the Second Amendment, states were the first to establish the two major schools of thought that exist to this day regarding the interpretations of the Second Amendment. It is entirely proper to include this historical interpretation in this article, especially since it was the first detailed look at the Second Amendment that occurred in the courts in the US. The individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment grew out of the first attempts at gun control in the US, and was first litigated in the state courts around the mid-19th Century. The collective rights interpretation came later, and really only took off in the early 20th Century. A third interpretation, namely of the civic duty, came later. All three are discussed appropriately in the article, in 100% adherence to being on-topic with discussing the history of the Second Amendment, and in accordance with reliable and verifiable sources. There is no "pro-gun" bent here, only cited history. (It would help if you stopped calling all contents to which you oppose, "pro-gun". It is a serious violation of Assume Good Faith.) Also, calling this content by the POV-pushing "State rights to bear arms" moniker is an extreme push at the collective interpretation, only, which is but one of the three major forms of interpretation, all three of which are included in the article, commensurate with the cited reliable sources. Your POV pushing and bullying of other editors (see talk above and talk history) needs to stop. Yaf (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You have had a very hard time showing reliable sources for this opinion of yours. As confirmed by the SCOTUS with Heller footnote 23, this federal law (the 2A) has no bearing on the States. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Citations have been added. --tc2011 (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorporation

Where? Please cite reliable sourcing that the federal Second Amendment applies to the states. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Tc2011, please answer this question specifically. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not assert that the second amendment has been incorporated against the states. Take your bait and switch to the relevant talk page. --tc2011 (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: Citations have been added. Where? Which ones? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

They're there. I'm not going to read the article for you. Do your own leg work. --tc2011 (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, if you had looked at the passage you deleted, you would have seen it contains a citation demonstrating its relevance to the Second Amendment and this article. --tc2011 (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Now, the topic has been changed. I did not say the Second Amendment has been ruled by the SCOTUS to be incorporated against the states. I said that "State courts can and do interpret the Federal Constitution. For interpreting the Second Amendment, states were the first to establish the two major schools of thought that exist to this day regarding the interpretation of the Second Amendment." The article presently has cites for this, as well as for the third line of interpretation relative to an interpretation involving a civic duty. Changing the topic like this is an old debating trick; it needs to stop. It is equivalent to asking "Have you stopped beating your daughter?" Citations are presently in the article for early state judicial interpretations regarding the Second Amendment. Yaf (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The closest thing to a citation is your 1967 snippet, which is extremely obscure. Tell us, who is being quoted in that snippet? Answer please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yaf, please answer this question about your footnote 67. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yaf, please answer this question about your footnote 67. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The "obscurity" is only because you refused to verify the quotation during 30 and formal mediation and also demanded that the courtesy link be removed from the article, to censor content from Wikipedia readers that was different than what you felt was appropriate due to your extreme POV pushing; the courtesy link which is/was online here. Personally, I have always thought it would be best to include this online link in the article, as a courtesy link to readers, similar to how you have subsequently inserted numerous google.com/books links repeatedly. Yaf (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The nearest public library with this volume is 450 miles from my house. The Google books link is "snippet view" and truncates the quote, not even giving a complete sentence. Who is speaking? What question are they answering? Your refusal to answer this question about context raises another question: Have you read the source beyond what you can view in Google Books? If not, this seems a clear case of improper WP:SYN. This seems a dubious source because it seems to be the only case of incorporation of the Second Amendment in the history of the country. If true, this is noteworthy, and should be easy to confirm in multiple independent reliable sources. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, you even refuse to click on a courtesy link? If you did, you would see that your claim ("not even giving a complete sentence") is patently false. --tc2011 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

TC2011 has reinserted[37] this next now. TS2001 please answer this question about your footnote 67. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean you didn't look at the source? You really should look at the sources if you're going to say they're no good. I suggest you look at the source. --tc2011 (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the editor putting the material in the article (you) has the burden of proof. WP:Burden That being the case, please explain your sourcing. It is extremely obscure, and unclear. Who is speaking? What question were they answering? Lacking a coherent answer, WP:RS policy says that any editor may remove it. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WP:Burden is met: the passage is attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation, the source cited clearly supports the information as it is presented in the article, and the source is cited fully. If you have an interest in the source beyond WP:Burden, you are free to examine the source yourself. In any case, SB:Burden is not applicable to Wikipedia articles. --tc2011 (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You haven't read it in context either? How do you know whether your edit is accurate? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are you accusing me of not reading the citation in context, when you refuse to even click on the courtesy link and see that a complete thought (i.e., sentence) from the source is provided? --tc2011 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked two questions which you evaded. Did you read it in context? How do you know whether your edit is accurate? The courtesy link does not give more than "snippet view". Judging context is impossible with the truncated version found in the courtesy link. What is truncated by the ellipses? Who is speaking? What question are they answering? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

the material in question makes no claim that the second amendment applies to the states, thus the suggestion that it's off-topic is specious. it is very clearly entitled 'early commentary in state courts', not "the federal second amendment as it applies to the states". state courts have discussed the scope of the federal second amendment in deciding cases before them. this early commentary is on-topic, relevant to a historical understanding, and sourced. i have no objection to its inclusion. Anastrophe (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

We are talking about footnotes 66 through 80. Which exactly of these citations are you talking about when you say "state courts have discussed the scope of the federal second amendment in deciding cases before them"? Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

there seems to be some misunderstanding of process here. if an editor disputes a citation/source, it's his privilege to dispute it, upon which discussion may ensue of the reliability of the source. it is not, however, an editors privilege to make a blanket, generalized dispute claim against fifteen citations, then insist (vis "Which exactly of these citations are you talking about") that other editors "de-dispute" the blanket claim.

that said, the court's opinion in state v buzzard clearly discusses the scope of the right, and of the federal second amendment. have you read it? Anastrophe (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading primary court documents, especially 180 year old ones, requires expertise which normal people lack. I have read it and it seems to say that the appellee is wrong to assert the Second Amendment has bearing on Arkansas law. That being the case, why discuss this reversal case from 1839? Much better to just simply say: The Second Amendment does not apply to the states. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

your opinion regarding the limited abilities of "normal people" is noted, but is not germane. it's a curious approach to take, however, as in characterizing it in this way - then proceeding directly to provide your interpretation of the material - it seems to beg that your interpretation be dismissed prima facie. res ispa loquitur, and all that.

i answered your question, which was "which exactly of these citations are you talking about[...]". i disagree that your oversimplification either accurate or "better". i stand by my previous comments. Anastrophe (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have problems interpreting primary sourcing like that. It appears in violation of WP:PSTS. Also, please answer my question "(W)hy discuss this reversal case from 1839? SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, it is not appropriate for editors to conduct original research and say a verifiable source is wrong. Much better to just present the information and allow readers to decide for themselves. Don't you agree we shouldn't be doing original research to push a POV? --tc2011 (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Reread WP:PSTS for the answer to your question. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, WP:PSTS says that primary sources can be used for descriptive purposes. So far, it seems the only misuse of this primary source is above, where you impose your interpretation on this source (I have read it and it seems to say that the appellee is wrong to assert the Second Amendment has bearing on Arkansas law.). If you see interpretations like yours in the article, by all means, identify them specifically here on the talk page so we can discuss them before anyone makes controversial edits? Here's a new section, and I'll get started: --tc2011 (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Potential instances of original research

• As mentioned in this quotation "as it existed at the adoption of the constitution" was the pre-existing right in force when Kentucky's First Constitution was drawn in 1799. --tc2011 (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unpublished source

This recent citation[38] points to an unpublished 'forthcoming' source, and violates WP:RS policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

i've added another citation for this well-known fact. Anastrophe (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

William Weir sourcing 'dubious'.

An editor has recently noted the citation to William Weir as "dubious" but gave not indication of what was dubious other than the cryptic edit summary "refimprove to satisfy SaltyBoatr". It is tempting to guess that this is an attempt at sarcasm? Perhaps not. What does this mean? I am welcome to discuss this, what is dubious? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamilton quote still only quote showing - Continuing POV bias

Why does the proponent of the MOST EXTREME position of the loosing side of the Second Amendment/Bill of Rights debate continue to be the only one quoted?

His opinions are most certainly NOT the mainstream opinion of the time. If it was then there would be no Bill of Rights and no Second Amendment. Those two items CLEARLY exist and they exist because the majority of the time THOUGHT THEY WERE NEEDED. Again: Hamilton's was clearly a MINORITY opinion.

This quote from Federalist 25 shown Hamilton to be ANTI-Militia and anti-NUMEROUS state constitutions of the time, as well as Anti-Virginia Bill of Rights. This is NOT a mainstream opinion of the time.

Here I expect we shall be told that the militia of the country
is its natural bulwark, and would be at all times equal to the
national defense. This doctrine, in substance, had like to have
lost us our independence.

On another point: Hamilton's usage of the term "well regulated" conforms to the usage of the time. Well regulated being used to mean "well trained". From Federalist 29

To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes
of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through
military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to
acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the
character of a well-regulated militia,4.156.78.9 (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Link to Elliot's Debates for Patrick Henry and George Mason still not fixed after being screwed up by nwlaw. Is it too much too ask that someone go back a month or so in the article to cut and paste a working link to Elliot's Debates at the Library of Congress as it existed a month or so ago?4.156.78.7 (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

To make it even simple and less time consuming to fix the error, here is the link to be cut and pasted. LOC.gov is Library Of Congress.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(ed0038))

I also take back any comments on my part that nwlaw broke the link. It looks like it went bad before the current (month or two) of edits.4.156.78.19 (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 4.156.78.19 (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Footnote 67 request full quote

Footnote 67 presently reads "67. ^ United States. Anti-Crime Program. Hearings Before Ninetieth Congress, First Session. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off, 1967, p. 246. quote: "...all citizens had the unabridgable right to bear arms for self-protection as well as for militia purposes and that a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons was violative of the Second Amendment (see Bliss v. Commonwealth, 2 Litt. (Ky) 90, 13 Am. December 251 (1822))..."

Please see Wikipedia policy about burden of evidence. I have questions about the context of this source. What is truncated by the ellipsis? Who is speaking? What question is he/she or are they answering? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As has been provided above (and which you apparently refuse to check, falsely claiming it doesn't provide "even a complete sentence"): [39]. --tc2011 (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at that link. It shows only a snippet view. Who is speaking? What is the context? What question were they asked? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no answer, I will remove that passage shortly. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, WP:Burden is met:

• It is attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.
• The source cited clearly supports the information as presented in the article.

The source provides a complete thought that is faithfully represented in the text of this article. You have been provided with this source's complete thought. Your abject refusal to acknowledge the information presented to you is astonishing.

• The source is cited fully, enabling anyone so interested to find the text.

The burden is now on anyone who would remove the citation. --tc2011 (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that anyone here has actually bothered to travel to a library to read that text in context. "Google research", viewing just a short snipped lacking context doesn't cut it. And no, it is not fully cited. That is a transcript of testimony. Though, we don't know who was speaking so we cannot judge their reliability. Neither do we know what question they were answering. Also, we only see a short passage, what is the context of the discussion? Please answer, you inserted the passage. No joke, the nearest public library with that volume is 450 miles from my house. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is interesting. You assume no Wikipedia editor has reviewed the publication and you realize that some people might have to travel 450 miles in order to review the publication, yet you insist upon promptly removing the citation, without affording editors the opportunity to access or obtain the publication to supply your demands not present in WP:Burden? We are not your personal research service. The demands of WP:Burden are met. If you wish to challenge the citation further, I suggest that you request the publication through inter-library loan, or file a request for comment seeking Wikipedia users willing to scan or transcribe the publication for you. Failing that, you might at least feign good faith by allowing sufficient time, for those whose lives are not lived around Wikipedia, to request the publication through inter-library loan, or make the trip to a holding library.

The demands of WP:Burden are met. If you wish to disprove the citation, I encourage you--expending your own resources--to do so. --tc2011 (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You made the edit inserting the material. You have the burden of evidence, not me. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Burden has been satisfied, even if you have not. --tc2011 (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"extremist" sources

the use of material from websites such as the NRA, The Second Amendment Foundation, GunCite, etc, have at various times been challenged as being from extremist POV sources, thus not appropriate as references - and in virtually all cases, have been struck from the article. In what way does material from these single-issue advocacy websites differ from material sourced from a single issue advocacy website such as www.gunlawsuits.org, recently used in this edit? what objective basis is used to determine that the SAF is extremist, but the brady center is not? Anastrophe (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll give you one guess. Hint: the answer includes a capital S and a capital B. SMP0328. (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks. This is harassment. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that advocacy sources should be disfavored, and most reliable sources should be favored. Especially those with good reputation for fact checking, like well known publishing houses. (Especially those associated with universities.) The diff you question is mistaken, the www.gunlawsuits.org citation was made by SMP0328 with this diff[40]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Many university source are "extremist" in that they borrow heavily from communist and socialist (communism light) sources and are not based on the idea of "individual rights" that form the foundation of the American system of government.4.156.78.19 (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the correction on the diff sb, and i apologize for misattributing it to you with my diff. while i also favor use of the most reliable sources, web sources are also acceptable per policy if they meet the criteria (and depending upon the material they are sourcing). Anastrophe (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Pruning the Article

This article is clearly overlong, with lots of redundant and overlong historical storytelling that borders on original research. I am going to engage in some judicious pruning. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, the section on early state court law is duplicated nearly verbatim in the Right to keep and bear arms article where it is more 'on topic'. I see that entire section as a wordy contentious passage, full of synthesis and original research, not really on topic, and which is redundant in this article. Feel free to prune that entire section out, and optionally, include a link reference to the text in the other article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I just trimmed out that redundant section. SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Any deletions of quotes from anti-Federalists would result in a blatant POV bias for the article. The Second Amendment was passed to satisfy their concerns and those concerns need to be represented in the article. As it is, the Federalist, who in general opposed a Bill of Rights, still have more quotes in the article then the anti-Federalists. While the article is currently acceptable, any deletions of anti-Federalist quotes would NOT be acceptable. I do not object to deletion of Federalist quotes as they are in my opinion currently over-represented. 4.154.232.10 (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we delete both of these types of quotes, as they amount to improper synthesis, and violate WP:NOR. SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The context in which the second Amendment was written is much more relevant to the article then say a dispute on ablative absolute.

In order to properly understand the thinking of the players of the era, both for and against, you need their actual words, not the thinking of some ivory tower egghead who wasn't around at the time. Quotes do that quite nicely. 4.156.78.2 (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that "ivory tower egghead" is another term for reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Using snippets of quotes from the "founding fathers" selectively chosen to advance a point of view amounts to synthesis and original research in many cases including here. 4.156.78.2 must explain why we should not follow Wikipedia:Policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I would rather get my opinions directly from those who had them, in their own words, instead of regurgitated 200 years after the fact. "Ivory tower egghead" is a term used for people with more brains then common sense. Any reading of the Second Amendment in combination with the concerns of those who forced its enactment, shows that it was designed to make sure that the various state militias were not disarmed by federal fiat. The way this was done was to FORBID the feds from disarming ANYONE. That is plainly the intent of the phrase "The right to beep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Again I invite you to loom up the meaning of the word "infringed". This time use a RELIABLE reference like a DICTIONARY, not someones OPINION. As you continue to point out OPINION is NOT a reliable source.

I agree with you on using selective quotes to further an agenda is unacceptable. THAT is why I added the quotes from Patrick Henry and George Mason. Both are major anti-Federalist figures. Prior to this NO quotes had been included in the article from ANY anti-Federalist. While the anti-Federalists are still under-represented, I feel no need to "hog" the show and add more quotes. If I did they would most likely be from Patrick Henry and his views should not predominate over the views of other figures of the time.

The following Patrick Henry quotes would certainly be acceptable for the article, but would result in the over-representation of the opinions of one man

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 having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? -- 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun. -- 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

The quotes currently referenced do not further ANY agenda, as the are in fact from major players on both sides of the Bill of Rights argument. If you feel that they are biased in some manner then feel free to add quotes that you believe are relevant and further a point of view not shown. Any deletion of anti-Federalist quotes however would be a POV and neutrality issue. Any deletion of ALL quotes would be negative to the article.

As stated previously I find the current article quite acceptable4.154.237.121 (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

4.154.234.121 Before I am willing to engage on a discussion of your quotes, we need to discuss Wikipedia:No original research policy. Would you please click that link, read it and then come back to discuss how your proposed edits comply with that policy? Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Already been there and done that! Quotes from a reputable source such as Elliot's Debates is considered acceptable for a wiki article. Find another tree to bark at please. Better yet, find some quotes that fill any lack you see in the article. If you can't, then don't blame me for your lack of effort. 4.156.78.222 (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the Early commentary in state courts section. Pruning, with the addition of a See also or main link, is fine, but complete removal is improper. Just because that material is relevant in another article does not make it irrelevant to this article. SMP0328. (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Why does that passage need to appear in two articles? Also, the issue of why state law discussion of various rights to bear arms is 'on topic' in a federal law article has never been addressed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

A fair compromise has been reached. Who would have thought it possible? You get to "prune" the article, but that material is still available to reader and is linked to by this article. SMP0328. (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have continued to prune the article, focusing on the historical exposition and overlong quotations which lead the article perilously close to original research. I assure all parties that I am not removing text to promote any particular point of view, and that I will axe unnecessary verbiage without regard to what view it supports. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Corrected typo in "State ratification Conventions"

from The Right to Bears arms

to The Right to Bear arms4.156.78.222 (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

further corrected to the Right to Bear Arms.4.156.78.222 (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have the right to bear arms with a bear's arms, as long as the bear consents. :) SMP0328. (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have once again removed historical fluff around the Tucker mention. I have no wish to engage in a battle over the content of the article, but tidbits about a legal expert's nickname or redundant sentences about his expertise don't add anything - Describing Tucker as a major constitutional theorist or leading legal expert gets the point across just fine. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I am about to take my axe to the state ratification section - The inclusion of a quote from five different states, each of which essentially says the state approves the right to bear arms, is highly repetitive and unnecessary - A simple comprehensive statement to this effect is more than sufficient. I am posting this comment here for a day or so before I make the cuts in case someone has a compelling argument about why one or more of these quotes should remain. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of brevity, I have removed these long and unnecessary quotes. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

In the next section, conflict and compromise, I feel that the quotations are necessary since the involve the crafting of the amendment itself. However, the first couple of paragraphs appear to give an awkward and partly unnecessary background on the politics of 1789. I propose to edit this beginning to make it both clearer and shorter. I will wait a day for comments before proceeding. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks SMP for saving me the work :) Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

While the opening of the article looks much clearer now, the "Origins" section still seems overlong and strained, in my view. "In the centuries and decades" is a particularly awkward phrase. All the material about 12th century England seems to border on original research - Perhaps this information could be summarized in a way that creates more of a flowing narrative and less of an appearance of wandering off for an English history lesson. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

All of the historical records of gun possession are off-point. And treating the 2A separately from the Bill of Rights just adds to the confusion. The Bill of Rights is a set of restrictions the Founders placed upon their just created federal government. It begins with "Congress shall make no law..." then the 2A's "shall not be infringed." It means only what it says, and that restriction applies exclusively to the federal government. Every Supreme Court decision from our beginnings through 'Heller' has stated that. The 2A does not create, secure, protect or guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. It simply forbids the federal government from infringing on it. Truwik (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

your comments are interesting, but unclear. what do you mean by "and treating the 2A separately from the Bill of Rights just adds to the confusion"? there are separate articles for each of the amendments to the bill of rights. this is a separate article for one of them. so, i'm unclear how you would suggest it be treated - wikipedia having only one article on the bill of rights, eliminating the separate ones? very confusing. your juxtaposition of the words of one amendment against the words of another is also interesting, but appears to be little more than original research. The ninth amendment nicely quashes the notion that the enumeration of rights in the BoR somehow means that the (or any) government's restricted power to limit rights somehow limits the rights themselves.

in any event, you've made a number of sweeping claims above but demonstrated no sourcing for those claims. we can certainly discuss the merits of those claims with regard to the current construction of the article. Anastrophe (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Anastrophe for the most part. The general drift of your suggestion seems promising, but proceeding without having reliable sourcing is a can of worms. Are your reading a book or something reliable which outline these ideas? Two strong scholarly and topical books, (one leaning pro-individual right and the other leaning pro-collective right) are the Joyce Lee Malcolm (ISBN 0674893077) and the Uviller & Merkel (ISBN 0822330172) books. I suspect that melding these two together could give us a WP:RS and WP:NPOV roadmap. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Historical Sources

While the "Historical Sources" section is interesting to those of us interested in research, it does not seem to meet Wikipedia standards of relevance - It is hard to imagine a print encyclopedia discussing its sources in this way. I would like to hear the opinions of other editors on whether this section is actually needed. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no objections on this particular point, I am going to proceed and remove the Historical Sources section as irrelevant for a Wikipedia article. If anyone objects, please post here and we'll talk it through. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added one of the links which was in that subsection into the External links section. That link is germane even if that subsection wasn't. SMP0328. (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Balance missing from the Miller subsection

There are various points of view about the Miller case. Presently the short section gives an imbalanced treatment to the opposing points of view.

"In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court heard arguments from only the government[94][95] and rejected a Second Amendment challenge to the National Firearms Act prohibiting the interstate transportation of unregistered Title II weapons, ruling:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Miller is often cited by gun-rights advocates, because the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep arms that are part of "ordinary military equipment".

Both of the highlighted passages read as if from an advocacy talking point memo for just one of the points of view. The opposing point of view is missing entirely. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As for the first highlight, it is a fact that Miller did not file any briefs before the Supreme Court and so that material clarifies that Miller's side of the story was not heard by the Court. As for the second highlight, I will add material shortly. SMP0328. (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand. I don't question the WP:V of the two statements. I just question the WP:Undue. To comply with WP:NPOV, the passage should cover the various points of view with balance, presently it does not. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a sourced sentence describing the gun control view of Miller and added a source for the gun rights sentence preceding it. SMP0328. (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The politically charged term 'prefatory clause' is not a term used by the Brady Campaign, and rather reflects the opposing point of view 'framing' and depreciation of the purpose of the militia clause. The opposing point of view is better found, I think, in Solicitor General Robert H. Jackson's arguments with emphasis 1) that pre-existing common law rights are always subject to governmental regulation for public health and safety 2) that the Second Amendment protects only the collective right of weapons for use in state militias and 3) the national government has the right to restrict weapons peculiarly adapted for criminal uses. See the Bruce & Wilcox book, pages 79-80. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Prefatory clause" is a standard grammatical term, and its application to the Second Amendment can be verified by reviewing any decent style book. "Prefatory clause" is no more politically charged than "sentence," or "verb." --tc2011 (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced "prefatory clause" with "militia reference". SMP0328. (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You are misleading and patently incorrect in your claim that the gun control POV is missing, as the passage clearly says "the Supreme Court...rejected a Second Amendment challenge..." In any event, SMP0328 has augmented the opposing POV and has helpfully added citations for both. --tc2011 (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Startling shift

An editor's recent action exponentially increased the weight (well beyond the point of WP:Undue) given to the pro gun-control POV (by spelling out in detail the pro gun control argument), and all but eliminated the opposing viewpoint by relegating it to the very last sentence of the section, while at the same time arbitrarily emphasizing a pro gun-control POV by sentence placement. Let us attempt to arrive at a balanced text for this section. --tc2011 (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It could help if you were to identify the reliable sourcing you use to determine correct POV weight. What sourcing are you reading? SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The number of sources available for each POV are roughly equal, so the section should give approximately equal weight to each viewpoint. The edit in question gave but a single sentence (and deliberately moved that sentence to de-emphasize it) to the gun rights POV, while at the same time devoting the rest of the section to the gun control POV. The WP:Undue weight of the edit in question should be obvious to any impartial observer. --tc2011 (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Tc2011. Please answer the question. What sourcing are you reading? SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources available, as I have already indicated. --tc2011 (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, you were right when you pointed out that the description of Miller did not include the viewpoint of Miller held by those who support gun control. So I added material about that POV in order to balance the Miller description. Your recent edit (now reverted by Tc2011) made that description unbalanced in favor of the gun control POV. SMP0328. (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

SMP0328. What sourcing are you reading? SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to how you added alot more material about the gun control POV, while the gun rights POV remained only a single sentence. That was clearly unbalanced. The Miller description currently provides equal weight to both POVs. SMP0328. (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice that both SMP0328 and Tc2011 gave non-specific answers. The question is what neutrality balance point is appropriate. Wikipedia policy says that we should match the neutrality balance point found in the reliable sourcing. Without specific discussion of what is "the reliable sourcing" we cannot discuss neutral POV balance point. Please answer: What sourcing are you reading? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm reading the New York Times, Washington Times, Washington Post, NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, Penguin Group USA, The Yale Law Journal, Law and Contemporary Problems, The Journal of American History, The William and Mary Quarterly, Duke Law Journal, Michigan Law Review, Harvard Law Review, Law and History Review, and others. The imbalance you propose is not supported by any reputable source. --tc2011 (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that list is helpful. Where in those publications were you reading about United States vs. Miller? You say that the POV balance is off, compared with what specific sourcing? How is it off? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You haven't reviewed these sources in looking for information on Miller? If you did, you would know which articles I have read. What sources are you reading? --tc2011 (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't read your mind. It is you who claimed POV imbalance. Prove your claim using specifics. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"[W]hen all is said and done, the only certainty about Miller is that it failed to give either side a clear-cut victory. Most modern scholars recognize this fact." [41] As I have previously indicated, the current (i.e., approximately equal) balance reflects this scholarly consensus. Your edit dramatically in favor of a gun-control reading of Miller POV did not. And you persistently refuse to offer up evidence for the POV shift you pushed with that edit. Do you have any evidence supporting your dramatic edit giving WP:Undue weight to the gun-control POV? I'm beginning to wonder if your constant demands on other editors, and concomitant refusal to provide any credible evidence of your own, isn't intended to game the system. --tc2011 (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It must be noted that first you cited 13 sources, then when pressed, you pointed to a 14th. With that being an opinion piece by an outspoken gun rights advocate in a well known conservative online magazine. In short, you have shown citation for one of the points of view. What about the other? The duty of editors, (See Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial) is to: "The first element in negotiating issues of bias with others is to recognize you have a point of view, and to pin-point where it comes from. "It's what everybody I know believes," is a start. But in co-writing an article with someone who believes differently, it's often important to have some evidence at hand. This includes not only evidence for your view but evidence for how many others hold it and who they are. Information like this enables writers and participants in discussion to come to practical decisions. These include whether one view deserves to go first, whether two deserve equal billing, whether views belong in different articles and, if so, what titles the articles should have." I accept that David Kopel validly expresses the pro gun point of view. Missing here is respect for the opposing point of view. Which sourcing do you read to learn the opposing point of view and the weight to apply to it? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I noted "and others." This source is one of those others, I guess. And yet again, you have utterly failed to examine the evidence presented to you. If you had bothered to examine the link and quotation I gave you, you would have quickly and easily seen that those words do not belong to subject matter expert David Kopel, whose column you deride as an "opinion piece," but were fully and verifiably cited to an "opposing point of view" law professor writing in the Journal of Firearms & Public Policy.

You clearly have no serious regard for the quality of this Wikipedia article, or for the efforts of your fellow editors. Your incessant and insatiable cries for editors other than yourself to supply proof after proof, while you yourself provide virtually nothing, cannot reasonably be construed as efforts made in good faith. You must cease your disruption of this talk page and article. --tc2011 (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The Journal of Firearms & Public Policy is part of the "research arm" of the gun rights advocacy group known as "Second Amendment Foundation", which has been described as a splinter group not satisfied that the National Rifle Association was being "tough enough" on gun issues (per Spitzer pg74). Again, please read Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial to learn what "neutral point of view" means in context of Wikipedia. Instead of attacking my personal character yet again, you should answer my question: Which sourcing do you read to learn the opposing point of view and the weight to apply to it? SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Your guilt by association characterization of Andrew McClurg is laughable. McClurg is an established pro gun-control and pro collectivist interpretation academic. --tc2011 (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I did no such thing. Stop your personal attacks on my character please. Also, for the second time, you evaded my question: Which sourcing do you read to learn the opposing point of view and the weight to apply to it? I ask this question because in order to follow WP:NPOV policy, (which is non-negotiable), you need to understand opposing points of view. Not agree with opposing points of view, just fairly understand. Also, the credibility of the publisher is the gauge used at Wikipedia to measure reliability. Not the credibility of the author. The publisher of the journal you mentioned is the Second Amendment Foundation which is a pro-gun advocacy group. We need to read elsewhere to find the opposing point of view. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not correct

The following sentence is first: not correct, and second: incorrectly cites the source.

A widespread fear during the debates on the ratification of the Constitution, was the possibility of a military takeover of the states by the federal government, which could happen if congress passed laws prohibiting states from arming citizens.

The reason that the above is bad is because the constitution ALREADY prohibits the states from arming the populace by transferring the power and obligation to arm the militia to the federal government. This is NOT a concurrent power and with the ratification of the Constitution it can only be lawfully exercised by the feds.

To make it clear, under the Constitution the states CANNOT legally set aside funds to ARM the militia. I would even go so far as to say that a court of law would find that even DONATING impounded/confiscated arms to members of the general militia is illegal, since this would be considered the ARMING of such.

Please correct to

A widespread fear during the debates on the ratification of the Constitution, was the possibility of a military takeover of the states by the federal government, which could not be effectively resisted if congress passed laws disarming the militia.

which more closely follows the cited source and is also historically accurate.4.156.78.19 (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

or, you could open an account and make the correction yourself. i've never understood why anon-IP users don't do this. you become even more anon after you create an account! Anastrophe (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! while I can spend SOME time here I have other more important commitments. I wouldn't even be posting if the recent edits haven't been so generally BAD! (and detrimental to a couple of "my" additions which were thought so important by the Supreme Court that they were given prime space in the Heller summary.) The article was in much better shape a few months ago.4.156.78.33 (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)