The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
This is not a forum for general discussion about Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Second Amendment to the United States Constitution at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk. This is not a place for general discussion of the right to bear arms, or for discussion of personal research about the Second Amendment
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
It seems to me the article doesn't say which Article, Section, Clause of the Constitution the Amendment is amending. Crock81 (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Amendments to the Constitution do not amend/change the text of any provision of the Constitution. An amendment supersedes any contrary provision. For example, the Twelfth Amendment supersedes Article II, Section 1, Clause 3. Regarding the Second Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, it supersedes every provision granting the federal government authority. SMP0328. (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Authority to do what in which Clause? It seems to me the Amendment is about preventing infringement of the law (Constitution) as ratified, so I'm a bit at a loss to understand the Wikipedia article since it is, without referring to the appropriate Clause, lacking in context Crock81 (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The Bill of Rights limits all federal and State authority, not any one clause of the Constitution. The Second Amendment is about preventing the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, not about the unamended/original Constitution. SMP0328. (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
What in the Constitution could cause such an infringement that would require the Amendment? Crock81 (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
This, list most of the bill of rights, is there to protect the rights of the people from the government being able to limit them by passing a law. Without this, a law could be passed banning everyone from owning a shotgun, and nothing could prevent it. While the right is not absolute (automatic weapons, cannons, etc aren't something most people can get), the core of it cannot be limited by a simple law. That is the power, and the reason, this is protected in an amendment. Ravensfire (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm now convinced that English skills in the general population are well below par, and comprehension also.
THIS AMENDMENT IS RELATED ONLY TO MILITIA.
There is no point in having a Militia if it is not ARMED because than it can not perform per Article 1 Section 8.
The subject of the Amendment is not the RIGHT of keeping firearms since this is a REQUIREMENT FOR MILITIA SERVICE, but the possible infringement to prevent it.
What infringement could prevent someone ALREADY SIGNED UP WITH MILITIA IN 1785 from keeping arms he requires for the service? Crock81 (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The 2nd A is not RELATED ONLY TO MILITIA. A review of the SCOTUS opinion in Heller may help you understand. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad to see we're discussing your personal view of the 2nd Amendment. It is, however, out of whack with the current legal interpretation of the amendment. If you wish to discuss this further, please find a blog or forum as Wikipedia is not the place to discuss your personal views on a subject, but to review and develop articles based on reliable sources. Ravensfire (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Crock81, the federal government could have disarmed the militias and used a standing army or mercenaries to enforce its authority. (Whether that was a realistic possibility or even allowable under the U.S. constitution is another matter.) Ravensfire, a 5 to 4 Supreme Court decision cannot rewrite history. This is not 1984, where history is being constantly re-written. TFD (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
And what is your request? Lectonar (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The article is loaded with duplicated links including 2 in the lede, 6 for Heller, 5 for Miller, 4 for McDonald, 3 for Cruikshank. I removed many so that there were no more than 2. Grahamboat (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
In the lede - "...protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms."
Uh, well, this is a disputed interpretation. I think it would be better, in the lede, for the wikipedia to not stake out this claim, that it is a right "of individuals". For most of our history, this amendment was considered a right of states, rather than a right of individuals. There is a great deal of complexity in this statement as currently made, that is covered lower in the article, but I think, in the lede, that the less specific statement "protects the right to keep and bear arms" would be more appropriate.
Comments? Since this is a highly volatile subject, I toss it out for discussion rather than boldly make the change. Ratagonia (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The current legal interpretation is that the right is that of individuals. See District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. In those decisions, the Supreme Court rejected the claim that the right was of the States. Finally, for most of American history the amendment was considered to be protecting an individual right. SMP0328. (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I second what SMP0328. said, the current legal interpretation is that the right is that of the individuals. There are supreme court rulings and citations to back it up. If some people disagree with the interpretation then thats their opinion but the supreme court ruled that it is an individual right and that makes that the supreme legal interpretation. - SantiLak(talk) 20:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The lead is fine the way it is. In this context, it actually doesn't matter much what the history is. It doesn't even matter what the text of the amendment is. What matters is what the Supreme Court says the amendment means.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)