I assume you are making a good faith effort to build a better encyclopedia. However there are multiple problems. First an easy one. news papers are out see WP:RS esp. . Second, also easy ,you are responsible to accurately report what sources say this source  and better this one linked from it  speak to the short comings of Miller and subsequent cases. (From your source: This type of holding became the norm in cases addressing the Second Amendment for the remainder of the century, with courts increasingly referring to one another’s holdings to support the determination that there is no individual right conferred under the Second Amendment, without engaging in any appreciably substantive legal analysis of the issue)We have a page for Firearm case law in the United States that "Emerson" shows a new direction (substantive legal analysis) is notable. You are trying to convert the lede into an essay that refutes the ""standard"" view without mention of the standard view. We are an encyclopedia and per WP:MOS and WP:RS and your own sources what you are doing is not ok even on the talk pages. As to the money: Please see Nunn v. Georgia and  "The only certainty about Miller is that it failed to give either side a clear-cut victory. Most modern scholars recognize this fact" J8079s (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- buy yourself a subscription to Questia and donate the rest to Wikipedia.
1. Newspaper articles are NOT out, according to your own link (WP:RS). In fact, if reliable newspaper articles are not allowed, we're going to have to remove a million or so citations throughout wikipedia including several in this Second Amendment article alone. For example, we have to remove the McDonald case, which cites as a source the exact same reporter to the exact same newspaper that I reference.
2 and 3 - the Congressional Research Service. I have cited to and quoted accurately from this source verbatim. You are welcome to as well. I didn't say Miller didn't have "shortcomings" or was beyond criticism. Indeed, opinions as to these shortcomings and criticism (which are necessarily subjective) should be mentioned in the article as the opinions they are. What I said -- which is beyond dispute -- is that objectively, federal appellate courts after Miller universally found that the Second Amendment right applied to militia service only until the Emerson case in 2001. Do you dispute this? Because that's what the CRS and the NYT (and WP and LOC and the NRA and scholars and four cases and everyone who has ever written on it that I have ever read says). Both North8000 and MiguelEscopeta have conceded they have no contrary source on this point. Do you? Because I'm going to do a Request for Comment and if you have a source, I'd like to include it to be fair. As it is, I have about 10 sources and not a single person has yet come forward with a contrary one. No one yet has been able to find me a case between Miller (1939) and Emerson (2001) that disputes that the militia view prevailed in the judiciary during that time. Can you find one?
4 - The Georgia Court in Nunn was overruled by the Supreme Court in Cruikshank in 1875. For the next 135 years (until McDonald), all courts in the USA held that the Second Amendment did not apply to states. Do you dispute this? No other editor does. This isn't even a bone of contention, or at least hasn't been thus far.
5 - The law professor who said this (The only certainty about Miller is that it failed to give either side a clear-cut victory. Most modern scholars recognize this fact) is far less reliable than the CRS, LOC, CAC, NYT, WP, the four cases I've cited or any of the other sources listed. In fact, I think you'll agree that based on RS, we need to remove that opinion because it gives undue weight to the minority opinion of one man. In fact, I was told that Jeffrey Toobin, lead Supreme Court commentator on CNN, was not reliable enough to cite his opinion even though he strives to be objective, and if he's not, certainly one law professor at the University of Memphis is hardly THE unchallengeable word. Remember that even a Professor whose chair is endowed by the National Rifle Association agrees with me! In fact, I wonder if Professor McClurg is quoted out of context since I cannot find the full quotation in its full context on the Internet anywhere outside of wikipedia. If you can find the full and complete quotation, I'd like to examine it because I'm loath to "take someone's word" as to a source that is unverifiable. But here's the catch: even this out-of-context quotation from an unreliable source does not support your view, because whatever his view of Miller, the fact is the federal courts interpreted Miller as collective view only. McClurg disagrees perhaps with the state of the law between 1939 and 2001 -- as perhaps do you -- but that does not mean that it was not objectively the law.
Were you surprised to find how much the collective view predominated from 1939 to 2001? That shows you how much Emerson/Heller has changed the law. Certain elements of the gun lobby have actually succeeded in persuading many people not just that the individual-rights view is the law today (which it is after Heller with many limitations imposed by the courts) but they claim it has ALWAYS BEEN the law! Orwell wrote about how tricky it is to try to revise history, but you have to give gun-rights advocates credit for an incredible whitewash. Luckily, history has a nice objectivity to it. All you have to do is read contemporary sources. And when you read cases like Love v. Peppersack, it's hard to see how anyone could believe the NRA historical revision. And even honest NRA supporters such as Professor Nelson Lund (see below) concede the law was what it was. They disagree with it to be sure, as you may, but as the article below points out: "Lund agreed that there was a consensus [that the 2A only allowed people to bear arms for the purpose of service in a mitita] but said it was “based on ignorance.” Lund didn't like the collective militia law and consensus from 1939 to 2001 (as you may not), but he does not deny it existed. The author of the CRS article may feel the same way.
For a good source -- a front-page article in the Washington Post published just two days ago -- about how the law changed so dramatically, check this out. It's a good read and may answer many of your questions and concerns: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nra-money-helped-reshape-gun-law/2013/03/13/73d71e22-829a-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html GreekParadise (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Your assumption regarding me above is wrong. There are numerous sources, confirming an individual instead of a collective right, dating from between 1939 and 2000. Even in the article you quote from the Washington Post above, "Lund agreed that there was a consensus but said it was “based on ignorance.”" This is precisely correct. There are many sources that go counter to those you cherry-picked. You simply haven't been paying attention. As for my $100, you can donate it to Wikipedia. I have previously responded with both a Presidential quote and with a Supreme Court case from 1990 that both support an individual instead of a collective viewpoint for the Second Amendment. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- What silliness. Verdugo-Urquidez was a Fourth Amendment case and you know it. It's only mention of the Second Amendment is to define the word "people" in the Amendment, not to define the entire Amendment. As you know the Second Amendment does NOT read, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If it did, there would be no controversy and the definition of people as "people of the United States" would hold for the Second Amendment as well.
Unfortunately for gun-rights advocates (who really should amend the Second Amendment to remove its first thirteen words), the Second Amendment reads as follows: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The issue is whether the dependent clause modifies the independent clause (as is the case normally in English grammar) or whether the first half of the Amendment is mere surplusage, i.e. the Founders inserted meaningless language in an Amendment to the Constitution. (But why amend the Constitution with superfluous language? I've never understood that.) The Supreme Court held in Heller that the Founders mistakenly included these excess meaningless words in the Amendment. Of course, strict textualists who interprent the Constitution literally insist that every word of the Constitution has meaning and there is no accidental surplus of meaningless words. They reject Heller's construction as not "based in the text."
But back to your argument. Examine this sentence: "A physical fitness test being necessary for service in the army, all people shall be required to serve." Does this mean that all people shall be required to serve? Or all people who pass a physical-fitness test shall be required to serve? I suppose you could argue it either way. But claiming that all "people" in this sentence is all American citizens, say, doesn't answer the question of whether the dependent clause modifies the independent clause. All it means is that the sentence means EITHER all American citizens are required to serve or all physically-fit American citizens are required to serve. Defining "people" as "American citizens" does not address the meaning or purpose of the prefatory dependent clause.
First and always WP:Assume Good Faith Wikipedia is not a place to argue. Your talk tells me you are quit unfamiliar with wiki policies.
- Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research 
- The main information from a source, insofar as stated in Wikipedia, must be accompanied by any contradictory and qualifying information from the same source. Failure to do so often violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, by selectively presenting one point of view from a source that actually includes both. It may also misrepresent a fringe view as mainstream or vice versa, cause undue weight, or misrepresent an unreliable source as reliable.
- Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. One option to consider in these situations is to stop, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you, see if you can see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement. 
- I hope this will help. Take a look around and learn the ropes. The 2nd amendment will still be there next month or even next year. J8079s (talk) 06:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. And I refuse to use material out of context.
1. Have you read my sources?
2. Can you say how you believe they are taken out of context?
If the answer to both questions is no, you have not assumed good faith. In fact, you have challenged my good faith by making up a spurious accusation against me. And that's not in good faith.
And if the answer to both questions is yes, then I ask you, beg you, challenge you, implore you to tell me how on God's green earth I have taken anything out of context? I have asked this question nicely, strongly, softly, loudly, and repeatedly for more than 3 months and all I get to contradict 10 strongly reliable sources is a bunch of "tsk, tsk, we know you're wrong but we refuse to engage you on the merits" and North's "vague recollection" that he believes that the Library of Congress and the New York Times and the Congressional Research Service and all my eminently reliable sources are full of shit.
In a court of law, a vague recollection cannot compete with 10 eyewitnesses. In wikipedia, a person's vague recollection (which is not even as good as original research which is also not allowed!) similarly cannot compete.
So tell me HOW you believe my quotations are out of context? Do you DENY that every single case that addressed the Second Amendment post-Miller and pre-Emerson promoted the collective, militia view? I ask you again have you even read these appellate court cases and my sources?
The irony is the point I'm making is an objective one. I'm not even quoting the subjective portions of the articles. The fact is the American courts in the sixty years post-Miller/pre-Emerson exclusively took the collective, milita view. And so, by the way, did the vast majority of CONSERVATIVE scholars (people like Robert Bork) and jurists (Chief Justice Burger) and all Presidents pre-Bush that weighed in on the subject.
But let's start with this basic easily quotable, easily provable factual statement. True or false?
In the six decades after Miller, American courts found that the Second Amendment's militia clause limited the right to keep and bear arms to service in a militia until the D.C. Circuit Court in Emerson (2001) in a 2-1 decision suggested a qualified individual rights view that eventually became the law in Heller(2008)
I have 10 sources (including several contemporaneous federal appellate court decisions from the 1940's to the 1990's) that say it is true.
No one has a single source that says it's false though North has a "vague recollection" it's false.
Do you deny this basic fact? And if so, do you have a single source to combat my 10?
If you or any other editor would look at content rather than constantly attacking me, we could actually get somewhere. Assume my good faith. Or better yet, show good faith yourself and read my sources! If you disagree with my argument, make a counter-argument. Making an argument, based on solid reliable sources is the only way to resolve this. Ad hominem attacks only persuade me that I'm right, because if I were wrong, you would attack my arguments on the merits rather than me. Right?GreekParadise (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Second Amendment - echo re-echo
Procedurally,I have had a similar experience to yours at 'United States', trying against unsourced opponents, to introduce sourced material by U.S.G. and scholars. At two months, I agreed to stop for six months, but was immediately bullied by personal attack. At three months, I gained another colleague, who was ridiculed for writing English with Spanish syntax, "you would be laughed out of any U.S. federal court", but he gave a Talk page tutorial on federal case law by citation and lengthy quotes to support "include territories" generally and Puerto Rico in depth. At 'United States', I would add to the encyclopedia to include modern organized territories in the U.S. federal republic, populace approved acceptance of constitution, republican government, citizenship, congress and federal courts and territorial Member of Congress. It's proving an interesting exercise, stretching into six months of almost daily discussion, often multiple times a day.
Tried mediation by 'third party', 'request for comment' in U.S. and political science communities -- amazingly no response -- pro or con -- over two months each, finally administratively taken down. Back on the 'request for mediation' page, on the third try posting, after two mediators tried for about a month with me again sourcing alone against unsourced opponents, with the mediators agreeing I might have a point to include in the article, one bucked it up to 'conflict resolution', where I found four supporters, while my first co-editor dropped out of the conversation. The consensus went back to the article talk page, where it has blown up again in ad hominem attacks and various editor-threats and warnings, but at least they are not directed at me alone, I'm not banned from the page for disruption as threatened in November.
Editorially, I found success in adding knowledge to the encyclopedia at "territories of the united states" by making a separate chronological section, "21st century territories" which has been accepted for some months now. Messed up on a number (duh-its me) and got two collaborative editors on the talk page to the one snarky one. On the other hand when I went to remove a 'merge proposal' tag seven years old with no activity, the one community censor there put it back, saying the time was not ripe to remove it. (!) You might be able to repost the same information which generates the main-narrative fire-storm by writing a separate "Mid-20th century" view section, or "historical background" as opposed to trying to out-lawyer lawyers, -- Dick: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" -- William Shakespeare, Henry the Sixth, Part II, IV, ii (1623).
I did discover that there is a 'factcheck' WP service, but I have not figured how to use it, and when challenged, the opposition fell mute to return to authoritative assertion of "all sources" without a source. The U.S. discussion has ranged to date from October 2012 into March 2013. I do believe that it was time for factcheck when all sources since 1962 I provided were dismissed as misinterpretation on my part. As early as December it dawned on me opponents had only tertiary sources referring to century-old federal cases applied to 'temporarily' administer territories with a military governor over non-citizens with no democratic-republican traditions. This is not the case anywhere in the modern U.S. territories. And WP policy calls for secondary sources --- whether government (GAO, State Department, Homeland Security) or scholarly law, constitutional historian or political scientist --- trump tertiary sources. Asserting this policy results in multiple editors dismissing me as an advocate to purge tertiary sources throughout wikipedia, which is not my proposal. I think that is 'wp:bullying', but I have not begun investigating that avenue of WP policy.
Subtantively your information should be admitted, just because it is sourced information. Your sources lead you to the same information which I once sourced to contribute into the U.S. Constitution article in its second amendment section...last year some time, two years? I think it was reverted as too controversial, or too detailed, not current, or something. You might check back through the View History section, look at 250 cites at a time, sort on TheVirginiaHistorian, and look to the sections on the second amendment or amendments. Most of my citations there will be history, or scholarly legal -- NOT direct case law citations which fencing lawyers like to use to ruin the narrative at any number of wikipedia articles. I think there is some wp policy on summary encyclopedic style which is honored in the breach too often.
Further considerations. In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton takes the piece discussing militias. The point of militias being 'well regulated' is to be compatible with U.S. regular forces, British would choose a point of attack between militia and regular battalions because the two did not know how to fight alongside. Looking at gun ownership as public safety like safety belts aligns us with the NRA safety campaign to "lock-up-your-guns". There are trigger locks which disable a weapon when improperly removed. Legislating in the same way some states hold bar tenders liable for DUI deaths, involuntary manslaughter charges on anyone who's weapon is used in a crime, including suicide, might lower death rates by firearms, lock-up-your-guns. Holding assault weapons of U.S. military adversaries such as the AK-47 cannot be supported by ammo dumps of the U.S.A. in the event of fighting alongside regulars, they are not compatible with U.S. militia-reserves. Swiss citizens have universal conscription, all have an infantry weapon at home. The parallel in the U.S. "background check" would be anyone with an honorable military discharge would qualify to own the one assault weapon authorized a U.S. infantryman, but as to background checks and gun regulation generally, we don't want crazy people in our militia-reserves, and we should not want crazy people owning multiple assault weapons, with or without prior military service.
On the other hand, Tom Brokaw's wife has a shotgun out on their country place. If she hears a rustling by a window shrubbery like a raccoon, a deer or a prowler, she cracks open the back screen door, shoots off each barrel into the air and goes back inside. Works every time. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. I really appreciated this long and informed comment. The issue here is much broader than the Second Amendment. The issue, as I noted above and as you point out as well is whether informed, objective sources in wikipedia can trump editors' personal biases and vague recollections.GreekParadise (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- I learned long ago that those who made ad hominem attacks do so because they cannot come up with a valid counter-argument. Show me you've read my sources and not dismissed them out of hand. Don't like/agree with them? Tell me why not. And be specific. The silence is deafening.GreekParadise (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Let me know if you find a way to gain big-wiki-hat interest in the dream of a source-based online encyclopedia when we find these regions of willful ignorance. I have found so many good places, it seems a shame to run into an article that is dominated with pontifical statements, such as "Well of course we have a reliable source that [the scholar] made that claim, but it does not elevate it to a fact.”, which is then backed up by like minded page-watchers who also have no sources to offer, rejecting my sourced contribution.
- Corollary problem: tertiary editor synthesis trumping secondary government and scholarship sources because google-search phrase hits are in the millions, and more people read almanacs.To directly quote WP:SOURCES applicable to the discussion, or verifiability etc., brings profanity and wild declamations and everybody knows the rules. --- then why not follow them? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Talk pages are not for arguing esp. the same rejected suggestion over and over.
- This is not the tag I thought it was but this is a warning to stop disrupting the talk page. J8079s (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I BELIEVE RELIABLE SOURCES SHOULD ALWAYS TRUMP VAGUE RECOLLECTIONS
And I believe that people that insist that 2+2=5 (with no proof) while rejecting 2+2=4 as biased despite 1000 reliable sources need to get the hell off wikipedia. You are damaging this entire enterprise.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not blog or conter blog. Use the proper format. Direct personal comments to the talk page of the user. No personal attacks. This note is about behavior not content Your forum is here  at the bottom of the section where it says "Second Amendment to the Constitution discussion" J8079s (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a personal attack and I resent it. I have responded on your talk page.
And the posting of part of the talk page on the noticeboard is also inappropriate, according to the noticeboard.
Are you an administrator? Do you know the rules?
If you want disruptive editing, I would put censoring my comments on the talk page at the top of the list (North8000, Yaf, and MiguelEscopeta did it, the latter after I explicitly warned him I would seek sanctions for doing so and I reserve my right to do that)
The real problem here is the summary reversion of points of view that are accurately sourced but editors don't agree with for the last three months. Instead of saying "why" they disagree, editors feel they "own" the page and will not allow any fact -- no matter how true -- disrupt their strong one-sided article. That's not appropriate to wikipedia. And if you would act according to wikipedia principles, you would agree with what I have asked the noticeboard: that you cannot remove accurate truthful relevant information from reliable sources because you don't agree with the source.
The militia view the generally accepted view throughout the 20th Century and the law after Miller (1939) (until Heller). That's what hundreds (probably thousands!) of reliable sources say. That's what dozens of cases say. Denying this is like denying gravity or that 2+2=4. I don't ask you to concur that it was "good law." But it is good and accurate history. And if people don't like my sources, it's about time they come up with some contrary sources of their own. And we'll put them both in the article. But refusing to accept truth is not grounds for reverting an edit in wikipedia. It just isn't.GreekParadise (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
You appear to be edit warring at Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Although at this point, you are not in any imminent danger of breaching WP:3RR, you can be sanctioned for warring even if you do not revert more than four times in a 24-hour window. In glancing at the history, it also appears that you are changing the article despite an ongoing dispute on the talk page and that you have no consensus for your version. This will not look good to any administrator who is determining whether sanctions are warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- BBB23, I was invited on the talk page to make my changes one by one and I have done so. Please read the bottom of the talk page. I frankly don't appreciate your jumping to this conclusion without having read the talk page first to see that my two changes (adding the word "limited" and adding a Supreme Court case) were invited. I would ask that you please review that. (And frankly, an apology would be nice.)GreekParadise (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- I find myself agreeing with Bbb23 here (and I looked at the talk-page); this has all the markings of an edit war (again, I might say). I am not saying it is your fault, that is why I left a message at the talk-page for all to read, hmmm? Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Here's the comment where North invited me to make edits one by one:
- If you have an edit which you think would be controversial, you could either try it (a specific edit, not another carpet bomb) on a BRD basis (and "R" is common, not persecution) or discuss it here first. North8000 (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I did so. I began by adding the word "limited" in the first paragraph (thus far it has remained). My second edit was adding the Supreme Court case of United States v. Lewis. North reverted the change and removed the SCOTUS case without any explanation except to say he/she did not want it in the header. 24 hours from now, unless someone can articulate why they think this particular Supreme Court case on the Second Amendment is improperly put anywhere in the article (where several such cases are already mentioned), I will put the case back in, in the body of the article, as a start. If the case is allowed to remain, I will proceed with my next undisputably reliably sourced addition to the article. If any of my changes are summarily reverted without discussion or sourced reason given, I will proceed to RfC, reliable source noticeboard, or formal mediation.
But I will henceforth stick to one change per day and cite highly reliable sources for each change. And I do think that I have the right to keep the POV tag up until all of my concerns about deletion of undisputed facts from the article have been addressed.
- I still caution you that blocks for edit warring don't depend on what you think is "undisputable", what you think you've been given "permission" to do, or making only one edit per day. Frankly, I'd stick to the talk page and any other dispute resolution mechanisms, including an RfC, and leave the article alone. You might also try to ratchet down your remarks. You may not mean them that way, but they come across as a bit arrogant.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- GreekParadise's argument from what I've seen, and I merely meandered over to the 2nd Amendment page to read up on it, when I noticed the POV citation and decided to investigate further -- boils down to 1] the 2nd is a limited right to bear arms, and 2] the Miller case should be fully or partially credited for this viewpoint. So why not just put in for an RfC for this round of debate, and be done with it? There will be other debate, to be sure, in the future. 10stone5 (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- One more comment GreekParadise -- I read a comment on some talk page where you stated you were on the verge of requesting 'formal mediation'. The arguments presented here, on this talk page have not yet gotten to the point where formal mediation is required. The above issues are still in the dispute resolution phase. As such, as others have noted, a Request for Comment is really the best option, right now.10stone5 (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The question posed at the Elizabeth II RfC, at which you commented, has been amended  to clarify a potential misunderstanding. Please re-visit the question and your comment and amend if necessary. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
shot in foot
- As all editors to comment so far have said DR is more appropriate, and there are indications that you agree with DR (because you created one) I have closed the RFC so that the DR can proceed. This in no way reflects positively or negatively on the RFC question itself/resolution, and is purely procedural so we can use a more formal process. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Just in case you noticed that the DRN listing of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was closed, please note that it has been reopened and your participation there would be very much appreciated. — Gaijin42 (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
2nd Amendment proposed Lead
What you wrote was IMO brilliant and just about perfect for its "current status". I've recommended its adoption on the Talk page. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please join in, I thought I had some really thoughtful and carefully worded prose to offer, but its being denuded and generally screwed with. It's your work at its heart with some great consensus based edits, but now.... UGH! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)