User talk:SaltyBoatr/sb

Clarification in "Scholarly commentary" section

For now, I've chosen to clarify the recently inserted text (here) to at least reasonably reflect the actual sources from which the assertions just added by the anon-IP are drawn. (1) What was asserted to be "The US Senate" is actually a 1982 Republican-led subcommittee the controlling majority of which happened to be advocating private gun rights, and (2) I tried to make it clear it was the "majority" in the 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Heller. Click on the link to see the changes to the article text... Kenosis (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to get partisan why not go all the way and include this snippet from Mayor Daley. PRIMO material.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/mayor-daley-threatens-to_n_584106.html

Democrat Mayor Daley of Chicago, after the US Supreme Court stated it was leaning toward ruling against gun bans, threatened to shoot a reporter.

"If I put this up your -- your butt, you'll find out how effective it is. If we put a round up your, ha ha."

Daley is a piece of work. Supposedly anti-gun, yet he wants to stick a gun up a reporters ass and blow him a bigger one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Daley is a thug and runs Chicago with an iron fist. Like any other authoritarian, he doesn't handle criticism well. His stupid and childish remark to that reporter should not be used to dirty this article or any other article. SMP0328. (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The US Senate in 1982 was Republican controlled, and the way things work, if you have an overall majority, you have control of the various commitees as well. Why not also say Rakove, a historian with ties to anti gun groups, states...96.237.120.38 (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree to you comments about Daley, and to you opinion that the comment does not deserve space in the article. You will notice that another "stupid and childish" remark is currently showing as part of the current article. See cite 112 by Merkel and Uviller which goes "this "minority report" turns out to be no more than the collected ramblings of a single embittered eccentric who departed the convention in disgust". 96.237.120.38 (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the personal attack that was quoted in footnote 112. The footnote is otherwise unaffected. The personal attack was not necessary for providing a source, the other three footnotes with which it is grouped don't have quotes and I don't believe selected quotes are helpful for any of those footnotes. SMP0328. (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the removal. If I had done it, I am 100% sure that the SB/Kenosis duo would have started yet another inane pissing match.96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help. SMP0328. (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've no inherent objections to the removal of the quoted passage from Uviller and Merkel within the footnote. Its removal was consistent with the removal of other quoted passages placed within footnotes, and IMO is a reasonable editorial judgment call. I do, though, happen to think brief relevant quotes from these various cited authors assist the reader in learning the relevant language in the source without necessarily consulting the source itself, same as was also done with the Heller opinion and the snip from the 1982 Senate subcommittee report, since removed. But either way is OK with me as long as the practice is reasonably consistent. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Heller historians brief

Since what to me was a simple deletion of poor material has now turned into a pissing match, I thought I'd share some comments in the historians brief which I ran across.

see http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290tsajackn.rakove.pdf pages 11 and 12 for verification

The historians comment in that brief, that Pennsylvania had no militia for two decades prior to the Revolution due to "Quaker influence" and that even following a petition from "frontier counties" during the Seven Years War and Pontiac's rising of 1763, the colonial government failed to set up an organized militia. Again in 1776 Pennsylvania failed to call up an organized militia.

The historians point of view is that the Second Amendment is based on a state authorization to have arms so that one can serve in the militia. That viewpoint is incompatible with Pennsylvania's refusal to have an organized militia, even during wartime.96.237.120.38 (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Added material showing Pennsylvania had no militia and refused to organize one, based on comments in historians brief.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Rakove and Bellesiles - Is Rakove a reliable source?

A few years back, Bellesiles seems to have gotten himself a lot of grief for faking research. Rakove, who seems to be the #1 author of the historians brief, per the link below, had close ties with Bellesiles, including input into the book where that fake research was published.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/01/a-peoples-history-of-the-united-states.php

A Nov 20 Chicago Tribune article quoted Jack Rakove of Stanford as follows: “It’s clear now that his [Bellesiles] scholarship is less than acceptable,” Rakove said. “There are cautionary lessons for historians here.”

(I blinked when I read this, given that page 583 of Arming America has the following acknowledgment: “Jack Rakove kindly went through the second draft with a keen eye and improved every page he read.”)

The next day Rakove acknowledged that he was the one who had supported Michael Bellesiles Fellowship at Stanford. Which was rather prescient, since Jack Rakove was one of the Historians at Chicago Kent citing Arming America heavily to support his gun control argument.

What Jack did not note on H-OIEAHC was that Michael Bellesiles satisfied the requirement for that Fellowship –presenting his findings to the Stanford community — at a Stanford Symposium on the Second Amendment set up by …Jack Rakove.

In damage control mode

A prominent Stanford Historian, Jack Rakove, suddenly started telling the New York Times that the History Profession had a Peer Review process and that that would squeeze out the truth. As the scandal unfolded, Rakove was the spokeman cited by the newspapers re the integrity of the history profession.96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

New material

The addition of the two new sentences by AnonIP to the "meaning of bear arms" section have created new ambiguity. The first part discussed a Tench Coxe editorial in a newspaper which used the phrase "keep and bear their private arms", which has been adopted by individual rights proponents as having meaning in support of their point of view. The second part addresses the so-called minority report passage, with includes the ambiguous wording "for killing game" found in an anonymous pamphlet distributed after the Pennsylvanian convention. These are two distinct and separate incidents. But, the two added sentences (the Orin Hatches musings and the Antonin Scalia's incidental remark) only pertain to the 'for killing game' pamphlet and not the Tench Coxe editorial. The wording of the article is now ambiguous, falsely implying that Orin Hatch and Antonin Scalia also think the Tench Coxe editorial was important, when there is no evidence that is true.

And, civility on the talk page has been poisoned with acrimony, is there a way we can cooperate to fix this mess? SaltyBoatr ^getwet 20:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I made minor changes to clarify what is being referenced in the new material. Do you have additional complaints?

BTW: I did notice you attempt to downgrade an important historical document to the status of "anonymous pamphlet", a US Senate report to the status of "the musings of Orin Hatch, and Scalias opinion supported by the 4 other Supreme Court Justices signing off on the opinion, to a mere "incidental remark". 96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked up the reference to killing game and the complete comment is as follows. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game. In case you unfamiliar with the term "to bear", it means "to hold or carry". I find it perfectly understandable that ones needs "to hold" a gun in order to use it while hunting (killing game). I have trouble with the concept of going hunting by putting a gun down on the ground and expecting it to load, aim and fire itself. Even worse is the concept of going hunting by leaving a gun in a government controlled armory, where in addition to the above 3 issues, it also has to fire through the walls of the armory. Are you still confused?96.237.120.38 (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Having had my faith in you drop, drop again and then drop even more, I decided to do a bit of further checking. The Democrat and ranking minority member of the subcommittee had this to say about the report. He refers to it as excellent, fair and thorough and not the musings of Orin Hatch as you seem to believe. Unless the musings of Orin Hatch are excellent, fair and thorough.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html#h1-18

The Constitution subcommittee staff has prepared this monograph bringing together proponents of both sides of the debate over the 1968 Act. I believe that the statements contained herein present the arguments fairly and thoroughly. I commend Senator Hatch, chairman of the subcommittee, for having this excellent reference work prepared. I am sure that it will be of great assistance to the Congress as it debates the second amendment and considers legislation to amend the Gun Control Act.

Dennis Deconcini,

Ranking Minority Member,

Subcommittee On the Constitution.96.237.120.38 (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Dennis Deconcini is referring to the original version of the report, not this version of the report you have seen which was abridged. Also, I understand your personal belief that to bear means to hold and carry. Yet, with an open mind we also must see that others consider the term "keep and bear" as a conjunctive[1][2] which implies a military context. We must edit this article to respect both points of view. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There is only one version of the report. Are you stating that Deconcini did not sign off on that statement, which is a part of the report itself? As to whether or not my belief on whether "to bear" means "to hold or carry" is correct, I direct you to Websters dictionary. If you want to push the thought that Websters dictionary is in error, then your already low credibility will get even lower.96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What definition does your version of Websters give for "bear arms"? Most modern abridged dictionaries like those published by Merriam-Webster don't define all the historical usages of words in the English Language including the Eighteenth Century two word term: "bear arms". Take a look at a true unabridged historical dictionary like the Oxford English Dictionary for the 1789 definition of the meaning of "bear arms", see the entry arm, n.2 4.c. in The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. You might need to go to a library to find this. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the "Contents" listing at the top of the report. There were also statements at the hearings giving "Other Views of the second amendment" from: 1) David J. Steinberg of the National Council for a Responsible Firearms Policy. 2) Michael K. Beard, Samuel S. Fields, of the National Coalition to Ban Handguns and 3) The Association of the Bar of the city of New York. My guess is that these three items of 'gun control' balancing testimony were trimmed out from the version of the report posted on Constitution.org and Guncite.org because of their "gun rights" advocacy agenda. Interestingly, the report version posted at Constitution.org at least has the honesty to mention at the bottom that "[Other sections omitted.]"[3]. The Guncite version trims out that disclosure that "other sections are omitted". This sourcing fails WP:V policy I think. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Read the Supreme Courts opinion of that phrase, already in the article, and as an editor, something you should already be familiar with

A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter 96.237.120.38 (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

And, stating the obvious, the killing of game purpose was not put into this Second Amendment. Though the first half of the Second Amendment does mention an explicit purpose, a well regulated militia. Our job is to fairly represent all significant viewpoints, and in this case the mystery of why "killing game" was mentioned in one rogue pamphlet begs explanation because it stands out as a rare exception among hundreds of other usages of "bear arms" consistently in military contexts. Here is one detailed study[4] worth reading. There are various significant explanations found, one is that modern gun rights proponents have scoured the 18th century written record looking for material to bolster their case. They found this run-on sentence and like it because it is helpful to an individual rights modern political argument. Another reliably sourced explanation, published by Duke University Press, was that the rambling "killing game" sentence which blurs military and non-military uses was composed in haste by an eccentric person. Yet, this quote was removed[5] by SMP0328 and I think the article suffers from that deletion. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Your issue was with what "to bear" meant. The US Supreme provided the answer. On the meaning of laws, there is no more significant viewpoint. In case you are unaware of it, the Supreme Court has ruled that plain everyday meaning of the law, is the law.96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

And speaking of significant viewpoints are you aware that in the historians brief, Rakove and the other historians admitted that Pennsylvania, even during wartime refused to set up an organized militia? How they can say that the right to arms is militia based, when Pennsylvania had no militia and refused, even in wartime, to create one is a puzzlement.13:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI: I again noticed you downgrading an important historical document to the status of "a rogue pamphlet". 96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, not me personally. I am just reflecting what I read in the sources. Specifically, the U&M analysis of that pamphlet published by Duke University Press. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Your impartiality is legendary. Why not ignore the US Supreme Court, the US Senate, a leading Pennsylvania politician, in order to side with a some two bit historians. I can fully understand your reasoning.

BTW: I notice you changed the text of the article to say the right of English protestants to arms is purely defensive. Why not add the fact that they were defending themselves from an abusive monarch.96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

English history section needs some work

There is a partial sentence backed up by citation #9 and most of the rest reads badly, probably due to numerous edits that resulted in that partial sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

After moving the partial sentence above, and some back and forth between myself and other editors on other sections of a certain paragraph, which IMO ended up looking even worse after the edits then before, I re-edited the paragraph to cover all the major points. Not to my surprise, I find the paragraph edited for what I believe is the worst.

Major points which I believe should be (in some manner) included. Below is for discussion

1) Prior to 1689, the right to arms was not a "protected" legal right, and that the 1689 English Bill of Rights made it a protected right, and even after that Bill was passed that right was of limited nature and even then only applied to protestants. Common law rights are not protected rights since common law is "unwritten" law.

(inserted comment by Hauskalainen ... I don't accept the Bill of Rights of 1689 in practice changed anything. People had a right to arms generally before its passing and had the same right afterwards. Parliament before and after was free to change the law at will and has done so in relation to certain classes of arms. People cannot claim that the rights in the Bill of Rights were protected in the same way as people in the U.S. have done so in respect to the Second Amendment. This is a misreading of English law and English history). --Hauskalainen (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

2) As to whether William and Mary gave Parliament the power to pass the bill, from my readings prior to the edit, Parliament had been dissolved prior to the Glorious Revolution, but due to the fear a being forced to turn Catholic, former members of the dissolved Parliament got together, passed a bill dethroning James II and offering the crown to William and Mary. After William and Mary took the throne they officially reinstated Parliament and the now fully official and legal Parliament passed into law the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which either resembled the bill passed by the unofficial Parliament or was the same of that bill.

Above source may be wrong, another source states that William and Mary were required to accept the bill of rights prior to their coronation. This may have been the precursor bill, or the principle of such a bill, and not the Bill of Rights itself.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

3) I can't say I would go along with a statement that Parliament was "democratic", since that would mean nobles and clergy in Parliament were elected. Commoners in the House of Commons were elected, but what we call gerrymandering Congressional districts is a pale shadow of what went in England. One of the wiki articles I references stated that prior to a redrawing of districts in the 1800's, one district was composed of 4 people and had 2 House members, while another district was a town which had fallen into the sea. I have no objections to calling Parliament "representative" since it had members from all classes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Your three comments above seem to reflect your personal beliefs because you do not mention your sourcing for your ideas. In order to proceed with your request for discussion, we need to be discussing what the reliable sourcing says, not discussing what individual editors believe. Please specifically tell us what is the secondary sourcing you are reading for your ideas. Give the exact page numbers, and/or exact URL's so we may read it too, thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Do I need to explain that "Common law" in unwritten? i.e not legislated, but evolved through many many generations of courtroom battles? If I do, then I won't bother. Your ignorance is too deep for my limited patience. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I am ignorant about a lot of things, but I think I do understand you! Except, I am not allowed to respond to you here. The way it works is that on article talk pages like this one, we are supposed to avoid talking about personal opinion. If you would like to discuss personal opinion with me, ask your questions over on my user talk page. Ask me there, and I will answer you there. Here, on article talk pages we are supposed to limit our discussion to what the reliable secondary sourcing says about the article, and to avoid talking about personal opinion. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for how this is supposed to work. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said my limited patience makes me unable to help you. Anyone who thinks you needs two citations to a certain page of a certain book to make ONE point, such as yourself, is in need of dire help, exceeding what I can provide. I am therefore cutting my losses. And as I pointed out below, primary sources are allowed by wiki policy, as long as an "intelligent" person can see the connection. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record I don't recall that you have pointed to primary sources either. (Admittedly I am not certain tracking anonymous comments.) Unless you are saying that you are pointing to "unwritten" primary sources. I don't think there is an exception in WP:V policy allowing unwritten sources, especially for contentious subjects like this. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 03:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used, but only in a very narrow way. Here's wiki-policy on the matter:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, as that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.

SMP0328. (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Already mentioned in the section below. Let me know if you think the following is an allowed use of a primary source. Can the descriptive statement be verified by an educated person, from the primary source cited text?

I stated that the majority protestants were afraid that James II and his catholic successors would eventually force the English to convert to Catholicism and citing the following section of the Bill of Rights Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom; .96.237.120.38 (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Read the policy more closely. "Any interpretation of primary source material" is disallowed. In your usage you are interpreting the majority Protestants intention. The primary source says nothing about the Protestant's intention, it just talks of what the Catholics were doing. Were Protestants "afraid"? Were Protestants seeking to avoid something James II would do? That involves your interpretation.

Fortunately, major historical events like this have plenty of excellent secondary reliable source material available. Usually it is easy to find a solid secondary source that says the exact same thing as your primary interpretation. If it isn't easy to find secondary sources confirming your ideas, maybe you need to rethink anyway. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Read the policy closely yourself. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. Unless of course you are not an educated person.96.237.120.38 (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

A descriptive statement is different than an interpretive statement. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

and what did I interpret?96.237.120.38 (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As I already said: 1) You interpreted that the Protestants were afraid. 2) You interpreted the intentions behind the Protestant Bill of Rights. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 23:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously people who REVOLT are MOST JOYOUS at who they rebel against! You are so funny! If you can't tell what people are feeling after they plainly tell you, see the meaning of "extirpate" (definition in following section) below, then as I said before, it is well beyond my limited patience to EDUCATE YOU to see what is before your face. I suggest you enroll in a community college. Start with basket weaving 101.96.237.120.38 (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

-Hauskalainen - use of primary documents

A few days ago you deleted some cites that referenced text from the English Bill of Rights (a primary document). I could not understand why wiki would ban the use of such documents, and from the policy page below, their use is not banned, just restricted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, as that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.

I believe my use of the English Bill of rights as a reference is allowed as I used it to support descriptive statement that an educated person can verify A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge

I stated that the majority protestants were afraid that James II and his catholic successors would eventually force the English to convert to Catholicism and citing the following section of the Bill of Rights Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom; .

While the word "extirpate" isn't much in use anymore, I hope that what passes for an educated person these days, either already knows that meaning, can infer what it means, or at worst can look it up in a dictionary.

one online dictionary gives the following meanings

1 a : to destroy completely : wipe out b  : to pull up by the root 2 : to cut out by surgery synonyms see exterminate96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Links in footnotes are messed up

Anyone know why so many of the links in the footnotes are messed up? Isn't the proper format [URL text]?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably old age. I tried one myself that looked like interesting reading, but it was a dead link. Sites come and go, they change their names, remove or move material, etc.96.237.120.38 (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There was one mismatched square bracket in one of the ref's which caused the other refs to show their square brackets. I just fixed it I think. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Good work, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Open for discussion of recent edits

AnonIP recently reverted[6] without explanation several recent well sourced edits which seem to be improvements to the article. Opening this new section in order to discuss any objections. This is preferable to making unexplained wholesale reverts. Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The material already in the article on the meaning of well regulated seem fine and even includes a cite to the US Supremes. 96.237.120.38 (talk)

I see that AnonIP has deleted[7] that there are multiple views as to the meaning of the Blackstone quotation. Did you read the paper[8] by Stephen Heyman, footnote 15? In it he states bluntly that there are multiple views among scholars about the meaning of this Blackstone quotation. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Your changes did not match the cites. I changed the material to reflect the cites.96.237.120.38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC).

Beating a dead horse - This is the Heyman cite appearing in the article "Heyman, Stephen (2000). "Natural Rights and the Second Amendment". Chicago-Kent Law Review (Chicago-Kent College of Law) 76 (237): 253-259. http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=steven_heyman. "Finally, we should note that (contrary to Kates's assertion) Blackstone nowhere suggests that the right to arms derives from "the common law." Instead, this is a right that is secured by "the constitution," and in particular by the Bill of Rights."

If you wish to continue this discussion, I can probably skin the horse, make dog food out of its flesh, grind its bones for calcium, render its fat for oil, and boil its hooves for glue.96.237.120.38 (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I see that AnonIP has made a wholesale revert[9] without discussion again. Can we talk this without silently edit warring? Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I restored well referenced material that you deleted that was already in the article. What about getting consensus to remove it? 96.237.120.38 (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you deleted rather than restored references. And, the references you removed were of very high quality from scholarly law review articles. Please explain your reasoning for these deletions. Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You deleted the original material and replaced it, I restored the original material, you then deleted it again, I then again restored it. If you want to add additional material you are free to do so. Just make sure it is well referenced.

I thought you were all about "consensus"? or are you all about "consensus" only when it suits you?96.237.120.38 (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Could we instead discuss the article? This revert[10] of yours was unexplained. Could you please explain the reasoning behind your revert? Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 02:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there some part of "I restored material which you had removed" that is difficult for you to understand? If so, then run to that community college and start with the BASIC basket weaving class.96.237.120.38 (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You deleted[11] the entire paragraph with the reference to the Lewis and Clark Law Review article by William Merkel, explain please. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 05:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I said above, if you want to add new material, you are free to do so, as long as it contains backing citations. Material already in the article, which as you previously pointed out, is there based on editorial "consensus", should be left alone.96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Trying to move this forward, AnonIP deleted the paragraph with footnote 125.  :

Version prior to AnonIP edit:

Meaning of "well regulated militia"

The meaning of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment has been interpreted two ways: One interpretation is a usage of the term "regulated" to mean "disciplined" or "trained".[124]

Another interpretation of "well regulated" is that in the eighteenth century the term regulated meant subject to rules and regulations, the same as the modern meaning, and that it did not mean trained.[125]

On what constitutes a well regulated militia, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 29: "The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.[45]"

Version after AnonIP edit

Meaning of "well regulated militia"

The term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment has been interpreted as a usage of the term "regulated" to mean "disciplined" or "trained".[124]

On what constitutes a well regulated militia, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 29: "If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security....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.[45]"

There are a couple issues here. 1) Per reliable sourcing there are two interpretations of "well regulated", we should be describing both. And, 2) The selective quotation from Alexander Hamilton, with the ellipsis (...) amounts to improper synthesis of a primary document in attempt to bolster one of the interpretations.

That footnote 125 points to a paper in the Lewis and Clark Law Review. Could other editors, if they haven't already, please take a moment and read the paper[12], especially page 361, so we can discuss the relevance and reliability? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

A blind man can see that the quote you state I deleted was ALREADY in the article, and with my restoration, is still in the article. If that community college has Basic basket weaving for the blind, I recommend that course as the starting point for your education.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No. You deleted the paragraph starting with the words "Another interpretation of 'well regulated' is...". That paragraph was sourced to the article in the Lewis and Clark Law Review. I know your opinion that I should take a basket weaving class, you have said this many times. Instead, can we please discuss the article? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to add new material, do so as long as it is cited. Do not delete old material while you are doing so, included by "consensus" that contradicts your new material. see POV push.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This "old material" you speak of is that quote from Federalist #29, a primary document. That quote seems contrived to make a case that Alexander Hamilton was saying that "well regulated" means "trained". It achieves this by conjugating two sentences together with an ellipsis. When I checked the source I see that there are a 641 words omitted by that ellipsis. This is an excessive distortion of a primary source and violates WP:SYN policy. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 00:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

click here to view the words from the primary source omitted with the ellipsis

If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the same body, ought, as far as possible to take away the inducement and the pretext, to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies, which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter'. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence, than a thousand prohibitions upon paper. In order to cast an odium upon the power of calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, it has been remarked, that there is nowhere any provision in the proposed constitution for requiring the aid of the Posse Comitatcs, to assist the magistrate in the execution of his duty; whence it has been inferred, that military force was intended to be his only auxiliary. There is a striking incoherence in the objections which have appeared, arid sometimes even from the same quarter, not much calculated to inspire a very favorable opinion of the sincerity or fair dealing of their authors. The same persons, who tell us in one breath, that the powers of the federal government will be despotic and unlimited, inform us in the next, that it has not authority sufficient even to call out the Posse Comitatus. The latter, fortunately, is as much short of the truth as the former exceeds it. It would be as absurd to doubt, that a right to pass all laws necessary and proper to execute its declared powers, would include that of requiring the assistance of the citizens to the officers who may be entrusted with the execution of those laws; as it would be to believe, that a right to enact laws necessary and proper for the imposition and collection of taxes, would involve that of varying the rules of descent and of the alienation of lauded property, or of abolishing the trial by jury in cases relating to it. It being therefore evident, that the supposition of a want of power to require the aid of the Posse Comitatus is entirely destitute of color, it will follow, that the conclusion which has been drawn from it, in its application to the authority of the federal government over the militia, is as uncaudid as it is illogical. What reason could there be to infer, that force was intended to be the sole instrument of authority, merely be cause there is a power to make use of it when necessary ? What shall we think of the motives, which could induce men of sense to reason in this extraordinary manner ? How shall we prevent a conflict between charity and conviction ? By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government. It is observed, that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and the ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power. What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen. But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who object to select corps as dangerous, were the constitution ratified, and were I to deliver my seutiments to a member of the federal legislature on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him in substance the following discourse : "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.

OK then. This is my proposal, all fully sourced.

===Meaning of "well regulated militia"===

The meaning of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment has been interpreted two ways:

One interpretation is a usage of the term "regulated" to mean "disciplined" or "trained".<ref>As noted by the U.S. Supreme Court in ''[[District of Columbia v. Heller]]'', "[T]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training." ''Heller'', majority opinion of the Court, Part II-A-2</ref>

Another interpretation of "well regulated" is that in the eighteenth century the term regulated meant subject to rules and regulations, the same as the modern meaning, and that it did not mean trained.<ref name="Merkel361" >{{cite journal|last1=Merkel|first1=William|year=2009|title=Heller and Scalia's Originalism|journal=Lewis and Clark Law Review|volume=13|issue=2|pages=361|url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1422048_code695147.pdf?abstractid=1422048&mirid=5|date=Summer 2009|quote=Well-regulated meant well trained, rather than subject to rules and regulations. (A quick look at the Oxford English Dictionary reveals that, rather unsurprisingly and contra Malcolm, in the eighteenth century, regulated actually meant regulated, much as it does today. It did not mean trained.)}}</ref>

On what constitutes a well regulated militia, Alexander Hamilton wrote in [[Federalist No. 29]]:{{quote|The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.<ref name="Fed29">Hamilton, Alexander. [http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm Federalist No. 29, "Concerning the Militia"]</ref>}}

Comments please, I will be inserting this shortly. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 00:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I recommend you wait until 24 hours have passed. If the anon doesn't respond within that time, or he agrees to your proposal, then place it into the article. Waiting will prevent your adding it, followed by his reverting that addition. SMP0328. (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I can wait until tomorrow, though AnonIP has recently said twice that his invites sourced additions saying just above "you are free to do so". SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The proposed edit deleted the portion of Hamilton quote that describes what a "well regulated" militia is, as well as a reference showing that the Supreme Court seconds, or accepts that meaning. In other words the "accepted" meaning would be deleted from the article in favor of a meaning pushed by a small number of modern historians. I won't object if SB adds material pushing that small minority opinion, but I object to replacing the accepted meaning showing in the article, with that minority opinion. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A second proposed edit: This involves the selective quote from Blackstone in the "English History" section. Firstly, understanding legal treatises is hard enough, let alone the difficulty of understanding the ones written in archaic English from 1765. This seems a violation of the primary source limitation that the usage must be understandable by normally educated people. Plainly, a practical understanding of Blackstone is limited to a few of the most expert legal historians. The easiest fix is probably to simply remove the Blackstone quote entirely. If we choose to leave it in, alternately we should shift from using the primary document and instead be using reliable secondary sourcing. I was researching this and found two papers by distinguished professors in academic journals. Take the time please and read these two; 1) Heyman, Stephen (2000).[13] "Natural Rights and the Second Amendment". Chicago-Kent Law Review (Chicago-Kent College of Law) 76 (237): 253-259. and 2) Levinson, Sanford (2009).[14] "For whom is the Heller decision important and why?". Lewis and Clark Law Review 13 (2): 315-347. Both these describe how Blackstone uses a different meaning for "natural right" when speaking of the right to have arms, and that it is more accurately called "a subordinate auxiliary right". In short, my second proposal is to remove the interpretive wikilinks from the primary document quotation, and to add ", or a subordinate auxiliary right:" to the end of the introductory sentence. That is, unless other editors agree to just eliminate the Blackstone quote entirely because it is a problematic primary document usage. Comments please, I will be doing this shortly. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

An educated person can understand what Blackstone is saying, especially with "suitable for his condition an as allowed by law" background provided within that section of the article. I personally would like to see a few of the "suitable for his condition and as allowed by law"quotes condensed into something like "a limited right". Endlessly repeating it seems excessive. I don't support changing the direct quote however. That would be unprofessional.96.237.120.38 (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the Steven Heyman paper[15] in which he examines the meaning of Blackstone? If you haven't, I ask that you do. You might find it to be an interesting paper, it also covers the topic of the Pennsylvanian minority report. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Blackstone basically said that arms are the last refuse of those who want to resist oppression. Please explain to me how the disarming of the general population, by the government, allows them to resist that government oppression through force of arms. Partial quote from Blackstone: "when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."96.237.120.38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC).

Blackstone seems pretty clear, why do I need an interpreter? http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s5.html

Review WP:NOR policy, if you want to edit, we need to be using secondary sources. The issue here is that "natural right" as described by Blackstone was a complex concept and the use of the wikilink you inserted[16] is prohibited interpretation. This is explained in the Heyman paper, did you read the Steven Heyman paper? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And, lastly, to vindicate these rights, when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and lastly to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I also have a proposed edit. In a previous section of this talk page I pointed out that in the historians brief, those historians admitted that the Pennsylvania refused, due to Quaker influence, to create an organized militia, even after petitions during wartime. If Pennsylvania did not have a militia, and refused to create one, how can the right to keep and bear arms be militia based? 96.237.120.38 (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A well regulated mansion? controlled by umpteen laws? I think not!

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/washington.htm

Custis was nineteen at the time of Washington's death. He describes the scene:

Mrs. Washington retired about the usual family hour, but becoming alarmed at not hearing the accustomed sound of the library door as it closed for the night, and gave signal for rest in the well-regulated mansion, she rose again, and continued sitting up, in much anxiety and suspense. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I accept the definition that "well regulated" means trained, because I see that reliable secondary sources say it. I also see that other reliable sources say that "well regulated" uses the word "regulated" to mean "regulated" in a modern sense. Per policy here we are to include all the significant points of views which we find in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

and now that "small minority" opinion, limited to a few historians and the people that they have deluded, is included in the article.96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that the Heller ruling has not allowed for umpteen gun requlations? Heller spoke loud and clear that nearly every gun regulation (short of a handgun at home for self-defense) is going forward deemed Constitutional, see SCOTUSblog "Heller: “…nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons… ... would have been better served if the regulations Heller addressed in dicta had been ..."]. Who knows if regulated means regulated, or trained, or both. I see it described both ways in the opinion of Antonin Scalia. Clear as mud, and the article should fairly indicate that regulated in the 2A can be read two ways. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that the "small minority" opinion that well regulate means festooned with laws and regulations is now in article.

George Washington, August 25, 1776 letter to Israel Putnam.

The distinction between a well regulated Army, and a Mob, is the good order and discipline of the first, and the licentious and disorderly behaviour of the latter96.237.120.38 (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Did Washington advise a commander to get well-law'd troops to reinforce his fortifications (works), or well-trained ones?

I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got. George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889)) 96.237.120.38 (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

SB - your enlargement of Hamiltons quote is not appropriate to the article

As it stands, it is "to the point". Your addition buries the relevant quotation in irrelevant material.

If I did not know better, I would say that having failed to get that quote removed, you are now trying to bury it in irrelevant material.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant material? Say's who? The trouble with the version of the text you prefer is that it involves selective quotations, taken out of context, and misleadingly cobbled together with an ellipsis which distort the meaning and contrives it to mean something which you wish it meant. This is a textbook case of editor synthesis of primary documents. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you dislike the ellipses I have no objection to removing the first portion of the quote. It has nothing to do with what well-regulated means and is Hamilton pushing his agenda of more federal control of the militia.

Hamilton however, accurately describes what the Founders meant by a well-regulated militia. The US Supreme Court seconds that interpretation. If you don't like that interpretation because it goes against your agenda, I can't say I feel sorry.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You wrote "is Hamilton pushing his agenda of more federal control of the militia". In other words: "is Hamilton pushing his agenda of more federal regulation of the militia". Selective quotations from Hamilton can be made to show him where regulation means regulation. Except that you don't want to do that, or do you? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The militia is a state body. Hamilton was in favor of moving control of the militia to the federal government at the expense of the states. Your points also have nothing to do with what "well-regulated" means. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, you write "control", and control is a synonym for regulation. Hamilton supported federal regulation of the militia using the literal meaning of the word. Your selective quotation of a primary document is contrived to hide this and is a policy violation. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Your points again have nothing to do with what the phrase "well-regulated" means.

Was this you who wrote this yesterday, I accept the definition that "well regulated" means trained, because I see that reliable secondary sources say it. I also see that other reliable sources say that "well regulated" uses the word "regulated" to mean "regulated" in a modern sense. Per policy here we are to include all the significant points of views which we find in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr get wet 13:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

My condolences if you suffer from a memory disorder.96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The WP:RS use the term in various ways. If we are going to quote from Federalist #29 is makes more sense to quote the opening sentence[17] which seems to better summarizes the point he is trying to make and uses "regulation" to mean "commanding its services". Instead, you want to pick out a portion of one sentence down in the middle, distorted to change Hamilton meaning to match your own. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Was this you who wrote this yesterday, I accept the definition that "well regulated" means trained, because I see that reliable secondary sources say it. I also see that other reliable sources say that "well regulated" uses the word "regulated" to mean "regulated" in a modern sense. Per policy here we are to include all the significant points of views which we find in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr get wet 13:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If not then either someone has high jacked your account, or you are engaged in puppetry of one sort or another. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)