Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Proposed Revised Lead

Feel free to edit in the marked area.

- - - Beginning of Editable Section - - -

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights reads "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 Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The U.S. Supreme Court made influential rulings and interpretations of this amendment in 2008 and 2010, the first time since 1940. This Court ruled that this right is not based on membership in a militia and is an individual right. It also ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governmental authority to the same same extent that it limits federal authority. An ordinance, banning handguns in the home, was found to violate this Amendment and was struck down. The Supreme Court also stated that it's ruling was not to be taken as an indication that all firearm restrictions are unconstitutional. North8000 (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

- - - End of Editable Section - - -

North8000 (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That is pretty good, thank you very much. Technically, the Supreme Court in Heller affirmed Parker v. District of Columbia that the DC ordinance was in violation of the Second Amendment. In the case of McDonald, the Supreme Court did not rule that the Chicago ordinance was in violation of the Second Amendment. What the SCOTUS did was to hold that the circuit court had used the wrong standard (vis a vis Incorporation) and the case was remand back to the circuit court for re-trial. That re-trial has not happened yet, so at present, just one gun law has been deemed invalid. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Technically you're right about the Chicago law. But immediately after the McDonald decision, the Chicago City council replaced the law that the Supreme Court ruled on. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to what I think is for the better. Salty will disagree. It was unclear if I was supposed to change the text or follow up the above text with a new version. To North - if I was not supposed to change your proposed text please revert to your original and I will add my proposed language after youes.71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I intended that editors just change the text, within that "editable" section. North8000 (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello 71.184...... In my draft I described what what the court meant by "individual right" (whatever the right specific is, it is not affected by service/ non-service in a militia) without actually using that word to try to avoid opening a can of worms for the lead. I couldn't find a way to write an individual right sentence without being faced with the dilemma with the following dilemma....the sentence will inevitably look like this: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX is an individual right, and then "XXXXXXXX would need to be a definition of the right, which is still both unclear, and would be a subject of debate, and too big to tackle in the lead. My own version of XXXXXXX "rights, whatever they may be" was very awkward sounding but still a good attempt at summarizing the "individual right" finding which did not define the right, just that it was not dependent on milita use. Not sure how to deal with that, maybe with the following change, it will be cool with everybody. Of cours that all just in my humble opinion.

Your "exercisable by all." phrase is not correct, because the court not only did not say that, but gave an example of bans against certain individuals which their ruling did not affect. I'm planning on taking those three words out, and then see what folks (including Salty) think about it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see the issue of exercisable by all and don't object to its removal. As for the unconnected with service in the militia, that is straight out of Heller. If Salty doesn't like it, he can take it up with the Supreme Court. As for the rights limitations, something like. "while the Supreme Court has ruled that the right is not unlimited, what the limits of that right are has not been settled" might work.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that Salty was already OK with the "unconnected" And I think that your new sentence is very informative an unlikely to be disputed. This is a working draft that nobody owns....I just organized it a little.....feel free to put it in.

Salty?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

In there are no objections I'll replace the lead with this later today. If there are, we'll noodle on this some more. I do have several objections with the current lead, but those would become a moot point. North8000 (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks pretty reasonable as an intro to me. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I put it in. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that is an improvement. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

null edit to keep this record visible longer North8000 (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Anything Else?

I did a flurry of activity trying to move forward on a reasonably-acceptable-to-y'all lead. I think that the new lead makes my previous new section idea a moot point. I don't have any plans to try to do anything else here, although I'd be happy to help if there is a hot topic or something where y'all would like me to try to do the same thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Your work is much appreciated. If you are asking for a suggestion of things here needing help: The massive re-structure of the footnotes by Andy85719 in June, splitting the footnotes into three sections (coupled with trimming out the footnoted quotations of the sources) has caused a big mess. Fixing and checking the footnotes is a big task which needs help. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see this until just now. I haven't figured out the current structure yet. North8000 (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Blatant POV pushing by SaltyBoatr

Once again I have had to delete a piece of blatant POV pushing by SaltyBoatr. His re-telling in the history section is straight from the Malcolm book. It is not a mainstream view as he claims. No major English historian (by which I mean a historian based in England) accepts this nonsense. He does not accredit his retelling to Malcolm but this is what ´that telling is. The mainstream view is, on the contrary to what he claims, that English historians believe that the right was a natural adjunct to the right to life in a world fraught with danger and little regard for the nicety of law which did not even begin to get formalized until Norman times. All this stuff about Statute of Winchester and the like is pure baloney intended to impress upon us the Malcolm view that the right developed over time. The connection between the Second Amendment and English law begins naturally with a discussion about the Bill if Rights in England and the standard view of history and not the revisionist views of Joyce Lee Malcolm.

If Salty really wishes to help Prof. Malcolm, he would do well to stop pushing her clearly personal and quirky views. It draws attention to them and could result in her disregard of historical documents as well as archaeological evidence of widespread arms ownership in the dark ages becoming much more well known and destroy her credibility in the eyes of mainstream historians.--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Accusation of POV pushing is incivil, especially an accusation as unfounded as this. That the 2A is founded upon the very old English tradition of militia duty is VERY widespread in reliable sourcing. (Explained a dozen times on this talk page, see above.) It is not just Joyce Lee Malcolm's book, but her book has been VERY widely accepted and influential. Notice that Hauskalainen objects solely to Malcolm while at the same time reverting[1] text sourced to (16) sixteen highly reliable books, (including the Encylopedia Britanica), only one of these books is authored by Professor Malcolm yet Hauskalainen deleted all sixteen. Hauskalainen should explain this shocking inconsistency in his accusation that someone here is pushing a POV.

We are talking about the American viewpoint of English history here, so I don't understand your limitation to "English historians". It is ironic that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in his book describes Professor Malcolm as being English. That said, can we have this English history section based on a fair balance of the third party secondary sourcing? We have been discussing this for almost two months, and I have provided dozens of these sources and Hauskalainen has provided none. Show your sourcing please. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring is even more uncivil, and downright criminal when you do it and then blame others such as in your last page freeze request.71.184.184.238 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC).

I know that I am stepping into both a topic and a dispute that I am not knowlegable on (my apologies) but Salty, your main recent edit in this consisted of inserting a huge amount of material en masse, along with an edit summary which gave a justification which is arguable at best. It said that the viewpoint espoused by this large insertion, which others are agueing is fringe, is THE mainstream viewpoint. North8000 (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW I am not here arguing that you are POV pushing, I don't have the knowledge in this section topic to know whether or not you or anyone is doing that. I'm really more saying that your editing approach on this disputed topic is such that it would inevitably get reverted, and thus counterproductive to bringing this to some type of resolution. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty's position can be summarized as follows, if it supports gun control its good, if it doesn't support gun control its bad. That's textbook POV push behaviour.71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

@North8000 The passage I inserted, is not a passage I wrote. I was instead restoring the long-time stable passage from the English History section that had been developed through editor consensus. See for instance this version from 2009[2]. The version supported by Hauskainen now has been subject to dispute these last two months, and have all the appearances of being his personal research. If he could show us confirmation in reliable secondary sourcing, I could be convinced otherwise. The trouble is that he has been asked for his sources as least a dozen times and he has not yet replied. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, thanks for that response. I don't have the knowledge on the topic of this section to know what to think about these POV/Source/Content arguments. But IMHO saying that the large block of material came from a 2009 version of the article doesn't change my own thoughts (whatever little my thoughts are worth) when I said "I'm really more saying that your editing approach on this disputed topic is such that it would inevitably get reverted, and thus counterproductive to bringing this to some type of resolution." Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts, and frankly I agree about this seeming counterproductive. The trouble is that when I attempted to follow Dispute Resolution[3] to resolve this exact dispute, I was refused. Clearly dispute resolution procedures are much preferable to negotiation through reverts, and I remain eager and willing to use WP:DR. Presently, at least, both Hauskalainen and AnonIP are the editors here who have refused DR, not me, see[4] and [5] for their refusals. Do you have suggestions what other options remain to resolve this dispute when the editors I am in disagreement refuse to follow WP:DR? I am open for ideas. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution only works with those who wish a fair resolution and will then accept it. It doesn't work with those whose only purpose in using it is to get their way, either by hook or by crook, and who will ignore it at the first convenient opportunity.71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that at the moment this is too big and complex for wp:dr. If you three would be willing to give it a try, I would be happy to try to organize a dialog & effort to move this forward. Besides my commitment to accuracy above all else, I think that I am dumb enough and uninvolved enough on this whole natural right / British history thing, to approach it as just a dumb moderator/organizer. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that. When I tried to help out here, I discovered I belonged to a "cabal" (snort!), by virtue of the fact that I had once left a comment on this talk page 2 years ago and reverted some vandalism. The "cabal" accusations, I notice, have continued unabated. This assumption of bad faith on the part of one editor pretty much discredits the arguments presented, and I'm not happy with the behavior of the others either, for that matter. I'm still trying to figure out, where is this cabal, and how do I join? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

@North8000 If you are offering to help, I am curious about your opinion of the disputed text, seen being taken out in this diff[6]. Hauk and I have gone back and forth more than a few times on this passage. I think that this text he deleted is well sourced, and that it pretty fairly describes the neutral POV widely seen in many sources. By the way, this is not text which I authored, but rather long standing text from the article developed by consensus which Hauk deleted and which I am trying to restore. Hauk's view is: (I encourage him speak for himself). But, he has said that he thinks this long standing text from the article is Malcolm's revisionist myth. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I've spent a bunch of time trying to get up to speed on this section, I still don't have the knowledge base to have an opinion on the perspective/accuracy of the material or quality of the sources. But I do have a few thoughts as a participant (not as a debate moderator/organizer). First, as a preface, with the Heller decision making the definition of "militia" less relevant in a 2A discussion, we have to question the overall quantity of "militia definition" coverage that we have in the article, much less a substantial expansion of it. Second, the opening statement "the concept of a universal militia originated....", and it's implied (by placement) claim to be the roots of whatever militias the 2A was referring to is a broad-reaching and controversial claim. Probably would need REALLY solid sourcing, and even then stated as an opinion rather than fact. Third, as an overview, your large insertion is basically a large quantity of material about certain militias in old English history. Without implying anything, the question is why is it in a 2A article? One answer would be to bolster a particular interpretation of the word "militia" for 2A purposes. If so, without alternate history angles also presented, such would be POV, and the juxtaposition into this context (the def for 2A purposes) would be a form of synthesis. North8000 (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You have expressed some opinions, and asked one question. Answering that question, why is this discussion in the article? The answer is that per policy, we are to read the reliable sourcing, and then we are to fairly represent without bias that sourcing into this article. Check all the sources and the conclusion seems inescapable, the very large majority of this sourcing points to the origin of the Second Amendment coming the the long tradition militia duty in English history. What sourcing says otherwise? Identify it, lets do the policy required balance weight check and then lets include that sourcing too. Unfortunately, ever since the Hausk version got locked in as the stasis version, he seems to have forgotten that on July 8th he asked for time[7] to explain his sources. Now Hausk seems content to sit back, and not explain his sources, and just revert war[8] to protect his favored text. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I originally intended my question to be one of "what is the relevance of this insertion". But now I've read your response and looked closer. Is the following a correct description of what you are essentially saying?:

The last paragraph of the "English History Section" contains wording that implies a pre-2nd definition of "militia". I (Salty) think that that there is a a majority or significant minority opinion that is contrary to that and feel that it should be covered.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Hauk that this text is definitely not NPOV. It's malcom-centric, which was a novel interpretation. Yes, lots of people who favor gun control refer to it now, because it suits their political leaning, similar to the issue of quick acceptance of Besellies work. That doesn't make it the main point of view. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

@AFH Wow. Is this your personal opinion? Or, are you speaking from what you have read? In any case, please show us some sourcing for your claim of "novel interpretation" and that "lots of people who favor gun control refer to it now". You seem wildly off base. Do you realize that:

1. Gun control people dislike the Malcolm book.[9][10]
2. Pro-gun advocates, blogs and editorialist's generally like and recommend the Malcolm book.[11][12][13][14][15][16]
3. Antonin Scalia has described the Malcolm book as "an excellent study". ISBN 9780691004006 (pgs 136-137)
4. This Malcolm book has been highly praised by the National Rifle Association, appearing on their approved reading list for 12 years now.[17][18]
5. The Malcolm book has been described in reliable sourcing thusly: "(Malcolm's) book was enthusiastically received by American historians, legal commentators, and the gun community. ... Malcolm's thesis has been widely accepted; in some circles it enjoys the status of dogma respecting the English origins of the Second Amendment."
6. That this Malcolm book was referenced, twice, in the 2008 Heller decision. ([19]pg 19

If I didn't know better I would be tempted to guess that reached your conclusion because of a snap judgement that if SaltyBoatr likes it, then it must be pro-gun control. Here is a situation where I am arguing for a mainstream pro-gun author because that author is solidly accepted as holding a well respected point of view. It shouldn't matter whether you or I like this author. We should be checking the sourcing. I have done this, have you? If your answer is yes, please describe what sourcing you are reading that says this is not the "main point of view". In contrast, Hausk's point of view (which apparently you prefer) has all the appearances of being pure original research. Things could be a lot better around here if editors like stop the WP:BATTLE. Let's limit our discussion of what the sources say. By the way, do you have any thoughts about the sixteen sources deleted[20]by Hausk? Do you think those sources are unreliable? I have asked you a number of questions and I would appreciate direct answers to each. Your answers can help bring this dispute to an end, thanks in advance. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that it is Original Research to say that Malcolm's view of the "developing right" theory is either novel or against the prevailing view. The fact is that Bill of Rights itself says that right to arms was an ancient right and Blackstone described it as an adjunct to the natural right of self defence. Malcolm's argument for doing so is on the spurious ground that no earlier law created the right. She completely misunderstands how rights are achieved in English law. In doing so she has at a stroke, and with no proper foundation, dimsissed Blackstone's view that ie and dismissed the Bill of Rights the evidence that you will see in most archeological museums in England that ordinary people have had arms - spears, arrows, knives, slings for a very long time. Mostly for hunting but also from time to time as instruments of war. I am not aware of any major English historian who has accepted Malcolm's view, but I suspect that is because the history of the right to arms has simply not been an issue in English society or in English history.

Now I turn to the text and the sixteen sources I deleted. These were deleted on the grounds of relevance and WP:Undue. The discussions about militia are all very interesting but they have little to do with the English Bill of Rights. It is undue because it was tring to retell the fairy tale of the Malcolm "developing right" which is quirky and not mainstream. It is not accepted by mainstream English historians not has it been accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court. The English Bill of Rights, on which the American Bill of Rights and therefore the second amendment to the constitution was based, was not about militias. It was about the reinstatement of liberties taken away illegally by the previous king and about the formation of what became a parliamentary democracy in which the sovereign was not entitled to make law. It meant that the law regarding things such as arms was firmly in the hands of parliament which would sit regularly and be elected regularly. Amongst the text I deleted was a section which said "the English Bill of Rights of 1689 .. granted Protestants a series of liberties including the right to arms for self defense" As the article now makes clear (partly as a result of my intervention) the Bill of Rights did not grant a new right to have arms but reinstated an existing right to arms. Your text (which I agree was from an earlier version of this article) was pure baloney based on the Malcolm thesis and completely misleading. Our job in editing these articles is to inform the reader and not to mislead.

If you want to discuss the military aspects of the American second amendment that has more to do with American history than it does with English history. The text that said "The concept of a universal militia originated in England", is supported with American references but as far as I can see almost none of the sources are able to justify the claim. It seems a very unlikely to me. People the world over have come together to fight off neighboring warring tribes. History is full of it. Exactly what is meant by a "universal militia"? England was way to big to have one armed force and there is much evidence that bands of men were cobbled together from time to time for defensive purposes based upon regional alliances. I have little doubt that this pattern is the same the world over. What makes these historians think that England was so special? I do not see how this can be so and so far I see little evidence to support it.--Hauskalainen (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. If you are going to make claims of "undue weight", we need to follow WP:UNDUE policy. Quoting: (we must) fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Your three paragraphs above are describing your personal point of view, stop that. It doesn't matter whether you disagree with Joyce Lee Malcolm, and the many others that say the same thing. Let's stick with what the sources are saying. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The scribblings of a small cabal of pro-2A writers do not outweigh the established view that the English Bill of Rights was a restoration of a pre-existing personal right. As I say, no mainstream English historian has come out and accepted Malcolm's revisionist view. Neither did the Supreme Court seem to accept that view that it was a new right created by the 1688 Act. Quite the revere in fact. That mainstream English historians have ignored this part of her book is not my fault. I tend to think that their silence is representative of either ignorance of her work or indifference. The wording of the 1688 Bill of Rights in relation to arms rights has little significance in modern day Britain. What is surprising (to me at least) is that it still animates the cousins. Would you like me to contact some of the eminent historians and lawyers at Oxford or Cambridge to comment on her interpretation of English law? I suspect that they would tear her to shreds!! If you want to preserve Joyce Lee Malcolm's reputation as a serious historian I would respectfully suggest that you drop this silly argument. --Hauskalainen (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You say: "...the established view." Can I WP:Verify this somewhere? Cite your sourcing for this "established view". Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty there is a 3rr violation being filed against you

for edit warring71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You can respond here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/EW#User:SaltyBoatr_reported_by_User:71.184.184.238_.28Result:_.2971.184.184.238 (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:V of "This article is badly outdated due to recent Supreme Court Decisions"

A number of editors have expressed opinions along the lines of "This article is badly outdated due to recent Supreme Court Decisions." I have a specific request: What third party reliable sourcing are you reading that indicates that this article is "badly outdated"? (It would be helpful if editors avoid explaining with their original research or personal opinions, just point to sources please.) I am simply asking to be able to WP:Verify the assertion that content in this article is "badly outdated" by reading it in third party sourcing. Specifically identify the third party sourcing, page numbers and direct quotations would be helpful. Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, I've said that several times. (again, here I'm speaking as a participant, not a moderator/organizer) The general theme for some of my reasons is that Heller and McDonald were / are basically hidden and undercovered in the article considering that they are the "gorilla in the living room" with respect to this subject, given that that the importance of these two is second only to the wording of the Amendment itself. Of these two, although McDonald is equally as important as Heller, it is far simpler and shorter to cover. If I had to get more specific about updating the article, it would be:

• The key findings of these two decision were occluded / hidden in the article. Now, with them at least briefly mentioned in the lead, that issue is partly solved.

• These two decisions (with McDonald only needing 1/10th as many words as Heller) need to be covered more thoroughly in the article. A really nice objective NPOV analysis with objective sources/sourcing would be nice. The current Heller section is too short and narrow considering it's impact, and much of its wording seems to have been designed to occlude the findings rather than cover them. To acknowledge the point that you have been making, this should includ coverage of what it did and didn't say about "gun control" laws. Roughly speaking, it said that outright bans are unconstitutional, that widely accepted restrictions (such as prohibiting possession by insane people)are probably OK, and that everything in between is still in limbo.

• Certain findings of Heller have legally settled a couple of questions that were still open when much of this article was written. Most importantly that "militia" is irrelevant to availability of this right. Also that any outright bans that would preclude or severely hamper home defense are unconstitutional, and that any outright bans of handguns are unconstitutional. This means that coverage of "what is the meaning of "the militia" " is less relevant and should be reduced (and certainly not increased) It also means that that wording that treats clearly-resolved questions as still legally undecided is now wrong/ obsolete and should be updated.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, I just noticed exactly what you wrote/implied. Which is that in order to assert, in a talk page that a Wikipedia article is out of date, one must cite a third party source that says that the Wikipeda article is out of date. Huh? North8000 (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, start here:

1. You write: "The current Heller section is too short and narrow considering it's impact," Please identify what verifiable source(s) you are reading that describes Heller's "impact".
2. You write: "Most importantly that "militia" is irrelevant to availability of this right. " Why use the singular "right"? Identify verifiable sourcing that says what you are claiming here, that the states' militia right has been extinguished.

I appreciate your point though, there has been new events in the last two years. I disagree with your view that these new events diminish our responsibility to neutrally fairly cover the rich historical meaning of the Second Amendment. The evolution of the view points about "bearing arms" is a rich and fascinating thing. If editors can be a little less hostile and just chill a bit, let us just give neutral coverage to history as it unfolded.

There should not be a need for us to revise history to justify the Heller holding of a right of self defensive handguns in the home, which really began circa 1989 with the coining of the highly successful "Standard model" movement. That is a popular modern interpretation in a nation concerned about self defense against crime, a simple fact, no threats or judgment. Looking back in time, circa 1939 in Miller the nation was fixated on gangster crime and high powered machine guns, hence the use in a militia viewpoint was top dog. Prior to that in Presser the nation was concerned about unions and strike breaking with private Pinkerton militias. Prior to that with Cruikshank it was arming of the freeman versus the White militias. Prior to that it was the issue in the states about carry of concealed weapons, individual gun rights. Prior to that it was the civil use of states militia both in the antebellum period and the anti-federalists concerns about governmental control of the army. Prior that it was the whole Machiavellian concept of liberty against tyranny. Prior to that it was the duty of the Yeoman to serve is militias. That is a pretty rich and compelling history, and the modern individual right is not threatened by it. Certainly we don't need to paper over that history to somehow justify the present. Heller is binding law, and your guns are not threatened by what this article says.

One thing you probably aren't aware of is that in 2008, just after Heller, this article was given a MAJOR rewrite, so you assertion that: "Certain findings of Heller have legally settled a couple of questions that were still open when much of this article was written." is baseless. The majority of the text in the article was written after Heller. Take a look at a version from just prior to Heller[21], by my rough guess 2/3rds of the article is newly written after Heller". And the portions that remain are basically historical issues that Heller had no bearing on, (unless we want to revise history to justify things.) If you want to do that, show us your reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, respectfully, I believe that you are using "show sources before saying anything" to obstruct discussion and development of the article rather than as intended which is as a criteria for article content. What I said was a generalization in an attempt to answer your questions.

Regarding coverage of history, you set up and argued against a straw dog of what I "said" vs. what I actually said. I didn't say that pre-2A history should not be covered. I basically said that certain aspects that related to previously undecided issues should get reduced coverage. Ditto for other comments such as "paper over history", and "revise history to justify things" But, either way, I'm with you on your thought to retain and have historical coverage.

Answering your question, my choice of "right" vs. "rights" was arbitrary, without intended meaning.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume you don't answer my request for sources because you don't have sources. The reasons I asked for your two sources is this: Your assumption that Heller has a giant impact doesn't match what I have read about the actual impact of Heller. Your reasoning about needing to down play the "militia" aspects of the 2A don't seem to be founding in anything you have read.

And, my request for sources is intended to obstruct the development of the article in the direction of people wanting to mold it according towards their personal whim. This is aimed at myself as well as others. If we all can focus on reading the sources and then writing an article to match, (per policy), this encyclopedia will be better. The more we focus on discussion of sources on this talk page, the more productive the talk page can be.

I apologize about mis-quoting you. I guess I misunderstood you when you said you thought "This means that coverage of "what is the meaning of "the militia" " is less relevant and should be reduced". Tell us please what sources you are reading for "This". That way we both can be discussing the same thing, thanks.

By the way, have you read this article about estimates of the actual impact of the McDonald ruling. McDonald extends that right to the remaining eight outliers. None of those eight states, however, ever tried to completely ban gun ownership and qualified individuals can lawfully obtain guns in every one. That source seems somewhat at odds with your assertion: "...that any outright bans that would preclude or severely hamper home defense are unconstitutional, and that any outright bans of handguns are unconstitutional." If reliable sources say that such laws on the books today are rare or non-existent, is this McDonald court case really a great impact or is it symbolic? It would be helpful if when discussing the improvement of this article with you that you could be sharing the sources for your opinions, that way we could be focusing on the same thing. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

We're going in circles here because you continue to argue against things that I never said and am not asserting. Maybe it is just a misunderstanding. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that the impact of Heller WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLE CONTENT is that it decided several previously undecided questions.....basically the things in the lead. North8000 (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This sentence in the lead: "This Court ruled that this right is not based on membership in a militia and is an individual right." The court actually said "unconnected", a word which which leaves as protected both forms of the right. Our intro sentence wording essentially declares falsely that the states' militia right is no longer protected. The question I am asking is this: Did the court rule that the right of self protection within the home was in addition to, or instead of the previous states' militia right? (That is why I keep asking for your sourcing. We should WP:V this.) The SCOTUS Heller decision affirmed the DC v. Parker case which quite clearly indicates that the self protection within the home right is in addition to the states' militia rights. Parker is presently binding law. I think you are going to far to imply that the states militia rights are now extinguished. This is a pretty important point to leave unsourced. Also, I am now uncomfortable being in the position of arguing what the meaning of Heller is by reading dicta directly the primary court document. Can you and I finally agree to look to reliable secondary sourcing about this? Tell us, what sourcing did you read when you wrote the sentence: "This Court ruled that this right is not based on membership in a militia and is an individual right." SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, myself (and I think everybody else) agrees with the first half of your paragraph. I didn't know that you saw that as a point of contention. And yes, I would love to find and use an expert, objective analysis of Heller (or several). But, for a careful reader, most of the main points in what SCOTUS wrote are either very simple/clear, or very clearly ambiguous, i.e. suitable for primary source use. Finally, I did not write that sentence that you are asking about. I originally wrote something like "membership or non-membership in a militia has no impact on whatever rights are available to an individual under the 2nd amendment". Awkward sounding wording, but unambiguous about what it is and isn't saying. Then somebody changed it in the working draft to the sentence you quoted / are asking about, and nobody objected. In fact I deliberately completely avoided using the term "individual right " in my draft of the lead because that word is unclear without further explanation of what it's meaning is in the context of the Supreme Court's use of the term in Heller, and thought that such an explanation was too much detail for the lead. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have changed that sentence to read "This Court ruled that the amendment protects an individual right unconnected with membership in a militia." SMP0328. (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

SMP0238, could you hold off on making that edit until after we reach a consensus please? I think the part about adding the word "unconnected" is good. Unfortunately, we seem stuck on relying on editors interpretations of the primary document now, which seems risky. First, considering the high profile of the introduction we need to be very careful with the wording. Using the word "ruled" to describe what is coming from non-binding opinion, dicta, seem plainly wrong. Obiter dictum is legally considered non-binding, and is not a ruling. Also, there is the NPOV problem that when we are talking about dicta we need to decide which dicta is important and which is not. The sourcing says that in nearly 200 federal court cases in the last two years, that the dicta that is most often viewed as important is the wording "longstanding prohibitions", such as prohibitions on felons and the mentally ill. So, SMP0328 suggestion of a bald wording "individual" without a qualifier "lawful" seems to be at odds with the sourcing and a NPOV violation. I favor the earlier suggestion of finding compromise by keeping the introduction on the vague side, and leave out the word "individual", or alternatively include the word "lawful". SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

We have reached consensus. You want that sentence to say "unconnected to" so to avoid the implication that SCOTUS rejected the possibility of there being a state right separate from the individual right. North8000 didn't disagree with you and nobody else has commented on this thread. I change that sentence to reflect the consensus, making that sentence's wording reflect your desire, and you reverted me. If you're going to revert me even when I agree with you, how are we to work together? SMP0328. (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You acted so quick. No we have not reached consensus, see my comments above. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, just so we keep this sorted out and clearly consensused, , the sentence that we're talking about as of when we put up the new lead said: "This Court ruled that this right is not based on membership in a militia and is an individual right." Who is proposing what changes? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This edit[22] by SMP0328 is edit war. I suggest that we not edit war, or we may see that this article gets locked for three months. Instead, let us voluntarily agree to work things out on the talk page first before inserting text in article space. Also, with the NPOV problem recently inserted, I am requesting the addition of a POV warning tag. NPOV violations in the high profile introduction are of serious concern. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring; I made a consensus-based edit. This discussion can continue regarding other changes, but what I did was based on a consensus.

Separately, stop talking about adding a POV tag -- that's not constructive. SMP0328. (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, the sentence in the lead we put up said:

"This Court ruled that this right is not based on membership in a militia and is an individual right"

and now it has been changed to:

"This Court ruled that the amendment protects an individual right unconnected with membership in a militia."

I think that SMP thought that everybody was cool with this change and that you (Salty) in particular wanted this change. Is this change OK with you? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I am outraged that SMP0328 both edit wars and claims consensus, when plainly there is not consensus.

"The Supreme Court has held that the amendment protects a right of lawful self protection within the home unconnected with membership in a militia." seems to be WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, striking a balance of calling attention the recent court ruling and not over reaching as to what the holding in that ruling actually said while at the same time not relying on editor interpretation of dicta. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, this is not looking too cool. I just said my understanding that SMP made an edit that he thought that YOU wanted, I listed the edit that you are complaining about, asked what you thought of it, and you are just vaguely accusing him of edit warring while avoiding making any specific comment on the change that he made. It doesn't add up.

Regarding your new proposal, to me it seems an inaccurate blending of two statements which need to be separate because they are separate. One is the finding that militia is not a condition on any 2A right, the other (which I think is too complex to tackle in the lead)is (briefly and inaccurately speaking) defense within the home with a readily usable handgun. North8000 (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you suggest a compromise wording then? Your summary: "the finding that militia is not a condition on any 2A right" seems WP:OR. The concept of something called "the finding" seems your personal idea. The holding concerns self defense within the home. That is the core WP:V issue to focus upon. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This is obviously a highly condensed/summarized statement. In discussions at WP:VER and WP:NOR I've made the assertion that these policies are written such that if taken rigorously, all summarization is OR and thus technically forbidden. You seem to be supporting my assertion.  :-) But I think that it is very cautious and accurate summarizaiton.North8000 (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean you are OK with the sentence wording: "The Supreme Court has held that the amendment protects a right of lawful self protection within the home unconnected with membership in a militia." in the intro? If not, please suggest an alternate wording. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits of user Miguel Escopeta

I am asking for discussion of the edits[23] to the article by User:Miguel Escopeta. None of these edits were preceded by discussion on the talk page. None of these edits include any use of sourcing. Several of these edits seemed simply to be insertions of this editors personal political opinion.

Can editors agree by consensus now that we should not be tolerating significant edits like this in the main article space that are not preceded by discussion on the talk page? Can we agree that edits need to be supported by sources? Can we agree that the neutrality balance seen in the article need to match the neutrality balance seen in the reliable sourcing?

A couple specifics, this edit[24] states that the opposing points of view are now just "historical". Really? Is there any sourcing that says that the point of view among legal theorists is now settled? When I look[25][26][27][28], I still see huge amounts of disagreement among legal theorists.

Also this edit[29] with the deceptive edit summary "remove original research" actually deleted sixteen excellent sources.

What is going on here? Are we going to edit this article based on WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR? Can we agree that we should discourage editors dropping in and making substantial changes to the article with deceptive edit summaries and zero discussion on the talk page? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a participant, the Supreme court, creates the reality with respect to the legal meaning of the amendment. With respect to the legal meanings of the 2A, an opinion that clearly conflicts with a Supreme court finding is now obsolete or, to put it more graciously, "historical"

Speaking as an attempted moderator / discussion organizer (if y'all will have me) on your other questions, I'll write something below. North8000 (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What is a court "finding"? Do you mean their "holding"? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A general term for Obiter dictum and Ratio decidendi, both of which authoritatively define the legal landscape on the topic. North8000 (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That is kind of vague. Can you say more precisely what this "finding" of the "legal landscape" is in this instance? Is this something that I can confirm somewhere? WP:V? Did this "finding" say that legal theorists now agree, as was asserted[[30]] by Miguel Escopeta in his edit? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Trying to bring this section to the subject of the Escopeta edit, I have inserted[31] wording change attempting to remove WP:OR and to smooth out the bias problem. Comments please. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Miguel Escopeta added back the "historical" disclaimer. Is there any verification that these models of interpretation are just historical? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the individual right interpretation is the sole interpretation for several cases now. Only the U.S. Supreme Court has legal jurisdiction to interpret the U.S. Constitution, as the final arbiter of its meaning. Our job, on Wikipedia is but to report the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation relative to text portraying to interpret the U.S. Constitution in articles on Wikipedia. Our job is not to advocate archaic and/or minority points of view that once existed in the absence of any relevant rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court on what a specific part of the U.S. Constitution might mean. The inclusion of such data borders on speculation, albeit with cited sources. It is thus of historical interest, only. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you verify please by citing reliable sources that the SCOTUS has ruled this is the "sole interpretation"? In other words, did the SCOTUS eliminate the protection of the states' right to form militia free from federal infringement? The reason that I ask is that when I check, the SCOTUS actually affirmed DC v. Parker case, and that case (which is binding precedent today) says pretty clearly that they were simply adding protection of the right of handguns within the home for self defense to the previously protected states' militia rights. Also, can we distinguish what we are talking about now. You seem to be blurring legal theorist's viewpoints with academic historian's viewpoints. I see that there is a difference between the perspective of binding precedence of law and the perspective of historical scholars. You know, lawyers versus historians. They don't always see eye to eye, and certainly the courts are not going to tell what the historians should think. Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The right to form a militia is not "directly" protected by the second. The right to "form" a militia is protected in the body of the Constitution. What is protected by the second is the right to form an "ARMED" militia. The states are constitutionally barred from arming the militia and MUST rely either on arms from the feds or from the willingness of individuals to arm themselves. Those are the only two ways a state can form an ARMED militia.71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionaries Online is not the Oxford English Dictionary

collapsing this discussion, as the problem in the article is now fixed

Can we discuss this edit[32] by SMP0328? It is marked as "minor" and it has the edit summary "Minor fixes; added two wikilinks". Yet the edit makes the false claim that the website "www.oxforddictionaries.com" is the Oxford English Dictionary. Really? There is a huge difference between the two! The OED is a massive 20 volume dictionary which is the definitive reference work on historical usages of the English language. Also, this edit by SMP0328 was made without any discussion on the talk page. And, if he had checked in on the talk page he would have learned that this passage is in the middle of an edit war[33] by 172.184..., involving the deletion of the passage source to two reliable sourced books describing the analysis of the linguistic origins of the term "bear arms" using the OED and the insertion of primary research by 172.184... drawn from the online dictionary describing the modern usage of the word. Also, the original research claims this as the definition of "bear arms" when actually it is the definition of the word "bear". (After we fix the error inserted by SMP0328.) Could we resume a discussion of the merits of the passage describing the linguistic origins of the term "bear arms" which was sourced to the Spitzer book ISBN 1576073475 (pages 6,7) and the Wills book ISBN 0684870266 (pages 256-7)? Are these unreliable sources? SaltyBoatrgetwet 14:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Oxford Dictionaries Online is the Internet version of the Oxford English Dictionary. Read this!. SMP0328. (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Actually, quoting from your link "Oxford Dictionaries Online is Oxford’s innovative modern English dictionary and language reference service. " "Oxford Dictionaries" is not the same as the Oxford English Dictionary. The key difference is that it is a "modern English" dictionary. The true Oxford English Dictionary gives attention to obsolete English, and it gives attention to how the English language has changed over time. The Oxford English Dictionary is a giant 20 volume dictionary, and it too is available on the Internet at the URL http://dictionary.oed.com/. Access requires a subscription, and where I live my public library gives free access with your library card. Many other libraries give free access. Paying attention to the historical usage of the meaning of "bear arms" during the time of the drafting of the Second Amendment is important, and the OED says that the definition "to bear arms: to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." dates to usage example from 1795. Deleting this historical and substituting the modern definition of "carry guns" and claiming it comes from the OED is plain sloppy. We are required to give a balance view of the two major viewpoints, and this article section has had the "military service" meaning scrubbed. This POV imbalance warrants a POV-section tag. SaltyBoatr get wet 21:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC) So we should consider the OED as authoritative, but not the SCOTUS? Also, are there any other definitions for "bear arms" in the OED? Finally, stop trying/threatening to add POV tags to the article; it's not productive. SMP0328. (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC) The meaning with respect to the application of the 2A, a US legal instrument, has been determined by the US Supreme Court. It doesn't opine on the reality, it creates it. While sidebar discussions of it's meanings in other places and at other times and under various other opinions is also nice, such discussions are just that. North8000 (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Learn the difference between Obiter dictum and Ratio decidendi. Scalia's discussion of the meaning of "bear arms" is not the holding, it is merely dicta. No, the dicta of the Supreme Court does not actually determine or create reality. Instead, just the holding of the court determines legal precedent for future cases, so your point about creating reality really only applies to things going forward. Considering that WP:CRYSTALBALL prevents us from predicting much into the future, it is hard to understand what point you are trying to make. My point here is that there is a great body of work written about the history of the Second Amendment which is unaffected. We can and should read those books, and no, those books are not invalidated by the SCOTUS. Now, as always, we should scrub out the making of political arguments from the article. Some of the books describe political arguments. We should continue to neutrally, fairly and objectively describe what we read and try not to editorialize. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC) So, for the understanding of the USA legal meaning of the 2A, a US legal instrument, we should use your selection from amongst British dictionaries (even rejecting the on-line Oxford dictionary) rather than the U.S. Supreme Court?North8000 (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Regarding the meaning of keep and bear arms section: Do other editors agree that we should fix the erroneous sentence (presently footnote 114)? SaltyBoatr get wet 14:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Salty, at least by titles and structures,currently there is no section on the meaning of "to keep and bear Arms." There is only a section on scholarly commentary on "to keep and bear arms". That structure is a combined POV invitation (i.e. "pick a scholar who espouses your opinion and put in their/your opinion) plus a recipe for excluding the US legally authoritative definitions of the terms. If we really want to fix it, step one would be to move the "to keep and bear arms" section out from under the "scholarly commentary" section. Until then, who knows what the standard for this section is. We could include 10 different dictionary definitions since they're all "scholarly commentary" which is the only criteria of this section. If there is ANY standard for inclusion in an article on a US legal instrument, your idea of removing a definition consistent with the US Supreme court opinion and introducing a definition that conflicts with it would be introducing rather than correcting an error North8000 (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC) as participant I am referring to this section[34]. It is an error to call the dictionary OxfordDictionaries.com the Oxford English Dictionary. Frankly, this kind of error is embarrassing. SaltyBoatr get wet 22:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Regarding the North8000 point, no, per WP:NPOV significant points of view must be included fairly without bias. Perhaps it is time we check with the NPOV noticeboard. Again, and again I see editors saying that opinion of the court somehow trumps Wikipedia policy. No, I believe it does not. SaltyBoatr get wet 22:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Salty, your saying "I see editors saying that opinion of the court somehow trumps Wikipedia policy" is a silly strawdog misrepresentation of what we've been saying, and I find it to be very disingenuous, . What I have been saying is in essence that, with respect to the legal meaning of the 2A, a US legal instrument, the US Supreme Court CREATES the reality which Wikipedia is covering. There is no conflict, no "trumping", they are two separate things; one creates it, the other covers what has been created. North8000 (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC) I am not disingenuous. Can you appreciate that when I hear editors speaking of "the reality" like you just did, that I am reminded of the times that editors come here to this politically charged article speaking of "the truth"? This concern could be put to ease if we were instead discussing what the reliable sourcing says. I have read a lot about this topic, and am prepared to discuss it. In the mean time, we turn circles talking past each other because we apparently are seeing different versions of reality. Specifically about your assertion at to "the legal meaning" which you seem to view as something fixed and settled. When I read sourcing[35][36], I see that the experts observe that the SCOTUS has left the core aspects of "the legal meaning" unclear, most notably the standard of review which is a critical question. Also, the question of exactly which "individuals" have this new protection of a right is undetermined. Worse, you seem to think that McDonald has settled something. No, McDonald actually did nothing more that remand the case back to the 7th Circuit for a retrial. That retrial has not yet happened. If we were discussing sourcing, we could be sorting these questions out. Can we start discussing sourcing now? We're going in circles here. IMHO it appears that you are asserting that that the only thing that Heller did was set aside one gun law, and that the only thing that McDonald did was to remand one gun law. Does this correctly summarize what you have been asserting? If so, we at least know what you are asserting. Just to clarify, when I said "disingenuous, I was referring to badly misstating/misquoting what we are arguing into a form that was absurd and silly sounding. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC) No, your summary of what I am asserting that these sources say is not correct. By the way, I am not willing to discuss or debate with you on this talk page what I personally believe. Specifically here, I see that a number of editors using edit war tactics, have stripped out the coverage in this article of what we see written in reliable sources, which is that during the late 18th Century that the term "bear arms" had the predominate meaning in context of military service. Certainly the Oxford English Dictionary says this. Editors, with apparent political intent, substituted the modern English meaning found in a modern English dictionary which is "carry arms". I don't dispute that the modern English meaning is "carry arms". It is just false to say that the Oxford English Dictionary (which gives coverage of obsolete English usages) says this. Presently, the article is saying something that is plain false. Also, I see that editors here have repeatedly tried to interpret Scalia's dicta for meaning about the "bear arms". This interpretation of primary court documents is notoriously difficult. I see that Scalia's reasoning in Heller pretty closely matches the reasoning seen in the Cramer and Olson paper, where they focus on the few notable exceptions in the hundreds of usages of "bear arms" seen in 18th Century writings. They acknowledge that most of the usages were seen in context of military services, but because there are a few exceptions seen, that therefore we can conclude that a "self defense" 18th Century meaning is possible and preferable. There are other authors (Uviller, Merkel, Wills, and others) that criticize this method of focusing on the rare exceptions in the language usage, and giving these rare exceptions more weight than the common usage. I am arguing that we craft the "meaning of bear arms" section to give coverage to both these points of view seen. We can mention prominently, using neutral phrasing, that in 2008 the Supreme Court chose one of the these points of view seen. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Salty, by a preponderance of observations, including a huge amount of exchanges of the last few weeks, I have decided that IMHO you are trying to get to a POV'd article rather than being sincere about trying to get to an accurate article. And that you are using WP mechanisms (especially WP:VER, but secondarily misquoting/misapplying WP:NPOV) as tools in a POV quest rather than as intended. What I find most telling is that each time we get close to a core sincere question, you change the subject and start throwing flak around instead. Two recent examples were when an editor made a change because he thought that YOU wanted the change, you accused him of edit warring while refusing to say whether your were for or against the change. This is because you would have been forced to admit that you were accusing him of edit warring for making a change that YOU wanted, and that he made it because he felt that you wanted it. And, you have been trying to suppress coverage of the Supreme Court Heller and McDonald findings by implying that the dicta from these cases are not relevant, but when I tried to get to the heart of this core and important question you changed the subject. I am bolding this because, although I anticipate continuing to have continuing civil communications with you in this article, this is my "swan song" (= I am giving up) regarding trying to have sincere in depth discussions with you. Again, I still look forward to working you on a civil but more superficial level. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry to annoy you. I take policy here seriously. WP:V says that we should be using reliable sourcing. I am feeling impatient too, when my requests to discuss reliable sourcing are met with refusal. Also, the policy WP:NPOV requires: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." When this talk page, and this article, falls under the "viewpoint prevalence" of the editors as has been occurring here, we violate policy. That is the reason we must be discussion the reliable sources. SaltyBoatr get wet 18:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC) I think that "disappointed" would be a better word tahn "annoyed". I had hopes for better; a joint effort with you toward the higher calling of an accurate, informative article. North8000 (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC) In the mean time, this article laughingly calls OxfordDictionaries.com the Oxford English Dictionary. This is embarrassing. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Forward Progress?

Writing as possible moderator/organizer if y'all would have me.

Rome wasn't built in a day. Let's take it a piece at time.

The Lead

My first suggestion is we all sort of protect the lead against un-discussed changes. It is up to date, and reasonably consensused on the talk page before we put it up.

Let's pick one thing to tackle next under this process

Here are a couple ideas:

• Overall outline of the article. IMHO the structure of this article is causing problems. As one tiny example, albeit less relevant post-Heller, there is no section about the meaning of "militia". It's only buried inside (and constrained by the title of) a "scholarly commentary" section.
• Summary of Heller findings
• Summary of McDonald Findings
• The "English History" section
• Meaning of "To Keep and Bear Arms"

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC) as possible moderator/organizer

The English History section dispute[37][38] is still active. The version of text which got locked in with the article full-protection, (which remains in the article now) remains problematic and is aligned with Hauskalainen's preferred text which has all the appearances of being his personal research and is not reflective of the point of view seen in the majority of the sourcing. This dispute has been on hold for almost three weeks now waiting for him to 'summarize' his argument. I suggest that we have waited long enough. We should go back to some non-controversial "last stable" version of this section now. Then, we should go forward with any needed corrections. The baseline text should not be the version now in the article which exists there only because it was the "locked in" version at the moment of the administrative page lock. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool, let's start. But in a way that nobody expected. First, I would only moderate and organize the effort, so nobody has to convince me of anything because I won't be "deciding". First guys, let's agree that our objective is an accurate, reliable, with balance-untainted-by-POV article. Whether you choose that due to being a higher calling, or to avoid wasting years of your life on a pitched battle that goes nowhere, or for whatever reason. And Wiki rules are just a means to that end. Also, let's have some fun at this. Be an opponent, be blunt, but still friendly. Life's too short to do otherwise.

Question #1 Guys, in 2 sentences or less, could you tell me what what you see as the main underlying difference between the way that Salty wants it and the way that Hauskalainen wants. I'm looking for something like "Hauskalainen wants to emphasize that firearm ownership is considered a natural right and individual right, and Salty wants to emphasize that it is a right granted by government and just for specific purposes" I'm sure I got this wrong, but that's the type of thing I had in mind. Just the underlying differences, no wiki-rules at this point.

Question #2 Salty, can you point us to a date in the last few months to look at the article when this section was more to your preference?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC) As moderator/organizer

I am not asking for "my preference" but instead the editor consensus stable version that existed prior to the recent edit war. This English History section sat in a relatively stable state for ten months, from August 2009[39] through April 2010[40]. This stable state version would be the best starting point because it represents a version of the text that stood the test of time here, implicitly reflecting an editor consensus. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My $0.02. I object to Hauskalaninen's use of interpretation of 250 year old documents as WP:SYN policy violation. Also, I object to the down-play of the "The concept of a universal militia originated in England" importance to the 2A, because I see that this ancient English militia tradition is mentioned as being the core issue in so many reliable sources. (The stable consensus version is well sourced.) SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty wants to move the discredited militia based garbage over into English history now that he can't infest US history "as much" with it.71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I only came across this thread by accident... I am not interested in all the discussion threads for this article - only those that reference the English history section. It is true that I have been absent from editing but this was due to two recent bereavements which have severely limited my available time. I have come back and seen that the English history section has neen unfrozen and remains without the objectionable POV view that the right to arms developed from the duty to have arms. I must admit that I had assumed that Salty had given up his quest to give that theory more prominence than it really deserves and I was not planning to follow through on the issue of the NPOV noticeboard dispute. Armed defense forces go back into pre-history .... it is completely wrong to infer that they began at a certain point of time in England (whether you choose Norman times or the earlier Saxon times). Archeological history tell us that people have kept arms and have died from their use. The Saxons fought the Vikings and the Saxons and the Romans fought the Picts and the Celts.... just because we lack evidence in writing of the obligation of peoples to defend their communities during the Dark Ages does not mean that there was no such earlier obligation. What is clear though, is that the English Bill of Rights does not refer to the military service whereas the American Bill of Rights clearly does. This does not mean that the English Bill of Rights had an military rights agenda. Reading the bill clearly shows that it is had a personal rights agenda with a preference for powers to restrict the right being retained by Parliament and not the King. It is also wrong to say, as some have written, that England had an abhorrence of a standing army. Yes, it did have an abhorrence of a standing army funded by the people but given to the King's will.... but the New Model Army was the first professional army under parliamentary control and it was not a voluntary or a compulsory unpaid militia. References to Militia are certainly relevant to US history and to this article because the american militias had been fighting the British and the right to form militias was clearly uppermost in American minds. The article does already mention the Malcolm theory and militias gets a mention again at the end of the English history section. I would argue that it would be unbalanced to give yet more prominence to militia formation in the English history section. The section is rightly primarily about the Bill of Rights and the tussles with the King and militia formation was clearly NOT uppermost in English minds when it came to the Bill of Rights. Further mention of militias should be in the American history section and not the English history section and to do otherwise would give WP:Undue weight to the Malcolm developing rights theory.--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

An irrelevant social question, feel free to not answer: Hauskalainen at heart, are are you a history guy, a 2A guy or both?

Salty, so I looked at a March 2010 version (trying to avoid the "edges" of the period that you specified.) Without spending my whole evening doing a sentence-by-sentence comparison, the main difference I noted with respect to the topic of contention is that the last paragraph in the March version is not in the current version. Is this a vaguely correct description of the content difference that you have an issue with? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No. My issue is: I object to Hauskalaninen's use of interpretation of 250 year old documents as WP:SYN policy violation. Also, I object to the down-play of the "The concept of a universal militia originated in England" importance to the 2A, because I see that this ancient English militia tradition is mentioned as being the core issue in so many reliable sources. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 12:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that I didn't make my most recent question clear. I think it goes like this: You said that the version of the section that existed from August 2009 through April 2010 is at least somewhat OK with you. I am trying to learn / determine the main difference(s) between that version and the current version. So I looked at a March 2010 version, which should be a example of one that you consider to be sort of OK. I did a rough comparison it to the current one. The main difference that I saw was that the last paragraph of the March 2010 version is now gone. And so, If I were to ask what specific changes you wanted, defined as changes rather than a complete revert) would restoring that paragraph be on the top of your list? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The main difference is that the stable version from the article seems to match the most common viewpoint seen in the reliable sourcing, while at the same time giving coverage to some of the lessor seen viewpoints. The starting point must be the sourcing. The version favored by Hausk, starts by using his personal hypothesis, then opens with an flat statement that his thesis is true sourced to an interpretation of a 250 document that "proves" his thesis. We shouldn't be agenda driven here. We should first look at all the sourcing, and then write the article passage. Fortunately there are a number of good third party secondary sources that describe the English history behind the 2A. We should be using that sourcing. (And answering your question, no. The top of my list is to remove the WP:UNDUE and WP:SYN problems in the current section and then rewriting the section to match the third party sourcing we see. The quickest way to do this is to go back to the last stable version that existed prior to the edit war.) SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, you are giving a characterization of the differences and versions rather than discussing what the differences actually are. North8000 (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I know. If you are asking for specifics, look at the first sentences of both options. Hausk's makes a statement of truth, and then sources it to a 250 year old document which he claims 'proves' his truth. Instead, we should be saying "some third party sources says that Blackstone meant this and some other sourcing says he meant that". Look at the first sentence of the 'stable' version. It gives a summary of the core point of view seen most commonly in third party reliable sourcing that discusses the English history of the 2A. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I say that the Constitution has a Second Amendment. Looking at the text of the Constitution I do in fact find a Second Amendment. I don't need a third party to tell me what I can see with my own eyes. And again primary sources can be used in wiki articles.71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) If we have a statement of law that has stood for 250 years unchallenged and then someone comes along an challenges it, and no significant historian or court body accepts the reinterpretation I think it fair to assume that the significant body of opinion still accepts the old interpretation. Malcolm's position is, if you think about, quite extraordinary. It is similar to saying the following:- "I have looked through English written law and can find nowhere where murder is made illegal. Therefore murder must be legal". This is stupid because the crime of murder is an illegal act under in COMMON LAW. It is not a legislated crime. Similarly the right to arms was a general right in common law. We simply would not expect to have seen it written down. Just because Joyce Lee Malcolm could find nothing written down declaring that there existed a right to have arms for self defense she says it did not exist. Worse still she dismisses the declaration of "ancient rights" in the Bill of Rights as "wishful thinking". But she clearly ignores the fact that for thousands of years the people of the British Isles (as virtually everywhere else in the world) had owned and used arms without hindrance. For hunting and for self defense. It is also amazing that Malcolm should regard the 1688 act as a granting of a right when it clearly makes it as plain as possible that it was a restoration of illegally removed pre-existing rights. As for the "stable version" argument, quite frankly it is an absurdly wrong argument. If the text was wrong or misleading then it was wrong or misleading. We should not regard the length of time that it has stood in Wikipedia as an argument for not correcting it! --Hauskalainen (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the viewpoint is wrong. It matters that the viewpoint is verifiable. See WP:NOTTRUTH. By the way, I know you personally disagree with this "English history militia service" thesis. Can you please point to some third party sourcing that also disagrees with this thesis? It is seeming like your outrage is yours alone. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Once can find sources to say anything, and one can use wp:ver to declare nearly any source as not a wp:rs. Most successful articles (as apposed to the eternally unstable mess articles on contentious topics) are guided by a "skeleton" of either expertise on the topic or a general agreement on content, and then have the "flesh" of content and sourcing added. Without the skeleton you just have a pile of hamburger. (random of POV chosen content with shopped sourcing) Towards that end, without YET talking about sourcing (so let's get unwikipedian for one day before we get wikipedian tomorrow) So, sourcing aside, do each of you think of the other guy's content to be so wrong / so minority of a viewpoint that it should not be included? North8000 (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am losing you here. Matching the sourcing is non-negotiable per policy. The real dispute is over weight. And per policy, the weight should match that seen in reliable sourcing. And, on one hand we have the version deleted by Hausk which is cited to sixteen footnoted third party sources. And the version favored by Hausk has zero third party sources. Do the math as to the policy neutrality balance we should be using. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing is not a requirement for the talk page. :Still would like to get an answer for: So, sourcing aside, do each of you think of the other guy's content to be so wrong / so minority of a viewpoint that it should not be included?"

I have on open mind. If Hausk can show third party reliable sourcing for his idea, I am willing to weigh it against the other third party reliable sourcing to establish the fair neutrality balance point and craft the text that matches this balance point fairly without bias. But frankly, I don't think Hausk can source his idea, he has had a long time to do this and has failed so far. If Hausk's idea remains to appear to be original research, then my answer is no. Not allowed per WP:NOR policy. Things here must be WP:V, period. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And answering your question about the "skeleton". The seminal book on this topic is by Joyce Lee Malcom, titled "To keep and bear arms: the origins of an Anglo-American right". This book is widely accepted[41] as the definitive reference work on the origins of the Second Amendment being founded in English history. Contrary to what Hausk says, essentially zero criticism of this book has been published. I have checked extensively, and only found two criticism's published, and these both complain that the book is too slanted to the "individual rights" viewpoint. Frankly it is astonishing that Hausk is criticizing this book as not being "individual rights" enough! Keep personal opinion off this talk page, it wastes our time. Let's stick to sources. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Lack of criticism means nothing. Belesiles was praised to high heaven before it was proven he "manufactured" a good portion of his data ( for all I know he may have manufactured all of his data). Some of those praises can still be found on the internet - http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/283/ If Malcolm can show widespread historical instances of the common man (being a common militiaman) being armed by the state, at no cost to himself, then she is right in her POV. Barring those examples she's wrong, and the English militia were armed in the same way the American militias were, by the common man going out and buying his own gun. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I object to SaltyBoatr's characterization of me as engaging in "WP:SYN" and inserting "personal research" or a "personal hypothesis" and disregarding Malcolm and other WP:RSs.

On the one hand we have the very text of the law which refers to the right to arms as being an ancient one that is being being restored (not created) and then we have Blackstone, a legal commentator from some years later declaring that it was a right auxilliary to the Right to Life. The we have the US supreme court which has looked at the documents and has declared that the right was a personal one and not dependent on service in the Militia. So a primary source (which is the best kind of source when it comes to legal matters) and two legal opinions, one from two hundred years ago and another from a few months ago. This is also my view. It is not personal only to me.

Then we have the Malcolm fairy tale that the right was not an ancient one but developed out of the duty to have arms and peaked with a granting of a right to Protestants only in the English Law and then later perfected in the Second Amendment to the US constituton without any religious discrimination. Malcolm completely dismisses the reference to ancient rights in the the English law as being "wishful thinking" and then goes on to completely ignore what Blackstone has said. (Blackstone was one of the foremost jurists of his time). But her ONLY REASON for doing this is that she cannot find any reference to a right to arms of the people in any law prior to the Bill of Rights of 1689!!! (Search YouTube for Joyce Lee Malcolm and you'll hear her actually say this). Well that is pure stupidity because the common law is not to be found in any written laws!!! It is based on natural justice interpreted over the years.

SaltyBoatr wants us to ignore the fact that this revisionist theory has not received much support (least of all from the US Supreme Court) and to re write English history in this section after Malcolm, telling the fairy tale of a developing right emanating from military service obligation. He claims that my text is "not reflective of the point of view seen in the majority of the sourcing". All I can say to that is BOLLOCKS! (This is me being "blokish" and is not intended to offend) There is no great mass of historians who have come to revise the view that the right to have arms was an ancient one and was "created" in the English Bill of Rights. He has no basis in fact for asserting that this is now the majority view. Malcolm and the few others Salty likes to cite are a self supporting cabal of writers with an NRA related agenda. I have no agenda. I do not live in the U.S. and I am not affected by U.S. gun laws. I am English and therefore I do have an interest in English History. I was appalled to see my country's history being turned upsidedown by a few cranky American historians. The English Bill of Rights did NOT create a new right to have arms and it did not deny Catholics the right to arms. Catholics before and after the Bill of Rights continued to have the right to have arms and I defy anyone to prove me wrong on this. There are many English laws that did discriminate against Catholics but in this case the right to have arms for self defence was not one of them.

Now, North8000 asked me two things. One was about my interests and yes I am way more interested in English history than I am about the US constitution. The other was "do (I) think (SaltyBoatr's) content to be so wrong / so minority of a viewpoint that it should not be included? Well the article does mention the Malcolm thesis and the text that is there in the article currently was added by me. I do object to Salty's inserting up front in the article the discussion about militias because I fear that he is telling the Malcolm myth (ok, thesis) about a developing right. It is a POV but it should not be given undue prominance because it is not widely accepted. The English history section already says the following about miltias

"In both England and America, subjects and citizens have created militias. Beginning with King Henry II's Assize of Arms of 1181, certain English subjects were obligated to keep and bear arms for military duty. Later, in response to complaints that local people were reluctant to take up arms to enforce justice for strangers, the Statute of Winchester of 1285 (13 Edw. I) declared that each district or hundred would be held responsible for unsolved crimes. Each man was to keep arms to take part in the hue and cry when necessary. Without a regular army and police force (which was not established until 1829), it was the duty of certain men to keep watch and ward at night to capture and confront suspicious persons. Every subject had an obligation to protect the king's peace and assist in the suppression of riots."

That is largely from Malcolm and is fine as far as it goes. We should not begin the section with this text as it strays too close to telling the myth of the "developing right".--Hauskalainen (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Anon's edit of July 27

I have reverted the anon's edit of this day. It replaced the reliably sourced material in the Models of interpretation subsection of the Scholarly commentary section with material was mostly unsourced (the rest was based on synthesis of primary sources). I'm not saying whether the anon's material was correct, only that it was lacking reliable sourcing. Consensus is also recommended. SMP0328. (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The militia based models are hogging that section in violation of wiki "proportional weight" guidelines. Both those models are now dead as a doornail.

and why do you think direct quotes from Heller and Miller are "unsourced". Links to both cases were provided.71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid giving personal opinion on the article talk page, it is distracting. Please provide third party sourcing that "those models are dead as a doornail." SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 00:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What part is personal opinion?71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Just rephrase what you say in the form: "I have read this, on page X, of the book ISBN 123456789." Or similar wording. Your use of direct quotes from primary court documents is not third party sourcing when the topic is the same as the subject of the court case. Also, when we determine weight per NPOV policy the weight is measured by it's prevalence as seen in the reliable sourcing, and it is not measured by the weight of opinion of the Wiki-editors. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have read the quotes from Heller and Miller in Heller and Miller! Are you now satisfied?71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop disrupting this talk page. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 12:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yet again repeating what has been stated on this talk page numerous times. Primary documents are usable in a wiki article!71.184.184.238 (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

For Salty

Salty seems to be unaware where the individual right language unconnected with service in the militia came from

From the Heller opinion is where - see the short version or Syllabus for easy confirmation

Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of that passage in Heller. All it says is that protection of the right of self protection within the home is unconnected to service in militia. It does not say that the states' militia rights are no longer protected from infringement by the federal government. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 00:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

For the second time, on the topic of what you just wrote, I think that you are arguing a point that everyone already agrees with you on. Do you really not understand this, or you just saying this again to obstruct forward progress? North8000 (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC) (as participant)

Would you clarify to who you are addressing your question? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

SB - Are you saying that the article should state that SCOTUS has recognized a limited individual right, but has not ruled on whether there is a separate state right? SMP0328. (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that the holding of Heller was about a narrow question, self defense within the home in DC. Heller did not overturn Miller, Presser, or Cruikshank. If we are going to say that the Second Amendment only protects a self defensive right, then we need some excellent sourcing that says this unambiguously. Otherwise, we need to continue to give coverage to the militia protection provided by the 2A which we see described in the sourcing. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not! "Such as" is not the same as "ONLY as". Also: Your militia based garbage was described as the ravings of loonies - aka "worthy of the mad hatter". The right was described as an individual right by ALL justices in the opinion and both dissents. NOBODY pushed the collective right models. 71.184.184.238 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC).

The text does not limit the right to self defense in the home as you keep POV pushing. "Such as" implies that there are other legal ways to use the right. - The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The states rights to TRAIN AND CONTROL the militia is protected within the body of the Constitution. The states ability to FIELD an armed universal militia armed with personal weapons is defended by the Second. If the feds disarm the militia, there is OBVIOUSLY no militia to train and control, as the states are BARRED from arming their militia members. See body of Constitution for that as well.71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow your point. Above you said of the militia protection "dead as a doornail" and now you are saying (I think) the Second Amendment is important protection to the states fielding of a militia. It follows then that this article should give coverage to the militia point of view, in addition to the self protection point of view. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your point about the words "such as". First you are quoting from dicta in Heller which is non-binding. Second, you are making prohibited interpretation of a primary document. Third, when you check sourcing, such as [42] and [43] you see that after two years and over 200 court cases this hypothetical "such as" you point to has not manifest itself in the courts. Presently, Heller's only tangible change is for the handgun owners in the District of Columbia for the purposes of immediate self defense within the home. Any other "such as" change needs to be sourced, per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets keep this simple, you don't have to be in the militia to get a gun, BUT if you are in the militia you CAN GET A GUN, so you can be an EFFECTIVE member instead of just a target!71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You are arguing with us, telling us what you believe. You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. The way Wikipedia works is that we are to look what the third party reliable sourcing says, and then we are to write an article that matches the sourcing, even if that sourcing disagrees with what we personally believe. Take your personal opinion elsewhere. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 12:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

When was the last time anyone you know received a gun from the feds because he was a member of the general militia? If the feds won't give you a gun, and the states are FORBIDDEN from giving you a gun, then you need to buy a gun yourself.71.184.184.238 (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Judicial interpretation

With Salty adding a section on Scholarly interpretation WITHOUT any notification, he should be that last person to bitch about my adding a section on Judicial interpretation.

Salty: where was your notification/proposal in the discussion page for that section? where was your consensus building? I personally think that section is just more of you pushing your discredited militia based garbage onto the article. I notice that the prevailing individual right model got a whole two lines in that section with the militia based garbage getting the vast majority of space, including the lead. Dead discredited models don't get the lead unless someone is POV pushing. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I believe you might have missed my discussion[44] of the need for restoration of coverage of the "standard model" theory. My insertion of that passage was just the restoration of a passage from a prior version of this article, and that passage had been stable here for a long time indicating that it held a consensus opinion among editors. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I must have missed the words "standard model" in you addition. Let me check. Nope! Didn't miss them as they aren't there.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I can tell from your sarcastic tone that you don't actually care about an honest answer. Other editors here might care, so I will answer anyway. In that passage Professor Dorf is describing the modern debate regarding the 2A by historians and legal scholars in the last part of the 20th Century. This debate continues up to the present. This debate is variously described as the "Standard model" versus the "collective model", or "libertarianism" versus "republicanism", or "individual rights" versus the "militia based rights", etc.. This dualism was first described in essays by Robert E. Shallop 1982 and Lawrence Dilbert Cress 1984 in the Journal of American History. If this article is to give good coverage of the topic of scholarly thought about the Second Amendment we should be giving coverage to this material. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I like honest answers but experience has taught me not to hold my breath waiting for one from you. BTW: Care to explain why you wanted to include material on the "standard model" and instead included material dominated by the "collective rights" model. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)