Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Unresolved dispute about article neutrality

I don't understand why the article doesn't simply start with the actual text of the 2nd amendment, which is of course very brief, note it as ratified on 1791, followed by some equivalent to "has been recently interpreted by the supreme court" to affirm a pre-existing individual right to possess weapons... blah. Seems to me that you start with what it is, in itself, then go directly to its current interpretation. As it is, it will read as very biased to many. 69.242.38.116 (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC) random visiting reader

This article follows the same basic format as other articles on the Bill of Rights. The text of the amendment appears to be placed appropriately. --tc2011 (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I continue to dispute the neutrality of the article. I have explained this in detail above, but major elements are 1) Systemic bias. 2) Excessive use of originalism. 3) Improper mixing of the Bliss Kentucky right to bear arms, with the Federal 2A. Unfortunately, this dispute has been stonewalled for months, but it still remains unresolved. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I pointed out that YOU are the most biased person on this discussion and you deleted that.

Why?

4.156.252.142, please tone down your rhetoric. Simply state the information that should be added and provide the citations. Doing so will help improve this article. This rhetoric is not helping. Thank you. --tc2011 (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Godwin FTW!    ¥    Jacky Tar  12:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The comment you see above is in response to Salty Boars "burning" of a negative comment against him, pointing out that HE is the worst POV offender on this article. I'm sure if a poll was taken most of the people here would agree with that.

in fact lets try it out

4.156.252.35 (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights that declares a right to keep and bear arms by individuals." That is currently the opening sentence of this article, and is completely POV (not to mention blatantly false). The text of the second amendment does not, anywhere, clearly define "a right to keep and bear arms by individuals." All controversy over the amendment is specifically about whether or not there is an individual right at all. Certainly, it states that there is some fashion in which the people have a right to keep and bear arms, but nothing in the text clearly states that there is an individual right. Why not open the article with say... the amendment? Instead, I open this article and am reading opinionated statements. Now, I'm not saying it doesn't imply an individual right to bear arms, but it certainly does not state it clearly and, to open this article with such a statement seems dishonest and particularly POV.

Yesterday you would have been right. Today the Supreme Court ruled, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. SMP0328. (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The intro does need some work, though. It starts out: The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights that declares a right to keep and bear arms by individuals. It also refers to a "well regulated militia" as "being necessary to the security of a free State" and prohibits infringement of "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms." It declares a right to keep and bear arms by individuals AND prohibits infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms? The conjunctive language is confusing. PubliusFL (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right and so I have greatly condensed the Introduction. Much of the Introduction needed to be removed in light of the Heller decision. The wording of the Introduction is no longer confusing. SMP0328. (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As the amendment is still something hotly contested, can we not say that it is a amendment the Supreme Court has "ruled" to mean individual self defense or whatever it was instead of just flatly saying that "this is what it definitely means? That way, you get the best of both worlds so to speak.--66.66.212.182 (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The amendment is not "hotly contested". As Al Gore would say, "the debate is over" *waves hand*. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.51.230 (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why the entry doesn't begin with a more neutral frame. There is an ongoing debate in the historical and legal scholarship about the context and meaning of this amendment. The debate is not over. A single Supreme Court case does not end the debate any more than _Dred Scott_ or _Roe v. Wade_ settled the underlying disputes in those cases. So, why not put the supreme court in the subject position and say that it "recently ruled that..." One's current position on gun rights (I personally support gun rights) should not shape the article. This kind of blatant bias will convince no one. Please just give the information. Embededinclosure (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The article if allowed to begin with "protects the INDIVIDUAL right" does not appear neutral. This article should begin with the actual text of the second amendment and the disputes as to how to interpret the amendment should follow. You are doing Wikipedia an injustice by hi-jacking this page for your own agenda. 75.54.116.122 (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, there is WAY too much opinion in the lead-in, and it is too long. The body, with careful allowance for each of the MANY sides of the debate (Why can't I have artillery at my house? Why must I go through so many gyrations to mount a machine gun on my roof? etc.) I am NOT volunteering to rewrite the intro, though, my talk page is already spammed enough just from vandalfighting. sinneed (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "pre-existing right" leads me to wonder what pre dated the second amendment of the constitution? Please provide some reference or identify a common law that pre dates the second amendment which guarantees "the right to bear arms". If you are unable to provide that then we must agree the phrase "pre-existing right" is incorrect.

This article in order to remain un-biased should only state the facts about the second amendment. Instead it opens with quotes by one supreme court justice in a very recent ruling, Ignoring the fact that the supreme court split on the decision by a very narrow margin of 5-4. And even in that decision it was stated that the "right" to own guns can be limited. i.e. "restrictions on Military style assault rifles, Certain types of ammunition, etc.

Keep the pro/con arguments in an appropriately titled section and refrain from any misleading opening statements. 69.227.153.239 (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A provision of the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. Regarding the Second Amendment, Heller is what the Supreme Court says it means and so the article reflects that. The fact that it was a 5-4 ruling doesn't change the legitimacy of the decision. So it is perfectly legit for the Introduction to refer to that decision, just as the Introduction in Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution refers to Mapp v. Ohio. The term "pre-dating" is a reference to common law in America prior to the Constitution's adoption. That common law recognized the individual right to keep and bear arms. The article refers to this common law recognition. SMP0328. (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "pre-existing right" leads me to wonder what pre dated the second amendment of the constitution? Please provide some reference or identify a common law that pre dates the second amendment which guarantees "the right to bear arms". If you are unable to provide that then we must agree the phrase "pre-existing right" is incorrect. - - This article in order to remain un-biased should only state the facts about the second amendment. Instead it opens with quotes by one supreme court justice in a very recent ruling, Ignoring the fact that the supreme court split on the decision by a very narrow margin of 5-4. And even in that decision it was stated that the "right" to own guns can be limited. i.e. "restrictions on Military style assault rifles, Certain types of ammunition, etc. - - Keep the pro/con arguments in an appropriately titled section and refrain from any misleading opening statements. 69.227.153.239 (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC) - - - - The article if allowed to begin with "protects the INDIVIDUAL right" does not appear neutral. This article should begin with the actual text of the second amendment and the disputes as to how to interpret the amendment should follow. You are doing Wikipedia an injustice by hi-jacking this page for your own agenda75.54.116.122 (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.159.98 (talk)

Re: Pre existing rights

Under the Articles of Confederation, Article 6, it was up to the states to arm the militia.

but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

As for the individuals right to "keep" arms, it is a natural extension of the right to self defense (your property included). You CAN'T effectively defend yourself unless you have access to weapons equal to or greater then those normally found in the hands of criminals. You can of course choose NOT to defend yourself, but the right to self defense is a recognized constitutional right.

Do YOU want to bring your fists to a gunfight?

At the time of the revolutionary war, the individual could own a rifle, a weapon substantially superior to the musket, which was the common weapon of armies of the period.

Also, it is likely that just about EVERY private ship of any size was armed during that time period, for defense against pirates if nothing else. Thus, at the time of the revolutionary war, the individual could own the equivalent of a pocket warship. 4.154.232.250 (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there remain large problems with the neutrality of this article. I suggest that this be discussed and resolved on the talk page. In the mean time, I suggest that a neutrality dispute warning be added to the article, directing readers to this discussion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Without identifying specific reasons why there is a problem with neutrality, adding a neutrality tagline appears premature. As this article is presently rated as being a Good Article (GA), with no prior evidence of NPOV issues for half a year now, including through the GA review process, arbitrarily adding a neutrality tagline does not seem warranted. Yaf (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This article displays a lack of neutrality that anyone not wearing NRA blinders can see. The recent edits to the intro help a bit, but it is still heavily slanted.--Fizbin (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This article reflects the current interpretation given to the Second Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court. If you don't like that interpretation, your argument is with five of the nine Justices, not with this article. SMP0328. (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, 5-4 of the Supreme Court. And, in any case, the Supreme Court ruling is a primary document, reflecting the point of view of the slimmest majority of the justices. By your logic you assert that the SCOTUS meets WP:RS standard, then the minority opinion would carry weight too and qualify as WP:V sourcing for the article, right? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Supreme Court ruling is not a primary source regarding interpreting the 2A of the US Constitution; it is a secondary source to the US Constitution. As for giving weight to dissents in SCOTUS rulings, that is not how the SCOTUS works. 5-4 up to 9-0, the result is the same regarding the outcome. The individual interpretation of the 2A is the current "law of the land" based on the Heller decision. Yaf (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Pardon. Cherry picking out of a court ruling, in favor of one bias, is misuse of a primary source, and violates NPOV. Stick with high quality secondary sources please. I dispute neutrality. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Supreme Court ruling is clearly a secondary source relative to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Are you disputing whether or not the Supreme Court is a reliable "hiqh quality" secondary source? I don't understand your concern, here. Are you really saying that we should not abide by the Supreme Court ruling, by virtue that you believe it not to be a "high quality" secondary source? What higher quality source is there, than the Supreme Court, to interpret the US Constitution? Yaf (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Writings published in peer reviewed journals from well respected publishing houses are a high quality sources. Your cherry picked quotes directly from court documents reflects your pro-gun editor bias. This caused a neutrality bias skew problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to authors adding content to this article based on writings in peer-reviewed journals, as well as other reliable and verifiable secondary sources such as Supreme Court interpretations of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Yaf (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a separate issue. The neutrality problem occurs because of the biased selective quoting from primary court documents is in itself a form of original research due to 'cherry picking' selection by POV editors. Also, the prominence of this bias at the top introduction level given undue weight to that point of view at the expense of other points of view. This neutrality bias should be fixed to bring the article into compliance with WP:NPOV policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

I think there should be a more general introduction... one that talks about the Amendment in more general terms rather than referring specifically to a Supreme Court interpretation. Thoughts? Quark1005 (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Insofar as Heller is the one Supreme Court ruling that defines the amendment, that Court's findings should factor prominently, if we are to remain NPOV and encyclopedic. Looking at the other Bill of Rights articles, the leads are similar in structure and detail to this article. (Which tells me this article is on the right track.) Whether editors like it or not, Heller defined the amendment the way it did, so that's what the amendment means. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia presenting facts, not the "I likes" and "I don't likes" of various editors. --tc2011 (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much all of the text related to Heller is out of place in the intro. Having a separate section related to Heller is fine, but the intro should be much more general in nature.--Fizbin (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

In any article about a Constitutional amendment, it is common for the Introduction of that article to reference at least one important Supreme Court decision interpreting that amendment. For example, see Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Why should this article be any different? SMP0328. (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The two examples you cite have no reference to court cases in the initial paragraph, whereas this page refers to Heller in the first sentence. In fact, if you remove all of the Heller stuff the intro is pretty much a blank, as if this amendment had no significance until Heller was decided a couple of years back. The intro is totally slanted - a sham, really. --Fizbin (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I've de-emphasized Heller in the lead. This article is, after all, about the amendment itself and not a particular court case, so the repetitive Heller qualifiers are unnecessary for defining the amendment. --tc2011 (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel tc2011 has found a fair compromise. The Introduction still refers to Heller, but doesn't give the impression that the individual right to keep and bear arms is solely based on Heller. Also, the Introduction is now more concise. SMP0328. (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the edits by tc2011 are a major improvement. I would add that an even more neutral intro sentence would read something like this: "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the section of the United States Bill of Rights protecting the right to own firearms." --Fizbin (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The intro places a far too heavy weight on Heller, and specifically on the 'tyranny' aspect of Heller. There is 219 years of history about the 2A, and Heller is only one year of that history. Heller was fundamentally a case about the right of firearms for self protection. The focus on the tyranny concept is a POV push and imbalance. Also, the POV position articulated in Heller that the right to firearms is limited like all rights should be given higher weight for NPOV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Heller is a landmark decision. Dismissing it as merely "one year of that history" makes as much sense as referring to Brown v. Board of Education as merely "one year of [the] history" of the Equal Protection Clause. It's place in the Introduction is proper. SMP0328. (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Per George Will, the better analogy is Roe v. Wade[1]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It still is a POV push to give the 'tyranny' hypothesis such high emphasis. Rather, the lead section should summarize the article. The effects of the Pro-Gun editors have skewed the neutrality balance point of this article. This lack of neutrality harms the reputation of Wikipedia. Knowing your history, I don't expect a neutral response from SMP0328. Consistent personal bias and refusal to stand down from a pro-gun POV push. Hopefully for Wikipedia, you might change. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I am always reasonable with my responses. You need to learn to be polite with people with whom you disagree. The Second Amendment means what the Supreme Court says it means. The Supreme Court says it protects a right to keep and bear arms which existed before the adoption of that Amendment. The reference to "tyranny" is from the Heller decision and is referenced in the body of the article. If the "tyranny" reference was removed from the Introduction, would you be satisfied with the Introduction? SMP0328. (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, per Wikipedia policy the introduction should summarize the article, not summarize the most recent Supreme Court ruling. I appreciate your conciliatory words, though your words would carry more weight if they were followed with action, such as editing out the 'tyranny' hypothesis from the introduction. I don't dispute your reasonableness, I dispute your pro-gun editorial bias, which is 'reasonable' but (seemingly unintentionally) violates the neutrality weight requirements of WP:NPOV policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You're making a distinction; splitting a Constitutional amendment from Supreme Court case law regarding that amendment. That's a false distinction, because they are one and the same. Heller is the official interpretation of the Second Amendment. The meaning of the Second Amendment is Heller. If the "tyranny" reference was removed from the Introduction, would you be satisfied with the Introduction? SMP0328. (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Official interpretation? What does that mean? The only concrete effect at the present time is in the District of Columbia. We are facing decades of litigation before we can see through the fog of what Heller truly means. The heavy emphasis on the tyranny hypothesis is just a small portion of the pro-gun bias in the article. SMP0328 show good faith by adding a POV tag to the article, and then lets discuss the fixing of the neutrality bias problem in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the fog largely lifted with the Supreme Court Heller decision. The current tone of the article, following the Supreme Court ruling, is pro-rights, supportive of the Bill of Rights, as one would tacitly assume the Supreme Court would always rule, thereby reaffirming the US Constitution. No real surprises here. Are you suggesting the article should ignore the Supreme Court ruling altogether and favor an anti-rights tone to the article? I don't understand why you believe the article should skew away from the Bill of Rights, nor why you feel the article needs to reflect a non pro-rights POV, especially without cites. I am puzzled. Yaf (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, do you dispute there is a dispute about the neutrality of this article? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Errors in Case law section

From the Case Law section:

"The Arkansas high court further declared:

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

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

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

Edited to add: Not only is the quote misleading because it is a dissenting opinion but the judge concluded his opinion with: "To forbid a citizen, under the penalty of fine and imprisonment, to carry his own private arms about his person, in any manner that he may think proper for his security or safety, is, in my opinion, an unauthorized attempt to abridge a constitutional privilege, and therefore I hold the law in question to be of no effect." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

That was fast! However, upon further review that commentary on Buzzard is misleading. First, why include the quote at all? As I stated above the judge further wrote: ""To forbid a citizen, under the penalty of fine and imprisonment, to carry his own private arms about his person, in any manner that he may think proper for his security or safety, is, in my opinion, an unauthorized attempt to abridge a constitutional privilege, and therefore I hold the law in question to be of no effect." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This is also misleading: "Joel Prentiss Bishop’s influential Commentaries on the Law of Statutory Crimes (1873) took Buzzard's militia-based interpretation, a view that Bishop characterized as the “Arkansas doctrine", as the orthodox view of the right to bear arms in American law.[68][69]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yaf wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[I have copied the following from another section]

All of these statements are cited and pass fact checking. Cornell's book (cited) clearly makes the case for which these statements that are here make, but to which you apparently object. However, unless there is some other interpretation, with cites, then I don't see what the issue is. You state that the interpretation by Cornell is incorrect; OK, then we need a cite for a reliable and verifiable source with a different point of view than what Cornell makes. But, removing cited information because one editor disagrees with the reliable source is Original Research and is not permitted by Wikipedia policies. All major points of view, supported by reliable and verifiable sources, should be included in articles for balance. Yaf (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, you clearly do not understand. As I have repeatedly stated, the dissent, as quoted in the main article, is not cited by Cornell nor is the paragraph that cites Cornell referring to the dissent's opinion. I will post a proposed re-write some time later in the week.

Prefatory clause vs. Ablative absolute

The emphasis in line 18 on the prefatory clause hypothesis is a pro-gun POV push. The neutral position would give balanced emphasis to the ablative absolute hypothesis. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That line shouldn't be there at all in the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The reference to the prefatory clause is based on how the Supreme Court interpreted it to mean. Since Marbury v. Madison, a Supreme Court interpretation of a Constitutional provision is the official interpretation of that provision. So the article's reference to the prefatory clause is proper. SMP0328. (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing whether the reference should be there. I think it should be mentioned. However, it doesn't seem like something that should be in the intro. It belongs in a textual analysis section, but I see there is none... most unusual for articles discussing the 2A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

See here and here for analysis of the prefatory clause within the article. SMP0328. (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's not what I meant by a textual analysis. Such an analysis delves into the meaning of the words, clauses, etc. and is normally contained in one section. (I'm not proposing that however). (By the way, do you agree that the snippet I refer to above concerning Buzzard is original research and should be snipped?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I still don't feel comfortable removing that material. That material is well sourced. On what grounds is that material original research despite being sourced? SMP0328. (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Quoting Yaf: "Reading original text and interpreting it is considered Original Research" The quote in question from judge Lacy is exactly that. It's a quote taken from a court opinion, quoted out of context and incorrectly interpreted. To repeat, the article says the dissent "declared..." The dissent did no such thing and no citation is given for that interpretation. Reading the out of context quote in the article, anybody would come to the mis-conception that the dissent concluded that "This being the case, then the people, neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms.[68]" However, what the dissent actually said in context is that given the two other justices' opinions, the Second Amendment neither protects a collective nor individual right. Thus judge Lacy wrote that the individual citizen anytime may bear arms of any variety. The final words from the same opinion: "To forbid a citizen, under the penalty of fine and imprisonment, to carry his own private arms about his person, in any manner that he may think proper for his security or safety, is, in my opinion, an unauthorized attempt to abridge a constitutional privilege, and therefore I hold the law in question to be of no effect." Finally to repeat, the quote is taken completely out of context and is not cited by any authority claiming that the dissent declared "the people neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

So all you want is for the article to state that Justice Lacy believed individuals could bear any firearm "of any variety"? BTW, if it didn't protect a collective or individual RKBA, what did Justice Lacy believe the Second Amendment did? --SMP0328. (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't clearly explain. It's not that Lacy believed the 2A didn't protect a collective or individual right, it's what Lacy said would be the consequence/end-result, when one takes the two other justices at their word. Lacy, himself, believed, as the quote I provided explains, that the 2A protected an individual right and could not be infringed, period. Just as I tried to explain above.

If we're now on the same page, as far as understanding what was written in the article, then I'll post a couple of modest changes here, tomorrow or the day after.

I don't think we are "on the same page" in agreement. The present text with citations is

"That the words "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State", and the words "common defense" clearly show the true intent and meaning of these Constitutions [i.e., Ark. and U.S.] and prove that it is a political and not an individual right, and, of course, that the State, in her legislative capacity, has the right to regulate and control it: This being the case, then the people, neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms."[68] Joel Prentiss Bishop’s influential Commentaries on the Law of Statutory Crimes (1873) took Buzzard's militia-based interpretation, a view that Bishop characterized as the “Arkansas doctrine", as the orthodox view of the right to bear arms in American law.[68][69]

All of these statements are cited and pass fact checking. Cornell's book (cited) clearly makes the case for which these statements that are here make, but to which you apparently object. However, unless there is some other interpretation, with cites, then I don't see what the issue is. You state that the interpretation by Cornell is incorrect; OK, then we need a cite for a reliable and verifiable source with a different point of view than what Cornell makes. But, removing cited information because one editor disagrees with the reliable source is Original Research and is not permitted by Wikipedia policies. All major points of view, supported by reliable and verifiable sources, should be included in articles for balance. Yaf (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, you clearly do not understand. As I have repeatedly stated, the dissent, as quoted in the main article, is not cited by Cornell nor is the paragraph that cites Cornell referring to the dissent's opinion. I will post a proposed re-write some time later in the week.

Two huge problems: 1) The Supreme Court ruling is a primary source. 2) The POV balance of the article is skewed towards a pro-gun position given the high visibility of the grammar hypothesis favored by the pro-gun point of view and the deletion of the opposing point of view out of the article. This is evidence of the effect of systemic bias of the pro-gun editors. Re-read the NPOV policy, the is to have a neutral point of view reflecting the balance of reliable sourcing, not the balance of the energy level POV partisan editors last June. I suggest the addition of a POV dispute warning tag to the article while this problem gets worked out. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The primary source for the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is the United States Constitution. Supreme Court rulings, interpreting the Second Amendment, are secondary sources relative to the US Constitution. Hence there is no problem with content mentioning the SCOTUS ruling with regards to a use of a "primary source" in this article. As for the claim of "deletion of opposing point of view out of the article", this has not occurred for statements cited with reliable and verifiable sources. Only uncited and apparently OR content and commentary has been deleted. This is entirely in keeping with Wikipedia policies. Original Research is not permitted. As for claims of systemic bias, I fail to understand just what it is that indicates systemic bias; the cited content is not indicative of systemic bias, rather it is indicative of citing statements with reliable and verifiable sources. A POV dispute warning is not appropriate simply to advocate the insertion of uncited Original Research. If, on the other hand, there are additional points of view that need to be added, then it is clearly fine to add the appropriate statements that support such viewpoints, provided the statements are not Original Research and that they are cited with Reliable and Verifiable sources. If you feel there is unbalance, please contribute to Wikipedia instead of just complaining. Yaf (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Regardless, deletion of the Ablative Absolute grammar discussion results in a pro-gun POV skew. The high emphasis (line 18) of the pro-gun view on the grammar hypothesis contributes to a neutrality NPOV violation. I dispute neutrality. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yaf Please explain

Yaf, please explain your repeated deletions of my discussion page entries. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal ad hominem attacks unrelated to improving the article, directed at a specific editor, have no place on an article's discussion page. They were removed. Please do not engage in such entries on an article's talk page. Instead, focus on making constructive contributions on article talk pages that are related to improving the article. Thank you. Yaf (talk)

Thanks for the explanation. Discussion of your long documented history of pro-gun POV push at this article is not an ad hominem attack. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Case law section causes neutrality skew

I call attention to a neutrality bias in the hypothesis that discussion of gun rights in state law (Buzzard, Bliss, etc.) pertains to the federal Second Amendment. I don't dispute that this point of view is valid and that it exists (primarily found on pro-gun blogs, too), I simply object that inclusion of the pro-gun hypothesis material skews the POV balance of the article towards a pro-gun point of view in violation of WP:NPOV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no neutrality bias in the present article. The inclusion of interpretations of the Second Amendment occurring in state courts is entirely appropriate in an article on the Second Amendment, under a section detailing an historical treatment of interpretations of the 2A. This content also has nothing to do with being "pro-gun"; besides, the Arkansas Buzzard case can hardly be called a "pro-gun" position, being that it was the first militia-based interpretation of the 2A in the United States. Objecting to cited content, contrary to your independent Original Research, is irrelevant. If, on the other hand, you have material you feel is needed (to be added, for balance), then please add it, all while providing cites with reliable and verifiable sources, of course. The absence of content is not grounds for claiming a neutrality bias. Rather, it is an opportunity to contribute to Wikipedia! Yaf (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yafs claim above: "inclusion of the Second Amendment occurring in the state courts" is nonsensical. The 2A is federal, and the state courts were ruling on state constitutions, not the federal constitution. There has probably been 100,000 words spent on this topic already, check the talk archive. "Contribute to Wikipedia!" is laughable in light of Yaf's edit history here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you promise not to edit war? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the opening sentence.

The opening sentence has two major problems, 1) It is sourced to a primary document in violation of WP:RS. 2) It carries a disproportionate pro-gun point of view weight in violation of WP:NPOV. I dispute neutrality. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Elsewhere I suggested that the opening sentence should read "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the section of the United States Bill of Rights protecting the right to own firearms."--Fizbin (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The opening sentence has no problems. It is sourced to a secondary source interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, namely a Supreme Court ruling. The viewpoint expressed is the ruling by the Supreme Court. If you have a dispute regarding the neutrality of the Supreme Court ruling, this is irrelevant to the present article. As for the other proposal, "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the section of the United States Bill of Rights protecting the right to own firearms"; this statement is technically correct as far as it goes, but the amendment actually does much more than this, as stated by the present wording. The 2A protects the right to keep and bear arms by individuals. "Keep" refers to a right to own arms, which includes firearms, but also includes much more than just firearms. "Bear" refers to a right to use these arms, including firearms. The existing introduction is thus much more factually clear, is cited, and is a neutral expression of the meaning of the 2A, than the proposed changes. The current wording is superior to the proposed wording. Yaf (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a neutrality dispute? For history, Yaf has a record of edit warring this, in other words: disputing there is a dispute. Progress collaboratively editing in such an atmosphere is impossible. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a difficulty in discussion of the systemic effect of bias of editors affecting the neutrality balance point, without discussion of editors. Yet, Yaf refused to even allow such discussion, viewing it a 'personal attack' and repeatedly deleting the discussion from the talk page. This is a Catch 22 problem, if we cannot discuss the effect of editor systemic bias on a talk page. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no problem in discussing ways to improve the article. Name-calling, and repeatedly penning personal attacks against editors on the article talk page, calling every editor to which you disagree "names", is not the way to influence the article's progression. It is not a "Catch 22" problem if civility is maintained and problems with the article are discussed, instead of focusing on personal attacks against editors. Yaf (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Systemic bias

The neutrality of the article reflects the energy level of interested editors, which bias towards the pro-gun viewpoint. The NPOV policy is that the neutrality balance point should be the balance point found in the balance of reliable sourcing. Not, the balance point of the energetic editors' viewpoints. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The tone of the article is currently pro-rights, aligned with the protections provided by the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. Do you object to the Bill of Rights? Is that the problem (that you perceive) with this article? Yaf (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Code words "individual right" in opening sentence cause POV skew

With topics as politically hot at this, the use of the term "individual right" is in itself a POV skew because it frames the topic from the perspective only one side of the viewpoints. This is analogous to discussion of the topic of abortion, should the opening sentence be phrased "right to choose" as a means to frame the topic. See[2]. The term 'individual right' is not defined, indeed the Heller ruling goes on at length describing wide ranging allowed limits on the right. Additionally, I object to the selective quoting from the primary document because the cherry picking a quote to favor a POV bias amounts to WP:OR. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

pursuant to Kentucky constitution

This recent edit by SMP0328 [3] introduces yet more neutrality bias into the article. Serving to blur the distinction that the Bliss decision was only pursuant to the state constitution, not the federal. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Pro-gun bias in the Antebellum period section.

The wording the discussion about the Antebellum period has a skewed pro-gun bias framing the issue with code language "the rights of individuals". There is another valid point of view, revolving around the issue of arming black militias. This causes neutrality bias, in violation of WP:NPOV policy. See the Otis A. Singletary book for discussion of arming black militias. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Otis's book documented the arming of black individuals who collectively formed militias. (A good, scholarly work, I might add, by an historian who later turned into an adept administrator, but I digress.) Cornell references this earlier work in his book. Yaf (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)