Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

NPOV problems

These pro-gun POV push problems should be reworded using neutral terms. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the first paragraph, it has four footnotes, and all four point to cherry picked quotes directly from Heller giving focus to pro-gun talking points. This is WP:SYN. The 2A is much more than these four pro-gun snippets found in Heller. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

With the intention of WP:Bold I just floated as a trial balloon a go back to a relatively stable version of the introduction from earlier this year, updated to include mention of Heller. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up the wording of the revised Introduction. For example, the revised wording had referred to the Second Amendment as an amendment to the Bill of Rights. It includes references to Heller and Cruikshank, so readers will know where the amendment stands legally. I find the revised Introduction to be acceptable. SMP0328. (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The controversy surrounding this amendment is part of the story... but now the lead only addresses the controversy. I think this is a step in the wrong direction. --tc2011 (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

When I check expert opinion, I see that there is a consensus that what lies in the future, after Heller, is years of litigation to settle the confusion. There is mostly controversy in this story. See the Wilkerson article in the Virginia Law Review[1] and George Will's opinion piece "Heller, like Roe, was disrespectful of legislative judgments, has hurled courts into a political thicket of fine-tuning policy in interminable litigation and traduced federalism. ... Now the court must slog through an utterly predictable torrent of litigation, writing, piecemeal, a federal gun code concerning the newfound individual right.". Not to mention the unsettled question of Incorporation. The introduction giving attention to the controversy about the 2A is apropos, I think. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's fine for the intro to bring up the controversy, but the amendment itself should factor more prominently. The current lead would be much more appropriate for an article on Politics of the second amendment or something. This article (and its lead), however, should focus on the amendment itself, of which the controversy is just one part. These were some awfully controversial edits, and I don't see that any consensus was reached as to their content (and one judge does not make a consensus, either). Please revert your edits so that we can work on revisions here on the talk page. --tc2011 (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Instead of reversion, simply propose an Introduction. The article is in flux, so it won't matter what the Introduction says currently. There's enough tags on this article that nobody will rely on it for anything. SMP0328. (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Noticed that SaltyBoatr has inserted an NPOV tagline. What are the issues remaining with the article to merit this tagline? The ablative absolute and prefatory clause discussion has been added. Yaf (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Extensive discussion of NPOV problems in the talk page above, with issues still unresolved. We also would benefit from a discussion to establish a baseline of what is the neutrality balance point should be. We also need to re-confirm that the proper balance point is that found in the balance of the reliable sourcing, not that of the personal opinions of the interested wiki-editors. This is such a tricky proposition because so much is written from an advocacy position, especially that published and selectively re-published online. I suggest that we look to a neutral scholar as a model for the 'middle' neutrality tone, and Saul Cornell comes to mind as being able to fairly describe both sides of the POV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Saul Cornell is not the paragon of evenhandedness, leaning rather severely toward the direction that you have typically advocated, to the exclusion of other points of view. This is not the neutral balance point for the article, although it probably seems that way to you. The article as presently written is probably about as neutrally written as it can be, with what is now more of a collective rights flavor that what it had a few months ago, contrary even to what the SCOTUS ruled in Heller, and contrary even to Cornell's "civic right" tone, which I have tried to incorporate as well. The 9th Circuit Court tone that now permeates the article is not the neutral balance point, but it has been skewed that way to try and reach wording that can be lived with by all active editors, such that the POV tagline could be removed, amd such that the article includes all major points of view, whether totally current or not, as judged against current judicial rulings. Skewing the wording of the article further, in an anti-rights direction, to the now largely-abandoned collective interpretation, while pushing an anti-rights agenda more strongly, would mean the article would definitely become perpetually tagged with POV tagline warnings by editors who see this differently than you do. That should not be our goal. The key should be for us to find a balance point that we can all live with, without need of POV tagline warnings, rather than to a "balance point" that is a collection of talking points of Paul Helmke or Chris Cox. Yaf (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yaf asserts: "The key should be for us to find a balance point that we can all live with". No, this is not negotiable. Re-read WP:NPOV. The goal is "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." It has nothing to do with "what we can live with" or what we find to be personally acceptable.

Therefore, I ask: Please show an example of some reliable sourcing that is written neutrally. I pointed to the work of Saul Cornell. Yaf found that inappropriate. Yaf, please suggest (if you can) an alternate reliable source which you see as written neutrally. I would like to see an example in the reliable sourcing of what you view as neutral, giving fair treatment to both sides of the POV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Then by virtue that "Of the approximately forty scholarly articles published in legal journals between 1983 and 1998, the vast majority have tended to take an individual rights position on the Second Amendment.[42]", then we should scrub the collective rights viewpoint further from the article, to reflect the prominence of both viewpoints. I can do this. Thanks for pointing out that the balance point for the article should not be arrived at by reaching a balance point that active editors can "live with" reflecting the prominence of viewpoints that they have found and documented, but rather by a preponderance of the published sources. By the cited NPOV policy, then, editors should therefore also scrub the now abandoned ablative absolute interpretation, as well, from the article as it is not a prevalent viewpoint, either, in these same scholarly articles, but has become an extreme minority viewpoint. Sounds like we have reached an agreement by which we can fix the NPOV problems that are remaining. Looks clear to me what needs to be done to get this article back into Good Article status, where it was before we added all the collective rights minority viewpoints. Thanks! Yaf (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between academic history and law journal history. Both should be covered in the article, but the wording must be neutral and reflect the criticisms that the law office history has been revisionist and adversarial. See Rakove[2] and Cornell and the Kyvig paper[3]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

These are only two articles, reflecting a minority viewpoint among the preponderance of published papers, that by the NPOV policy you cited earlier, should not be given prominence beyond the majority of the 40 articles. A minor mention of their points of view would be all that would be consistent with the NPOV policy you cited in covering these points. Yaf (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Which 40 articles? Be specific please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am convinced that this article will always have a neutrality tag on it. SaltyBoatr seems to have an ever growing list of grievances. I just don't see a time in which he will accept this article as being neutral, unless we allow him to have complete control of it. This is not meant to be insulting; just an observation. SMP0328. (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, SMP0328 focuses on my personal character. Stop. Can you point to an example in the reliable sourcing which is neutrally written, giving fair treatment to both sides of the POV? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Salty Boatr objects to the neutrality of the people who wanted the protection included in the Second Amendment, the people that defend the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment. Doesn't sound as ALL neutral to me!4.154.239.28 (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This incessant series of anonymous IP attacks on my character is just wrong. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No neutrality tag will be needed shortly, once the minority viewpoints regarding collective rights are scrubbed to reflect the preponderance of reliable and verifiable sources. SB has pointed the way for us to re-achieve Good Article status. Yaf (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice, Yaf did not answer my request to point to an example reliable source that fairly describes both points of view. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Bumping this. Yaf, can you please point to an example of an reliable source that sets a neutrality tone which you find acceptable? This would be helpful in order for us to better communicate during our discussion of our disagreement of the correct neutrality balance. Other editors too, please discuss examples of properly weighted neutrality found in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

SaltyBoatR's: "push problems should be reworded using neutral terms"; "I see that...what lies in the future...is years of litigation to settle the confusion"; "We [should] establish a baseline of what the neutral balance point whould be"; "show an example of some reliable sourcing that is written neutrally"; "law journal history...should be covered in the article, but the wording must be neutral"; "Can you point to an example...which is neutrally written, giving fair treatment to both sides of the POV?"; "Can you...point to an example...that sets a neutrality tone...you find acceptable?" From that, it is impossible to tell what topic SaltyBoatR is seeking neutrality for.

From the Revolutionary War to Heller, individuals had and were exercising their right to keep and bear arms, in every state in the union. To presume that Heller, 232 years after that War for Independence, discovered this individual right in the 2A is thus silly. Heller simply held the 2A's "shall not be infringed" applied to individual type weapons as well as militia-type. From U.S. v. Miller (1939) to Heller (2008), the Court's position on the 2A was that it only prohibited federal infringement on militia-type weapons. Now, after Heller, the prohibition includes all weapons. Thus the 2A article is not about the right, it's about the lack of power, of Congress, to infringe on it. Concerning High Court decisions,"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is," Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803). The Supreme Court defines "clearly established law" as the "holdings, not dicta, of its decisions," Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000). The term "holdings" refers to "the governing legal principle...set forth by the Supreme Court" Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71 (2003).

If SaltyBoatR's quest for neutrality is about the Heller decision, there is none. The Heller decision is law, Congress is now forbidden to infringe on all types of weapons. If his insistence on neutrality is about the right to keep and bear arms, which every American has at birth, that is also silly. The right is not granted by the Constitution, nor is it dependent thereon for its existence (Cruikshank, at 553). If his search for neutrality is about whether people should have the right, it is misplaced. The proper forum would be: Right to keep and bear arms (which is a general article divorced from law). The 2A is fixed law, whether people like it or not isn't relative to the 2A article. SaltyBoatR should disclose which of these topics he has in mind, so we could respond more specifically. (Truwik (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

As a follow-up, I would ask SaltyBoatR this question: Do you believe "right to keep and bear arms" and "Second Amendment" are synonymous expressions? Thank you. (Truwik (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

Discussions of personal opinions do not belong on article talk pages, feel free to ask your question on my user talk page. Again, editors have a duty to set aside their personal opinions, and edit articles based only on reliable sources. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you believe this article should treat the right to keep and bear arms to be synonymous with the Second Amendment? SMP0328. (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think there are a variety of views found in reliable sourcing, some of the most famous are those of Akhil Reed Amar, Robert Cottrol, Joyce Lee Malcolm, Saul Cornell, David Bodenhamer, Richard Uviller and William Merkel. All these views should be explained in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether SaltyBoatR will answer that, or not, I say: No. The 2A is not the source of the right, its sole purpose was to prohibit the federal government from infringement, which Webster defines as: "an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege." That isn't a 'personal opinion,' the Cruikshank Court, at p. 553, said: "This is not a right granted by the Constitution, neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." Cruikshank, was affirmed by Presser, at 265, and re-affirmed by Heller, in footnote 23. Supreme Court decisions are "clearly established law," Williams v. Taylor (2000) at 412; S.C. "holdings' are "the governing legal principle(s) set forth by the Supreme Court," Lockyer v. Andrade (2003) at 71. Arguing the pros and cons of gun-rights in the 2A article would give readers the false impression that the 2A is the source of the right, when it isn't. (Truwik (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

SaltyBoatR's answer: "there are a variety of views found in...," again avoids the question. But in naming seven "reliable" sources, he has answered it indirectly, all 7 have spoken and/or written about the 'right', not the infringement on it, thus he apparently believes the 'right to keep and bear arms' and the Second Amendment are one-and-the-same topic. However the operative clause of the 2A is: "shall not be infringed," the 'right' is simply the objective complement of the past-tense active verb 'infringed.' That is, the 'right' is not the subject of the 2A. It could well have stated: "Because Militias are a necessity, the right of the people to life, liberty and property, shall not be infringed." Surely no one would suggest such an amendment granted those rights.

To further pinpoint the article's subject matter, it would be informative, for SaltyBoatR and all editors to answer the question: To whom, does "shall not be infringed" apply? Thanks again. (Truwik (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

Another way to approach this question is to compare the seven sources I identified to the source of your idea. What is the reliable source for your idea? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Wm. Marbury and 3 other prospective justices of the peace moved the court to instruct James Madison, Secretary of State of the U.S., to deliver to them their several commissions. Mr. Chief Justice Marshall (the first chief justice) as to the power of the Court, stated (at p. 177): "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is", that is, federal laws, which include the Bill of Rights. The Cruikshank, Presser, U.S. v. Miller and Heller decisions on the 2A are thus fixed, binding law. These cases are reliable sources for what the 2A means. While SaltyBoatR's 'seven sources' may address the 'right' neutrally, they are irrelevant to what the 2A means. It is solely a restriction on Congress that prohibits infringement on the right. It is not the source of the right. Rights are inalienable, they are, in the U.S., inherited from our ancestors. Stated otherwise, the 2A could be repealed and would have no affect whatever on the right. It simply exists. My quoting or paraphrasing these High Court decisions is not my 'idea' it is historical lawful fact. WP-Pillar 2) "Wikipedia should have a neutral point of view...it means citing verifiable, authoritative sources...especially on controversial topics." I have done that. (Truwik (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

I am not very interested in your armchair interpretation of the meaning of primary court documents. There is a high risk that your interpretation might suffer from selection bias, faulty analysis or improper synthesis. See WP:PSTS. I agree that your thesis might be excellent, and if so, it should easy to confirm it in high quality reliable secondary or tertiary sources. Have you found a reliable secondary or tertiary source confirming your assertion? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Again SaltyBoatR ducks the question. "Shall not be infringed" is a lawful command to some entity. To whom or what does it apply? Romanian Gypsies? Japan? Stealthy Ferrets? I should thing that would be the first question readers of this article would ponder. Indeed, Webster says an encyclopedia is: "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge." He defines 'comprehensive' as: "Covering completely." That this is a 'particular branch of knowledge' is a given. If 2A editors cannot agree, on to whom "shall not" applies, how could they reach a consensus on what the 2A means? Whom it affects?

Supreme Court decisions on the 2A are 'verifiable, authoritative sources', there is no higher authority. Heller doesn't need 'interpretation' it means what it plainly stated. Just yesterday (2-26-09) the U.S. Senate voted (63-36) to attach an amendment to their S. 160 bill, which will repeal restrictive gun control laws passed by the District of Columbia's city council. Obviously, Congress accepts Heller as binding law on them, and citizens under their jurisdiction. Editors who refuse to answer the question: "To whom does 'shall not be infringed' apply" are indicating they don't know, which sends the wrong message. Answering that question is vital to the accuracy and thus the success of the article. (Truwik (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

I for one vote for adding the old school meaning of "infringed" into the article. It seems that at least one "editor" (aka censor) might benefit as he can't quite figure out how to crack open a dictionary, or even check an online one for that matter. Makes me wonder how he found his way to this article.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor%5B2%5D http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe141.154.110.173 (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Omitting the central theme of the 2A amounts to censoring - not editing. I would just add this: The 'old school' understanding of 'infringed' was an absolute bar against federal legislation on the subject. That is evidenced by the fact that there was no such legislation until the NFA of 1934 - a period of 143 years. (I just added a State Supreme Court's acknowledgement of this. See last quote in Nunn v. State of Georgia.) In that Act, Congress infringed on non-militia type weapons, and the U.S. Supreme Court (U.S. v. Miller) OK'd it. Thus was born the 'new school.' However, Heller says the 2A restriction now applies to individual-type weapons - thus all weapons - so the 'old school is back, at least as to future federal laws. (Truwik (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

I agree with tc2011, the article shouldn't start with "most contested," readers looking for a pleasant neutral lead-in would read no further. And saying the 2A "protects a right," by itself, could be misconstrued. Protects the right from whom? At a glance, the article appears to be about the "right to keep and bear arms" and the controversy over it. I suggest this:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights that proects the right to keep and bear arms from federal infringement. Rights are inalienable, but the Founding Fathers feared some future Congress might misconstrue the powers that were delegated, and use them to regulate, or even confiscate, their arms.

That's historical fact, and would be more reassuring. The key word in the amendment is 'infringed' not 'right,' putting it in, right up front, would encourage first-time visitors to read further. (Truwik (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

I'm more hard core then you are, so while I'm OK with your first sentence I would prefer something like, "The Founding Fathers by protecting the right to keep and bear arms, placed a roadblock to future tyrants by insuring then the citizenry would have the means to resist them through the use of their personal arms" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.176.7 (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This suggested 'future tyrants...resist them through us of arms' is no doubt language the Founders used concerning the King of Great Britain's "War against us" which eventually required a Declaration of Independence and war against them. But the first U.S. Congress wasn't viewed from that perspective, many were veterans of that war, some were Founders, and they all knew the amendment wasn't directed at them personally. It was a stern reminder to future federal 'tyrants' that they were not to encroach upon that right. The words chosen were what the Framers actually said about the amendment's purpose - words from-the-horse's-mouth so to speak. (Truwik (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

The Founding fathers were quote aware that one day Congress could turn tyrannical. They were quite aware that human nature is such that at some point SOMEONE (or a group of someones) will try a power grab (most likely by means of slow encroachment) unless there are roadblocks in place to stop him (or them) and that one of those roadblocks was the private possession of arms. Patrick Henry for instance talks about a revolution where "the enemy" is the federal government.

"The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." James Madison

"The concentrating these [legislative, executive, and judicial powers of government] in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government." Thomas Jefferson

Experience [has shown] that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of nobilie spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny. - Fayetteville NC Gazette 10-12-1789

The honorable gentleman who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. Oh, sir! we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors can not assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.

A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? In what situation are we to be? The clause before you gives a power of direct taxation, unbounded and unlimited, exclusive power of legislation, in all cases whatsoever, for ten miles square, and over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, &c. What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness. You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies; their garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan: they will therefore act as they think proper: all power will be in their own possession. You cannot force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? for, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them.? Patric Henry68.160.176.7 (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Amen, and Amen! I would suggest that this Article needs a Section Heading: "Constitutional Convention" with sub-Sections "Why many Founders opposed a Bill of Rights" and "Why some Refused to Ratify the Constitution Without One", etc. (Truwik (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

I agree that that the article needs more material with respect to the ratification conventions. At one point it did have that material, but when the article was downsized most of it went away. Funny how relevant material gets cut on a regular basis, but crap like the Ward trial remained. You'd almost think that someone was trying to control the articles content. ;-) 68.160.176.7 (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In January, Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) introduced H.R. 45 (the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act). The bill honored 16-year-old Blair Holt, who was killed on May 10, 2007 when he shielded a female classmate from gunfire on a Chicago city bus - with his own body - a real hero. The bill requires registration of all firearms in the U.S.; new purchases of firearms would require a federal license, with a photo ID, and a thumbprint, which could be revoked for a number of reasons. Training for firearm ownership, with a fee, is required; sale, transfer, loss or theft must be reported within 72 hours; and failure to comply with any of these provisions would result in fines and/or imprisonment. The truly amazing part of this, is that it comes on the heels of Heller, which just held a similar law unconstitutional, on his own turf - a Constitution he swore to uphold and defend - unless "shall not be infringed' means "may almost be destroyed." With such continuing shenanigans, this Article needs a "Stay Tuned - It ain't over..." Section, where we can post the latest intrigue. Mr. Rush's bill is still in committee. (Truwik (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

All becomes understandable if you take the view that those in powe aren't there to serve and protect, but to feather their nests at your expense. Feathering the nest includes going on a power trip and taking your stuff. As usual, criminals would rather rob you when you aren't able to defend yourself then when you can. Reducing your chance to get a gun reduces the chance you can effectively resist.141.154.12.116 (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

section break

There seems to be disagreement over what the subject matter is. My POV is just below this in: Wikipedia policy. It would be helpful if editors would add their POVs here also. What is your POV on the 2A? What does it mean to you? Thank you. (Truwik (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

Actually, discussion of editors' personal POV does not belong on this article talk page. Editors have a duty to set aside their personal points of view. This article should reflect the POV balance of reliable sourcing on this topic. A better way to phrase the question would be to ask which reliable source(s) best reflects the neutral balance point, that is: which fairly and neutrally describes both extremes of the points of view? Answering that question I point to the books published by university presses, because of their vetting, peer review and fact checking, they tend to be more objective and less full of POV advocacy. For instance the average of these three books: ISBN 9780195147865, ISBN 9780822330318 and ISBN 9780674893061 represents close to a neutral balance point. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

First, my point of view is simply my position on the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment, which is in agreement with the Founders' intent and High Court holdings about it. By my questions I was seeking other editors' positions on the Second Amendment's meaning, to better know how to respond. If we can't agree on its meaning, which I assume is the 'topic' here, how would we know where the 'neutral balance point' is, or what 'both extremes of the points of view' are? With the Second Amendment topic, what are the two extremes for or against? Amendments? Infringements? People? Without knowing what the bone of contention is, it's impossible to pick a side, and make a meaningful contribution. (Truwik (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

the neutral balance point for the article is found in reliable sources. editor's opinion's are indeed irrelevant to finding that balance point, as saltyboatr notes. Anastrophe (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

How reliable is a source that doesn't know what "well regulated" meant in Colonial times and/or what "infringed" meant then and still does now?

POV problems

This is growing tiresome, when I try to enter dialog about the POV problem I get stonewalled. Then Yaf, for the sixth time, simply removes the POV tag instead. Let me try to summarize the POV problems I see as needing fixing.

1) Excessive reliance of the theory of originalism and textualism. This is throughout the article and especially true for the introduction and the top part of the article. The repetition of the quote of the text echos the pro-gun belief that gun rights are not to be infringed. Yet, a neutral reality is that courts have allowed widespread regulation of firearms, federally with a few limits, and that the 2A imparts no limit what-so-ever on state law. This is the mainstream point of view, yet is it suppressed in favor of the gun-right advocacy.

2) Excessive original research concerning "concealed carry" theory. The "early commentary in state courts" section is a non-relevant section, that echos the advocacy for concealed carry rights. This concealed carry issue is entirely a state court matter, and is 99.9% irrelevant to the topic of the article.

3) The neutrality tone is in violation of WP:NPOV policy. In simple terms, it seeks to achieve balance by including both advocacy positions, rather than by using neutral tone and allowing the reader to make up their own mind.

4) Deletion of the militia history. A clear POV of the Second Amendment history is that it serves to provide for a militia, but repeatedly the congressional legislation pursuant to the Second Amendment has been deleted from the article. (See books by Joyce Lee Malcom and and Uviller and Merkel for reliable sourcing. This deletion of the militia viewpoint is consistent with POV that 2A is relevant to firearms.

5) The handling of Cruikshank, Miller and Heller all are written with a pro-gun bias.

6) Intent of the Founders given excess emphasis. The thrust of a pro-gun theory about the Second Amendment involves the heritage of the "founders" including a right of personal firearms for "self defense" and implicitly resistance to tyranny. This is a valid point of view given undue weight. Another significant point of view is that the rights protected by the Second Amendment have evolved over time and changed due to changes in customs and legislative changes, especially the Militia Act of 1903. See Uviller and Merkel and other reliable sources. Also, that the duty of government of provide regulation in the interests of safely and public protection trumps the absolute right to firearms. This point of view actually has been the operative point of view of the courts and of legislation, with some recent changes, never-the-less presently the rights described in the Second Amendment is subject to widespread legislation at present. (And the article neglects to mention this reality.)

7) The "common sense gun law" point of view about the 2A is a major view in reliable sourcing, but it is entirely missing from the article. See for instance the point of view expressed recently by the Brady Campaign[4], this significant viewpoint is entirely missing from the article and should be given equal weight.

8) Another problem is that the modern political history of the Second Amendment during especially the later half of the Twentieth Century has been scrubbed from the article. Also, mention of the the modern militia movement has been scrubbed. Sourcing: Spitzer, Bodenhamer, Uviller/Merkel, David C. Williams, D.J. Mulloy and other. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Restoring the POV tag to alert readers that this issue is being discussed here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. When asked for specifics, all that gets mentioned in return are claims of systemic "pro-gun" bias, with repeated claims of "pro-gun" this and "pro-gun" that, again and again and again and again and again. This after the earlier identified "problems" with "ablative absolute" and prefatory clause discussions were all fixed. I find it hard to believe that the section of the article in the intro and in the next section regarding the statement of the two versions of the Amendment are together somehow permeated with "systemic pro-gun bias". Yet, as long as the article remains with a claim of systemic bias by just one editor, with no indications of specifics to fix, and with the one dissenting editor claiming every edit made other than by him is somehow "pro-gun", it is impossible to fix the non-existent "problems". Hoplophobia is what is apparently preventing the improvement of this article. I think the earlier comment that this article can never achieve NPOV, without a POV tagline, due to one editor, only, is likely accurately "on-the-mark". Attempts at 3rd Opinion have failed. Informal and formal mediation have failed. All because of one editor. Perhaps it is time to go back to ArbCom, what with the ArbCom members having changed. (The mediator of the formal mediation, who previously recommended the old ArbCom members take this case to resolve the problem with the one editor, is now himself on the ArbCom. Likewise for another mediator, who herself is now on the ArbCom.) Perhaps it is now time for seeing if the newly elected ArbCom will grant "cert" and take this case. Yaf (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on SB's comments above, have tagged individual paragraphs. Lets focus on identifying specific problems, not claiming "systemic pro-gun bias" for everything. Yaf (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Have self reverted, now that SB has tagged the whole article again. Guess we are not to try to fix specific problems, then, but just claim the article has systemic bias and leaved it tagged POV forever? Yaf (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You misinterpreted my comments. You also have not responded to my comments and questions. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And just what was your question, SB? I didn't see a question. (in diatribes #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and the other number 6.7.) Yaf (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Read the talk page above, and the talk page archives. The way to bring this dispute to an end is to discuss our disagreement and come to agreement. Instead I am repeatedly stonewalled. Asking again one of these questions: Yaf, could you please point to an example of a reliable source which you view as being written with a neutral point of view? I would like to know your thoughts on this so I (we) may better understand your position. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous such sources (Halbrook, Cramer, Suprynowicz, the SCOTUS, Kopel, et al.) But, the relevance to writing Wikipedia articles implicit with your question is non-existent. The goal of Wikipedia is to include multiple cited sources, not a single source, for writing articles, such that all major points of view are included. Your proposal is therefore a red herring, that will accomplish nothing, as you consider all edits other than those reflecting your own POV as "pro-gun", and bitterly disagree with all edits other than your own edits (which are relatively few, I might add). Such editor behavior is borderline disruptive, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. (WP:DFTT?) Yet, the historical record is clear; the individual right interpretations of the Second Amendment came before the collective right interpretations, which both came before the civic duty interpretations. And, the first interpretations of the Second Amendment occurred in state jurisprudence, for both the individual and collective right interpretations. Yet, you insist on censorship of all such cited historical facts, cited with reliable and verifiable sources, that present other than the modified collective right interpretations consistent with service in a select militia, that didn't become formalized until the early 20th Century. This approach ignores nearly 150 years of the earlier history of the Second Amendment, or perhaps 175 years of the history, if one considers the history for the first 150 years coupled with the recent history for the last 25 years. And, you continually conflate the history of militia and militia laws with the Second Amendment, despite being that such topics are about entirely different subjects than the Second Amendment. It would be much the same if I insisted that all your edits to the article were "anti-rights", and claimed that the article was full of systemic bias that is "anti-rights", and if I also tried to conflate the First through the Tenth Amendments to being equivalent with the Second Amendment. This would be no different than what you have done over the last 3.5 years, under all your "handles" on Wikipedia. You have also committed a POV fork with the creation of the Right to keep and bear arms article, which you began as a POV fork of this very article, while trying to scrub individual right content and state jurisprudence content regarding interpretations of the Second Amendment out of the Second Amendment article. Meanwhile, we have gone through Third Opinion. (Unsuccessful.) We have gone through informal mediation. (Unsuccessful.) We have gone through formal mediation twice. (Both unsuccessful.) We have gone before ArbCom once. (They ducked the issue.) And we have expended megabytes of discussion on the talk pages, all to no avail. The dispute could end today, if you would but accept article content based on cited, reliable, and verifiable sources presenting other than a collective right interpretation for a select militia. (By the way, who is the "I (we)" to which you refer?) Yaf (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. (I am ignoring the portions of your reply which are a personal attack.) You see as neutral the writings of Vin Suprynowicz, a libertarian opinion columnist and author of the book _Send in the Waco Killers_ [5], a book with an illustration of the Statue of Liberty holding an assault rifle on the cover. I respect that point of view, but please explain how that is a neutral point of view. Neutral point of view must fairly understand and describe the point of view of the opposition. For instance, can you give an example of the Suprynowicz style of wording which is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. For instance, the subject of common sense gun law in relation to the Second Amendment. Give an example of neutral wording, please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the topic. Suprynowicz is useful primarily for documenting popular opinions that currently exist regarding the Second Amendment, for ob-relevance to the current discussion. I fail to see where his collection of old essays on the Waco siege are relevant to writing this article on the Second Amendment. Suprynowicz was also a Vice Presidential candidate of the Libertarian party. Should any politician or author, regardless of political party, be used as the sole source for writing an article on Wikipedia? Of course not. But, the opinions of such folk are certainly useful for documenting opinions that exist, which are often entirely appropriate for inclusion in an article for arriving at a balanced treatment of an article topic. (Incidentally, Suprynowicz's use of irony, ridicule, and satire are not new concepts; they have been used for millennia, see, for example ancient Greek playwright Aristophanes). As stated previously, no single source is appropriate for writing an article on Wikipedia, contrary to what you propose. Your proposed use of a "sole source" for citation in writing this article remains a red herring, intended for drawing the dogs of opinion off into irrelevant byways. Lets focus on the topic at hand. Namely, using a wide range of citations, from reliable and verifiable sources for writing this article. This approach would produce the best article on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Yaf (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You miss my point. The issue is the neutrality balance point. Your excess focus on WP:RS is selective and evades the POV problem. Neutrality and verifiability: it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias. Verifiability is only one content criterion. . See the 8 items I listed above, there remains an unaddressed neutrality problem with this article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And so we return once again to the same old complaint, namely, all edits must pass your sole approval, else they reflect "systemic pro-gun bias", because this article attracts editors other than yourself who do not have your keen sense of the proper balance point for the article, especially made difficult since your viewpoint is removed from the actual balance point of the sum total of all neutral, reliable, and verifiable sources. This article shouldn't read like a Brady Campaign poster, with Paul Helmke talking points or Saul Cornell comments, exclusively. (They represent only 2 of the 3 major viewpoints regarding interpretations of the Second Amendment.) The Supreme Court view of the Second Amendment, too, is considered by you to be an extreme POV, which should be excised from the article, except for the minority opinion in the Heller decision, because they just got it wrong according to SaltyBoatr. All major viewpoints should be contained in the article. But, I along with other editors have stated this over and over, including through formal MedCom arbitration, and you have always refused to compromise. This is a clear violation of WP:OWN. I see no path to resolving this non-existant "POV issue" between one editor versus a large number of editors, who see no POV problems, and that you therefore insist on calling names (namely, "pro-gun"), for their clear lack of sensitivity that you, solely, possess. This is not The SaltyBoatr's Encyclopedia. This is Wikipedia. But, of course, you don't believe this. Too bad. Yaf (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop the character attacks please. I asked you for an example of neutral wording found in reliable sourcing and you pointed to well known advocacy authors David Kopel, Stephen P. Halbrook, Clayton Cramer, Vin Suprynowicz. Can we agree that neutrality is not advocacy? That seems to be the root of our disagreement. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You asked for an example of a reliable source who writes with a neutral point of view. In return, I mentioned several: Halbrook, Cramer, Suprynowicz, the SCOTUS, Kopel, et al.. All of these are neutral sources. Yes, I know you disagree with the SCOTUS, but it is a neutral source, nonetheless. Likewise, Halbrook, Cramer, and Kopel are well-respected historians, who have no clouds of academic malfeasance or misconduct hanging over them like Michael A. Bellesiles. Bellisiles is not an appropriate source, having been forced out of Emory University over academic malfeasance regarding his book and published papers, having made up results from records that were destroyed in the Great San Francisco Earthquake. Bellesiles' Bancroft Prize award from Columbia University was rescinded, too, for his book. Yet, if I recall correctly, you used quotes from his book under your other Wikipedia handle to slant this article based upon his now discredited and retracted formerly prize winning book, only backing down when held to task for pushing a proven discredited and non-reliable source. Suprynowicz is a well-respected syndicated columnist and sometimes politician, who again has no malfeasance hanging over him. All of these sources I mentioned are suitable as neutral, reliable, and verifiable sources. If you would prefer Wayne LaPierre, Chris Cox, and Paul Helmke, who are generally associated with being strong advocates of the NRA and the Brady Campaign, respectively, that is fine, too, provided we include a balance of sources to represent all major points of view and don't list just, say, Paul Helmke's talking points, to which you continually point to with the Brady Campaign quotes and cites. But calling the Supreme Court of the United States, and well-respected historians, writers, and politicians "well known advocacy authors" is entirely inappropriate just because they don't agree with "The SaltyBoatr's View of the World". Yaf (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice that I raised eight specific POV issues[6][7], and Yaf since has written several thousand words, none addressing my eight specific concerns. Mostly Yaf is attacking my personal character and straw men. Instead of addressing my eight specific issues, Yaf responds with delay tactics and diversion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No delays, no diversions. The 8 "points" are totally without merit, reducing instead to the single issue of non-conformance with The SaltyBoatr View of the World, which has been discussed at length. It is senseless to play the same old SB game played previously in Formal Mediation, in which the goal posts were moved each and every time in response to attempts to address SB's lengthy lists of points/"questions". Each attempt at answering a point/"question" only leads to additional lists of points/"questions". They multiply geometrically. Ad nauseum. I refuse to play, but choose instead to address the real issues. Yaf (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yaf, you referred to SaltyBoatr's "other Wikipedia handle". Does he still use that "handle"? What's the history regarding that "handle"? SMP0328. (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed my username a long time ago. Can we please discuss the article instead of me? I was asked to explain the POV tag. I explained myself by itemizing eight specific concerns. Since, all I see are several thousand words questioning my personal character and attacking straw men. Zero words written about the eight specific issues. Can we get to work here? Focus on the article, thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Although SaltyBoatr added the SaltyBoatr name "a long time ago" (March 2007), checking logs shows SaltyBoatr does still use the other handle. In all fairness, he has not violated any 3RR edit warring sanctions using his old name simultaneous to the new name. It is a non-issue, and I respect SaltyBoatr's right to privacy. What is important about this is that the current POV dispute dates to several years earlier than the "SaltyBoatr" name, and nothing has changed regarding his claims of "systemic pro-gun bias" in this and other articles. Relative to the 8 current points:

1) Excessive reliance of the theory of originalism and textualism. This is throughout the article and especially true for the introduction and the top part of the article. The repetition of the quote of the text echos the pro-gun belief that gun rights are not to be infringed. Yet, a neutral reality is that courts have allowed widespread regulation of firearms, federally with a few limits, and that the 2A imparts no limit what-so-ever on state law. This is the mainstream point of view, yet is it suppressed in favor of the gun-right advocacy.

The claim that the wording of the 2A is itself proof of "originalism and textualism" is bogus. It is simply statement of historical fact. Quoting the 2A is not excessive reliance of a "theory of originalism and textualism", but simply quotes the Amendment's wording, much like every other article on US Constitution amendments. The article clearly states that regulation of concealed firearms is not a violation of the the 2A. The text of the 2A is, itself, not "pro-gun". This point is a non-issue.

2) Excessive original research concerning "concealed carry" theory. The "early commentary in state courts" section is a non-relevant section, that echos the advocacy for concealed carry rights. This concealed carry issue is entirely a state court matter, and is 99.9% irrelevant to the topic of the article.

There is no original research concerning "concealed carry" theory in the article. Rather, the meaning of the Second Amendment that occurred in state jurisprudence evolved over time, and this history is important for understanding the history of the interpretation of the 2A. Yes, in Bliss, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and even the former Attorney General of the United States did both arrive at the conclusion that the 2A protected the right of the people to keep and bear arms even if the arms were kept and borne as concealed carry arms. However, as the article also points out, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in 1897 to clear up this misconception that regulating concealed carry did not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Again, the article echos no advocacy for concealed carry rights; it only discusses the change of interpretation that evolved over time. This second point is a non-issue.

3) The neutrality tone is in violation of WP:NPOV policy. In simple terms, it seeks to achieve balance by including both advocacy positions, rather than by using neutral tone and allowing the reader to make up their own mind.

For such a contentious topic, it is impossible to pick, say, talking points from the Brady Campaign or likewise from the NRA as a single cited source for defining a neutral tone and quoting such talking points solely. There are no neutral tone sources available for such a contentious topic. Instead, the article seeks to achieve balance by including cited statements from all sides of the debate (individual right, collective right, and civic duty) and allowing the reader to make up their own mind. Pushing a Brady Campaign agenda is not setting a neutral tone.

4) Deletion of the militia history. A clear POV of the Second Amendment history is that it serves to provide for a militia, but repeatedly the congressional legislation pursuant to the Second Amendment has been deleted from the article. (See books by Joyce Lee Malcom and and Uviller and Merkel for reliable sourcing. This deletion of the militia viewpoint is consistent with POV that 2A is relevant to firearms.

Inclusion of the Militia Act of 1903, and similar lengthy definitions and history of the National Guard, have little to no bearing on the history of the Second Amendment. On the other hand, if credible sources are found claiming otherwise, then such content would be suitable. But, the inclusion of such musings without any cites claiming relevance to the Second Amendment are just Original Research, and must be struck from the article.

5) The handling of Cruikshank, Miller and Heller all are written with a pro-gun bias.

The short statements excerpted from these court cases are stated neutrally and are properly cited, with no judgmental tone. Just because the results of these court cases doesn't agree with The SaltyBoatr View of the World is no reason for claiming "pro-gun bias". (I fail to see how the US Supreme Court can be considered to have "pro-gun bias".)

6) Intent of the Founders given excess emphasis. The thrust of a pro-gun theory about the Second Amendment involves the heritage of the "founders" including a right of personal firearms for "self defense" and implicitly resistance to tyranny. This is a valid point of view given undue weight. Another significant point of view is that the rights protected by the Second Amendment have evolved over time and changed due to changes in customs and legislative changes, especially the Militia Act of 1903. See Uviller and Merkel and other reliable sources. Also, that the duty of government of provide regulation in the interests of safely and public protection trumps the absolute right to firearms. This point of view actually has been the operative point of view of the courts and of legislation, with some recent changes, never-the-less presently the rights described in the Second Amendment is subject to widespread legislation at present. (And the article neglects to mention this reality.)

If properly cited content is added, there is no problem. The lack of sources making such claims, however, is a problem when content conflating the Militia Act of 1903 with the Second Amendment is made without any sourcing. It is simply Original Research that must be kept out of the article. However, as noted in the article the vast majority of 40 papers and even the Supreme Court in Heller has found that a right of personal firearms for self defense and a collective use of personal firearms in a militia and a guarantee of the people to have the ability for establishing a resistance against Government tyrrany are precisely what the Second Amendment is all about. These points have all been written and cited with numerous sources. If there is a lack of sources claiming otherwise, it is not an indication of "systemic pro-gun theory about the Second Amendment" in this article.

7) The "common sense gun law" point of view about the 2A is a major view in reliable sourcing, but it is entirely missing from the article. See for instance the point of view expressed recently by the Brady Campaign[8], this significant viewpoint is entirely missing from the article and should be given equal weight.

Pushing the points of views of agendas of the Brady Campaign, or of the Gun Owners of America, that come from either end of the political spectrum, represents the pushing of agendas far removed from the mainstream. Neither of these points are present to any great extent in the article at present. Instead, the article uses sourcing representing the bulk of the reliable sources from the mainstream. That said, there is no problem with adding small amounts of even fringe beliefs from organizations such as these, provided such content is not expanded to the point of deletion of content representing the majority of reliable and verifiable sources. But, calling minority views from either the Brady Campaign or the Gun Owners of America worthy of equal weight with majority views from neutral sources such as the Supreme Court of the United States is not according to standard Wikipedia practice.

8) Another problem is that the modern political history of the Second Amendment during especially the later half of the Twentieth Century has been scrubbed from the article. Also, mention of the the modern militia movement has been scrubbed. Sourcing: Spitzer, Bodenhamer, Uviller/Merkel, David C. Williams, D.J. Mulloy and other.

I fail to understand how the modern militia movement has any great bearing on an article on the Second Amendment. Should content representing neo-Nazis, skinheads, and such be added to this article, expressing their beliefs in the Second Amendment and their rights to keep and bear arms? This hardly seems reasonable. A statement or two at most is probably all that should even be considered here. Again, there needs to be reliable and verifiable sources for making any such claims, rather than just adding Original Research. Yaf (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not being an expert in the second amendment, I have kept quiet around many of the issues around this discussion page. One of the points made in the ongoing discussion, however, seems biased enough to warrant comment: the comparison of the Brady Campaign to the Gun Owners of America. To compare an extreme gun rights organization with a mainstream gun control organization is clearly biased - The Brady campaign is clearly not a "fringe" group in the same way the GOA is. A more valid comparison would be the Brady Campaign with the NRA - These two organizations both have clearly shown more willingness to compromise on gun control issues than the GOA (The GOA's F rating of John McCain should be clear evidence of this). The implications here for sourcing should be obvious. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

To call a gun control organization such as the Brady Campaign as "mainstream" is also a form of bias. And, the NRA is itself considered an extreme organization by members of JPFO and GOA, for example. And, many NRA members consider the GOA to be an extreme organization, formed from the more radical former members of the NRA, who left the NRA over a dispute. Even the League of Women Voters, and several churches, for example, are likewise advocacy groups on this topic. "Mainstream", like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Use of such wording should be avoided in writing articles. Similarly, use of talking points from any of these such advocacy groups should likewise be largely deprecated. For this reason, I have proposed we stay away from talking points of the Brady Campaign, the NRA, the JPFO, and the GOA alike, along with other advocacy organizations, to achieve the best balance. (If you note, I also do compare the NRA to the Brady Campaign above; the comparisons chosen depend on the context of the comparison.) Yes, both the Brady Campaign and the NRA have been more prone to compromise, but this also makes them more suspect in the eyes of many, who do not see any advantage to surrendering any inalienable rights.) Sources should be mostly selected from peer reviewed works of non-tainted academics, respected books such as chosen by the courts in documenting court cases, and from court case transcripts themselves, along with other neutral, reliable, and verifiable sources, in citing this article. To do otherwise is to fall into the pit of opinion and advocacy arguments, ad infinitum, which only throws "more petrol onto the fyre." Yaf (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That is why I favor sticking to middle ground book sources, published and fact checked by well respected publishing houses. I do not advocate for extremist advocacy from either side of the debate. There is plenty of objective published neutral scholarship. I favor Macmillan/McGraw-Hill over Shotgun News. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly agree with both Yaf and SaltyBoatr that all advocacy organizations should be avoided as sources except to demonstrate minority POVs. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Point 7 Neutrality Tone balance

then why did you reference an advocacy group in point seven, rather than a reliable source? Anastrophe (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I will assume your question is asked in good faith. The point I was trying to make is that the neutrality balance of the article should fall at a neutral balance point located in the middle, between the various credible points of views. On one side is the point of view of Paul Helmke as seen on HuffingtonPost.com in the link I provided and on the other side are the points of views of Vin Suprynowicz and Clayton Cramer editorial columnists for ShotgunNews.com. Yaf has said that he views Suprynowicz and Cramer as good examples of "neutral wording". This article skews unduly towards being sympathetic of the views of Suprynowicz and Cramer. This article skews away from the point of view of Helmke. This indicates a POV WP:UNDUE balance problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is precisely one cite to Cramer, footnote no. 84. There is precisely one lengthy quote and a cite to Helmke, footnote no. 40. By your reasoning, we should expand Cramer's content to include a quote, too, to achieve balance. There are no cites to Suprynowicz. Collectively, this indicates no POV WP:UNDUE balance problem, statistically speaking. Cramer and Suprynowicz have also written for the Wall Street Journal. But, you chose a weekly trade newspaper to attach their syndicated work to. OK. That is just an example of POV pushing. I get it. Meanwhile, Helmke has also written for the Huffington Post, and for the Wall Street Journal. I don't see a significant difference here, among the publishing outlets for any of these authors. The ad hominem attacks on Cramer and Suprynowicz, meanwhile, are not conducive to judging the appropriateness of their work for use in citing information in this article. The more serious allegation of "POV WP:UNDUE balance problem" seems unfounded, statistically speaking. Rather, it seems to be just a case of more POV pushing. This is not appropriate. Yaf (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You twist my words. I was talking of neutrality balance point and tone[9]. The point of view of Paul Helmke about Heller and the 2A being consistent with "common sense gun laws", as he expressed in the editorial in the link I provided, is an example of the point of view missing in the article. That point of view is entirely missing. And, the overall tone of the article skews sympathetic to Cramer and Suprynowicz. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the Second Amendment, not about Heller. For commentary on Heller, see the Heller article content (in District of Columbia v. Heller) cited by footnote 50 in the Heller article. Such detailed discussion of the meaning of Heller from advocacy groups belongs there, not here. There is also no information from the NRA regarding the meaning of Heller here. There is content in the Heller article, however, from the NRA, commenting on Heller. The only thing that is twisted here is your sense of POV balance, wanting to always insert one-sided rhetoric pushing the Brady Campaign talking points into this article to the exclusion of presenting neutral content. Extremist positions from both sides of the debate (Brady Campaign or the opposite) related to other topics than the Second Amendment do not deserve any great prominence in this article, being fringe points of view, and certainly do not warrant presentation in a one-sided POV commentary as you propose. As for claims that the views of the article are skewed sympathetic to the views of Cramer and Suprynowicz, this is just Original Research on your part. The article content is certainly not cited to them, save for one footnote attributed to Cramer, i.e., footnote 84. The view that this whole article is somehow biased "systemically pro-gun" simply because it doesn't reflect the sole point of view of the Brady Campaign is without merit. Yaf (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The Heller decision didn't advocate gun possession it simply upheld the original intent of the 2A. Supreme Court decisions on the meaning of the 2A aren't based upon a neutral point of view. They're based upon what the Founding Fathers intended by adding the Bill of Rights. The Heller decision wasn't pro-gun or anti-gun. It simply recognized that the 2A's "shall not be infringed" applies exclusively to the federal government and thus also to citizens of the US who are under federal jurisdiction such as the District of Columbia. The confusion arises from pro-gun groups like the NRA, SAF, etc. who habitually add 'right' to 2A (Second Amendment right) and commensurately ignore all state constitutions. The 2A does not secure, grant or guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, it simply prohibits the federal government from infringing on it. All High Court decisions that have considered the meaning of the 2A have unequivocally stated that. The 2A article should inform readers of the 2A's lawful purpose, not what some people say about it. An article on constitutional law should not be neutral it should be truthful. (Truwik (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

I feel that the Second Amendment means what the Supreme Court says it means. Here is what the Justices concurring and dissenting concluded:

[June 26, 2008] JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER, JUSTICE GINSBURG, and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting. “The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.”

[June 26, 2008] JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS, JUSTICE SOUTER, and JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting. “... I take as a starting point the following ... to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting).”

[June 26, 2008] JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. The two sides in this case have set out very different interpretations of the Amendment. Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it 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. See Brief for Respondent 2–4.

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Had the [Miller] Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen.

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.

I believe there is no neutral scholar on this subject. You can personally disagree with the judges but their decision is final. The "common sense" view is not what the Court determined is the law. Dissenting opinions are only that. The individual right position is no longer a point of view. It's binding law. There are topics that remain to be decided but balancing successful and unsuccessful arguments on settled matters is a useless point of view. 69.36.252.34 (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but the supposition "that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms" is incorrect. The "collective right" vs. "Individual right" controversy was not over which group possessed the right, it was over which group's right could be constitutionally infringed upon. Prior to Heller, the understanding of Congress was that the 2A's prefatory militia clause, limited the 'shall not be infringed' restriction clause to militia-type weapons. This was later dubbed the 'collective right' concept, and in subsequent legislation (e.g.,National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968) Congress limited their infringing to weapons that they deemed were not suitable for militia or army use. Heller then decided that the 2A's restriction clause applied to non-militia type weapons as well (the 'individual right') and held the D.C. handgun ban ordinance as violative of the 2A, and thus unconstitutional. In Justice Stevens' dissent, he first stated: "The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a 'collective right' or an 'individual right.' Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of the right." Stevens then went far afield with "The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank." Justice Stevens' conjecture: "'Surely it [the 2A] protects a right that can be enforced by individuals" is both incomplete and incorrect. It 'protects' the right only from federal infringement; and nowhere did Heller, or any other High Court decision, hold that individuals can 'enforce' their own right. His concern about the 'scope of the right' not being addressed, demonstrates his 'collective right' activist nature. For example, the Heller majority said: "The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government - even the Third Branch of Government - the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon" (pp. 62-3, opinion, court's italics). Mr. Justice Stevens' dissenting response to this: "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian use of weapons..." (p. 46, dissent). Which is precisely what the Framers did, however, Justice Stevens' "elected officials" should have read "Congress." The 2A's restriction applies only to the federal government. (Truwik (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

I see several problems here. WP:NPOV policy doesn't require finding a neutral scholar, it requires that representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Since when are judges decisions final? Rather, the current holding, in principle, is respected as the current precedence. Anon above mentions "individual rights position is no longer a point of view", which grants that prior to the present time is was a point of view. In other words things change over time, and this article should describe not just the present condition, but also historical conditions as they change over time, agreed?

And, perhaps most important, the meaning of "Individual Rights Position" hasn't been agreed. Different people and advocacy groups hold wildly different beliefs as to the meaning of the concept. Looking around I see so many credible points of view, the "I'll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands!" understandings and the "After Heller, The Gun Lobby's Slippery Slope Is Gone; Reasonable Regulations Ahead" understandings and the icing on the cake, penned by Justice Scalia: "Nothing in our opinion, should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Exactly how can something so fuzzy be effective "binding law"? It is precedent, and we will see many court cases sorting out what that precedent means. Time will tell. This topic is in flux[10]. In the mean time, this article needs to fairly, without bias, represent all significant viewpoints. Presently it does not. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Supreme Court decisions are binding on all courts in the United States, even if the decision is "fuzzy," unless overruled by the Court (e.g., Agostini v. Felton) or by amending the law interpreted in that case (e.g., Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act). As for Wikipedia, Supreme Court decisions are a powerful source for what a Constitutional provision mean, but aren't to be considered definitive. SMP0328. (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

How so? Without incorporation Heller has limited effect on state laws in the courts of the 50 states. Also, nowhere is there a handgun licensing and lock ordinance identical to what DC had, so "binding" has what specific meaning? The reality is that Heller provides a new precedence, yet to be interpreted in forthcoming court cases which will reveal more. Further, it has zero effect on Wikipedia policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So you think Heller only applies if the challenged law is "identical" to the DC law struck down in that case? Court decisions are not read so narrowly. When Brown v. Board of Education was decided, nobody thought it only applied to Topeka, Kansas or the law at issue in that case; it was the end of "separate but equal." SMP0328. (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No, of course not. Yet, if the law is not identical to the DC law, the court must interpret. That process of interpretation sometimes takes a very long time, and a very many court cases. Have you read the criticism?[11][12][13][14]. Therefore, the article must be very careful using the term "individual rights" when that term, a political slogan, is so ill defined and ambiguous. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Per Adam Winkler, Professor at UCLA School of Law, Since Heller, its Gun Control: 60, Individual Right: 0.. We should be very careful writing in the article that Heller means that individual gun rights are the law of the land, when in fact this is a very fuzzy concept. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The 'individual' vs. 'collective' right debate is offpoint. The Heller Court decided that the 2A's 'right of the people' meant individual as well as collective. Thus 'individual' would include all people whether or not associated with militias. What has been missed here is that Heller then applied that holding to people who were not in militias, and in the federal District of Columbia. Congress followed up with a law which voided the D.C. ordinance that had outlawed possession of handguns in the District. The Heller decision has no other effect than that. When the Court stated the 2A protected individuals, it meant it only protected them from federal infringement. Prior to that, Congress had held that only weapons suitable for militias were exempt from their infringement. Now, after Heller, any federal legislation that infringes on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms, would be unconstitutional. The point to remember here is that the 2A does not grant or guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. It only protects the right from federal infringement. (Truwik (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

One correction to the above comment: the Council of the District of Columbia, not the Congress, amended DC law post-Heller. Also, to clarify, Heller ruled that an individual had a right to keep and bear arms without having to be a member of any State's militia. It did not speak to any right of any State regarding its militia (i.e., the "collective right"). SMP0328. (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Point of law: The 2A does not say 'people have a right to keep and bear arms', it says: 'the right...shall not be infringed.' Heller held that the 2A's restriction applied to federal laws that infringed on individual arms as well as collective militia-type weapons. That ruling applied the 2A's restriction to the District of Columbia ordinance, it has no effect within the states. Again, the 2A does not guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, it only restricts the federal government from infringing on it, and now after Heller, it restricts citizens in D.C. and other federal territories from infringing on each other's right. (Truwik (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

The operative clause of the Second Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Where in the Heller decision did a majority of the Supreme Court say the Second Amendment protected State militias? I believe it only referenced militias in its discussion of individual right the Court said the Second Amendment protects. SMP0328. (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Prohibiting infringement of the right to keep and bear arms does not confer it. In U.S. v. Cruikshank, at p. 553, the Court said: "the right is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment...means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." Art. I, Sec. 15 of the Connecticut Constitution reads:"Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." (Truwik (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Composite response: SaltyBoatR quoted the Court: "Nothing in our opinion, should be taken to cast doubt on long standing prohibition on the possession of firearms by the mentally ill...etc." then asked: "Exactly how can something so fuzzy be effective 'binding law'"? It isn't, nor was it intended to be. The Court just made a general comment, that the right was not absolute and that reasonable exceptions to it have been longstanding - such as denying the right to the mentally ill, convicted felons, etc., which all states have done, and denying carrying firearms in government buildings, which both state and federal laws have banned. This was not a definition of the right, nor is it precedent. The Court was justifying such state and federal laws that exist.

SMP0328's "U.S. Supreme Court decisions are binding on all courts in the United States..." is not true. Its decisions on the 2A are binding only on the federal government. The 2A is a restriction the states placed upon congress, not on themselves. In Cruikshank, at 553, the Court held: "The second amendment...means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress." The Presser Court affirmed that, at 265, with: "the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state." As for the statement "Supreme Court decisions are...but aren't to be considered definitive", that's nonsense. The Court, here, was not defining the right it was defining the extent of the amendment's restriction. When the Heller Court used 'protects with the Bill of Rights amendments, it meant protects the right from federal infringement. (See Justice Stevens' dissent, p. 2: "The view of the Amendment we took...history of its adoption." He said the amendment "does not curtail the Legislative power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons..." which was the Court's, and Congress' position prior to Heller. Now, it does curtail "the Legislative power to regulate" such weapons, the Court was very definitive.

SaltyBoatR's "Heller has limited effect on state law" is not true, it has no effect on state law. The 2A can only be violated by Congress.

SMP0328's comparing Heller with Brown v. Board is incongruous. Brown held Kansas' separate but equal school practice was unacceptable - with no constitutional authority to even hear the case - but Kansas obeyed and all states followed suit. Heller was based on a constitutional restriction placed upon Congress, by the states. Heller held that restriction applied to all weapons, not just militia-type, and re-affirmed that the 2A applies only to the federal government.

SaltyBoatR's "if the [state] law is not identical to the DC law, Bill the court must interpret, is likewise not true. From the Bill of Rights' inception to Heller, the 2A's "shall not be infringed" has always been held to apply exclusively to Congress. Applying that to the D.C. law - a territory under federal jurisdiction - did not affect state law. And his "Heller means that individual gun rights are the law of the land" possibility is also without merit. The case was about the extent of federal infringement, not the right. The 2A does not say "the people have the right...", it says " the right of the people [which existed before the federal government was created by the states] shall not be infringed", and that means "it shall not be infringed by Congress"(Cruikshank,Presser, etc.)

SMP0328's "Heller ruled that an individual had a right...without having to be a member of any State's militia." Heller held that the 2A's restriction "shall not be infringed" applies also to individual type weapons as well as militia type. That is, the 2A's restriction on the federal government now applies to all types of weapons. The Court didn't discover a new right - the right pre-existed - they expanded the restriction to include all weapons. SMP0328 then asked: "Where in the Heller decision did...the...Court say the 2A protected State militias?" It didn't. The Court and Congress have always agreed that the 2A forbids infringement on militia-type weapons. Nothing in the decision changed that. All these what-ifs and conjectures have no place in the Second Amendment Article. The proper forum for such would be in Wikipedia Article: Right to keep and bear arms. (Truwik (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC))

I described 7 points of POV problems at the top of this section, and those problems all remain. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

To me, Truwik appears to disagree with SaltyBoatr and me. SMP0328. (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with truwik. The right to keep and bear arms was a pre-existing right prior to the Constitution and Second Amendment. The Second Amendment protects the right and does not create it. In fact the militiamen at Concord and Lexington elected their own leaders, and Washington first job when getting new militia units, was to try to get the elected officers of those units to behave more like officers. So prior to the Constitution not only did the right to keep and bear arms exist, but also the right to forms companies of armed men under the elected leaders of the men in those companies. This companies not only bore personal arms but also kept artillery. The British went after Concord and Lexington in order to get the artillery and other equipment of the militia companies of those towns.

http://www.geocities.com/mwinthrop/majpit5.html

You will seize and destroy all the artillery, ammunition, provisions, tents, small arms, and all military stores whatever.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Minutemen-(militia)

The Minutemen were usually 25 years of age or younger, and they were chosen for their enthusiasm, reliability, and strength. They were the first armed militia to arrive or await a battle. Officers were elected by popular vote, and each unit drafted a formal written covenant to be signed upon enlistment.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=50913

Just as the British had, he saw "stupidity" among the enlisted men, who were used to the easy familiarity of being commanded by neighbors in local militias with elected officers. Washington promptly insisted that the officers behave with decorum and the enlisted men with deference. Although he enjoyed some success with this original army, the New Englanders went home to their farms at the end of 1775, and Washington had to start fresh with new recruits in 1776.

and what the second amendment is REALLY about - at end of clip. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675

If I knew where she lived I'd propose! Assuming some lucky guy hasn't already snagged her.4.154.252.183 (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This addresses SaltyBoatR's eight POV problems from the law POV.

1) Not sure what is meant by 'theory of originalism' but the 'gun rights are not to be infringed' is the essence of the 2A article. And, yes state laws have infringed, but as pointed out, that has nothing to do with the 2A. This POV doesn't favor gun-rights, it reflects the purpose of the amendment.

2) Agreed. No state-court case-law has any relevance to the 2A article - UNLESS it makes a definitive statement about the 2A's purpose (e.g. Nunn v. Georgia).

3) There is no neutral tone concerning the 2A. It is fixed binding law. 'Positions' on gun advocacy are not relevant, the 2A's purpose is not determined by a public survey.

4) The 2A does not provide for a militia. It merely prohibits federal infringement on their weapons. Federal legislation which affects the 'right' must be included here because it bears on the 2A's subject matter.

5) Federal case-law that defines the purpose of the 2A is certainly appropriate - it is not 'pro-gun' - it is anti-infringement. (They are not the same thing, the right existed before the amendment.)

6) The Founders' intent is crucial to the meaning of the Bill of Rights. The right to bear arms is inalienable. Whether it should be or not, is not the subject of this article.

7) 'Common sense gun law' is not law. The 2A article is about a constitutional law which has a precise purpose. Viewpoints concerning the 'right' have no affect on the 2A's purpose, and thus should be removed from this article. Advocating federal infringement is asking Congress to violate their oath of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. (The proper forum for that would be within one's own state.)

8) The 20th Century political history should be a part of this article - but only 'federal' history which pertains to the 2A. The 'modern militia movement' is irrelevant, unless a spokesman has stated something publicly concerning the 2A. (The 2A is not about the 'right' or 'militias', it's about infringement.)

The U.S. Supreme Court has the duty and sole power to declare what the U.S. Constitution means. The High Court stated that the right to bear arms was not granted by the U.S. Constitution; nor is the right dependent on that instrument for its existence; that the Second Amendment means no more than that the right shall not be infringed by Congress; and that the amendment is a limitation only upon the national government, and not upon that of the state. Therefore, the Second Amendment Article must be about to whom 'shall not be infringed' applies, and thus whether federal legislation has protected or infringed on the right - all else is irrelevant. (Truwik (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC))

I agree with just about everything above. I would however allow "collective" arguments to be included and if those points of view were examined in Heller, to include within the article what the Supreme Court has to say on those points of view.68.160.176.7 (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Justice Stevens, in his dissent, had argued that the right to keep and bear arms was a collective right, only exercisable by people who were in militia groups. The Heller majority refuted that (at p. 5 & p. 6 footnote) by noting that the expression "right of the people" occurs in the 1st & 4th Amendments (as well as the 2A) and "by the people" in the 9th Amendment, then stated: "All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not 'collective' rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body." Prior to Heller, and since the NFA of 1934, Congress had regulated weapons which it deemed were not suitable for militias (short-barrelled rifles & shotguns, e.g.). Thus from the NFA of 1934 to Heller, the 'collective right' view held sway. That is, then, the 2A's "shall not be infringed" only applied to militia-type weapons. Now, post Heller, it applies to militia-type and individual-type weapons. (Truwik (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

The courts publish dissentng opinions to show that all arguments had been heard and examined. I am in favor of including the "collective" viewpoint with any Heller commentary on the various arguments of that camp, for the same reason. 68.160.176.7 (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be misunderstanding about the meaning of 'collective' and 'individual.' And this misunderstanding appears to be based on the notion that the right is somehow inextricably bound to the amendment. That is, without the amendment, there would be no right. If that be the case, how do we explain the right's existence before the amendment's? From at least 1776 to 1791, all Americans were exercising the right, whether they were associated with a militia or not. So both the individual right and the collective right existed before the amendment. And both groups continued to exercise the right for the rest of that century, through the 19th Century and into the 20th Century, after the amendment. In historical fact, both groups have had the right (whether they exercised it or not) from our beginnings to the present. Thus the right is not dependent on the amendment for its existence. The right is inalienable, which means "incapable of being alienated, surrendered or transferred." The Second Amendment is not a 'right' it is a 'restriction' on the federal government. Stated otherwise: If the U.S. Constitution were repealed and the federal government disbanded, Americans would still have the right to bear arms. (Truwik (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

Some peple think that collective rights can only be exercised by a group. That is wrong. The collective exercise of a right is just a whole bunch of people exercising their individual rights at the same time. It has for instance been found that the right to "assemble" is an individual right and not a collective right. The whole "collective" right thing is a result of growing governmenal power and those in government finding any excuse that sounds even remotely logical to reduce the common mans resistance to that encroachment. Since people defending their rghts with guns in their hands are more effective at resisting encroachment, those in power attempt to dimish that ability to resist by doing everything they can to reduce gun ownership.

Actually I should take back that part about government power, it is more like a group of people whose aim is to grow their power at everyone elses expnse, and who currently control large parts of the government, including the Justice Department and the Courts, banking, the news indutry, the entertainment industry and quite a few more industries. They control large chunks of the econmy, and they have paid agents everywhere who help push their agenda. Some of those agents are paid and know what they are doing and some are "usefull idiots".

Some quotes from Kissinger

“"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government." - Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberger meeting at Evian, France, May 21, 1992.

"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."

Feel free to call me paranoid.141.154.12.116 (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Footnote 67 request full quote

Bumping this talk page thread which got archived without an answer. I am still requesting a longer quote from this extremely obscure source for confirmation. Who is speaking? What is the question being answered? What is the context of that discussion? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

See this diff[15]. I agree there are unanswered questions about the "violative" snippet quote. Yaf, please answer the open questions. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Giving this a bump. Yaf, please provide the full quote requested. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yaf, could you please give a full quote? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

After waiting for a very long time, with no answer, I removed the 'violative' passage. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Your refusal to look at the reliable and verifiable source, simply to push your POV through deleting content that you don't like, is inexcusable. The material is properly cited and is verifiable. Please stop edit warring with other editors. Have restored content. Yaf (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yaf, this source is very obscure and the closest public library which has it is 500 miles from my house. I am asking for more context than the short quote you have provided. Who is speaking, and what question are they answering. What is the context of the quote? Your deletion[16] of my "quotation question" seems like a hostile act. Please, just respond. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Notice that Yaf uses the word "verifiable". This strongly indicates that the source is not actually yet verified. I seek verification, beyond the truncated quote provided. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Then verify it. The cited information and source has already been verified in a reliable source, and this fact has been appropriately cited in the article. The source is additionally verifiable by SaltyBoatr just by his clicking on the provided courtesy link, or by his review of a copy of the complete original document in any federal library. If SaltyBoatr truly seeks verification, then he has but to verify it. But to claim it is not verified, simply because a Wikipedia editor writing under the "SaltyBoatr" moniker has not verified it, borders on egomania, with definite WP:OWN issues. Yaf (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You say "the cited information has already been verified". By who? If by you, tell us who is speaking, and what question they are answering. In what context does that quote exist? Sorry, I have checked, that obscure paper document is not available in any local library near where I live. I have tried to buy a copy mail order, and the document is so rare it is not even available for sale on the used book market that I could find. Do you know where I can buy a copy? See WP:Burden. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

By anyone that knows how to click on a courtesy link associated with the cite and simply reads the text. This document is neither obscure, nor hard to verify. Just click on the link and read what it says. Yaf (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yaf - Either the link itself has been deleted, or it never existed. Although, it was easy enough to find through Google: http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Pierce1.html. You appear to be quote-mining though. You cited this sentence when referring to Bliss: "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified." But you didn't include the very next sentence, which seems to clarify the statement: "In contrast to this, all states currently regulate the possession and use of firearms to some extent." If you're going to cite something that seems to hold a certain view, you shouldn't post just the information that supports your position but the entire statement (or statements). Of course, I have no idea how reliable Mr. Pierce is either way. Is he known as an expert or a reliable source on the 2nd Amendment?Alexandr332 (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops... just went to the 'base site' www.saf.org, which is the "Second Amendment Foundation". Is this available on any other site than a gun rights site? What do you mean by 'verified'?Alexandr332 (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

two points: 1. due to changes in the article, the footnote under discussion actually changed from being footnote 67 to being footnote 66. so, your investigation of this footnote isn't actually relevant to the footnote that was under discussion. 2. that said, the saf page is little more than a verbatim reproduction from the Kentucky Law Review. the saf link is a courtesy link. absent some reason to believe that the text has been tampered with, i don't see a problem with unadorned textual reproductions from that site. Anastrophe (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article length

At almost 9,000 words, this is one of the longest articles on Wikipedia, almost double the length of the First Amendment article, for instance. Does anyone else see sections to be pruned, or have reasons that I shouldn't prune the article that aren't based in petty name calling? Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

you're mistaken. the readable prose of the article is currently 5384 words. i'd be interested to know where you derived the opinion that it is "one of the longest articles on wikipedia". it is a hotly contested amendment, thus leading to greater material focused on the subject matter. the article for the third amendment is only 558 words. why is that not your benchmark? there is no need to 'prune' the article. i see no objective measure that justifies doing so. Anastrophe (talk) 07:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

and for the record, the readable prose of the first amendment article is 5027 words. your claim is hyperbole. (to easily find page size info, see User_talk:Dr_pda/prosesize.js Anastrophe (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The references section contains large amounts of readable prose, quotes and editorial commentary, and does indeed contribute to the length of the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

that may be. but the prosesize tool displays article size based upon the formal WP guidelines, and on that basis, the article does not even approach being 'one of the longest articles on wikipedia', and no objective basis has been provided to justify shortening it. again, if the articles on other amendments are ostensibly some sort of measure, then why isn't the third amendment the benchmark? the answer should be obvious. Anastrophe (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the guideline then: WP:SIZE. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

correct. and it supports what i just wrote, in all respects. note also that Special:LongPages (linked to in the size guideline), which lists the top 1000 longest articles on wikipedia, does not include the second amendment article. so, at this point, we have a lot of sound and fury claiming that this is one of the largest articles on wikipedia, and the quiet fact that it is not, nor does it even need trimming to meet the guidelines. there is no objective basis for shortening this article. there is reasonable reason to refine the article and make it more readable; that is not license to remove material from the article merely for the sake of shortening it. this matter is effectively closed. Anastrophe (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think it needs to get bigger. Among other things, the current article is missing any mention of the fact that the militia is a legal body defined both by US and state laws, and that the Amendment was in fact designed to forbid "ANY" exercise of federal power designed to disarm the militia or any member thereof. A definition of the word "infringe" and how it is used in patent law would also be nice. BTW: The wiki article on the TV show Heroes is about 20 pages (results may vary due to font and screen size), which is about the same size as this article. Does a TV show deserve more space then a Constitutional Amendment? I'd have to say only a boob tube addict would say so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.72.56 (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether an article about a television program is too long has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. At 97kb, the article is over double the length of any other constitutional amendment article. It's not just that the article is long; it's that it is rambling and unfocused. Adding a long section on patent law would be ridiculously off topic. I will suggest areas to this cut in this section where it can be discussed. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is also about the most disputed Amendment. Including all the various points in dispute takes space. Rambling and unfocused is what you get when a bunch of people with different opinions on what is important keep adding things and disputing items which they disagree with. Add in the occasional drop in that does a major or minor edit and you what do you expect to get?

Perhaps another way to say it is that the article is bloated with editors making the points. The article consists of dueling points of view, with the balance point set by a systemic bias reflecting editors advocacy agendas. I believe that it the article were rewritten in balanced tone it would be much shorter. I doubt there is a good reason that the word "individual" needs to be mentioned forty-seven times. Obviously, there is a political agenda among some editors to make sure that everybody believes that the Second Amendment is synonymous with the gun rights slogan termed "individual rights". SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If the article was rewritten to a much smaller size then a multitude of editors, me included, would descend on it to flesh out points that they considered important and in short order the article would be back to its large messy self. I suggest you learn to live with it.141.154.110.178 (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I am going to make edits where I see appropriate, since I see no one actually making a contrary argument here (suggesting I 'learn to live with it' is not an argument). Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't make drastic changes (including deletions) without there being agreement for such changes. Silence should not be interpreted as agreement. SMP0328. (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of making many editors upset, I have removed the entire argument about 'keep and bear arms' from the article. This section embodies everything in this article that is inappropriate to an encyclopedia article. Different editors essentially writing short term papers on what they think 'keep and bear arms' means to further their own POVs is not what one finds in an encyclopedia.

Something about this disagreement could be in the article if someone briefly and objectively summarized the different schools of thought in this debate without going too far afield (Cicero!)

It might even be worth having a section titled 'Controversies and Interpreting the Amendment' where all the debates about how the Second Amendment should be interpreted can be succinctly summarized without turning the whole article into a giant messy war. I hate to make a huge drastic edit like this without consensus, but something huge and drastic needs to be done. This article isn't getting any better. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your drastic deletion of material goes much too far. Would you try it again, a piece at at time? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the material which was deleted by Nwlaw63. Such a massive deletion of sourced material, whether in one edit or a group of edits, should be done only when a consensus for such a deletion has been achieved. SMP0328. (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

i'm going to repeat comments i made above, since nwlaw63 apparently missed them. "correct (re WP:SIZE). and it supports what i just wrote, in all respects. note also that Special:LongPages (linked to in the size guideline), which lists the top 1000 longest articles on wikipedia, does not include the second amendment article. so, at this point, we have a lot of sound and fury claiming that this is one of the largest articles on wikipedia, and the quiet fact that it is not, nor does it even need trimming to meet the guidelines. there is no objective basis for shortening this article. there is reasonable reason to refine the article and make it more readable; that is not license to remove material from the article merely for the sake of shortening it. this matter is effectively closed." you have no consensual rationale for taking a meat-axe to this article nwlaw63. your edits could be construed as disruptive and sanctionable considering the above. Anastrophe (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I should take the opportunity to make a point about length. Yes, the article is too long. But this is a symptom of the problem - the problem itself is not about word count. The problem is the huge abundance of irrelevant, confusing material that uses extensive inappropriate historical quotation, veers wildly into original research and exists only to support the various POVs of this article's editors. I understand that there are editors on this page who passionately believe in the individual rights version of to keep and bear arms. There are then people who believe in the military, militia-based view of the right. Let's summarize these views succinctly, the way an encyclopedia is meant to do. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Responding with threats rather than reasoned argument seems to be sadly typical of editors on this article. No one, it seems, wishes to defend the existence of this section. It seems that editors take the view that consensus is need to remove inappropriate pieces of the article, but that none is needed to throw in more more POV, off-topic material. This explains the sad state of this article to a great degree. I have invited editors to discuss the relevance of this section and how it can be included in an appropriate form. In the meantime, I will continue to edit in an effort to better the article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, having each "camp" make a long argument about what to keep and bear arms means while referencing Aristotle and Cicero to support the philosophical underpinnings of their argument, turns this article into a bad joke. What would work is to state something along the lines of "There are two schools of thought as to the meaning of 'to keep and bear arms'. Some see this as an individual and private rights to bear arms for self defense. Other see this right only in a military context...' I'm not saying that is the perfect wording, but the long historical quotes to buttress competing points of view have to go. Is anyone here going to try to pretend that an actual encyclopedia would contain a section that looks like this? Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

you seem to have some fundamental misunderstandings about how wikipedia works. like it or not, a single editor deciding to meataxing large chunks of sourced material, unilaterally, is not how wikipedia works. if you don't like it, perhaps you should find some other encyclopedia to edit, but in the here and now, yes, your edits were disruptive, possibly designed to make a WP:POINT, and could result in sanctions if you were to continue doing them. sorry you don't like that, but it's how it is. try working collaboratively with your fellow editors. take a chunk of the article that you think needs to go (and "I don't like it" isn't a good starting point), reproduce it here, and explain your rationale for removing it (though offering suggested new/simplified/better text might be the better approach). explain why you believe reference to Aristotle and Cicero in an encyclopedia article is outside the realm of what a 'real' encyclopedia would have in it. Anastrophe (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

and lets not forget: your original claim was indeed that the word count was too large. you claimed it was one of the largest articles on wikipedia. you've shifted your argument to something entirely different now. your original rationale was simply 'too long based on word count'. you can hardly fault fellow editors for taking issue with you making changes based on one rationale, then ex post facto changing the rationale. Anastrophe (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The length of the article and the irrelevant nature of much of material included therein are separate but interrelated issues which together represent a serious problem for the article. I am not seeking to remove material "because I don't like it", but because it represents a clear violation of the Wikipedia: no original research policy (analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position). I notice that you devote a fair amount of space to criticizing me and questioning my motives, and none to actually defending the relevance of this section. I proposed above a starting place in summarizing the competing views of 'to keep and bear arms'. Do you agree or have an argument for a different approach? Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

it's not my obligation to 'defend the relevance of this section', it's your obligation to detail, precisely, what original research and synthesis is taking place. a complaint of OR or SYN without actual specifics about them, as a basis for mass deletion of material, won't stand. specifically detailed explanations are necesary, as well as allowing other editors to collaborate on the changes, rather than unilateral meat-axing. if there is OR and SYN, i'll be delighted to see it edited appropriately. meat-axing is not appropriate. specific details are. Anastrophe (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been quite specific - You don't seem to want to actually respond to the point that I am making. The entire section is an argument; it doesn't even approach NPOV. Read the first paragraph:

"The people's right to have their own arms for their defense is described in the philosophical and political writings of Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, Machiavelli, the English Whigs and others.[23] Though possessing arms appears to be distinct from "bearing" them, the possession of arms is recognized as necessary for and a logical precursor to the bearing of arms.[24] Particularly in the event of oppression or slaughter of people by governments or racial majorities, researchers have noted that exercise of the right to bear arms internationally is intrinsically linked to a people's ability to possess them,[25] and that the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.[26]"

This paragraph reads like an essay designed to promote a particular POV about the meaning of to keep and bear arms. There is not even a pretense to objectivity here. In its most embarassing aspect, it calls on philosophers thousands of years past to support its argument. What's needed is for the article to recognize that this isn't "the objective truth", but merely a point of view. Phrasing it as such will allow it to be included in an NPOV way. The same goes for the military view of keep and bear arms as well. Furthermore, these views could be summarized in such a way that doesn't call for interminable quotations that would never find their way into a real encyclopedia. Thoughts? Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion that could decrease the article's size. The 2A isn't about militias, it's about the right not being infringed upon. Rights, including the right to bear arms, are inalienable. In the United States, every citizen, by virtue of his birth here, has these rights. Arguing the pros and cons of the arms' right, has unnecessarily turned this article in a moot court for personal agendas. It is pointless to debate a subject matter over which neither side has any power. Regardless of what consensus might be reached by these dueling editors, the right would still be intact. It's inherent. For my suggestion to reflect this in the article's lead-in statement, see NPOV problems at end. (Truwik (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

I've pointed out a number of areas where the article could be reduced in size. Most of the section on "to bear" arms can be disposed of since the subject is the right "to keep and bear" arms, not just the right to "bear arms". The WARD material does not belong in case law since nothing there is about case law. Additional misc. but plainly BOGUS material from paid Joyce Foundation mouthpiece Cornell should also be gotten rid of. How can anyone take him seriously when he opines that the collective right viewpoint predated the individual right viewpoint when all evidence points otherwise.68.160.176.7 (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There is an abundance of extraneous material here, that then generates comments and ever-more excursions into pre-American history - even word studies. For example, does 'bear' mean "a large heavy mammal having long shaggy hair"; or "carry"? If the former, would that include Pandas, and if not, why not? Do some editors hate Tibet? And just because the polar icecaps are melting is no reason to exclude Polar Bears from this study into origin of the species! How will we ever know which came first - the chicken or the egg - not to mention, why 'know' is spelled with a 'k'? You get the picture - I agree that Prof. Cornell's dissertations (and similar writings by others of his ilk) should be removed from this article. (Citing books as authorities, without quoting from them, only serves to disguise motives and mislead.) Again, this article is not about the right, per se, it's about the "shall not be infringed" restriction, which applies exclusively to the federal government. (Truwik (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

Are you both in agreement that the section 'to bear arms v. to keep and bear arms' is extraneous? This is a starting point from which we might build some consensus. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not extraneous. It needs to be refined to indicate that since the right protected is the "right to keep and bear arms" it includes BOTH the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms. The way that section is written, the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms have been separated and seem almost opposed to each other as if it is one it can't be the other. The Second Amendment protects BOTH.68.160.141.242 (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Re US v Walters

I was under the impression that the 1,000 foot gun ban around schools was struck down in US v Lopez. 141.154.72.56 (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The alleged crime in Walters took place in the Virgin Islands, which is not a state and therefore under the management of the feds. Per the Constitution, the fed have the power to manage nonstate US possessions, but Lopez probably still applies. The defense doesn't quote Lopez in the document referenced and may not even be aware of the case. Don't know if the current version of 922(q) is the same as the one used in Lopez, but the Supreme Court nullified the totality of that section of law per "§ 922(q) is invalid" when they made their ruling.

From Lopez

After respondent, then a 12th-grade student, carried a concealed handgun into his high school, he was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows ... is a school zone," 18 U. S. C. § 922(q)(I)(A). The District Court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment, concluding that § 922(q) is a constitutional exercise of Congress' power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that, in light of what it characterized as insufficient congressional findings and legislative history, § 922(q) is invalid as beyond Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.

Held: The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined. Nor is it an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under the Court's cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which, viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce. Second, § 922(q) contains no jurisdictional element that would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearms possession in question has the requisite nexus with interstate commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce. To uphold the Government's contention that § 922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause141.154.72.56 (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The Congress repassed the Gun Free School Zones Act in 1996, but added a provision stating that it would only be in effect to the extent permissible by the Commerce Clause. Source SMP0328. (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

From what I have read of Lopez, the extent permissible is zero.141.154.72.56 (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be permissible (1) if the crossing of State borders is involved, (2) the action occurs within an area under federal authority, but no State authority or (3) whenever the action "substantially affects" interstate commerce (quoting Lopez). SMP0328. (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The following still sounds like zero to me. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined.. I will however agree that there may be some substance to item 2 above, as the feds do have the power to manage nonstate US territories. However, there is still the issue of the Second Amendment ban on infringing the right to keep and bear arms, which applies to all US residents, whether they are inhabitants of one of the states or not.141.154.72.56 (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

An example of item 1 is the Mann Act. A recent example of item 3 is Gonzales v. Raich. As for the Second Amendment, that would be a very interesting case. SMP0328. (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Iffy examples a best and in at least one respect contradictory. Neither of your examples has to do with guns and a gun free school zone. Prostitution is at least a commercial activity, but rarely involves crossing state borders. It is also legal in Nevada. Gonzales and the harassment of those smoking pot under a medical prescription within States that allow it is garbage. Using the same reasoning for Gonzales the feds could harass prostitutes in Nevada.141.154.72.56 (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Those are not my opinion. I'm giving examples based on Supreme Court case law. SMP0328. (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I just can't see how those examples apply to a gun free school zone. A purchaser and/or owner of a gun already in state has no interstate commerce issues, since he is not engaged in commerce. This is pretty much what the Supreme Court said on Lopez.141.154.72.56 (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Rights only apply to US "citizens" (not residents)(14A,Sec. 1). As to the issue of the 2A, Lopez simply held congress had misused its interstate commerce power, but without saying such law violated the 2A's restriction on them. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights, says its "restrictive clauses" were intended to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers" to affect rights, the very thing section 922(q) attempted. The 2A's ban on infringing the right to keep and bear arms, applies exclusively to the federal government. (See Cruikshank, Presser, Miller, and now Heller.) (Truwik (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC))

"Some" rights (such as the right to vote) apply only to US Citizens. If you look at the later part of 14A Section 1 you will notice that the basic rights to life, liberty, property and equal protection under the law apply to ALL. By our reasoning if the Pope visited the US, you could go and kill him since he has no right to life, not being a US citizen. Still don't understand the basis for violating a 1,000 foot gun free zone around a school in this case, unless Walters was trying to sell one or more guns that he personally shipped in from another state in order to sell, with the transactions happening within 1,000 feet of a school. In Lopez the Supreme Court ruled that the a gun free zone was in excess of granted powers and did not fall under the Commerce Act. I will grant that since this case happened in the Virgin Islands that the feds, who were granted the authority to manage non-state territories have more power to regulate, but the Second Amendment prohibition still applies. If it applies to DC then it applies to the Virgin Islands.141.154.110.173 (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Constitutional rights apply to all people within any controlled by the federal government or any State or local government. As for the United States Virgin Islands, it is a non-State area that is, at least in the Constitutional sense, under the exclusive legislative authority of the Congress. Hence, Heller fully applies to it just as Heller applies to DC. SMP0328. (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Some rights, such as the right to vote or the right to keep arms for self defense, have been taken from many convicted felons currently in prison. Are they part of "all"? yes, you can be deprived of your rights, but ONLY though court action. Any law depriving you of your constitutionally protected rights is automatically illegal and therefore null and void. Anyone who votes to pass such a law is guilty of perjury of his oath of office. Perjury is a felony.141.154.110.173 (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Saul Cornell paid mouthpiece of the Joyce Foundation - POV bias issue

Per the wiki article on the Joyce Foundation, it engages in substantial gun control activies.

Per the following, Joyce Foundations activites include buying up whole issues of Law Journals and filling them with articles supporting gun control.

http://wasteofmyoxygen.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/the-joyce-foundations-attempt-to-abolish-the-second-amendment-with-the-help-of-barack-obama/

In 1999, midway through Obama’s tenure, the Joyce board voted to grant the Chicago-Kent Law Review $84,000, a staggering sum by law review standards. The Review promptly published an issue in which all articles attacked the individual right view of the Second Amendment.

In a breach of law review custom, Chicago-Kent let an “outsider” serve as editor; he was Carl Bogus, a faculty member of a different law school. Bogus had a unique distinction: he had been a director of Handgun Control Inc. (today’s Brady Campaign), and was on the advisory board of the Joyce-funded Violence Policy Center. Bogus solicited only articles hostile to the individual right view of the Second Amendment, offering authors $5,000 each. But word leaked out, and Prof. Randy Barnett of Boston University volunteered to write in defense of the individual right to arms. Bogus refused to allow him to write for the review, later explaining that “sometimes a more balanced debate is best served by an unbalanced symposium.” Prof. James Lindgren, a former Chicago-Kent faculty member, remembers that when Barnett sought an explanation he “was given conflicting reasons, but the opposition of the Joyce Foundation was one that surfaced at some time.” Joyce had bought a veto power over the review’s content.

Joyce Foundation apparently believed it held this power over the entire university. Glenn Reynolds later recalled that when he and two other professors were scheduled to discuss the Second Amendment on campus, Joyce’s staffers “objected strenuously” to their being allowed to speak, protesting that Joyce Foundation was being cheated by an “‘agenda of balance’ that was inconsistent with the Symposium’s purpose.” Joyce next bought up an issue of Fordham Law Review.

The plan worked smoothly. One court, in the course of ruling that there was no individual right to arms, cited the Chicago-Kent articles eight times. Then, in 2001, a federal Court of Appeals in Texas determined that the Second Amendment was an individual right.

The Joyce Foundation board (which still included Obama) responded by expanding its attack on the Second Amendment. Its next move came when Ohio State University announced it was establishing the “Second Amendment Research Center” as a think tank headed by anti-individual-right historian Saul Cornell. Joyce put up no less than $400,000 to bankroll its creation. The grant was awarded at the board’s December 2002 meeting, Obama’s last function as a Joyce director. In reporting the grant, the OSU magazine Making History made clear that the purpose was to influence a future Supreme Court case:

Since the activities of the Joye Foundation includes providing funds to other parties to be "paid mouthpieces" and push the Joyce Foundation party line and since Saul Cornell received such funds to buy the opinion of the "Second Amendment Research Center" he does no merit consideration as an unbiased source. The following article adds more detail to the Second Amendment Research Center.

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/JoyceCornellHeller.pdf

Per the article "Ohio State understood that the money, and the Center, were meant to influence future Supreme Court rulings"

the following quote is also indicative of his being a "paid mouthpiece"

When I asked its director, Saul Cornell, in an email exchange if any participants in its acedemic programs could advocate the individual rights position, he responded that he would obtain sepeate funding to permit this to happen

Since the opinions of Mr. Cornell can obviously be bought I have no confidence that his opinions as cited in the Second Amendment article have not been bought and paid for, and skewed to reflect the wishes of his buyer.

Until such time as all references attributed to him are removed, I have a POV dispute with the article similar to pevious POV disputes with the NRA and Brady Campaign.141.154.110.178 (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

On the bright side, removing all material where Mr Cornell is cited will reduce the size of the article and should make Salty Boatr and nwlaw63 a bit happier. I am confident of their support to remove this material. ;-) 141.154.110.178 (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same thing? I am referring to the book published by Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5, page 7. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

All material means all material and includes all books and articles authored by him. 141.154.110.178 (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that I am taking this position due to what I see as a Zero tolerance policy for biased material within this article. As an example of this Zero tolerane policy I cite the following fact. When researching the past history of this article I noticed that a link, not material within the article, but a simple LINK to NRA material was removed from the page due to what I believe to be POV bias issues. To confirm this removal was a bias issue would involve going through discussions on this page some two years old. I do not have the time nor inclinaton to do so but you must agree that removing LINK to NRA material SEEMS to have been some sort of bias issue. Again I am not talking about a link to material cited in the article, but a link similar to the current link on the side of the article to the various amendments and assorted Firearm legal topics. I believe that you will agree that any POV bias standard which prohibits a mere link to a biased organization includes the banning of any and all authors identified as having taken money to deliver a bought and paid for opinion. From the available evidence Saul Cornell is in fact just such an author.141.154.110.178 (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the Wikipedia policy on sourcing? And, bias? See WP:V and WP:NPOV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please advise me on the difference between a biased opinion originating with the NRA and a biased opinion arising from a "bought and paid for mouthpiece" of the Joyce Foundation. I fail to see any.

BTW: Was I wrong to assume your support in deleting obviously biased material from the article?

BTW2: If you wish to use another book for source material Amazon ranks The Founders Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms by Halbrook as the #1 seller in its genre. It currently ranks as Book 2,243 in Amazon sales compared to Cornell book which comes in at 143,833. That's the paperback version from last year. Cornells hardcover from 2 years back ranks 517,331. Low numbers good, high numbers bad. As for reader ranking, Halbrook gets all 5's except for 1 4 while Cornell gets 5 5's a 4 and 4 1's. One of Cornells 5's was from the publisher so it doesn't count. The sales difference is even worse when you consider the fact that Holbrooks book is a hardcover and sells for almost twice the price of Cornells paperback. Makes me wonder if Cornell had a loss on the book and if the Joyce Foundation is picking up the tab.141.154.110.178 (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Halbrook is the NRA's outside counsel and his book's ranking was a part of a book bomb created by the gun rights community to raise its rankings. The scholarly reviews of Cornell's book have been excellent, but obviously not everyone agrees with the interpretation.

WP:V reqires the us of RELIABLE published source. Does anyone dispute that a "bought and paid for" opinion is not RELIABLE? If no one disputes I will take action sometime next week and delete UNRELIABLE material based on Saul Cornell and the Law Review articles bought and paid for by the Joyce Fondation. 141.154.14.50 (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you see in the WP:V policy that we are to favor third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Do you have an opinion whether or not the Oxford University Press meets this standard? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Oxforn Press is a PUBLISHER! It is not a PUBLISHED SOURCE. Fact checking and accuracy is the authors job not the pblishers. Again, the issue here is RELIABLE! Please advise if you believe that a "bought and paid for" opinion crafted to the agenda of the purchaser, is RELIABLE.68.163.104.5 (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion of policy doesn't seem to match Wikipedia policy. Could you please read WP:SOURCES and square up the differences? The question at hand is whether Oxford University Press is a reliable source in accordance with Wikipedia policy standards. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Again: A publisher is not a PUBLISHED SOURCE and last I checked Oxford Press was a publisher. If it's not even a SOURCE it can hardly be a RELIABLE source. Also again: Please advise if you believe that a "bought and paid for" opinion crafted to the agenda of the purchaser, is RELIABLE68.163.104.5 (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Third opinion. This is more a WEIGHT and NPOV issue than an RS issue. SaltyBoatr's edit fails to note that Cornell's view is controversial. Phrase it as Cornell's POV, fairly note that it's disputed and that more reputable scholars like Amar disagree with him, and there shouldn't be a problem. THF (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually if one being intellectually honest one would note that Cornell and Amar are largely in agreement about the original meaning of the Second Amendment and disagree over the incorporation issue.

There is no such thing as a non-controversial claim in this contested field. Much of this is simply gun rights troll work. If this is to be serious it will need to recognize that many of the gun rights sources are tainted by their funding as well. I suggest we focus on the arguments, not the funding. Alternatively we can get rid of virtually everyone who has written about this topic since they can't pass the funding test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philo-Centinel (talk • contribs)

I agree that the funding is irrelevant. Joyce funds these scholars because they oppose gun rights, not the other way around. THF (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You said the magic word. FUNDS!!!!!!!!!!! There is no difference beween hiring an in house author to push your agenda, and funding an outside author. Remember that Mr. Cornell got $400,000 in INITIAL funds. Who knows how much more followed. Frankly I don't know that many people who would NOT toe the party line for $400,000.

And ditto, but on the other side of the coin, when the NRA hires council like Stephen Halbrook. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

THF - I for one would like to see the POV dispute label come off the article. Your solution would keep it there.

Philo - Please lay off the name calling unless you want me to start calling you a gun control freak or a domestic enemey of the US Constitution. As for reliable source, I believe that many many such sources exist. I just don't believe that Saul Cornell or issue 76 of the Chicago Kent Law Review are reliable. From the evidence available Saul Cornell is nothing but a glorified handpuppet of the Joyce Foundation. Whatever comes out of his mouth is what Joyce wants to come out.

Salty Boatr - I believe if I got a copy of Halbrooks book and started including material from it you would start screamin POV bias. Am I wrong?

RE: WEIGHT issue, There does seem to an excesive number of references to Cornells book. Thank you for pointing out that we have a WEIGHT problem as well.68.163.104.5 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This is rather astonishing. The Cornell book was peer reviewed by Oxford and widely reviewed in scholarly journals. Halbrook's book was not properly peer reviewed and was subsidized by a conservative think tank. The notion that Cornell is a front for Joyce is delusional. Anyone who has read the book would realize it argues for a strong individual rights tradition, but dates that tradition to the Jacksonian era. It does not claim there was no individual rights tradition in the 18th century, but argues that it was relatively weak. Amar argues that there is no individual rights tradition until Reconstruction and that is held up as scholarly. Anyone who claims otherwise is really just mouthing gun rights propaganda. Just read the Levinson review of the book in Reviews in American History. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philo-Centinel (talk • contribs) 21:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This may be premaure but I'd like to welcome you to the world of Conspiracy nuts, where governent offials only care about getting more money and power and big money has bought up the government. ;-)

Please check the links and text at the top of the page. Per those links Cornell got $400,000 in startup fund for his Second Amendment Research Center from Joyce. That was just the start up money. There are indiction more followed to keep the center going. In my world $400,000 buys a lot. What does it buy in yours?

Here's a additional link to what looks like a publication from Ohio State itself which states that Saul Cornell received a two year grant from the Joyce Foundation to set up his Center. No amount is mentioned. Can't get much close to the horses mouth then that

http://humanities.osu.edu/news/humex/humex2003.pdf

Here's a link to someone who disputes Cornells accuracy. Suposedly Cornell states that a certain stature applies to guns. According to this author it only applied to knives.

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/08/historian_revie.php

From this it looks like he's not up for a debate on the Secon Amendment issues and instead ties to muzzle those advocting the individual rights position. Not waht I consider the attitude of a tre scholar.

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/more_on_joyce_f.php

Can't say that further research into him has made me any more confidebt of his RELIABILITY! I therefore contnue to have issues where he is used as a reference. 68.163.104.5 (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Arms and the law is funded by the NRA-- this is precisely the sort of biased treatment of information that suggests that we ought not to trust the person making the complaints about Cornell. Why trust Hardy-- who has no serious academic credentials and is funded by the NRA?

As far as the issue of knives goes-- it is a mistake to treat the Second Amendment as if it protects a right to own guns. The actual language is guns. If one actually looks at militia weapons one might argue that certain knives ought to have more protection than handguns. One can argue the point--but the notion that this discredits Cornell is silly. I suspect we are dealing with someone without any legal education or any other academic credentials. Clearly the argument is typical of what one sees with high school students--

Then notion that a 400,000 grant disqualifies scholarship would mean that everything produced by scholars at George Mason Law school needs to be discredited. The NRA gave more than a million for Nelson Lund's chair. Robert Levy the money behind Heller is also a big donnor to Mason-- in fact the recent symposium on Heller held at GMU was in space named after Levy-- so do we simply toss out everything from GMU-- by the logic used here we ought to-- I think it is better to note the role of money in this debate and move on to facts and serious scholarly argument.

At the end of the day Cornell was cited by SCOTUS in Heller and has published in top law reviews and history journals. You can disagree with him, but this sort of smear tactic only suggests an effort to silence those who don't accept the gun rights view of things. In my posts I have tried to be balanced and weed out tedious discussions that would never survive any serious editorial process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philo-Centinel (talk • contribs)

Re:Hardy- I can't seem to find any reference to any Hardy in the article. Seems he's not trusted. Re:Levy - no material from any Levy is referenced. Again not trusted. re:Lund - One quote not subject to dispute and double reference to boot. See current referenced 99 and 100. Therefore not trusted, only reference has a backup.

Your complaints regarding the trust given to gun rigt advocates seem to be a bit thin. More like nonexistent!

Speaking of smears the "gun rights troll" remark was yours! You are the one with the smears. Ever heard of "Don't bitch about the mote in your neighbors eye, when you have a freaking beam in yours" or something like that? How about "War is Hell"?

Of course it is the gun right activists that would bitch about Cornells bias. You'd hardly think that his fellow gun control advocates would call Cornell biased now would you? Sticking a knife in the back of one of your leading spokesman is just NOT DONE!

Yet Again: The wiki issue here is whether a "bought and paid for" opinion is RELIABLE. I say it is not. Granted not wiki policy, but the rules of evidence are on my side. Compelled evidence is suspect and inadmissabe in court. What you may not know is that compelled evidence includes BOUGHT evidence.

One of the defintions for compel is To exert a strong, irresistible force on; sway

There is no doubt in my mind that $400,000 can SWAY a person! Is there in yours?

Lastly, if you believe that someone has received enough money from the NRA or any other gun rights group or organization to SWAY him, then simply provide proof (with the amount) and I will support the deletion of all references to material printed AFTER the money changed hands. If you insist I will even go back a year or two from the date of the transaction.

In the case of Cornell the money changed hands in 2003 and the book in question was printed afterwards.68.163.104.5 (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hardy's web site is arms and the law which is cited for some of the critiques of Cornell in the discussion above. It is the basis for much of this Anti-Joyce nonsense. The charge that money influenced the scholarship has no foundation. You would need to show intent. If anything the fact that his book and several of the articles acknowledge an individual rights tradition and actually critique the traditional collective rights argument cuts against your case. Halbrook was cited as good authority by someone in this thread yet he is professional gun rights lawyer and the NRA got his Amazon numbers up by a book bomb. You might thinkg $400,000 is a lot but in the sciences grants run into the millions. Even in the social sciences grants run over a million. Actually $400,000 is not very much money for an academic grant at all. You make it seem like the money was given in small bills in a parking lot in a brown paper bag. University's take over head, release time is charged at the highest possible rate-- if you hire graduate students you have to pay their tuition and health insurance. I would say that if you actually had ever attended a serious university you would realize how silly your charges sound to an educated person. If you add up the fact that some of the money was used for conferences that is at least another 50-75 grand. The amount is really modest for serious academic grants and is a fraction of the money spent by the gun lobby on the many law review articles produced by David Kopel and others. The whole thing is guilt by smear-- the Joyce issue is a way to not deal with evidence and argument. Are you going to get serious or not. Either talk about evidence and argument, or find another hobby Philo-Centinel (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet again: Hardy is NOT trusted. He has no voice in this article. Do not use him as an example.

Also again: You are free to look over the citations on the article. If you find anyone that you suspect of having received enough NRA money to be biased, I will support any move you make to delete content from that person, but only AFTER you provide a link to sufficient proof.

FYI: I pumped Halbrooks book to the extend of stating that per Amazon it is WILDLY outselling Cornells book despite being twice the price and that those commenting there rated it higher then Cornells book.

Regarding whether $400,000 is lot. I'd say it would keep a professor in a Univerity employed for a number of years. That's a lot to a professor.

I was puzzled by your comment above that he Second Amendment refers to guns - your comment follows

it is a mistake to treat the Second Amendment as if it protects a right to own guns. The actual language is guns.

Checking the text I confirmed that the actual language is "arms" and not guns. You should remember this in order not to appear ignorant in the future. Wondering what else you may have gotten wrong I checked to see whether Cornell had actually been referenced in the Heller case. Turns out he had,

in the dissent

about Negro millitias after the Civil War!

In other words, he was a bit player for the losing side! 68.163.104.5 (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Due to your alteration of my Complaint below with the intent to hide Cornell worked for Joyce in 2006, the same year his Second Amendment book was printed, as editor of their bought and paid for issue of the Stanford Law and Policy Review I am no longer accepting complaints from you to be in good faith. You are dead to me! Get lost.

Other editors are asked to check the changes made to this discussion page in history at 19:06 for confirmation of intent to hide evidence.68.163.104.5 (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Since no valid obections have been made to deleteting biased, bought and paid for, opinion from Saul Cornells book I will now start to remove all references to him and his book as he is a paid "mouthpiece" of a gun control advoacy group. Again Mr. Cornell received $400,000 fom the Joyce Foundation prior to the printing of this book in support of their gun control agenda and the relationship continues.

The only objection so far is that his printing house is a valid source. This objection is BOGUS as a printing house is neither a book, a jounal, a paper, an article, a court case or associated legal document such as a brief, also is not a letter, or a transcript of a hearing, speech and whatnot. In short a printing house is NOT a source.

Portion of Verifiabiliy policy for Salty Boatr.

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.141.154.110.173 (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You and I may disagree about what constitutes a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources for a description of my belief. This is Wikipedia policy and is not subject to compromise. I am willing to seek a third opinion to resolve our disagreement about whether the books published by the Oxford University Press qualify as reliable sources or not. Are you willing? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Paying a cutout (a sockpuppet in wikispeak) to push your point of view is equivalent to self-publishing

Self-published sources (online and paper)

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.[5]

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.141.154.110.173 (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Legal right to rebellion and its relations to gun control laws

A topic central to the gun control debate but little examined by scholars on both sides of the gun control issue, is the conflict between gun control laws and the right to lawfull rebellion against unjust governments. This right was codified into law as far back as Article 61 of the 1215 version of the Magna Carta, which made it legal to arise in rebellion, and even went so far as to require that the King of England himself to order the people unwilling to rise in rebellion against himself and his officials, to do so, when the council of barrons serving as a check on his power found cause for this extreme action.[3]. During the Constitutional debates, Patrick Henry refered to this issue several times when he questioned how the people could resist tyrants if their arms had been taken from them.[4][5]. Lysander Spooner commented that lawfull rebellion is protected both by the right to trial by jury and the Second Amendment. [6]The State of New Hampshire recognizes this right through Article 10 of the Bill of Rights to its Constitution.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=271154185&oldid=271152968

It was reverted a number of times by Blanchardb who questioned it's NEUTRALITY. I find this hard to believe as the only thing the addition does is identify a right and provides a little history.

Due to threats of Banning from Blanchardb (who seems able to back up his threats) I ask other editors to examine the addition and see whether it is NEUTRAL or not. While I certainly can see that it would be considered controversial and even inflammatory by some, I don't see a NEUTRALITY issue. Blanchard has not responded with specifics on why the addition is not NEUTRAL despite repeated requests.141.154.110.173 (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

both you and blanchardb are in violation of 3RR on this matter, and both should be sanctioned. Anastrophe (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Not me! I stopped a 2. The original addition doesn't count as a revert. At least I HOPE it doesn't. 141.154.110.173 (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

My error. Please accept my apology. The addition shall stay. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are stating that my addition can stay in the article pending working out any issues that you may have, please undo your last revert. I will not do so, as I do not wish a 3rr violation against me. Currently you are the only one in violation. I think that an undo of your last revert would also bring you down to 2 reverts, but I may be wrong. 141.154.110.173 (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that was already done. It's fixed now. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Accepted. While I don't deny that the addition would be considered controversial and even inflamatory by many. I don't see how it fails a neutrality test. The right either exists or it does not and from what I can see it does in fact exist.141.154.110.173 (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

i've removed the section. reasons: it was labeled "Scholarly debate", while having an opening sentence stating "A topic central to the gun control debate but little examined by scholars". how then is it scholarly debate? further, who says that this issue is central to the debate? it would seem, if it is little examined by scholars, that in fact it is not central to the debate. while the material is interesting, it certainly doesn't belong at the very top of the 'background' section of the article. there is discussion elsewhere in the article of the matter of rebellion, to which this new material may be relevant; however, it seems rather far removed from the ostensible topic of this article, and appears to be original research/synthesis. Anastrophe (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of original research for a subject wiki ALREADY HAS AN ARTICLE ON. That article includes material about the Magna Carta and the New Hampshire Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution

The top part of the section where I added the material was not mine but talked about scholarly debate and as it has been up for a while, I assumed it had been accepted by other editors. I considered it no better or worse then the "republican ideology" haze that it replaced. I followed its lead.

This issue is central to the debate because the Second Amendment protects the right to legal self defense. A part of that right is legal self defense against tyrants and tyranny. That portion of the right is called the "right of lawfull rebellion" or the "right of revolution" or the "right to revolt" and other similar titles. It is little discussed because nobody in any position of power wants it be discussed. Most scholarships are now funded by government and if there is one thing I am absolutely certain of, is that no government will fund a study showing its citizens have the legal right to rebel against it. Please advise where a small section on this subject can be added without your objection. 141.154.110.173 (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

it is original research based upon the first sentence. again, "A topic central to the gun control debate but little examined by scholars on both sides of the gun control issue, is the conflict between gun control laws and the right to lawfull rebellion against unjust governments.". who makes this claim that it is central to the debate, other than you? Anastrophe (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok! No statement on whether it is central to the debate. How about a statement that it is "relevant to the debate".141.154.110.173 (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

if there are reliable sources that say that, sure. but its relevance - in my opinion - is not that notable. there's no question it's a genuine topic of discourse, but mostly of academic import, rather than to the 'feet-on-the-street' arguments made for and against gun control/gun rights these days. Anastrophe (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please notice the term MY GREAT OBJECTION in the quote below from Patrick Henry who by then had served two terms as the governor of Virginia, the most powerful state in the Union. During those terms this man was either the MOST POWERFUL MAN in the 13 original states, or the SECOND most powerful, depending on whether the president under the Articles of Confederation had more power then the governor of Virginia. Government control of arms was to him not an minor matter. This man was so concerned about this right that he gave it precedence over the right to free speech, jury trial, and freedom of religion, none of which were then protected by the Bill of Rights.

My great objection to this government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants.

Have your concerns now been met that this subject is relevant to the debate by a citation to a figure worthy of respect?

141.154.110.173 (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am assuming that your concerns have been satisfied. I added the material to a new subsection of the article. Also I am using the world central as MY GREAT OBJECTION fits that more then the word relevant.141.154.110.173 (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

um, you're moving awfully fast for an encyclopedia. assuming an editors concerns have been satisfied merely because an interval of silence has transpired is not particularly collaborative. my concerns remain. it is not a question of whether mr patrick henry was a figure worthy of respect, it is a matter of whether there are reliable sources that maintain that this statement by patrick henry is relevant to the historical background and source of the second amendment. there likely are. find them. editor's opinions of the relevance of material is only useful insofar as there are reliable sources that agree. Anastrophe (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for any delay - see below for reason. The quote was made during the Virginia debate on whether to accept or reject the Constitution. Virginia was one of the states demanding that a Bill of Rights be included. The second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. The connection should be obvious and does not need a Mad Hatter to confirm it. See above for clarification of the reference.

What is the relevance of citing New Hampshire's State constitution, but not that of any other State? SMP0328. (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Many? Most? All? states include language stating that the people have a right to defend their lives, liberty and property. New Hampshire spells it out in the plainest language possible that the right included fighting an unjust government.

Or better said, what is the relevance of any state constitution here in the federal second amendment article? SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite a bit more relevance then the stuff currently included under Bliss.4.154.237.88 (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of the Kentucky State Constitution is equally off topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Except that there is a reliable and verifiable source claiming otherwise. In the early days of the republic, the 2A were clearly interpreted as protecting a right to keep and bear even concealed arms. That changed later, but it is still part of the history of the Second Amendment. SaltyBoatr's tired reason of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to claim something is "off topic" here; rather, his refusal to accept reliable and verifiable sources shows the real problem. As does his continuous edit warring with the community on any edit that he personnally doesn't approve, prior to the edit being done. Discussion of the relevance of the 2A history linked to prior state constitutions would be entirely appropriate, with the proper sourcing in this article, of course. Yaf (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputing Yafs deletion of Section on Right of Revolution being irrelevant to Second Amendment. History shows that the Founding Fathers were leery of giving all control of guns to a central government as it would lessen the peoples ability to resist tyrants. This isue is CENTRAL to the Second Amendment.141.154.9.241 (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Right to revolt called "insurrectionist theory" by Joyce Foundation talking head Carl Bogus

What is even more repugnant then a people going to war against their own government is sit back to let that government turn them into slaves.

http://www.fed-soc.org/debates/dbtid.21/default.asp

On a different topic, I read Justice Scalia’s opinion with both great interest and trepidation to see whether he embraced insurrectionist theory, that is, the argument that the Founders adopted the Second Amendment as a check against governmental tyranny. What’s more repugnant to constitutional democracy and the rule of law – not to mention traditional conservatism – than the idea that the people should be armed to potentially go to war with their own government? Nonetheless, this theory has animated much of the individual right literature. Its popularity has undoubtedly disturbed the sleep of giants on both sides of the Atlantic. Surely, insurrectionism has had both James Madison and Edmund Burke spinning in their graves.68.160.176.7 (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Adjust MiszaBot?

even with MiszaBot archiving threads that have had no discussion in 14 days, this page is becoming unwieldy again. i'd propose lowering the threshold to 8 days - a week and a day allows those who only have rare opportunity - perhaps on weekends - to still participate in threads should they choose to. thoughts? Anastrophe (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. That would make sure this talk page only shows current discussions. SMP0328. (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

i've done so, but obviously if any editors should disagree, they're welcome to chime in - or to change it to some other value. Anastrophe (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

in case anyone was wondering, the page archiving didn't change...because i'm an idiot. hey, it was late, i was sleepy, and i managed to only change the '14' to an '8' in the introductory text of the miszabot, rather than its actual code value. duh. fixed now! Anastrophe (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A better way to keep the talk page manageable would be for us editors to encourage each other to avoid using the article talk page to discuss anything other than the content of the article. A quick archiving cycle risks archiving genuine "article talk" prematurely. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

excuse the hell out of me, but what is your rationale for removing my last comments? i see no justification for it. i also disagree with your rationale - the better way to manage an unmanageably long talk page is to archive inactive discussion. two weeks without a response is excessive. eight days is a reasonable balance. reverting the change in archiving interval, while removing my comments, and not noting that you'd done so, is, well, i don't know what it is, exactly, but it's definitely not cool. Anastrophe (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing your comment was an editing error, (my failure to use the 'pg down' key). Sorry, not intentional. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

fair enough. Anastrophe (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A side effect of my rational, limiting discussion to just the article, is that it would limit the incivility that comes with personal attacks on editors, or discussions of personal opinions. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

that's fine, we can all strive to do that. we can also all strive not to badger other editors with questions unrelated to matters under discussion. we can all improve our behaviour here. be that as it may, half a month without a response in a thread seems excessive. as a compromise between the eight days i proposed, and the fourteen days you prefer, i have adjusted the miszabot to eleven days. let's see how it works. other editors are certainly welcome to chime in on this change. perhaps consensus is necessary.Anastrophe (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

At least we should wait 14 days to give editors a chance to read this section discussion before it gets archived. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

why? the talk page is already clearly archived. if an editor only checks in as rarely as once every half month, they have a reasonable expection that previous discussion has been archived. it will already have been archived whether it's 11 or 14 days. this seems like extreme obeisance to editors who aren't particularly active here to begin with. Anastrophe (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

so it seems that neither of us were actually adjusting the right parameters in the miszabot config. the counter apparently determines how many archives have been made, or some such. frankly, i don't have the time or inclination to screw with it any further, so i guess it stays at fourteen days unless someone wants to muck about with it. Anastrophe (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

US v Walters not "YET" a Second Amendment case and should be removed

The link provided as backup points to a Motion filed pre-Heller

http://www.vid.uscourts.gov/dcopinion/08cr0031_united_states_et_al_v_walters_order_20080715100550.pdf

where the judge states

Walters only states that he "reserves the right to challenge" the indictment on Second Amendment grounds.

In other words according to the judge Walters has not challenged it on Second Amendment grounds and the judge is not considering the Second Amendment in his decision to NOT dismiss the case. Also the judge does not reference Heller in his rejection of the Motion to dismiss. Only prior cases.

Unless someone can find later court documents showing that Walters did challenge his indictment on Second Amendment grounds I believe that references to this case should be removed from the article.141.154.9.241 (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC).

Still waiting for either objections to deleting references to this case or additional information that Walters did at some point invoke his Second Amendment rights, making this a Second Amendment case.141.154.110.173 (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at the document for US v Walters to confirm judge said that Walters "reserves the right to challenge" on Second Amendment grounds and has therefore "not yet challenged"? I checked the website and found two other documents and then zip. My guess is that Walters either plea bargained or the charges were dropped. Most likely the former. Does anyone feel that the article reference to this case needs to stay or objects to its removal? A plea bargain is unlikely to originate case law or even commentary on case law.68.160.176.7 (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

More than two versions

This is in response to the request by SMP0328. (talk · contribs) to discuss this change on the talk page. The edit summary for SMP0328.'s reversion says "the article should include at least one version of the amendment's text". When I made the change, it did contain one version in the introductory paragraph, but ironically this has been deleted in the meantime, the reason given being that two versions of the text are already shown in the Text section :-). I don't have any preference for whether the text should be given in the introduction or in a later section; what's important, though, is that the current version of the article is false. There are not two versions, but a large number of versions, as described in the source I'd referenced. I had tried to summarize the complicated situation described in that source in the two sentences "The versions used at various times by the ratifying states, the Supreme Court, the Congress and the executive differ both between and within these branches. There are versions with no commas, one comma, two commas or all three commas, the only regularity being that if there are any commas at all, the one in the middle is always present." Perhaps there is a better way to summarize this information, but simply saying "There are two versions of the text of the Second Amendment" and then quoting two particular versions when there are so many others is just wrong -- unless, that is, you think the source I referenced is mistaken. Joriki (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting reference. It seems to be defining every error in transcription ever found in an official document as a different "versions" of the Second Amendment. For instance, it asserts that the Executive Branch uses either a two comma or three comma version when the example of a two comma version is in an appendix of a document about Court Martials. Seems like an issue where these other versions need to be weighed against the two discussed here, the version approved by Congress and the version ratified by the States. We could change the wording to be more inclusive, simply pointing out that the version sent to the states was different rather than saying that there were two versions, but that might be compared to saying that there are more than two results from a coin flip. Celestra (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Inclusive is better. I prefer adding to an article rather than subtracting from it. I would continue to show the different versions, because articles about amendment to the U.S. Constitution always have a text section. How about referring to the currently shown versions as examples of the slight punctuation differences? SMP0328. (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, referring to them as examples would be good. Celestra, you talk about "the version ratified by the States" -- the reference says that four different versions were ratified by different states. I agree that its basis for talking about different versions used in the executive branch is a bit weak, but the ratified versions are all quoted from the same book and refer directly to the ratification acts. Is there any evidence to the contrary that suggests that the states all ratified the same version? Joriki (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The reference seemed to be talking of some State documents that recorded details around the ratification, based on the titles. Fair enough, though, I had recalled that there were thirteen copies created at a single time and sent to the various States to be ratified, but I don't have a reference that says as much. Is there a way we can capture the variety of commas, capitalizations and lack of articles in copies in official documents without giving undue weight to the variety relative to the current two? Or would it be better to see if we can find a reference that describes the copies sent to the states to see if there were additional variations in those documents? Celestra (talk) 05:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "The reference seemed to be talking of some State documents that recorded details around the ratification, based on the titles". The reference cites the "Documentary History of the Constitution of the United States of America, 1786-1870, Derived from the Records, Manuscripts and Rolls Deposited in the Bureau of Rolls and Library of the Department of State (1894)", which you can view online here. (If you use "Flip Book", click outside the page on the other pages to flip more than one page at a time.) I'm not an expert on evaluating sources like this, but it does seem to contain the text of the ratified amendments, not just "details around the ratification".

What does "the current two" refer to? In what sense are any two copies more current than others? (That's not a rhetorical question; I'm new to this subject and would like to know.)

You ask "Is there a way we can capture the variety of commas, capitalizations and lack of articles [...]?". I'd tried doing this for the commas with the sentence "There are versions with no commas, one comma, two commas or all three commas, the only regularity being that if there are any commas at all, the one in the middle is always present.", which I think summarizes the variations pretty succinctly. Perhaps one could do something similar for the capitalizations and the articles. Joriki (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Joriki. I was making a distinction between the two versions currently presented in the article and the other versions we would like to include. The two currently presented are the version approved by Congress and the version sent to the States for ratification. Some of the additional versions are versions in the documents recording the formal ratification from each State. (That was what I meant by "state documents.") It's not unreasonable to argue that the versions in the official documents recording the ratifications are of similar significance to the one passed by Congress, but I'm concerned that including many versions of the text gives undue weight to a section that is really just an interesting side note. One way we could capture the fact of the variety might be: "There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Among them are the version approved by Congress...." Would that be agreeable? Celestra (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Celestra -- thanks for the explanation and for the proposal, which I like. If you include the reference with the many versions, people who are interested can explore the versions further. Joriki (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ward does not reference Second Amendment

I don't see any references to any sort of court ruling or opinion regarding the Second Amendment in the Ward references in the Case Law section. I therefore can't see how references to this case can be included under case law. The references should therefore be moved out of case law section or deleted as not relevant to the article. 141.154.110.173 (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting for any objections to removing Ward from Case Law section. Nothing currently in the article has anything to do with "case law" in any way. 68.160.176.7 (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to remove the Ward material from the article or merely move it out of the Case law section? SMP0328. (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It has no place in case law, since it is not case law, and it has no place in commentary since it is not commentary. I have to go with complete removal. 68.160.176.7 (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It has to do with the opinion of a former attorney general of the US regarding Bliss. It should stay. Yaf (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The opinion of a former attorney general rightly belongs under commentary and not "case law". Case law is written by the judge or judges of a case. He was neither. If you wish to move some or all of the material for Ward into commentary feel free top do so but that material does not belong under case law.68.160.176.7 (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Excessive "concealed carry" and excessive reliance on guncite.com

The article already gives too much weight giving background for concealed carry theory, made worse by this recent edit[17]. There is excessive legal hypothesis using ancient obscure state court cases found on www.guncite.com. Consider that no reliable source considers that state courts are bound by the federal 2A. Certainly, looking hard enough you can find mentions in state court rulings saying otherwise, but these curiosities are notable in their exception, rather than their relevance. The article gives the illusion that these anomalous state court (Bliss, and Nunn) carry weight, and no evidence (other than guncite.com) is given that they actually carry any weight what-so-ever. This is un-encyclopedic and appears to violates WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

please explain how a single courtesy link constitutes "excessive reliance on guncite.com". please quantify "too much weight" using objective metrics. please quantify "excessive legal hypothesis" using objective metrics. considering that there is no claim in the article that state courts are bound by the federal 2a, it seems you're arguing against something that is not there. Anastrophe (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I get an impression that editors attracted to this article tend to do their research on the internet and that because www.guncite.com has a high Google page rank score that indeed www.guncite.com exerts a systemic bias to the content of this page. Let me guess, will you doggedly disagree with me again? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

probably a large number of editors do a lot of research on the internet, considering that this is wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, and the internet has vast resources available. but that's not the point. your opening sentence is meaningless. i'll ask again: "please explain how a single courtesy link constitutes "excessive reliance on guncite.com". you have not answered that question. i'm hoping for a direct answer, it would be helpful. i'd also enjoy the courtesy of direct answers to my other queries. random claims of "excessive", "too much" etc have been made repeatedly, for quite a long time, and it has been requested repeatedly that you quantify these claims. absent objective metrics, what are we to suppose of your claims? they seem to be WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. also, it need not be pointed out that your last sentence does not AGF. please try to frame the discussion in a civil tongue. Anastrophe (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, please explain why you don't consider www.guncite.com to be a reliable source. SMP0328. (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

How can we know who publishes www.guncite.com? It appears entirely anonymous, and appears to be an advocacy website. Does it meet the requirements of WP:V? Answer those questions and I will be able to answer your question. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Nunn was cited in Heller. The Supreme Court therefore thought it relevant. Bliss was referenced but only in a footnote. Ward was never mentioned even in a footnote. If obscure mean no one looks at it, then Ward gets cut first from the article, followed by Bliss and then Nunn. If Nunn gets cut I will check and see if the other cases referenced in the current version of the article are also "obscure" and not considered in the Heller opinion. If they are so obscure as not to merit even a footnote in Heller, I will ask that they get cut as well, being even more obscure then Nunn.

Interpreting obiter dictum from court documents is notoriously difficult requiring legal expertise, and doing so in this article runs the risk of violating WP:SYN policy. Is there a reliable secondary source to confirm that this interpretation is verified and not misinterpreted or lost out of context? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Which part of "Nunn was cited in Heller" did you miss?68.160.141.162 (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW: The Heller opinion reference the same quotes from Nunn as currently in the article. From Heller

In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right:

“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”68.163.105.178 (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Lysander Spooner

The Lysander Spooner quote, which comes now at the end of the "Early Commentary" portion, should probably be moved to the "Early Commentary in State Courts" article (Right to Keep and Bear Arms, as it is superfluous to the section it closes and Spooner is not a particularly well-known commentator. No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamiltondaniel (talk • contribs) 03:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The quote does not come from a court case and therefore does not belong under the section you reference. It comes from his work "An Essay on the Trial by Jury" and rightly belongs under early commentary.68.163.105.178 (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Excessive use of Saul Cornell"

Cornell currently shows 7 cites in the article. That is more then 2 times the number for the next most cited author. It seems we have an "excessive" reliance on a single source. Considering that Mr. Cornell has received over $400,000 in funding from a Foundation promoting gun control, his works are arguably all paid propaganda with him acting as a "cutout" to hide the connection and all need to carry a warning stating that they are either "unreliable" or "paid propaganda". His book also seems to have been POORLY received per Amazon book ranking. Probably due to the stench arising from it. Anyway I continue to have POV issues with this article due to the excessive weight Cornell has on it.68.160.135.82 (talk) 05:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

without regard to your other points, amazon book rankings are completely meaningless as a metric. same goes for google search result counts. cornell may or may not be reliable for any number of reasons, but book sales aren't one of them. Anastrophe (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Poor book sales are an indication that the paperback reprint of the book was probably subsidized by his "sugar daddy". Most book publishers won't reprint something that rates so poorly on the sales charts because they would LOSE MONEY. Cornell's book was first published in hardcover then in paperback. If the hardcover did as badly as the paperback is currently doing, then either Cornell, or his "sugar daddy" spent money getting it republished. Cornell spending his own money is OK, but if the money came from the "sugar daddy" it is not. Current sales rank for the paperback is 557,095. For a book that came out 6 months ago that is WORSE then pathetic. Dos for Dummies has a better sales record (currently 53,264), and is for a Computer Operating System a decade dead. Chances are excellent that most copies of the reprint went to judges, lawyers, and public libraries for free in order to push the gun control party line.

http://www.amazon.com/Well-Regulated-Militia-Founding-Fathers-Origins/dp/0195341031/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236011561&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/DOS-Dummies-Dan-Gookin/dp/0764503618/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236011506&sr=1-168.160.135.82 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please rephrase your complaint based on specifics in WP:Policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think excessive use of paid propaganda covers it.68.160.141.162 (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

i'm still anxiously waiting to hear under what WP:Policy one can claim that a single citation constitutes "excessive reliance". Anastrophe (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As stated in the first sentence in my complaint above, there are currently 7 cites to Cornell, not 1 as you seem to think. See reference 20, 21, 22, 62, 69, 71 and 90. Further I can hardly be blamed for not answering a question you never asked. Your complaint above had to do with Amazon book rankings and not with the number of cites.68.160.141.162 (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

i was referring to another editor's assertion that the single citation referencing guncite constituted "excessive reliance". sorry for the confusion. Anastrophe (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem!68.160.141.162 (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight given to tiny minority opinion

Cornell "Civic Right" opinion is given undue weight in the article as it is equivalent in popularity to "Flat Earth" and "Hollow Earth" theories of the Earths shape.

ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.68.160.176.7 (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Vastly small? I don't think so. For your logic to be credible you need to show your sourcing, and you do not. It appears that you are comparing the view presented by Cornell in his book to your personal views. And, the concept presented by Cornell is hardly a tiny minority, see for instance the "civic model" concept of Robert Shalhope, as analyzed by Georgia Warnke in her book ISBN 9780520216334, page 185, published by University of California Press. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Tell you what! Why don't you find me another source for guns being a "civic right". Should be easy if his opinion is as widespread as you ave been programed to think. If you can't that just proves my point68.160.176.7 (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I found three, (Cornell, Shalhope, Warnke) now you want more. OK, add to the list of scholars who describe this "civic right" model: David Konig, Richard Primus, Richard Uviller and William Merkel[18] for a total of seven. Still, you have identified zero sources for your personal opinion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Gotta Laugh! The link you provide references Cornell as the source. Back down to 1 source for the idea. Care to try again?68.160.176.7 (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Gotta Laugh some more! A recheck of the link you provide shows no trace of the term "civic right" so its BOGUS! Looks like the "civic rghts" view is about as popular as the "Hollow Earth" view of the earth. In your next attempt, assuming you make one, PLEASE make sure that the term "civic right" shows up and that it does not reference Cornell. Other wise I will also consider it BOGUS!68.160.176.7 (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Gotta laugh yet again! A check of the other articles in that issue shows one by Cornell on the second amendment. His "civic right" view is so out there that even he himself does not reference it.

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/22.1/comment_cornell.html68.160.176.7 (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If you look at today's (Wednesday's) New York Times crossword puzzle, there is a clue asking what the first American civil rights group is. The answer I believe is the NRA.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

noted. what is the relevance? i see none. other editors see none. this is trivia, that's why it's been struck from the talk page several times, pursuant to WP:FORUM. an unfinished crossword puzzle that you believe contains an answer that the NRA is a civil rights group has precisely what to do with the civiC right view of the second amendment that's being discussed here? how is a crossword puzzle a reliable source on any matter, per WP:RS? have you reviewed the answers to yesterday's crossword puzzle yet? was your belief correct? if so, great, you got an answer right on a crossword puzzle. we do sincerely congratulate you. perhaps this would be best discussed on the talk page for Crossword puzzle?? Anastrophe (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The point he is trying to make is kind of subtle. That, in the US, the 2A topic is inextricable from public civil rights advocacy, and the most well known 2A advocacy group is the NRA. Certainly the NYT crossword puzzle is a well known and reliable indicator of the zietgeist. And, per my editorial judgment, the article has suffered from the scrubbing of neutral coverage of 2A gun rights advocacy groups and the 2A lobbying activity of the NRA-ILA from the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks for illuminating the subtleties of his WP:POINT. its relevance to this article has still not been demonstrated. crossword puzzle answers? seriously? also scrubbed from the article is coverage of gun control advocacy groups, and their 2nd amendment lobbying and advocacy activity. advocacy groups are not of significant importance to this article. they are of importance to Gun Politics et al, however. Similarly, there's little to no coverage of advocacy groups in the articles for the first, fourth, fifth, etc amendments to the constitution. Anastrophe (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, a "civic" right, not a "civil" right. Sounds like a nice little splitting of hair. "Civil" and "civic" are defined as synonyms here. P.S. A few people on this talk page might want to check out our own policy WP:CIVIL. Have fun with your culture war.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Checked amici brief for Heller co-authored by Cornell. No reference to a "civic right" yet again! Still looks like that view is about as popular as the "Hollow Earth" theory of the shape of the Earth.

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290tsajackn.rakove.pdf68.160.176.7 (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

A non sequitur . SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting for yo to provide another source. WIKI SEZ if its common you can easily find sources.! If you can't then it's not! So far you can't so it's not!68.160.176.7 (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well well-- given the amount of energy being used to discredit Cornell it would seem to me that his work is deeply disturbing to pro-gun rights advocates who can't argue the facts so they have turned to a conspiracy theory to discredit him. The Joyce money argument is absurd for the following reasons.

The grant would not have been accepted by a public university if it had any ideological strings attached.

Joyce funded Chicago Kent which defended the traditional collective rights view

Cornell's center when it was running listed scholars on all sides of the issue and the conference he organized included such notable gun rights advocates as Brannon Denning, Raymond Diamond and supporters of the individual rights view such as Sanford Levinson and Jim Jacobs.

Cornell's own work challenges the traditional collective rights point of view-- so are we to believe Joyce funded Chicago Kent and then turned around to pay Cornell to challenge that view?

I note that Cornell has a new article up on Northwestern law review's on-line version-- clearly his scholarly authority has not been much impacted by this discussion

The civic rights model is often times described as the limited individual rights model so actually if you look closely it has been embraced by a number of scholars--and one member of the Supreme Court Justice Stevens-- Cornell's work was positively reviewed by two supporters of the individual rights view-- Sanford Levinson and Robert Churchill-- the only negative comments have come from gun rights advocates with close ties to the gun lobby such as David Hardy-- and even his twisted review of Cornell's book acknowledged that it made an important contribution to the debate. Can we please move on to some serious discussion of the history and law?Philo-Centinel (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The question is not whether it disturbing or even whether Cornell is so full of S*&^t that his eyes are brown. The question is whether his opinion is an insy wincy teeny tiny minority opinion. So far it looks like it is.68.160.176.7 (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"looks like it is"? Says who? I have identified seven scholars published by several well respected academic publishing houses discussing this "civic" model. You have not identified any sourcing what-so-ever that you are reading when you make a judgment of "looks like it is", what are you looking at? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sez the fact that you still haven't been able to find a second source.68.160.176.7 (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional evidence of "civic right" being an insy winsy itty bitty teeny tiny minority opinion. Google shows a whole 564 hits on the terms "civic right" combined with "second Amendment".http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22civic+right%22+%22second+amendment%22&btnG=Search68.160.176.7 (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

heavy handed revert or WP:BRD?

This recent wholesale revert[19] by Yaf appears heavy handed. It would be preferable to be more selective, and to take it easy on the blanket reverts with misleading edit summaries. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It appears to be the BOLD, revert, discuss method working as expected. Thus far, we have Philo-Centinel making a bold edit and Yaf reverting that edit. Next, I expect that we will see Philo-Centinel and/or Yaf (and likely others) discuss the edit and its rationale on this very talk page.--Hamitr (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Yaf reverted 100% of the edit. And Yaf's 'discussion' was only in his edit summary. I see that some elements of Philo-Centinel edits were worthwhile, and not deserving a 100% revert. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that some elements of Philo-Centinel's edits were worthwhile, then there is nothing to keep you from starting discussion about those elements/edits. In fact, I think most editors would agree that such a course of action would be much more productive than this thread.--Hamitr (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The edit by Philo-Centinel removed cited article content and replaced cited article content with uncited POV commentary. The WP:BRD cycle is clearly at play here. Philo-Centinel made a bold edit, I reverted, with a very clear edit summary of why I reverted, and now it is time for discussion, if Philo-Centinel wishes to discuss. Meanwhile, SaltyBoatr, why do you propose to remove cited content and replace such with uncited POV commentary? (For which I am surprised, being that Philo-Centinel wrote a POV commentary with an individual interpretation, that was Original Research, and that you typically oppose all content other than militia-interpretation content.) Yaf (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I typically oppose? This discussion has no place constructive to go after that offensive statement. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

So, I take it then that you have now actually read the proposed edit. OK. Looks like no problem, then, to omit this content, unless another editor sees this differently. Yaf (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

False. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

So, much like Congress not reading another stimulus bill before voting for it, you are likewise not reading the proposed content before likewise "voting" for its inclusion here in this article. OK. I get it. Yaf (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually the different readings of Blackstone I pointed out were evidenced in Heller. How could this be called original research or represent a particular POV when I explained that there were two opposing points of view and both were articulated in Heller. Once again this only serves to underscore why this particular article has no legitimacy in the view of anyone but the gun rights trolls who seem to spend all of their time on this article--that is when they are not looking for Joyce funded conspiracies under every bed or rock.

If you wish to see scholarly evidence of the influence of Cornell's work just take a look at the Harvard Law Review essays on Heller by Sunstein and Siegel. Both articles cite his work. I guess the Harvard Law Review is not a serious source like Stephen Halbrook or David HardyPhilo-Centinel (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

your tone is pretty aggressive. you removed cited material, and replaced it with unsourced prose. you also added a question to the article, that's expressly not considered encyclopedic per WP:MOS. you're not exactly helping your own legitimacy by referring to your fellow editors as "gun rights trolls". are you familiar with the wikipedia core policy of assume good faith? Anastrophe (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Case law vs Judicial interpretation

To Yaf - don't know why you want to keep Ward in the article, but your change has only highlighted the fact that Ward does not belong where it is currently located.

There is NO Judicial interpretation of the Second Amendment in Ward.68.160.176.7 (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There is an interpretation specifically of the Second Amendment in Ward attorney arguments referenced to Bliss made by a former attorney general of the US, the lead attorney in Ward, per cites. Looks like a clear reason for including this cited content to me, being it is directly related to judicial interpretations of the Second Amendment arising out of court cases. Yaf (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

An attorney "uses" judicial interpretation, he does not make it. That holds true for even a former attorney general. Unless there is some text in the Ward JUDGEMENT itself about the Second Amendment, there is no "judicial interpretation". The material currently in the article has not one word of "judicial interpretation" in it from the Ward case itself, and is wholly composed of NON-Judicial "opinion". While NON-Judicial opinion as a place under commentary, it has no place under "case law" OR "judicial interpretation".68.160.176.7 (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

But, as Wikipedia editors, we cannot directly interpret primary documents, in this case, the Bliss or Ward judgements themselves, and ascertain their direct relevance to the Second Amendment in and of themselves, for the judgements are not, in and of themselves, useful for any interpretation of themselves and for establishing their importance relative to understanding the Second Amendment. But, the opinion of the former US Atty General regarding these cases and their relevance to the Second Amendment is entirely appropriate for inclusion in this article for establishing interpretations of the Second Amendment based upon such judicial interpretations. This way, no original research is being done, of primary documents, that we must interpret. The focus here is on interpretations of the Second Amendment, for inclusion in this article. Looked at this way, this content clearly has a valid place under a section regarding "Judicial interpretation" of the topic of this article, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. This article is not about Bliss or Ward, but about the Second Amendment. Agreed? Yaf (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow! I think you've just beaten out Salty Boatr on the doublespeak department and probably the bad faith department as well. The situation is simple, If there is no mention of the Second Amendment in the JUDGEMENT, then there is no judicial interpretation going on. If there is no judicial interpretation, then there is no reason to include the material. Comprende?

BTW: and speaking of doublespeak and doublethink I have a quote I'd like inserted in the article by George Orwell, any objections?

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. ~ George Orwell, sergeant in Home Guard68.160.176.7 (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

New Robertson v. Baldwin belongs under Reconstruction not Antebellum

By Yaf's placing of Robertson v. Baldwin within the Antebellum section, the article runs a severe risk of misinforming readers as to what was the current judicial interpretation of that period. Since he does not seem to trust my judgment and I do not wish to get into an edit war I think I will let him confirm that 1897 was not part of the Antebellum period and upon confirmation he can then fix his own mistake.68.160.176.7 (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

1897 isn't considered part of the Reconstruction era of the United States? Robertson v. Baldwin is referenced in that part of the Antebellum subsubsection to show that the U.S. Supreme Court would later confirm that reading of the Second Amendment. That's why it's in that part of the article. SMP0328. (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: 1897 isn't part of reconstruction era. If it's not then why is there a case referenced there from 1905? As for the rest of your attempted clarification, why don't we put Heller in there as well as it, since per your own words it "later confirms that reading of the Second Amendment"68.160.176.7 (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Presidential administrations

Anastrophe removed the Presidential administrations section, claiming it added nothing to the article; I restored it. I believe it is relevant to the article to have what past Presidential administrations have said regarding the Second Amendment. There are sections regarding the Congress and the federal courts; there should also be one about the executive branch. SMP0328. (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

okay. we need to add significant material to it however. it excludes 52 of the 56 presidential administrations this country has had. some have strongly supported the second amendment, some have been strongly against it, most have had little to say about it, and since the executive has scant powers to affect the second amendment directly, it seems to be giving undue weight to a relatively trivial aspect of the 2A. Anastrophe (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

For new material! I vote that we add the fact that Obama has already backpedaled on is campaign promise to leave guns alone.68.160.141.242 (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

see the problem? it just becomes a magnet for POV pushing, which this article doesn't need. Anastrophe (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia is "a magnet for POV pushing" (see Talk:Barack Obama). That isn't a reason to remove reliably sourced material. I have no objection to having material added to that section. SMP0328. (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

How is this a POV push? If we are going to add material on additional administrations we need to start SOMEWHERE. Starting with the current administrations seems logical to me. I think readers would be more interested in learning about Obama's stint at the Joyce Foundation pushing gun control, then the thoughts of say Grant or Cleveland on the issue. Although thinking about it Jefferson's views that a gun should be your constant companion ranks up there.68.160.141.242 (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

i still maintain it gives undue weight to a couple of relatively trivial references to the second amendment. Anastrophe (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not edit that section so it refers to more information, while complying with NPOV? SMP0328. (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

because, as others have noted, the article is large (though not "too large" ;^). adding counterpoising trivial information won't satisfy the weight issue. presidential memoranda have no actual legal weight or clout at all, they're merely something issued from the bully pulpit of a sitting administration. wonderful as president grant's comments were, they were merely comments, and his later service as president of the NRA is interesting, but that's grist for Ulysses S. Grant, not this article, which isn't about the NRA. Anastrophe (talk) 03:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

More of Cornell that needs to be weeded out

Since I can't seem to get enough interest in getting rid of all the Cornell references based on the fact that he is a biased "mouthpiece" in the pay of a gun control group I will go about it quote by quote.

Next on the list

In 1905, the Kansas Supreme Court in Salina v. Blaksley[87] made a collective right judicial interpretation modeled on Cruikshank.[88] The Kansas high court declared: "That the provision in question applies only to the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law, is also apparent from the second amendment to the federal Constitution, which says: '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.'"

Anyone reading Cruikshank will notice that Cruikshank DID NOT make a collective rights interpretation. Cornell's goal here seems to be to insinuate that the collective right theory existed much earlier then it in fact did.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/92/542/case.html

The word collective appears twice in Cruikshank

1. Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual, as well as their collective, rights. The duty of a government to afford protection is limited always by the power it possesses for that purpose.

Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights. In the formation of a government, the people may confer upon it such powers as they choose. The government, when so formed, may, and when called upon should, exercise all the powers it has for the protection of the rights of its citizens and the people within its jurisdiction, but it can exercise no other. The duty of a government to afford protection is limited always by the power it possesses for that purpose.

The word "militia" does not appear at all in Cruikshank.

Unless someone can come up with a valid objection I will delete the bold portion above as inaccurate personal opinion.68.160.141.242 (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Cornell is a full professor at Ohio State-- he ran a center with Joyce Money that did not take a stand on the Second Amendment as either an individual or a collective right. His work was published by Oxford University Press and his articles have appeared in leading journals-- peer reviewed and law reviews. The suggestion that he is paid by the gun lobby is gun rights propaganda. OSU could never have taken money from a foundation with strings attached, a point I have made before. His work is generally regarded as the best and most

scholarly study of the Second Amendment--Philo-Centinel (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You already hacked one complain about Joyce, their bought and paid for Law Journals and the fact that Cornell participated as editor in one of those "Bought and Paid For" Journals. Your continuing hacks of he article don't help your cause any. As for his "knowledge" let me know when he figures out what "well regulated" means. BTW: Your arguments are continuing to be taken in bad faith. You are dead to me! Go away! 141.154.12.116 (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As the word militia does not appear at all in Cruikshank, it can without a single grain of doubt be determined that Cruikshank DID NOT made a collective right judicial interpretation that the right to keep and bear arms was applicable only within the context of a militia.

Courts and scholars clearly did construe Cruikshank as a collective rights decision for more than a hundred years Philo-Centinel (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Find me a reference from a court or a scholar dated 100 years ago in support of your claim.141.154.12.116 (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Meaning of English Declaration of Rights disputed by scholars and Heller The meaning of the English Declaration of Rights is a core example of how the same text has been read by different scholars in this debate to support both an individual right and a civic or collective right. If you compare the historians brief in Heller with Joyce Lee Malcolm's brief you can get a sense of the radically different interpretations. Can we start being a little honest and recognize that this issue is complex and that there are legitimate differences of opinion without once again turning to conspiracy theories about the Joyce FoundationPhilo-Centinel (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

interesting, but you've failed to provide any citations to back up your statements. claims in article space that "scholars continue to debate" beg for reliable sourcing. we get that you contend that they continue to debate the meaning. what's your reliable source that makes that same contention? it's bad practice to add prose to articles without sources. that failure is often overlooked on articles such as Honey or Power rangers; it's generally understood that on a deeply divisive issues such as the 2A, sourcing needs to be included for virtually every change made in article space. Anastrophe (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I am agreeing with Anastrophe here. About all that Philo-Centinel has established now is that his (hers?) opinion on this topic doesn't match Professor Cornell opinion. The distinction is that Professor Cornell's published opinions meets Wikipedia:Verifiabilty policy standards, and Phil-Centinel's opinions do not. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Still don't see anyone addressing my complaint that Cornell's comment cannot be accurate. If Cruikshank does not make a militia based interpretation, then Salina cannot be modeled on it.141.154.12.116 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC).

I would have thought the reference to Heller would have been enough authority, but I am happy to oblige with additional sources. The limited view of the Declaration of Rights provision on arms may be found in Lois Schworer's essay in The Second Amendment in Law and History or David Konig's essay on the Transatlantic Context of the Second Amendment in Law and History Review. The gun rights view may be found in Joyce Malcolm's, To Keep and Bear ArmsPhilo-Centinel (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)