Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Why is the prehistory included here?

The paragraph on English history should be referenced here, but not included. As it is too long and has little bearing on the the actual 2nd amendment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.86.7 (talk • contribs)

"Grammatically correct" punctuation?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The article refers to this as "a grammatically correct version". I don't see how it's grammatically correct. It's obviously incorrect and is probably a punctuation mistake. It's just like "John, being smart, Jane, understood the lesson". The only way to understand this is if the first comma in the sentence, the one after "Militia", is dropped, so that the sentence means "Because a Militia is necessary, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." The last comma is also redundant.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You are conflating grammatical correctness with logical correctness. Your statement about John and Jane is correct English grammar.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.8.246 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, my statement about John and Jane is incorrect English grammar as well as logically meaningless, the latter distracting from the former. Let's take a logically meaningful sentence. John is Jane's father, thus, Jane must be John's daughter. We can express this as "John being Jane's father, Jane is John's daughter." But punctuation as in "John, being Jane's father, Jane, is John's daughter." turns this into nonsense. If anything, it would mean that John = Jane's father = Jane = John's daughter.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I basically agree with you, but there are two things to consider:

• Orthography, including punctuation, was less standardised at the time. One function of commas is to indicate short pauses in speech, and it's not inconceivable that someone speaking this ceremonial text would make short pauses at the positions of those "incorrect" commas – though not as long as at the "correct" commas, or it would be misleading.
• The Supreme Court has used the incorrect commas as a pretext for misunderstanding the text. They even found "experts" to support them in this. As a result, we now have "reliable sources" that claim that the sentence does not say what it obviously says and that the commas are consequently correct. Hans Adler 12:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

As for number 1, I agree that the scribe probably reflected each pause used in the dictation with a comma, though, from my own experience with writings from the time, I still don't think this type of punctuation was normal even back then. As for number 2 - well, I suspected something like that. I presume they wanted to interpret the punctuation to mean "John, Jane is John's daughter", i.e. "John and Jane are John's daughters". Thus, in this case, "A militia (militias are cool, BTW) and people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Or perhaps "A militia, a militia ... I was saying something about a militia ... err, sorry, forgot what I was talking about ... Whatever, forget it, let's move on... People should have their own arms!!" But if they did claim this, the controversy about the punctuation should also be stated clearly, the claim that the incorrect punctuation is or once was correct should be sourced (you say that reliable sources exist, but they aren't explicitly given in that sentence), and the opposite view should also be given (I have no doubt that there will be sources for it, because it's completely obvious), so that NPOV is observed rather than one viewpoint being given as THE truth. The US Supreme Court has no exclusive jurisdiction over the punctuation of the English language, over the grammar of the English language and over the use of conjunctions in the English language, so it can't have the last word on what is grammatically correct and what isn't.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion makes no sense, and I don't know what it is doing here. First, by definition, 2A is what it is written and says what is written. What is the point of discussing writing it differently to say something different? And 91's "corrections" aren't corrections, they are changes. Is this a talk page for re-writing the Constitution? North8000 (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to have understood anything at all. First, I didn't propose any new changes, I was discussing two official versions of the same text - the one passed by Congress and the one ratified by the states. If you're saying that the second one has a different meaning that the first one, you're accusing the Founding Fathers of having rewritten the Constitution, not me. Second, the point was that the article text first presented the version passed by Congress and then introduced the version ratified by the states as "another grammatically correct version". Thus, it claimed that the first version had been grammatically correct. I argued that this claim was incorrect and this should be obvious to any person literate in English. In the meantime, I see that the words "grammatically correct" has been removed, so I have no issue with this anymore. (Though perhaps you people are going to edit war about this - count me out, in that case). --91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked back weeks and the terms "grammatically correct" has not been in that section (with the two versions). Confusion probably came from that. North8000 (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

POV sections on "the meaning of X"

At least the sections "Meaning of 'to keep and bear arms'" and "Meaning of 'well regulated militia'" are written in an inadequate and biased way. Instead of clearly stating that disagreements exist and then explaining what they are and what the major points of view are, opinions belonging to one of the points of view (the "Individual rights" one) are just stated as THE Truth, and other opinions are listed after them. As for the essence of the controversies and the major different types of interpretations, they are only stated relatively clearly in the section "Historical models of interpretation".

And no, don't try to dismiss this comment by telling me to fix the problem myself if I'm so smart. The mess is too big, the passions too high and I don't intend to spend my time and efforts on this.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Your comments cut across various different situations and sections. With respect to the "individual right" area (the meaning here being that being in a militia is not a condition) with respect to the legal meaning in the USA, the US Supreme Court creates the reality, and it has ruled that it is an individual right. "Wish it wasn't so" could be a credible alternative view, but "it isn't so" now falls under the category of a flat earth viewpoint. North8000 (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Of course my comments cut across different sections, that's because so many sections as well as the general structure of the article is messed up. Surely the principle of individual liberty shouldn't extend to the idea "Each article section for itself, and down with the tyranny of the whole article interfering with the internal affairs of article sections!" :) What I'm saying is that instead of stating clearly what the disagreement is about the meaning of "bear arms", we get a series of disconnected pointed citations. We get veiled and overt polemical objections to the "collective right" interpretation of the expression before that "collective right" interpretation has even been explained or named. I needed to read a large part of the article before I even understood what all the fuss was even about.
2. What the Supreme Court creates is only the modern legal interpretation of the text. This is distinct from the historical and philological question of what was meant when the text was written (even if the correctness of the Supreme Court's decision hinges on historical accuracy): in this latter respect, the US Supreme Court has no exclusive monopoly over truth. It can't control the minds of people, including academics. Wikipedia is not a US court or an organ of the United States government, it is an encyclopaedia for and by the whole world. It can state objectively that the Supreme Court's opinion counts as the truth for legal purposes in the US, but that doesn't mean it is obliged to say that it is also correct from the point of view of the facts. The numerous sources cited in the article in favour of the "collective rights" camp are much more than you could ever find for the Flat Earth hypothesis, and if your extreme comparison were correct, you should have deleted them all by now. Instead of such a consistent approach, what I see in the text is just the typical messy Wikipedian pile of citations and countercitations, where whichever side is more fanatical and stronger in numbers places its favourite citations at the top and/or gets the last word in terms of "criticism of the criticism of the".
3. Finally, even if the general position on individual rights by the Supreme Court were to be accepted as THE truth, this still wouldn't mean that each claim from any publication from the pro-gun camp must also be presented as THE truth. This applies e.g. to the accuracy and relevance of "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" (coming from a pro-gun source) and the correctness of "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" (coming from another pro-gun source). In contrast, views from the opposing camp are not worded as the unconditional truth, but qualified with terms such as "X claims", "X advocates", etc.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your "hodge podge" assessment, a characteristic of nearly all contested Wikipedia articles. My point was that with respect to the legal meaning in the US, the US Supreme Court CREATES the reality. As an analogy, the last election created the reality of who the US president it. An alternative point of view that McCain SHOULD have become our president might be reasonable to carry, but a view that McCain IS our president need not. North8000 (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Again - this is different, because the current legal situation is one thing and the correct philological and historical interpretation is another. A US citizen is obliged to abide by the law, including the court's interpretation of that law, but that is distinct from the issue what the law was really intended to say (even if the court's current interpretation hinges on claims about what it was really intended to say). For example, let's assume a somewhat absurd situation: tomorrow, the US Supreme Court says that chimpanzees with practically human minds exist and therefore the killing of chimpanzees is automatically murder under existing US law. This would mean that as far as US law is concerned, chimpanzees are human beings and one is obliged to abstain from killing them. However, it wouldn't mean that all psychologists and biologists are obliged to rewrite their textbooks about chimpanzees, or that we are obliged to claim that the US laws on murder had always, historically, been intended for chimpanzees to be protected in the same way as humans. Anyway, that'll be all from me, I've reached my self-imposed limit on the duration of participation in a single discussion. Best, --91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice strawman. The point you, and others, need to remember is that this article is about the Second Amendment, not just some twenty-seven word sentence. Since Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court has been recognized as having the authority to interpret the Constitution and their interpretation is the only meaningful opinion in the context of the Second Amendment. Prior to Heller, reasonable people could have differing opinions over the meaning of all or parts of the Second Amendment; after "Heller", those opinions are moot and the words mean whatever the Supreme Courts said they mean. In the section that explains what "keep and bear arms" means, we can choose to explain that some people had the opinion that it meant something else. People that have that opinion are ignoring reality in the same way as people who think, as North8000 said, that McCain is president. We have to decide separately whether that fringe is worth including or not.

North8000 said something else a while back: that this would remain the main article for high level "firearm rights and restrictions in the USA" topics. I hope that he is wrong about that. Gun control would be easier if individual gun ownership was not a constitutionally protected right, so the Second Amendment was a battle ground. That battle is over, so the gun control debate changes to arguing the balance between an individual right and a perceived societal benefit. Not being the center of the debate will be good for this article; hopefully the POV warriors will move on. Celestra (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

On your last point, I'm flattered that you remember what I wrote. I wrote imprecisely in that writing that you are referring to, and didn't mean to define it that broadly. Inevitably some governments will answer that "balance" question with "to whatever extent that we can make firearms/ammunition illegal, expensive or difficult or onerous to get, own etc, we're doin' it", and then the limiter becomes the extent that the 2A will let them do that. And so what I really meant was that the article will inevitably be he place that covers THOSE issues. And that those are likely to be the big news at the national level. Including, I would expect, at least one more Supreme court case. North8000 (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

91.148.159.4's comments get into WP:TRUTH versus what is, as Celestra points out. The article (and the various sections) must give prominence to the prevailing position as based on reliable sources. Specific to US law, the ultimate primary source for that view is the Supreme Court with the secondary sources interpreting that ruling. With the recent decision, that's not too hard to define. No other view, including "what was originally intended" or "what X thinks it ought to mean" should be given prominence or more weight in the article. Wikipedia focuses on what is, not what should be or what was intended to be. Ravensfire (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced Anonymous Commentary

I have posted three 'verifiable' points (verifiable by applying the rules of proper English grammar which have no particular source, AND by reading the Constitution of the United States itself, which, being the very topic of this article, would result in the use of numerous improper pronouns.) --And yet, those points have been removed; repeatedly and under any number of false justifications. The most interesting (and convenient) of these was "unsourced anonymous commentary".

First of all, the anonymity or otherwise of a thing is irrelevant; that is a strawman argument which bears no relation to the 'factuality' of a statement.

Secondly, the notion that ALL unsourced statements should be removed is incredible and ridiculous (exposing attempts to apply this tenant as merely politically motivated self-justification.) In order to illustrate this point, I began the arduous task of removing all unsourced commentary from wikipedia.

I imagine, once we are finished diligently executing this "labour of love", it will become quite a bit shorter a book--but hallelujah! It will all be sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.8.246 (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct Text

The current article has two different versions of the text, differing in commas and punctuation in significant places. Legally of course (in theory at least), there can only be one version of the text. Is it too much to ask that the correct version be verified and displayed on its own, or would this inevitably step on too many toes? Personally, I think the current two version page—no doubt a result of consensus—is an appallingly lax presentation of a significantly important topic. ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You should read the first source in that section. There doesn't appear to be a "correct version". The amendments needed to be approved by congress and ratified by two-thirds of the states. The congress approved one variation and the states ratified various. The Supreme Court has referred to both a three and one comma version. We had, at one time, a text section and a commas section, with these interesting details. As i recall, The text section was often changed back and forth, so we ended up presenting both and removing the then redundant commas section. How would you suggest we proceed? Celestra (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

OMF brings up a good point (there should be an "official" version), but Celestra is correct (one has not been identified by the Supreme Court as "official"). Unless the Supreme Court picks one to the exclusion of all others, we should not claim any are correct with the others being wrong. BTW, proposed amendments need to ratified by three-fourths of the States in order to be adopted. SMP0328. (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Trying to formulate roadmap proposal, questions about reference format.

(copied / retrieved from the recent archive)

I think that nearly everyone acknowledges that this article could use some organizing and updating. I have been trying to develop a "roadmap" proposal, and trying to learn what's in the article (and the intent of such) well enough to do so intelligently. I ended up needing some help and thoughts on the latter regarding the reference format. As far as I can tell the intent is to split it so that the particular citation is in the first section, and such just briefly mentions (author and title) the source. And then the source is fully detailed in the second section, starting with the last name of the author. I'm assuming the reason for the split is so that when the same source is used many times, but with different pages, that this split method avoids having to fully describe the source multiple times. I guess the down side would be the complexity of it. To follow the practice, an editor would have to learn/understand the system, and make two entries for each citation. And, also, when people don't do this, you end up with a mixture as we currently have, where many sources are only in the top section. Also, unless one tackles a huge manual job, there is no way to find orphaned unused reference in the second section.

1. Did I sum this up right?

2. Do people have an opinion for or against this "split" concept?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

North8000 (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

1/2 of a road map proposal

1. I guess the first item (which I brought up August 31st above with no opinions received since) is to merge the "split" reference section into a single references section. This could be done gradually, by, for each citation in the "notes and citations" section, copying the reference material from the"references" section into the citation. Of course, there is already a "mixture" in there. When someone adds a reference in the normal manner, it goes only and fully into the "notes and citations" section. When this process is completed (could take months) then delete the "references" section and rename the"notes and citations" section to "references"

Comment - to clarify, you're saying let's get the non-inline refs into inline? AliveFreeHappy

Just to make sure I'm not using the wrong words, they would still be in line citations as they are now. But it would go to an entry at the bottom which has all of the info on the source. So, in essence, the two lists at the bottom would be combined into one. Or, to put it another way, the same system that is used on the majority of WP articles.North8000 (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk) 17:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Reduce the "English History" section by about 1/3. This section seems a little big /slightly less germane for this article, more so now because some arguments which they provided foundation information for are now settled.

Agree English History should be brief here with a "main article" reference to the proper location. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Eliminate about 90% of the material in "Lower Court Cases Since Heller", and the in the future move the other 10% into some new section. 90% of this section is basically selected post Heller pre-McDonald court cases which doubly have no relationship to the Heller decision. First, since they were pre-McDonald, Heller was not yet binding on these. Second, they are in areas where Heller is irrelevant, and where Heller declared itself to be irrelevant. I can't even see why this section exists. The only reason I can see for that section is someone inserting selection of cases to make or imply a particular point. One could trot out various WP:OR and WP:Undue citation relevant to this, but I'd rather start with just discussing how to make the article better. The remaining 10% would be those which have some reference to Heller.

Agree AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Put all lower court cases (including state) into one section.

Done North8000 (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

2. Somehow start developing something like an "Open Questions" section. I imagine that this would include areas that are not clearly inside or outside of the reach of Heller.

Agree AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is only 1/2 of a road map. The second half (later) would deal with organization of material.

Any thoughts? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

All of that plan seems reasonable to me. I'd add the reducing the "Meaning of..." sections and removing the first few paragraphs from the beginning of "Experience in America...", but that could come later.

The current reference structure seems like a good attempt at reducing the bulk, but it makes finding the actual reference much more burdensome. It would be good to try again with some framework beneath it to link the abbreviated citation (with the page and quote) to the full citation. Celestra (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess if there were lots of repetition of citation use, this split concept would reduce the bulk. If not, it owuld increase the bulk. I haven't figured out which is the case here. But either way, splitting it adds complexity for the reader, and doubly so for someone adding a reference. Which is presumably why many have not been following it, and we have a mixture of the two systems. North8000 (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced Addition

An editor recently added the following paragraph to the subsection English history:

Thus the effect of the Bill of Rights in England (and Wales) was to ensure that only an elected body, the parliament, could determine an individual's right to bear arms. Thus democratically elected parliaments have been able to exercise the collective will of the people for more restrictions on the ownership of weapons as society has become safer under the rule of law and with law enforcement transferred from the people (hue and cry system) to formal bodies established to maintain law and order such as the police (against internal threats) and the nation's armed forces (against external threats). This contrasts markedly with the effect of the similar Bill of Rights in America (incorporating the Second Amendment) which over time has been interpreted as creating a personal right to bear arms for personal protection. And because it is a part of the constitution, the collectively will of the people thorough state legislatures cannot overrule it, except in certain cases deemed appropriate by the Supreme Court.

I reverted the addition because none of it is sourced. The editor just undid my reversion and in the edit summary said: "Hey please just mark the bits you think need references....I'll get them." Well, it's certainly a civil request, but given that none of it is sourced, shouldn't the burden be on the editor to source it before adding it? Am I the only one bothered by the addition?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have clarified some of the word in the above material, so it now reads:

Thus the effect of the English Bill of Rights was to ensure that only an elected body, the parliament, could determine an individual's right to bear arms. Thus democratically elected parliaments have been able to exercise the collective will of the people for more restrictions on the ownership of weapons as society has become safer under the rule of law and with law enforcement transferred from the people (hue and cry system) to formal bodies established to maintain law and order such as the police (against internal threats) and the nation's armed forces (against external threats). This contrasts markedly with the effect of the similar U.S. Bill of Rights (which includes the Second Amendment) that over time has been interpreted as creating a personal right to bear arms for personal protection. Because it is a part of the Constitution, the collective will of the people thorough state legislatures cannot overrule it, except in certain cases deemed appropriate by the Supreme Court.

I believe the burden is on the editor adding the material to also provide reliable sourcing for it. I believe one week should be allowed for the providing of reliable sourcing. At that time, any part of the above material not reliably sourced should removed from the article. SMP0328. (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable, but what do you base that time frame on? Why should the material be added before the sources are found? I'm not trying to be argumentative, it simply doesn't make sense to me and, more important, doesn't comply with policy. Finally, a lot can happen in a week. You've already made some changes to the material. Other editors may make more changes. And then at the end of a week, we remove the material because it's not sourced, having wasted the time of the intervening editors?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm cutting Hauskalainen some slack. The deadline should be one week from when Hauskalainen restored the disputed material to the article, unless there's agreement to another time. SMP0328. (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that anyone agreed to the 7-day time frame. :-) However, if you want to cut the editor some slack, and no one else objects, I'm not going to make any more of a fuss than I already have.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced statements are unacceptable, especially one the expresses opinions. Also, it is incorrect that parliaments are "democratically elected". The monarch and the Lords, who are part of parliament, are not elected. And while the Commons is democratically elected today, that was not the case when the Bill of Rights was passed. TFD (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Have removed the original research. There are multiple problems with the statements. Unsourced original research can be removed at any time by longstanding Wiki policy. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen has restored that material. I have added a citation header to the Pre-Constitution background section (the section in which Hauskalainen's material is located). Including Hauskalainen's material, there are paragraphs worth of uncited material. Should that material be moved to this talk page? SMP0328. (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In theory, any unsourced material can be removed. However, I give some slack to material in an article that has been there for a while, even if unsourced, as long as it's not controversial or inaccurate. However, when an editor adds an entire paragraph of unsourced material and another editor rightfully removes it, the burden is on the adding editor to source it before restoring it. It shouldn't be the other way around. I haven't been doing the reversions, though, because I said earlier in the discussion that I would wait as you requested. But I also said if "no one else objects," and others have been objecting. Frankly, what's the problem with the adding editor sourcing it and restoring it later? It's not like there's anything "urgent" in the material. It can wait until it's done properly.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There definitely appears to be a consensus against that material as long as it is unsourced. As for the other unsourced material, I'll leave it for now (as long as the citation header remains). Unless it is sourced, we should consider moving that material. This article has been a source of controversy in the past and I don't want allowance for unsourced material to become a new source. SMP0328. (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a very reasonable plan. My only suggestion is that if you or someone else wants to remove "old" unsourced material, you might want to do it in increments so editors can discuss it. Removal of too much at once can create havoc.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that someone just deleted Hauskalainen's material en masse. From what I have see of his/her expertise, in the real world Hauskalainen would be ranked as a much more expert and reliable source in their area of expertise than most Wikipedia "Reliable Sources", and this was an excellent informative piece of writing. Not that that is relevant here.  : - ( North8000 (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Heller and new paradigm

I have changed the claim that the new militia-based view, sometimes described as limited individual rights view or civic rights, theory has few adherents. It has been adopted articulated in two major peer reviewed university books published by Oxford and Duke, and elaborated in peer reviewed scholarly journals such as Law and History Review. It was endorsed in several amicus briefs in McDonald which brings the number of scholarly supporters to well over fifty. Moreover, it was adopted by four justices of SCOTUS. Rather than say few supporters it would be better to call it what it is the Dissenting view in Heller, a modification I would have little trouble with. The earlier claim is simply uninformed and not NPOV. I don't see how even the most ardent gun rights advocate could dispute this claim-- it is a simple statement of what happened in HellerPhilo-Centinel (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)