Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Case law section causes neutrality skew

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

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

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

The state courts were ruling on interpretations of the 2A, per the cites in the article. There is no nonsense here, except for the claim that such interpretations is somehow "nonsensical". Again, the problem appears to be with one editor's opinions that are contrary to the Heller decision from the SCOTUS. Yaf (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Now, such a question as this is nonsensical, however. Edit warring is entirely inappropriate within the Wikipedia community. Yaf (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr writes:
"I call attention to a neutrality bias in the hypothesis that discussion of gun rights in state law (Buzzard, Bliss, etc.) pertains to the federal Second Amendment."
It is fact that some state courts discussed the Second Amendment.
"I don't dispute that this point of view is valid and that it exists."
It's not a "point of view." It's a fact.
"(primarily found on pro-gun blogs, too)"
Whether "anti-gun" blogs choose to ignore it, doesn't mean the presentation of such material (if it is presented objectively) is biased.
"I simply object that inclusion of the pro-gun hypothesis material skews the POV balance of the article towards a pro-gun point of view in violation of WP:NPOV."
So basically you're expressing a desire to eliminate material that favors one side because another side ignores it.Eaglecloud (talk) 06:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, without discussion, has reverted[1] this section again. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Is that anything like the deletion of Anti-Federalist quotes from the article, without discussion, over objections? Is the pot calling snow black again?4.156.78.122 (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Ditto with respect to having the section removed in the first place! There was certainly no consensus on its removal. (And Buzzard still needs work) Eaglecloud (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

State court decisions over gun rights have nothing to do with the 2A. The 2A states the right "shall not be infringed" but that does not mean the right emanates from there. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights states: "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added." "Its powers" refers to the powers just delegated to Congress in Article I, Section 8, and "restrictive clauses" refers to the Bill of Rights. Thus, Congress was not to use its powers to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, or any other right, including those not mentioned. Truwik (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822), Bliss was indicted for carrying a concealed weapon (a sword in a cane), in violation of Kentucky state law enacted to: "prevent persons in the commonwealth from wearing concealed arms." Bliss argued that law violated the Ky. Constitution. The Ky. Supreme Court agreed and held that state law void. No mention was made of the 2A in the U.S. Const. In State v. Buzzard (1842), Arkansas had a similar law against concealed weapons, for which Buzzard was indicted. Buzzard argued that state law violated the 2A of the U.S. Const. The Ark. Supreme Court disagreed and upheld their state law stating it is: "in no wise repugnant either to the Const. of the U.S. or the Const. of this State." That should not be construed as incorporating the 2A, Buzzard simply misapplied it. (Truwik (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

Introduction revision

The recent revision[2] to the introduction served to improve the "Heller centric" problem in the article, thanks. Though it did not really address the problem with the introduction. In short, I think that Wikipedia policy is that the introduction should be a concise summary of the major issues covered in the article. Presently, the introduction does not do this, but rather it tries to make a statement about what the 2A is today. In broad terms the article includes these four major categories:

1. The precedences that lead up to the creating of the 2A.
2. The actual creation and adoption of the 2A.
3. The history of case law about the 2A
4. The history of legislation related to firearms.

I suggest that we scrap the present introduction, write four neutral paragraphs covering each of these four major issues, and use that as the introduction. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You have identified a problem with the article, not the lead. The article is about the second amendment, but the topics you list exclude the amendment's definition, i.e., what the amendment actually is. The current lead does that (in a manner nearly identical to other BoR articles), and also succinctly addresses/summarizes the article topics you list, except perhaps legislation. And some recent changes to the lead are appalling... not even complete sentences. The first paragraph of the lead is good, and the rest of the lead only needed some tweaks, at least until some more recent changes to the later paragraphs. --tc2011 (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want a short intro then the current first paragraph covers the major points. The 4th paragraph of the intro currently looks a mess. I hope that is not a final edit and that someone is working on it.

I would personally like to see the fact that while the power and obligation of arming the militia was transferred to the feds in the Constitution, as compared to the Articles of Confederation where that power was retained by the states, that the Second Amendment limited the power transferred to NOT include the power to DISARM the militia.

The article currently includes the fact that the Second Amendment was a COMPROMISE to satisfy the concerns of the anti-Federalists, but not what the compromise was. The compromise clearly was to FORBID any exercise of the power to disarm.4.154.238.146 (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

after rereading the first paragraph of the intro I see some issues

the phrase "keep and bear arms" is listed as a right when it is in fact 2 rights.

The right to keep arms for individual self defense and the right to bear arms in defense of the individual states or in defense of the US.

Please be aware that under the US Constitution the states retained the right to wage DEFENSIVE war and the states do not need a declaration of war from Congress to do so.

The following is too wordy, does not match text of footnote, and just does not read well.

since history had shown taking away the people's arms and making it an offense for people to keep them was the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents.

Something like the following reads better and is true for both Federalists and anti-Federalists. Founding Fathers therefore fits.

The Founding Fathers believed that disarming the citizenry in combination with the establishment of a standing army, allowed would be tyrants to use that army to gain and keep power without effective resistance.4.154.237.191 (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

On above, I have to admit that while I believe it refers to two rights the text of the second amendment does say right and not rights.4.154.237.191 (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the intro put in[3] by TC2011 has several POV push problems:

Before District of Columbia v. Heller (June 26, 2008), the Supreme Court had only addressed the amendment in limited or ambiguous terms[5] and because the amendment contains a prefatory clause, which refers to a "well regulated militia,"[6][7] there was disagreement as to whether it protected a collective or individual right.

1. "only addressed in limited or ambiguous terms" bluntly implies that Heller is not ambiguous or limited. WP:SYN
2. The use of the Linda Greenwood piece as a footnote misinterprets her article, the question of "individual right" is only one aspect of the Second Amendment, not the whole enchilada as the pro-gun POV would have us believe. Indeed, other aspects of the 2A have been ruled on at least five times by the SCOTUS, and these should not be suppressed.
3. The link to "prefatory" points to preamble, which is but one of the POV's about the "well regulated militia" grammar, the Latin ablative absolute grammar hypothesis is improperly suppressed.
4. "collective or individual", shouldn't this be collective and/or individual?
5. Additionally, the term "individual right" has the ambiguity problem in that it is both a legal concept and also a pro-gun slogan with separate meanings. We must parse this ambiguity.

I took another look at the introduction, and it appears to be even more confusing, poorly written and focused on irrelvancies than it was a month ago. While the discussion of the grammar of the 2nd ammendment is quite relevant and should be included in the article, for this discussion to comprise 90% of the first three paragraphs seems absurd. Moreover, the abstract nature of the prose means that that a casual visitor to this article will have no comprehension of what the two conflicting interpretations are unless they do a lot of other reading. This grammar discussion should be moved later in the article, and it should be rewritten so that a layperson can understand it. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Good points. Have moved the grammar discussion to later in the article. As for rewording for lay people, this still need to be done. Yaf (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

making change to second paragraph of intro from

the Supreme Court overturned a Washington, D.C. ordinance that was an outright firearm ban and identified rights of personal self defense based on the Second Amendment.

to

the Supreme Court overturned a Washington, D.C. ordinance that was an outright firearm ban as contrary to the individual right of personal self defense protected by the Second Amendment.

the right is not BASED on the Amendment. It is PROTECTED by the Amendment.

Under the US system of government all power is derived from the people. The government does NOT grant us any rights, it can ONLY PROTECT those rights.

I further ask that the quotes of the Founding Fathers be reinstated into the article. Their original words were a plus and not a minus. Removing them is detrimental to the article.4.156.78.230 (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC) 4.156.78.230 (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Change the above to I TRIED to make a edit but found the article locked. I ask that a registered wiki editor make the change mentioned above4.156.78.230 (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the lede has been improved, but is still a little sloppy. Certainly the characterization of Heller is now more NPOV. I don't think using the word "protected" instead of "based" would be a problem - That change could be made. The last sentence of the lede appears unsourced and is possibly unnecessary. I'm not familiar enough with the case to offer a fair opinion on whether Cruikshank belongs in the lede. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The last sentence is well sourced and is necessary to keep clear the distinction of political agenda of unlimited rights versus limited rights provided for in Heller and prior case precedence. See this article[4] in Legal Times. Indeed the only effect of Heller is the one gun ban law overturned. DC residents have a right to unlocked pistols inside their houses, but it remains illegal to purchase a handgun in DC except from a licensed gun dealer (and presently there are none) and it is illegal to import a handgun in DC except through a licensed gun dealer, (and presently there are none). SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The "only" effect??? I think stating that the right to own a firearm for self-defense is a Constitutionally protected RIGHT does not qualify as an "ONLY". Under US law an attempt to deprive you of your Constitutionally protected rights, or any rights protected by law for that matter, is considered CRIMINAL CONDUCT. Using Heller as case law, anyone deprived of that right can sue, with good chance of success, any government agency attempting to so deprive. Notice the number of legal cases that have sprung up due to Heller. 4.156.78.92 (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The Cruikshank mention in the introduction deserves weight because the question of Incorporation on the states is a huge issue relevant to this topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

To Counteract Salty Boatrs attempts to minimize Heller- some language from the case

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

Notice that DC MUST register his handgun and MUST issue a license to carry. Per above Supreme Court language, A failure to do so would be violation of his constitutionally protected rights. 4.156.78.92 (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

An intro should summarize the article.

Currently three quarters of the intro reads anti Second Amendment. That is most certainly POV bias and a distortion of the article. An article about a protected right should naturally be PRO that right - not neutral and certainly not about arguments contrary to that right.

Where is the BASIC fact that the Second Amendment was created as a guard against a power grab by a would be tyrant, who could easily seize and keep power through an army beholding to him (as paymaster) after the citizenry (militia to you purists) was disarmed on one pretext or another.

Looks like you guys are getting blackmailed by Salty Boatr and his ilk. Whats worse, you have given in.4.156.78.208 (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not given in, but I am outnumbered. I can't impose my will. So I maintain the article as best I can, without edit warring. SMP0328. (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion: "you have given in" => "I am outnumbered...I will maintain as best I can" is proof of the long term pro-gun systemic bias trouble of this article. These two editors are discussing their agenda of personal pro-gun POV push in this article. Instead, the agenda should be to read the reliable sourcing, and then write an article that matches the neutrality balance found in the reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You have misinterpreted my words. All I meant was that I am trying to have the article appear as I would like it to appear, while also trying to reach a consensus. Are you not doing the same? My reference to being "outnumbered" was in response to the anon's claim that I had "given in" to you and other editors. Try reading my comments with AGF in mind. SMP0328. (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I have misinterpreted you. I recall your similar effort to collude[5] with Yaf to push a POV on November 14th. Explain what "anti Second Amendment" means? That editors like you two communicate about fixing "anti Second Amendment" wording reveals volumes about your faith. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You really have to stop seeing conspiracies everywhere. Wikipedia editors are suppose to reach "consensus"; that means we have to work together. Sadly, you see such cooperation as collusion. Please remember AGF. SMP0328. (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Disclose exactly what you wrote[6] on November 14th. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Does my speaking with Yaf violate any Wikipedia policy? Why don't you focus on improving the article instead of making accusations? SMP0328. (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer my questions. Answering yours, yes WP:NPOV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

So you believe my speaking with Yaf is a violation of Wikipedia policy. As I said earlier, editors are supposed to work together in order to reach consensus. My speaking with Yaf not only was not a violation of any policy, it's what Wikipedia desires (editors speaking to each other). SMP0328. (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not the actual act of speaking. It is the act of speaking to conspire to push a pro-gun POV that violates WP:NPOV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Editors are supposed to speak to one another regarding the content of articles. It's called reasonable consensus building, not conspiracy or collusion. SMP0328. (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro continues to be dominated by exceptions to the right to keep and bear arms. I consider this POV bias and will continue to say so. Once the article is unprotected I will delete anti-gun rhetoric there. 4.156.78.149 (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have provided neutral wording for the Introduction's reference to incorporation. It now does not refer to incorporation being "likely" or claim that Heller "reaffirmed" anti-incorporation decisions. SMP0328. (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro is now even more POV biased in favor of EXCEPTIONS to the rights protected then to a description of the rights themselves. No mention is made as to why the right deserved protection. While detailing exceptions certainly has to be included this detailing doen not belong in the intro.

Placing a secondary issue (exceptions to the right protected) in front of the rights themsleves show blatant POV bias. If people consider those exceptions so important, they should create another article for those exceptions. Hijacking this one is not acceptable.4.156.78.115 (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Following comment seems wrong

In 1786, a decade after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the United States existed as a loose national government under the Articles of Confederation.

I believe that under the Articles of Confederation the states were considered "nations" and that the Articles of Confederation was considered a sort of "super treaty". A current example would be Europe and the gradual erosion of state powers in favor of the EU or "European Union".

Back then the states were New York, Virginia, Massachusetts and the rest, while currently the "states" are Germany, France, Italy and the rest. At some point the various states ceased to be considered separate nations, but vestiges of that nationhood still remain. For instance I recently read an article about a number of the states individually entered students into inter-NATIONAL education competitions. Their students were not part of the "United States" team.

The following from the Massachusetts Constitution support the notion that at the time, the states considered themselves "SOVEREIGN" nations", following their own course, except for their obligations to the "super treaty" organization known as the "United States". My opinion is that the states officially lost their "nationhood" as a result of the Civil War.

Article IV. The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, or may not hereafter, be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress assembled.

as to when the above Article was written, the following describes the timing of passage of the Constitution of Massachusetts.

On the 11th of November the Convention adjourned, to meet at the Representatives’ Chamber, in Boston, January 5th, 1780. On the 2d of March, of the same year, a form of Constitution having been agreed upon, a Resolve was passed by which the same was submitted to the people, and the Convention adjourned to meet at the Brattle Street Church, in Boston, June the 7th. At that time and place the Convention again met, and appointed a Committee to examine the returns of votes from the several towns. On the 14th of June the Committee reported, and on the 15th the Convention resolved, “That the people of the State of Massachusetts Bay have accepted the Constitution as it stands, in the printed form submitted to their revision.” A Resolve providing for carrying the new Constitution into effect was passed; and the Convention then, on the 16th of June, 1780, was finally dissolved. 4.154.234.114 (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The United States has been considered a nation at least since the A of C. Back then, the country was a confederation, while it's now a federation. U.S. states were not, technically at least, independent countries under the A of C. This article shouldn't get into a discussion regarding the de facto status of the states under the A of C. SMP0328. (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please reread Article IV of the Constitution of Massachusetts above, written in the time period of the sentence in question,, and let me know if you missed one or more of the words "free" "sovereign" and "independent".4.154.235.250 (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Henry referring to Virginia as a "country" during the debates on the Constitution

But now when we have heard the definition of it, it is purely national. The honorable member James Madison was pleased to say, that the sword and purse included every thing of consequence. And shall we trust them out of our hands without checks and barriers? The sword and purse are essentially necessary for government every essential requisite must be in congress. Where are the purse and sword of Virginia? They must go to congress. What is become of our country? The Virginian government is but a name. It clearly results from his last argument that we are to be consolidated.4.154.235.250 (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I will have to do an edit when the article protection comes off. 4.156.78.7 (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

or, you could open an account, and edit now. Anastrophe (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

and it would promptly be closed because I firmly believe in calling an idiot an idiot. 4.156.78.19 (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Following still needs fixing from

In 1786, a decade after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the United States existed as a loose national government under the Articles of Confederation.

to something like

In 1786, a decade after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the United States existed as a federation of sovereign, independent states under the Articles of Confederation.4.154.254.139 (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of this wording?

In 1786, a decade after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the United States existed as a loose alliance of states under the Articles of Confederation. SMP0328. (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"loose alliance" goes too far in the opposite direction. Close alliance is better. Also I think either "sovereign" or independent" should be included for clarity

In 1786, a decade after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the United States existed as a close alliance of sovereign states under the Articles of Confederation4.154.236.158 (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The wording change has been made. SMP0328. (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

more re the infamous footnote 67

i'm becoming troubled by infamous footnote 67. i have no question that the quote from it is being rendered accurately, and on that basis i have no qualms with it. it's clearly a reliable source in all respects. what bothers me most has to do with the apparent lack of any other corroborating cites. i've googled high and low (and acknowledging that lack of google results is not an acceptable basis for determining availability) this quote appears to be the only specific quote from a reliable source that suggests bliss v commonwealth had any relationship to the second amendment. buzzard is non-problematic, as the text of the court's decision clearly discusses that decision relative to the second amendment. but bliss is a problem, and i have to say i'm beginning to lean toward's sb's concern per 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' (or however it's been worded). are there any other citations from any other reliable sources that suggest that bliss specifically was related to, discussed, or was concerned with, the second amendment? anyone? bueller? Anastrophe (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I was first pointed to this obscure reference by a rather prominent researcher, in a private e-mail several years ago. I subsequently looked up the original, and found it in hard copy form at a Federal records repository. I then searched, based on the wording in the hard copy format, and the present courtesy link popped out. But, I would not have found it in electronic snippet form without having read it in the original hard copy version, first. And, I wouldn't have found it in the hard copy version without the original pointer in the earlier e-mail (thanks, if you are reading this note!). Unfortunately, all I have besides this one reliable and verifiable source are unpublished e-mail notes, which are not acceptable as valid sources. But, the lack of sources was explicitly because it was a common interpretation that was universal for many decades in the 19th Century. Buzzard was notable solely because it was the sole collective right interpretation in the 19th Century. The odd is always discussed, whereas "facts that everyone knows" are never discussed. Unfortunately, that means a minimalistic set of reliable sources for interpretations of Bliss. Yaf (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yaf has confessed to original research here. His anonymous "prominent researcher" is his source for this idea. The idea is unpublished. Yaf is trying to replicate that research using interpretation of extremely rare and obscure documents. If this extreme and obscure idea is to meet Wikipedia policy, it should be found in multiple reliable sources per WP:REDFLAG. Yaf has failed to comply. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Bumping this. Yaf needs to comply with WP:REDFLAG and has not. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No need to do anything,here, because there is no original research problem or WP:REDFLAG issue here. There are already multiple sources making the same claim already contained in the article. Namely, the Bliss violative of the Second Amendment footnote in question, as well as the subsequent paragraph with details on former US Attorney General John Crittenden's Mattews Ward case, as documented/cited by Saul Cornell's book, establishing the interpretation of a constitutional right to arms contained in the Bill of Rights, and in the Second Amendment in particular, as being used in the Bliss defense. Multiple sources hence indicate the same thing. Besides, if there was not a question about concealed carry regulations being a potential violation of the 2A, there would not have been the SCOTUS case to decide it in 1897, now, would there? There is no issue here. Yaf (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Double talk and smoke. Multiple editors see footnote 67 as lacking corroboration, and Yaf has not complied with WP:REDFLAG. Even Yaf wrote there is "a minimalistic set of reliable sources". At 04:44, 9 January 2009 see above, Yaf confessed to original research with this Bliss passage. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Totally false. There is no Original Research problem here. There is only severe POV pushing and more personal attacks by SaltyBoatr evident here. Yaf (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to see this source disproven, but since the demands of WP:Burden are met, the citation should stand until someone presents actual evidence that it should not. --tc2011 (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The claim that a state law court case was won due to the federal second amendment is "extraordinary" considering that the overwhelming consensus, truly unanimous, is that historically and presently: The federal second amendment does not apply to state law. There is plenty of speculation that it may do so in the future, but presently and historically, it does not. Footnote 67 is insufficient, there simply must be other coverage of something as notable as this to be found in the reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

i have to conditionally agree with sb. i disagree with the characterization above - the citation characterizes bliss merely as 'violative of the second amendment', not that bliss was 'won due to' the 2nd amendment or any such broader scope. however, a single quote extant that conflates bliss with violation of the 2nd amendment, with no other sources that make the same comparison/claim/argument/statement/characterization/whatever, becomes an extraordinary claim, with a stricter burden of proof applied per WP:REDFLAG. While saying that, i also acknowledge that coverage in reliable sources of Bliss v Commonwealth is not exactly the richest vein to try to mine in the first place. But without even a single other mention of Bliss being a case 'violative of the second amendment' from any other source but this single brief mention in testimony to congress in 1967, smacks more of the person quoted having misspoken in his/her testimony, than to the general agreement within any community that Bliss indeed was violative of the 2nd amendment.

i need take pains to reiterate that i have no objection to the coverage of state court discussion in this regard, as i do believe it's relevant to a fuller understanding of the topic. this one specific citation however is problematic. stanford university ostensibly has a copy of the proceedings, and i may be in the south bay area soon, so if i have time i'm going to try and have a look at it myself. it's apparently on microfiche. Anastrophe (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The publication in question is available, if not in holding, by inter-library loan at any and all of these libraries. The reference librarian at my local library indicates she can get a copy within 4 to 6 weeks, and I have entered my request for the publication. If someone can come up with evidence directly confirming or refuting the citation before then, I will enthusiastically welcome whatever conclusion the evidence warrants. But until then, since the citation has satisfied WP:Burden, it should remain in the article. --tc2011 (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Even so, the mention of the "Bliss" case seems just barely tangential to the topic of this article at best, and probably should be trimmed per WP:ROC. Not to mention, the entire passage is replicated nearly verbatim elsewhere in Wikipedia. SaltyBoatr (talk)

Giving this a bump. The passage cited to "footnote 67" needs both 1) independent reliable confirmation and 2) demonstration of relevance, or should be trimmed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It happens to be the first interpretation of the Second Amendment, and an interpretation that is maintained to this day in two of the 50 states. (Two states require no Concealed Carry permits to this day, having taken the original interpretation of the Second Amendment that Kentucky took, that regulating concealed carry is an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms that the 2A protects against. The SCOTUS, however, later ruled that regulating concealed carry was not an infringement of the 2A. --This is already in the article.-- Despite this subsequent SCOTUS ruling, two states have kept their original interpretation of the 2A, however, to the present day. This early interpretation is therefore an important point of historical significance, especially as it came before the collective right interpretation that didn't get really going until the 20th Century.) All major points of view need to be included in this article. Especially this first point of view that was nearly universal for nearly half a century. Re-writing history, through censoring historical facts, is not a road we should trod in writing an historical commentary on the 2A. Yaf (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Pushing one point of view about concealed carry legal theory. Never mind that Heller ruled resoundingly that regulations like prohibitions on concealed weapons are entirely allowable per the Second Amendment. The issue that some states have laws otherwise is totally off topic in this 2A article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"this quote appears to be the only specific quote from a reliable source that suggests bliss v commonwealth had any relationship to the second amendment."

See Heller v. DC, footnote 9, and the text the footnote refers to. Eaglecloud (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes exactly, Heller footnote 9 describes Bliss as "interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.", not as "violative of the Second Amendment". The topic of this article is not state constitutional provisions, therefore discussion of a Kentucky court case is off topic. (Unless, of course, you want to advance the political theory of concealed carry law, which is also off topic.) Footnote 67 raises a redflag policy violation by claiming to be violative of the Second Amendment. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No, not exactly. Bliss is cited as evidence "equating [the] Second Amendment with" similar state provisions. Eaglecloud (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

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[7] 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[8] and Cornell and the Kyvig paper[9]. 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)

Wikipedia policy

Here is the Wikipedia policy regarding NPOV:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides.

Hopefully this helps. SMP0328. (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is helpful. I also think this advice given in WP:NPOVT is helpful:

The first element in negotiating issues of bias with others is to recognize you have a point of view, and to pin-point where it comes from. "It's what everybody I know believes," is a start. But in co-writing an article with someone who believes differently, it's often important to have some evidence at hand. This includes not only evidence for your view but evidence for how many others hold it and who they are. Information like this enables writers and participants in discussion to come to practical decisions. These include whether one view deserves to go first, whether two deserve equal billing, whether views belong in different articles and, if so, what titles the articles should have.

This is the reason that I am asking for dialogue about "evidence for your view but evidence for how many others hold it and who they are". Discussion please. I suggest that the history professor Saul Cornell has fairly described both sides of the points of view, and point to that as an example of fair 'balance point'. Is there agreement that Professor Cornell gives a fair neutrality balance? If not, suggest some other expert who does? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Bodenhamer writes[10] of the topic neutrally. Also, Nelson Lund[11]. Comments? SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Claims of systemic POV problems are no longer valid, as the neutral point of view now permeates the article with the many edits that editors have made. It is therefore not proper to identify the whole article as having a POV problem when it does not. Only individual sections, at most, should be tagged at this point, should any perceptions of POV problems remain. Otherwise, it is impossible to fix the parts of the whole where "problems" may remain. Have removed the POV tag on the entire article. Yaf (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

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[12], 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_ [13], 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[14][15], 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[16], 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 unduely 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[17]. 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 discusion 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)

Arzberger

Another gun control law (embedded in the Adam Walsh Act) has fallen post-Heller in US v. Arzberger(see transcript). What is interesting is that automatic suspension of an individual's right to arms is no longer automatic. Specifically, "an individual right to possess a firearm unrelated to any military purpose ... also establishes a protectible liberty interest [for Due Process Clause purposes]". Interesting, most interesting. Who would've "thunk" it? Yaf (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the case where gun licensing fees are axed as an infringement. We have a Constitutinal amendment forbidding the use of poll taxes as an infringement on the right to vote. Licensing fees are in the same category of infringement. Both require you to pay to exercise an inherent right.

If the government wants to keep track of guns, the cost should be out of their pocket4.154.236.158 (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Point 1 - Originalism

Yaf asserts: "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."

I accept Yaf's point of view that originalism is the correct "historical fact" way to interpret the Second Amendment. Yaf's rebuttal, relying on name calling, lacks evidence and logic. My concern is that with the excessive dwelling on the spare text of the amendment (it is quoted three times in the first dozen lines) originalism implicitly is given undue emphasis. The evolving constitution, living constitution, theory of 2A interpretation is not found anywhere in the article, but it is commonly described in reliable sourcing, like National Review, see[18] and elsewhere[19][20][21]. I see that this theory is absent in the pro-gun editorial press, and Justice Scalia is a well known opponent of this theory, so it is no surprise it is missing from the ruling he drafted. That said, it is a mainstream credible reliable POV and it should be given due weight in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The "living constitution" argument only applies to rulings ON Constitutional language. Any ruling blatantly at odds with clearly worded Constitutional language is in fact perjury of the oath of office by a judge. In case people are unaware of the fact, perjury is a felony.4.154.254.139 (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of the term "bear arms", versus "bear" "arms"

A ninth POV problem with the article is that reliable sourcing shows two points of view. One, that bear arms means "carry firearms". Two, that "bear arms" means "do military service" (See Garry Wills[22] and many other reliable sources). The article tone is worded with a non-neutral the premise throughout that bear arms is synonymous with "carry firearms". The second point of view, that "bear arms" means "do military service" is entirely missing from the article. The non-neutral tone of the wording, and the absence of the second definition are WP:UNDUE policy violations. I accept that both of these points of view are valid. I object that one is given undue weight over the other. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This content was formerly contained in this article, but was removed when you did the POV fork and moved this content to the Right to keep and bear arms article. Are you now proposing that it be restored here, as well? Or are you implying that this POV forked article should be unforked, and returned here? Or what? Yaf (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The premise of Yafs questions are faulty, therefore Yafs questions are non sequitur. A Right to bear arms article is needed (and used to exist) to provide coverage of various rights to bear arms in other jurisdictions than the US Federal. Yaf, not me, is the one who did the POV forking see edit history at 19:37 on 6 May 2008 with the page move of Right to bear arms to Right to arms which was redirected to USA centric Right to keep and bear arms. The record of this matter shows Yafs coy questions to be diversions.

That diversion aside. "Bear arms" in reliable sourcing has two different meanings, and one of the meanings is missing from the article. This causes a POV balance problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No diversion. SaltyBoatr created this other page, in a POV fork from this very article. The subsequent re-naming is a separate issue. Again, SaltyBoatr, focus please, are you now proposing that it be restored here, as well? Or are you implying that this POV forked article should be unforked, and returned here? Or what? Yaf (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

For the third time: "Bear arms" in reliable sourcing has two different meanings, and one of the meanings is missing from the article. This causes a POV balance problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And, this "missing meaning content" was formerly contained in this very article, but you previously removed it to create the POV fork article now called Right to keep and bear arms when you removed all individual right content that formerly was contained in this article. (There was a civilian meaning of the phrase "to bear arms" that was also included once there was a military meaning of "to bear arms" being discussed, to avoid another POV imbalance problem.) Are you now proposing that the article Right to keep and bear arms be folded back into this article/merged with this article, or are you proposing that this content on Wikipedia (2 sections, really, of the Right to keep and bear arms article) be duplicated in both articles, or are you just complaining? It is starting to look like you are just complaining perpetually, with no intent to solve a non-existent "POV problem" with this article, by not responding to a simple question. There is a separate issue with parsing the Second Amendment clause "right to keep and bear arms" to only see "bear arms" and not to see "to keep and" before it. This is a separate issue regarding "keep and bear arms". I hardly see how one can "keep" a militia in one's possession. Taken to the logical conclusion, we would also have to follow your lead in parsing the meaning of "bear arms" too, as in The Right to Arm Bears, to avoid all "POV balance problem(s)". Such would be nonsense. Just what are you saying? It is not clear. Yaf (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yaf's recollection is incorrect as is Yaf's assertion of POV fork. Regardless. I was asked to be specific about the POV problems with thisarticle. One important problem, (of many) is that: "Bear arms" in reliable sourcing has two different meanings, and one of the meanings is missing from the article.. Also, notice that Yaf is arguing that his point of view is more logical. I am not asking Yaf to agree that the opposing point of view is logical. Instead the question is: Does the opposing point of view exist in reliable sourcing? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

the phrase, in this amendment, is "to keep and bear arms". are you suggesting that inclusion of the alternative meaning of 'arms' as human appendages must be included? because that's essentially what you're arguing - that because part of a phrase has a different meaning, in a different context, it's somehow relevant. the amendment does not say 'the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed'. suggesting that alternate meanings, in hypothetical constructs, must be covered in this article, about this amendment, that uses the phrase "keep and bear arms", is nothing but original research. Anastrophe (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

See above. The issue is discussed at length in reliable sourcing. It is discussed in many sources but the coverage in the Garry Wills book ISBN 0684870266, page 257 says it well. I pointed to a convenience link[23] just above. Your ceaseless attacks on my good faith are tiresome. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Have restored the content previously removed in a POV fork from the article back into the article to attempt to address this "deficiency". Does this restoration fix this problem, or not? If not, then I will simply remove this content. It seems a bit wordy to me, although it is POV balanced. Yaf (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It helps fix the problem #9, thanks very much. Give me a little time to give the article a read through and I will answer. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yaf's edit fixes problem #9 (again, thank you very much), with the exception of the word "unilateral". As used in that sentence, that word potentially has a double meaning. In addition to the technical statistical meaning, it also can be mistaken to imply that the "military service" definition is isolated, arbitrary or capricious, which it is not. The word "unilateral" should be removed or replaced with a less ambiguous word to avoid that risk. Indeed, the word adds little or no information to the passage that is not already expressed, or that could be expressed just as well using different words. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

2. Concealed Carry theory

Yaf replied: "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."

We are to just accept Yaf at his word? "There is no original research...". Yet, on Jan 9th Yaf admitted[24] the source for this idea was from unpublished research. And Yaf asserts "the article echos no advocacy for concealed carry rights". Yet, a Google search shows many of concealed carry advocacy blogs and websites that echo Yaf's line of thought. Yaf's credibility is paper thin, and we need more than his loud assurances when the evidence is contrary. The reasonable conclusion is that the "Bliss v. Commonwealth" emphasis gives the article a heavy POV tilt, contributing in a strong way to the POV undue balance problem with the article. Worse, the one reliable sourced cite from William Weir that disagreed with Yaf's POV that Kentucky law was "violative" was scrubbed[25] from the article. This remains a POV weighting problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The source for this idea is not from unpublished research. The source for these ideas is from cited references and the pointer to these references is from unpublished research, differing not a whit from talk page comments that you regularly make regarding U&M, Spitzer, etc.., which likewise have resulted in content being added to this article. And, this is not Original Research, but only collaboration in improving the article amongst editors, both real and virtual. Evaluate the cites, not the number of steps one takes to walk to the library to read such cites. This remains a "POV weighting problem" only in the mind of one POV warrior who still attempts to remove all individual right content from this article. Rather than focusing on censorship of all content that doesn't support the monomaniacal position that only the collective right to bear arms in a select militia is the true meaning of the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court of the United States (Scalia in particular) just "got it wrong", why don't we focus on improving the article and including all major points of view with properly cited neutral, reliable, and verifiable sources? Wikipedia is not censored. Claiming a POV weighting problem just because this article is not censored to support only The SaltyBoatr View of the World is nonsense. Yaf (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks please. I was asked to be specific about the POV problems with the article. This problem is one of many. Undue emphasis on material sympathetic for the concealed carry political theory causes POV balance problems in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent revert

I welcome discussion of my recent edit which Yaf reverted[26]. Yaf? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yaf, please explain your revert.

The article sentence cited to footnote 84 is imprecise. The book passage says: "The individual rights and collective rights theories were products of later struggles in American history. Individual rights theory was born in the Jacksonian era as a response to America's first efforts at gun control. Collective rights theory emerged slowly at the end of Reconstruction and only crystallized in its modern form in the early twentieth century. The one theory absent from current debate over the Second Amendment is the original civic interpretation. The virtual extinction of the conception was not inevitable but was product of a long and complex history. " The sequential order per the cite is an original civic interpretation followed a generation later by the individual rights theory and followed several generations later by the collective rights theory. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is needed here. Lacking discussion, I will proceed with the edit. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The text in question is: "Two different models emerged from early state jurisprudence: an individual right and a collective right. Individual rights viewpoints came first, followed by the collective rights viewpoints.[84] According to Saul Cornell, the simplified choices of only two models was an error: "The original understanding of the Second Amendment was neither an individual right of self-defense nor a collective right of the states, but rather a civic right that guaranteed that citizens would be able to keep and bear those arms needed to meet their legal obligation to participate in a well-regulated militia."[85]" Saul Cornell alone believes that the civic duty interpretation was the first interpretation. It is improper to assume that he is the ultimate arbitor of truth on this topic. On the other hand, multiple sources confirm that the individual interpretation came before the collective interpretation. The present text is clear on this point, identifying Saul Cornell as the believer in the original civic duty interpretation, while also documenting the two earlier interpretations. (Clearly, Saul Cornell wasn't alive during either the Jacksonian era or during Reconstruction.) Yaf (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

According to your citation the individual right viewpoint did not emerge until several decades after the Second Amendment was drafted. Further, according you your citation, the individual rights viewpoint was relative to state attempts to legislate gun control laws under state jurisdiction, not federal jurisdiction. That is off topic in this federal article. To assert that individual right viewpoint "came first" without discussion of the viewpoint that preceded is consistent with a point of view giving undue emphasis to the "individual rights view" which contributes to the problem with WP:NPOV violation. To assert that the federal law was incorporated to the state jurisdiction is also wrong per your cited source, a WP:REDFLAG problem, and also is consistent with a "pro-gun" POV contributing to the WP:NPOV weighting problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr writes: "According to your citation the individual right viewpoint did not emerge until several decades after the Second Amendment was drafted." Correct. Continuing, SaltyBoatr writes, "Further, according you your citation, the individual rights viewpoint was relative to state attempts to legislate gun control laws under state jurisdiction, not federal jurisdiction." Partially correct, except you are ignoring that protections under both state constitutions and under the federal constitution embedded in the Second Amendment were argued successfully during court cases in state courts, per the cites in the article. This material is thus not off topic in this article. SaltyBoatr also writes, "To assert that individual right viewpoint "came first" without discussion of the viewpoint that preceded is consistent with a point of view giving undue emphasis to the "individual rights view" which contributes to the problem with WP:NPOV violation. To assert that the federal law was incorporated to the state jurisdiction is also wrong per your cited source, a WP:REDFLAG problem, and also is consistent with a "pro-gun" POV contributing to the WP:NPOV weighting problem." Lots of argumentative diatribe, with the typical "pro-gun" attacks and POV pushing. The article clearly states the two interpretations of the state and federal issues (states' protections for right to keep and bear arms, and federal protections for right to keep and bear arms.) It also clearly states Cornell's modern interpretation of what he calls the "original civic duty". This is discussed after the earlier points are discussed. It is without merit to argue that a modern interpretation of Saul Cornell should be given top billing, and pushed as Original Research, that it is the correct interpretation. The current text presents the range of opinions without bias, in a neutral point of view. Please stop the POV pushing for the modern anti-rights opinion of Cornell to be given undue weight. Yaf (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yaf, interestingly, agrees with Saul Cornell when a selective quote from page 7 is convenient to Yafs POV(footnote 84), then denigrates Saul Cornell when a more full quote from page 7 is inconvenient to Yafs POV. Adding back the full quote from page 7 to footnote 84[27]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop ascribing motives to editors. It has nothing to do with convenience; rather, it has to do with quote accuracy. You still have a typo in the added quote from the reference that still needs to be fixed. My original revert was largely because of the plethora of typos, misquotes, and POV pushes, per the "poorly worded" comment, on the revert, not because of "convenience". Wikipedia has standards for accuracy. Please correct the quote you added. Yaf (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yaf wrote: "SaltyBoatr writes: "According to your citation the individual right viewpoint did not emerge until several decades after the Second Amendment was drafted." Correct. " So, that is agreement about "several decades after" I have clarified that wording based on that agreement[28]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the typo in the quote that still remained unfixed. Please check quotes in the future more carefully. Yaf (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

which cites?

Yaf wrote above: "Partially correct, except you are ignoring that protections under both state constitutions and under the federal constitution embedded in the Second Amendment were argued successfully during court cases in state courts, per the cites in the article." I only see the one cite, from the 1967 document. The "Anti-Crime Program. Hearings", longer quote requested. Which others show that these state court cases were under jurisdiction of the federal constitution? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Then you need to look again, for the article clearly states: "The importance of Bliss is also seen from the defense subsequently given against a murder charge in Kentucky against Mattews Ward, who in 1852 pulled out a concealed pistol and fatally wounded his brother's teacher over an accusation regarding eating chestnuts in class. Ward's defense team consisted of eighteen lawyers, including U.S. Senator John Crittenden, former Governor of Kentucky and former attorney general of the United States. The defense successfully defended Ward in 1854 through an assertion that “a man has a right to carry arms; I am aware of nothing in the laws of God or man, prohibiting it. The Constitution of Kentucky and our Bill of Rights guarantee it. The Legislature once passed an act forbidding it, but it was decided unconstitutional, and overruled by our highest tribunal, the Court of Appeals.” As noted by Cornell, “Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in Bliss and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted.”[92]" There are several other cases, too, from which examples could additionally be drawn, but it would be undue weight to add them, too. Yaf (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Shalope quote leading "origin of the right" section is POV push

The Robert Shalope quote "To deny arms to some men..." (footnote 3) leading off the origin of the right section gives an odd emphasis high up in the article to the individual rights theory. Looking at other sourcing, the predominate "origin of the right" theory points to the laws and customs of 17th Century England, especially the 1689 Bill of Rights, see Joyce Lee Malcolm's book and many others. That sentence seems to be a WP:SYN problem and exhibits selective focus through selective quoting gives undue weight to one POV, the theory of individual rights to firearms. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In the American system of government, ALL rights start at the individual level. A collective right is just the sum of the "individual rights" of all the individual in the group in question.

To say that a group has the right to own guns, but that the individuals of that group don't is PLAINLY ASSININE! Once you rub a those couple of brain cells together I'm sure you'll agree. Unfortunately getting those brain cells moving is tough!

here's a hint to get those brain cells moving. How can you exercise a collective right to own guns if ALL the individuals are forbidden from owning them. Think Washington DC. aka Murder Capital of the US, where exactly that situation took place.4.154.239.152 (talk) 23:50, 23 January 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)

Brady Campaign POV

Allowing commentary from a gun control group and disallowing such from gun ownership advocacy groups such as the NRA is blatant POV. The comment should either be removed or comments from gun advocacy groups should be allowed into the article.

To Salty Boatr - The above is called BALANCE. Something you keep spouting about but never seem to practice.68.160.163.116 (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Gotta say I'm amazed!

I went and looked up older versions of the article and the Brady Campaign references have been in the article for at least 2 years (I got tired of looking and stopped in early 2007).

With all the hoopla about the NRA being partial on the issue and therefore not a citeable source, how come nobody noticed that the Brady Campaign is also partial on the issue and ALSO NOT A CITEABLE source?

SIMPLY F'N AMAZING!68.160.163.116 (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you believe the Brady Campaign references should be removed or should NRA references be added? SMP0328. (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If the NRA is a biased source and can't be used as source material for that reason, then the same goes for the Brady Campaign, I therefore go with removed.

An alternate answer is, if you want to get the ongoing POV tag off the article at some point, you need to satisfy a certain editor who froths at the mouth at the mere mention of the NRA!68.163.105.54 (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Misquoting from Cornell's book

The text inserted by SaltyBoatr ended up as: "As noted by Cornell, “Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in Bliss and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted. ... Outside of Kentucky the case drew equally scathing condemnations. A lengthy article in the Monthly Law Reporter denounced the case... (as) a disgrace that ultimately revealed more about Kentucky justice than it did about American Law.”" I reduced this quote to just "As noted by Cornell, “Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in Bliss and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted.” for the reason that Cornell's book said no such thing. SaltyBoatr selectively selected phrases over 2 pages, hidden by the ellipses, to construct the implication that the Monthly Law Report denounced the case. It did no such thing according to Cornell. Rather, the MLR denounced something else entirely (the "atrocity of the deed" committed by Ward.) I have corrected (for the second time) the misquote due to SaltyBoatr's editing through selectively looking for words over two pages to construct a POV pushing statement that is entirely different from what the source actually says. Such POV pushes must stop. Let's stick with the actual words in books, while not leaving out words to change the meaning 180 degrees from what the source(s) actually say. Yaf (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that editor Yaf's statement is simply not accurate. The exact quote from the book is "Outside of Kentucky the case drew equally scathing condemnations. A lengthy article in the Monthly Law Reporter denounced the 'atrocity of the deed for which the prisoner was indicted.' The case was a 'disgrace' that ultimately revealed more about 'Kentucky justice' than it did about American Law.” Although the denouncing was of the deed, it is clear that the book says that the Monthly Reporter did indeed call the case a disgrace that revealed more about Kentucky justice than it did about American Law. For this reason, I am reinserting the sentence into the article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No inaccuracy on my part. Calling the case a "disgrace" is not the same as saying that denouncing the atrocity of the deed for which the prisoner was indicted is the same as denouncing the case. Let's stick to the actual quotes, OK? When a "quote" is manufactured using multiple ellipses, it generally is taken as evidence of a POV push, especially when the denouncing of the deed is confused with denouncing the case. No inacccuracy on my part, but, rather, a sly POV push on SaltyBoatr's part, and on your part, too, in manufacturing a "quote" or a "quote" misdirection to fit pushing a POV agenda. This clearly needs to stop. The actual complete quote from p. 150 is: Outside of Kentucky the case drew equally scathing condemnations. A lengthy article in the Monthly Law Reporter denounced the "atrocity of the deed for which the prisoner was indicted." Ward had clearly benefited from the anomalous holding in Bliss. Still, even outside of Kentucky the ideas advanced by Ward's laywers had entered the legal mainstream. Although the civic model articulated in Aymette and Buzzard represented the dominant approach to this issue, the alternative individual rights conception presented by Bliss would only grow stronger over time. The more complete quote presents an entirely different emphasis than what your present selection in the article indicates Cornell says. Another POV push that needs to be fixed. Yaf (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Was the MLR's calling Bliss a "disgrace" in regards to its ruling on the RKBA? If not, how is that material germane to the article? SMP0328. (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Only in conflating "disgrace" in an attempt at "badmouthing" the primitives in Kentucky with such odd ideas. An entirely different insult, altogether. Such irrelevant material really doesn't belong in this article. If it is here, it needs to be accurate, though. Yaf (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)