Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Table

Where is the table of contents? Why does this talk page not have a table of contents, as is usual? Benjamin (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Look above, to the archives section. On a lot of the more "controversial" pages, for some odd reason, editors tend to quickly move to strike commentary by archiving it as quickly as possible. It doesn't make a lot of sense, but that's what happens regardless. So if you are wondering about previous talk related to this article, you have to click through those archive sections. 68.13.136.247 (talk) 07:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

False Statement

The right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 - this is simply not true The right of the white people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791. Please stop lying and spreading falsehoods. Is this Wikipedia or Whitipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottprovost (talk • contribs) 05:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The Bill of Rights applied to all U.S. citizens, including free Black people, when it was adopted. SMP0328. (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

No. It did not. Free Blacks were not permitted in most states. That is an outright lie. [1] Scottprovost (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The bill of rights applied to all citizens regarding FEDERAL laws. Each amendment was incorporated against the states at different times. For the 2nd that wasn't until McDonald/Heller. And in any case, even it had applied from the start there are plenty of laws on the books that are unconstitutional when finally fought. The fact that such unconstitutional laws existed does not change the amendment. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The False statement made by Wikipedia refers to the the "right of people". You assertion that slaves are not people is false. No amendment ever granted any right to people. That is the lie. Remove the lie immediately or surrender not for profit status as in violation of federal civil right law.Scottprovost (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

You might want to read up on WP:THREAT ResultingConstant (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The actual words of the 2nd Amendment appear too late in the article

Starting this article with the Supreme Court interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is unfair to the actual wording of the Amendment. The words of the Second Amendment need to appear first and foremost. The reader needs to know how the document actually reads, before those words can be characterized, defined, or interpreted. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Washington-Art-Movement (talk • contribs) 03:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is using the standard format for an article: an Introduction summarizing the body of the article, followed by a Text section containing the exact wording of the amendment. Thus, putting the amendment's wording in the Introduction is redundant. As for the meaning of the amendment, we have to go by the official interpretation. The official interpretation of any part of the Constitution is provided by the U.S. Supreme Court. To have individual editors put in their interpretations of amendment would lead to confusion, as different editors would add different interpretations. This would be very harmful to such an article, even if reliable sources were used. This isn't to say that criticisms of the official interpretation aren't allowed, but such criticisms would still recognized the official interpretation as the current meaning of the amendment even while saying the amendment was meant to have a different meaning. In this case, the official meaning of the Second Amendment is that it protects a limited individual right to keep and bear arms and so the Introduction should reflect that. SMP0328. (talk) 05:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The Standard format for an article would talk about an amendment that was passed when it was passed and what it meant when it was passed. Then what became of it later. Pretending that 1700's supreme court imposed it on all men is simply a fabrication. The right to Bear Arms and the Right to own slaves are joined. No arms no slaves. The reason the union with Great Britten had to eb disolved was because the cout in England struck down slavery in 1772 [Somerset v Stewart] and to keep slavery we must be independent of Britten. Scottprovost (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

English background

"The English Bill of Rights includes the proviso that arms must be as "allowed by law." This has been the case before and after the passage of the Bill. While it did not override earlier restrictions on the ownership of guns for hunting, it was written to preserve the hunting rights of the landed aristocracy and is subject to the parliamentary right to implicitly or explicitly repeal earlier enactments."

There is a citation needed for this oft-asserted, but fanciful, statement. An English-law source would be more convincing.Ttocserp 14:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Include relatively modern usage of "well-regulated"

There is some dispute in popular culture about what "well-regulated" means. Many insist it means legislative regulations. And I don't think the USSC's opinion matters much to them. Frank Baum, author of The Wizard of Oz, used "well-regulated" in his American Fairy Tales in "The Box of Robbers" - "Around the walls were rows of boxes and trunks, piles of old carpeting, pieces of damaged furniture, bundles of discarded clothing and other odds and ends of more or less value. Every well-regulated house has an attic of this sort, so I need not describe it". You can confirm by downloading the free Kindle version. I think this example could be included in the "Well-regulated militia" section to show the modern legislative assumption is inaccurate and incorrect. Ludwig61 (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The article makes a claim that "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained", and then cites the Merkel article. If you read the citation itself, Merkel says the exact opposite - that the claimed interpretation is one of Scalia's many falsehoods, and that "regulated" meant the same thing in 17th Century English (after all, English was quite modern at that point) as it does today - subject to rules. This outright lie in favor of right-wing propaganda is appalling. 66.194.173.62 (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Federal law - 10 USC 331 b2 states that almost all men between 17 and 45 are part of the unorganized militia. They, we, can be called up at any time to fight foreign enemies or rebellious states/state. According to the Constitution and current law men between 17 and 45 are, whether in the Armed forces or National Guard or required to serve under penalty of law to attack even other Americans - better watch our manners. 2601:181:8301:4510:3823:8EE6:5C01:22AE (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Intent of framers per Declaration of Independence

The material used in the article to show how the Declaration of Independence might reveal the intent of the framers regarding the 2nd amendment (in section 2.2) is questionable and rather weak. "Other scholars, such as Glenn Reynolds, contend that the framers did believe in an individual right to armed insurrection. The latter scholars cite examples, such as the Declaration of Independence (describing in 1776 "the Right of the People to...institute new Government")..." An individual right to armed insurrection? Like a one man revolution? Here is a better quote from the Declaration, which mentions "the People", not individuals: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." or "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them [the People] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Article is locked so I can't fix this. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Typo or just bad grammar?

Please search the article for the phrase "Congress...Congress". Did the author intend this? It appears to be an incomplete sentence. Neilrieck (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 February 2018

Delete "deterring tyrannical government;[59]" under the heading "Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution".

Delete Reference #59, "Elder, Larry (July 3, 2008). "Why Do We 'Keep and Bear Arms?' Part 1". Human Events. Retrieved May 14, 2016."

JUSTIFICATION:

This is a partisan political talking point. The reference is a partisan article written by a partisan politcal pundit, published on a partisan website.

Regarding the "well-regulated militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment, Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:

“The Congress shall have Power ... To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

The Constitution explicitly states what militias do: they make sure the laws are followed, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions. There is not a provision to deter a tyrannical government. The U.S. Constitution and subsequent laws, such as the Militia Act of 1792, provided for militias to protect the government, not to threaten it. Danny.Bailey (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Seems like WP:OR. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 23:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 February 2018

Entry re Teixeira v. County of Alameda, under After Heller, mistates the case. Someone should review and correct it. Lexjuris (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Lexjuris  Not done Edit requests require the specific change to be proposed. Could you elaborate on what you think the misstatement is, and what a proper statement would be? ResultingConstant (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The current entry on Teixeira v. County of Almameda cites a 3-panel ruling of the 9th circuit in 2016, but fails to mention that the ruling was overruled in 2017 by the same court sitting “en banc”. Recommendation: Teixeira v. County of Almameda No. 13-17132 (en banc, October 10, 2017), reviewied a county ordinance that prohibited firearm sales near residentially zoned districts, schools, day-care centers, other firearm retailers and liquor stores. The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, overruled a three judge panel (which had ruled that the Second Amendment independently protects the sale of firearms), and ruled that "the Second Amendment does not confer a freestanding right to sell firearms". See opinion pp 34-41. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/10/10/13-17132.pdf Lexjuris (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 February 2018

The first sentence under "Goverment tyranny" should change the current "... during the Revolutionary period was concern about political corruption ..." to "... during the Revolutionary period was concernED about political corruption ..." Hjcrabtree (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• support as a minor grammar fix. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. SMP0328. (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
    •  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

citation #61

this is a pretty apocryphal belief among certain circles in the USA. is there a more robust citation available than an unsourced, uncited article written by a gun proponent?