Talk:Right to keep and bear arms/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

distortion of source, footnote 1

Footnote 1, pointing to the important topical article by Garry Wills as citation totally misses the gist of Mr. Wills article. Take the ten minutes to read that article[1] to see that his point is not "arms refers to weapons", but rather he is making a scathing examination of the fallacy of the 'Standard Modelers' who employ "linguistic tricks...which wrench terms from context and impose fanciful meanings on them." Mr. Will's theme is not that "arms refers to weapons" but rather in context of RTKBA that ... ""bear arms" meant wage war".... SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

RTKABA and Sharia law

With this recent edit, a paragraph about the right to keep and bear arms under Sharia (traditional Islamic) law was removed from the article. I'm going to put it back, but I'm going to move it from the lead section to its own section. This paragraph seems to expand the international scope of the article, which I believe is desirable. Contrary to the edit summary, the point of view is neither fringe nor jihadist, and it certainly is sourced. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That seems appropriate. I'd be interested to know, though, on what grounds Kenosis bases his claim of a "jihadist source." Nick Cooper (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the provided hyperlink in the footnote includes: "Jihad: a groundplan" page 16 (1978) [2] in addition to the cited source ("The concept, Volume 2‎" - Page 37 [1982]) which appears to include the exact same passage word for word, taken either from the 1978 source or from an undisclosed common source. Based on a bit of additional research I did myself, "The Concept" appears to have been a very obscure journal briefly written and published out of Pakistan in the early 1980s by Raja Afsar Khan. Khan appears to have quoted Abd al-Qadir as-Sufi's Jihad, a groundplan, an extremely obscure 48-page booklet that hasn't been cited in scholarly literature and which can't be purchased anywhere. On the evidence I was able to find, these are not reasonably reliable WP:Sources.
..... Also, AFAICT, the second citation to Arthur Goldschmidt's A Concise History of the Middle East doesn't seem to verify the material for which it's cited anywhere in the neighborhood of page 108--perhaps I missed something. Of course, I'm always open to other evidence. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

removal of unsourced editorial

I recently removed[3] several editorial passages added by Hauskalainen. This was not intended as a personal offense, and I welcome discussion of the reliable sourcing which might be the basis of these editorials, though that sourcing remains undisclosed at present. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's more useful if you fact tag items that you doubt. The very fact that English law today does not allow one to, for example, defend oneself with a taser, or poison gas (if they were avaailable) is testament to the fact the US constitution only incorporated the law as it then was and not as it is for all time. I though this needed to be said and I am surprised if you feel that a reference is needed given the ample evidence of English law in the UK section. The bit about Protestants has to be understood in terms of English history. Again this is very well known to many people and is readily verifiable. Most police in Europe carry firearms. Britain is the only exception as far as I know because the police there do not routinely carry a firearm. I added the reference to police in Finland carrying arms because that is an exception that the existing text did not seem to permit or recognize. None of these things seem so controversial that they should be deleted for lack of a reference. Be reasonable please!--Hauskalainen (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This must stop. No, you are not allowed to put your personal research into the article without identifying your sourcing. It is not a matter of "more useful". Identify your sources. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Right_to_arms#United_Kingdom

"Following the murder of 3 policemen in 1966 in Shepherds Bush, London, by criminals with illegal pistols, the Criminal Justice Act 1967 introduced Shotgun Certificates." I don't understand this sentence, it is logically inconsistent. Is this an error in the article, or did the government of the UK regulate shotguns in response to a shooting perpetrated with pistols? Clarification is required. --Afed (talk) 08:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It may seem like a non-sequitor, but that is actually what happened. The murders were commited with pistols, but the only firearms legislation passed by the government was to introduce licensing arrangements for shotguns. Such arrangements had been rejected as unnecessary by the same government in the year before the killings, and had been similarly rejected by the previous administration. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and... The footnotes in that subsection all are pointers to original documents, and according to policy here, direct interpretations of primary documents are not allowed. That section should be rewritten drawing from independent third party reliable sources. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I restored the OR-section tag. See diff[4]. Hauskalainen explained: You misunderstand policy on primary sources and its applicability here. The links to the citations seem ok to me. Let's discuss. I am looking at WP:PSTS policy and see that that subsection is a synthesis of the reading of those primary documents. The operative policy sentence I am looking at is "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the OR-Section tag with two citation needed tags for the particular points in question. A blanket OR flag may lead the reader to doubt too much. The citation tags show the location of the edit concerns more precisely.--Hauskalainen (talk) 06:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the problem exists with the entire section, which does not include any third party sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Censored

However, as professor Jorge Majfud wrote:

"The technical and legal solution is obvious. If we defend the Second Amendment from a truly conservative perspective, the only weapons that could be legal for personal use could not have more power or be more dangerous than an equivalent to a flintlock, 1790. That is, something slightly more powerful than a sling or a stone thrown by hand."[5]

--Bareta66 (talk)

Out of place quote by seemingly non-notable individual (at least in the RKBA discussion).--Hamitr (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you are confused by your USA centric RKBA viewpoint. This is a global article. That source, (read translated version here), comes from a major national media outlet in Mexico (notable), Milenio, and is made by a well reputed university professor Jorge Majfud (again notable). Tell us again, why should we exclude global reliable sources giving international coverage to the topic "right to bear arms"? It looks to me that we are again caught in the debate as to whether this is a global article or a USA centric article. Even if we concede that this is a USA centric article, this new Mexican source which you dismiss, gives a significant international perspective to this topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Then add it back if you think it adds value to the article. But don't come crying back here if someone adds one or more quotes from the other point of view. --Hamitr (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This should not be a POV battle, why do you view it as such? That said, I agree that the bare addition of that quote as it was done into the article was not helpful to the article. Even so, a viewpoint made by a notable scholar in major foreign language media discussing an international perspective on the USA viewpoint about RTKBA could be helpful in giving this global article a global perspective. Sourcing like Milenio, do show that the world viewpoint is different than the USA viewpoint and could be used to give a global POV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Political theory/philosophy/scholarship section

Much of the debate around this issue stems from some fundamental differences regarding the concept of rights. Many gun rights advocates see the right to bear arms as a universal and natural right, while a minority may see it as civic right, and still others as a legal right. Furthermore, the debate in the US between constitutional scholars and gun rights/gun control advocates is whether or not the right to keep and bear arms is individual or collective.

What I'm trying to say is that there is a political philosophy/theory element that is barely addressed in this article, which is geared mostly towards the history and laws of gun rights in various nations, so maybe the philosophical aspects of this issue deserve their own section. There is certainly no shortage of essays and scholarly works on the subject, going back to the late 17th century. I don't necessarily think I'm the guy to do it, but do people think it's a worthwhile project? Anyone interested/capable of taking it on?--SmashTheGlass (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the intent of this article is to focus more on the global topic of right to bear arms, and you are describing the USA centric right to keep and bear arms debate. That is given coverage down in the USA portion of the article, see Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms#Modern_commentary:_three_models. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's USA centric. Even if most of the scholarship and political theory regarding gun rights has come out of the US, that doesn't preclude the topic being covered in a globally-focused article. It's kinda like saying Locke and Rousseau shouldn't be included in an article on classical liberalism because it's too "Western European-centric", simply because that's the area of the world that classical liberalism originated in and gained the most popularity. The concept of a universal and natural right to bear arms originated in England and the US-- that's just how it happened. Again, does not preclude a discussion of the topic in this article. What I'm talking about is discussing the theory and philosophy of gun rights, not simply the political/legal implication/interpretations of these rights. If the majority of such scholarship comes from the US, so be it, although I'm supposing sources can be found from other parts of the world (e.g. early in the 1917 Russian Revolution, socialists proclaimed the right to bear arms as a universal right)--SmashTheGlass (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Article POV - over - emphasis on firearms and not arms

This article is about the use of ARMS but it overly focuses on FIREARMS.

The Firearms issue in the United States and other countries is well covered by other articles and does not need repeating here.

This article needs more balance by the addition of more details of the general right to bear arms around the world (i.e. the legal right to defend oneself by whatever means. NOT JUST BY THE USE OF GUNS and other firearms). The use of armaments for hunting is something outside the original meaning of "Right to keep and bear arms" (being an issue of defensive action and not the need to eat). Perhaps we need to consider how relevant this is. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --SmashTheGlass (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The United States (and to some extent the UK) sections are way too long and the U.S. section is way too focussed on firearms. Are there no restrictions on civilians holding for example chemical or nuclear materials in the U.S.? And are there laws regarding other dangerous implements such as knives and chemical sprays? Do private security personnel have a privilegded position as regards the right to self-defence and weapons for offence? These would be more interesting to the global audience about the Right to bear arms in the U.S. that the minutiae of cases regarding firearms and the situation in Kentucky. Perhaps the US section should be summarised as far as is possible (given the multiplicity of jurisdictions) and the material redistributed into specific U.S. Federal and State based article(s). --Hauskalainen (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

In certain US jurisdictions/states, chemical sprays, knives and batons are indeed prohibited for civilian possession. In certain places (like where I live, in Philadelphia), carrying a firearm for self-defense is legal, but carrying a knife or baton is not, as crazy as that sounds.--SmashTheGlass (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph Appears to be Contradicted by Article and Not Objective

This text: "The right to keep and bear arms, often referred as the right to bear arms or the right to have arms, is the assertion that people have a personal right to "weapon(s)" for individual use, or a collective right to bear arms in a militia, or both. In this context, "arms" refers to a variety of weapons and armor and to "bear arms" meant to wage war.[1]"

...Appears to be contradicted further down the page when the right and its origins are further discussed. I don't think the definition of "bear arms" above is objective, even if cited from a well known author's works (the author is a political science writer).

Proposed change is to modify the paragraph to read: "The right to keep and bear arms, often referred as the right to bear arms or the right to have arms, is the assertion that people have a personal right to "weapon(s)" for individual use, or a collective right to bear arms in a militia, or both. In this context, "arms" refers to a variety of weapons and armor and to "bear arms" has a number of meanings including, but not limited to, possession, use, or display in public or private for a purpose specific to the bearer."

Silas McFee (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Silas McFee

It is important that we give coverage to each of the various significant views we see in the reliable sourcing. Your propose wording doesn't give coverage to the point of view that "bear arms", especially in the time period of the founding fathers, was a term that was almost exclusively used in context of military usage. 99% of the time during that time period to "bear arms" meant to "wage war" or some similar meaning. I get this from reading a number of sources, see the book ISBN 9780684870267 by Gary Wills which is often cited pg 257 ""Bear arms" refers to military service, which is why the plural is used (based on Greek hopla pherein and Latin ... Thus "bear arms" can be used of naval as well as artillery warfare, since the "profession of arms" refers to all ...". We should keep this mention of "military service" in the opening because it is such a prominent significant viewpoint. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The meaning of “Bear Arms” in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as per the Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia vs. Heller 554 U.S. ___ (2008) is: ‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ On page 11 of the opinion the court further states ‘although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. The court rejected the dissenting justices argument that bear means to ‘Wage war’ or any other definition to limit the right to service in a militia.

Richard Allen Pierce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.63.227.242 (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph is self-contradictory, and should be improved. The first sentence allows for two interpretations -- Individual Rights and Collective Rights. The second sentence reduces it exclusively to "waging war," and because waging war is not an individual activity, it limits the interpretation to Collective Rights. I think it would be sufficient to eliminate the second sentence ("In this context . . . "). There is plenty of room below for a discussion of the definition of "bear arms." Also, that discussion relates almost exclusively to U.S. law, so the subject should probably be confined to the U.S. section of the article. In the same light, the Heller case involves U.S. law, so should be discussed in that section. Side note: The majority opinion in Heller has legal weight (in the U.S.), but it does not settle the historical question of what was the original intent of the authors/ratifiers of the Second Amendment. 70.179.92.117 (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

PERU

When someone known to carry a weapon, this deters an enemy attack by force (a thief, kidnapper, murderer, etc), because I have a way to repel the threat or use of force.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States picked up the right to own guns, and the Peruvians should copy the good.

There is evidence that arms control policy is a failure as in Peru, Mexico, Brazil, etc. in these countries have more or less violence than in the U.S.

Gun control only hurts people who are not poor and puts them at a disadvantage against criminals facing society using all weapons and obviously unused licenses.

Gun control is a delusion, a fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.232.10.200 (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Right to bear arms in Canada?

???

Gun Politics

The last paragraph in the The politics of the right to keep and bear arms section appears to violate WP:Weight. If a statement from an individual is necessary then one from both sides of the argument should be used. I would suggest moving the paragraph into the Gun Politics article where it can be easier balanced and supported by other arguments. AIRcorn (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I am going to move it over to the gun politics talk page and see what happens AIRcorn (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

second Militia act of 1792 defines militia

It is difficult to require neutrality when pivotal arguments are identified by two Supreme Court decisions as pious fraud. (a fraud done to accomplish some good end, on the theory that the end justifies the means). Any interpretation for Militia in 2nd amendment disagreeing with the following is pious fraud. Thus the argument that the right to own and have arms does not apply to the individual is misinformed at best but more likely pious fraud. As both U.S. Congress and the state constitutions of that time clearly identified the Militia as the male citizens between 18-45, that the laws limited the government ability to require men to own certain weapons (2nd Militia act) rather then limit citizen right to own and use guns in self defense . http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf page 2 pp1

"The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

This act of congress from the period of the writing of the 2nd amendment clearly defines militia members as every male citizen 18-45 inclusively. It states they must own a rifle or musket (today's equivalent is a shotgun) and 20 or 24 rounds of ammo respectively. It is clearly written in a language of requiring each man to own and possess and be ready to use a firearm. The limitations of the act are not to limit the the ability to purchase, own, or possess firearms. On the contrary, the limitation is on the government requiring additional ownership and taxation of required equipment.

In McDonald vs City of Chicago and Heller v. Washington DC http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

The U.S. Supreme court mentions in both McDonald and in Heller that certain arguement and interpretations by the anti gun groups are rediculous or frivolous. This cannot be mentioned fair and balanced as the court points out that the argement is without merit. The court further mentions the amendments to the constitution were to be interpreted by the understanding by the common citizen (McDonald) and by the language of the day (Heller) as opposed by obscure legal interpretations currently used by gun ban groups.

The U.S. Supreme court not only ruled that the second amendment clearly indicates that the right to have an bear arms. The McDonald decision spelled out that handguns are the preferred weapon for self defense in the home, indicating that the ownership of handguns for self defense shall not be infringed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.230.133 (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Is gun control who avoids to fewer gun violence?

No, in Peru the gun control is very strict and contradictorily continue the assaults with firearms. Criminals are not going to sit an examination to obtain gun licenses. In the slums use guns from an early age. And worse when they are released from criminal liability in the case of minors under 18 years. It should be understood that criminals are challenging society and arms control (licenses) only benefits them, making use of any weapon (unlicensed) against decent citizens who are we limited the use of these, with abusive and costly procedures, putting us at a disadvantage against the malefactor. http://ssinformation.info/T-Is-gun-control-who-avoids-to-fewer-gun-violence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.232.27.20 (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"Pepper Spray"

It's been repeatedly inserted into this article. While it is indeed true that both people and police officers carry pepper spray, what reliable sources to we have to consider it as "arms" or "armaments"? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Its considered a firearms, as is a taser, for the purpose of english law. If you want to test the theory, buy some from a foriegn website, pay by credit card and see how quick you get Armed Response Unit kicking your doors and windows in. 82.21.207.51 (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sharia Law Section

This is horribly written and I request it be deleted. 1) There is no reference to any scholarly literature (the problem with the sole reference to Goldschmidt is NOT substantiated, as per this archived discussion Talk:Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms/Archive_10#RTKABA_and_Sharia_law, and previous comments indicate that the original authors failed to support the section in any more detail; 2) immediately after that unsourced citation, the language leaves the topic altogether, for a discussion of nations that do or do not adhere to Sharia Law today; 3)The article presumes that there is only one interpretation of Shariah law, when in fact there are four major Sunni Schools, and then the Shia sects all have their own as well, as can be found in the WP article on the topic of Sharia; 4) Furthermore, there is no additional section on this topic in the view of Christian Canon Law, or Jewish Halakha Laws. Should this article deal with the view within modern governments, rather than religion? If it does want to broach the topic of religion, I suggest that it be in a separate section devoted to a variety of religious views, and cite all sources in a sound and objective manner that inclusive, not exclusive to Islam. Failing that, I nominate that this section be deleted until such time that such a comprehensive section can be composed, as the reference to Sharia alone is undue weight and POV.Jemiljan (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Tidy up article with links intact.

On the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, the reason why I posted the full links is because I don't know put the links in a proper manner,I tried,and somehow,I have full links on the page. I don't mean to vandalise (I didn't mean to.) the article. The information is correct but please fix it, with my links intact but tidied up.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.82.17.240 (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

UK

" In the early years of the Prevention of Crime Act,the police followed the law closely and did not abuse the law,as the former Home Secretary David Fyfe stated in parliament during debates,people who carry items as part of their everyday use would be left alone and that the courts would not harrass or convict without just cause. http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1953/feb/26/prevention-of-crime-bill#column_2332 The abuse of the law..."

Badly written, biased opinion piece, with links in full. Please tidy and remove the drivel. I'm here for information, not bad grammar and to be told what to think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.116 (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. Instead of fixing it, you instead decide to drop by the talk page and demand someone fixes it for you!? Where did you get that sense of entitlement? I suggest you lose it.

I don't have time to fix it now, nor do I have any motivation to meet your jerkish demands but for anyone who does have the time and decency to fix the issues, here is a relevant diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms&diff=496172787&oldid=496172437. Seems like another jerk decided to randomly vandalise the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.3.167 (talk)

I see no demand. I see a reader who didn't like what they saw and used the talk page for what it's here for...with a mild bit of incivility. Your reply is completely inappropriate. --Onorem♠Dil 16:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Canada

In the Canada sub-section, the quote "it is not difficult to obtain a firearm" is followed by a source that links to the general laws of firearms in Canada. There is no clear source that it is "not difficult to obtain a firearm". I'm not saying it's the opposite, but that shouldn't be posted without a legitimate source. Compared to the US, I do believe it is difficult to obtain a firearm. But again, I don't think it should be included either way, as there are no legitimate sources either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.108.193 (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

False

This article starts with "The right to keep and bear arms (often referred as the right to bear arms or to have arms) is the enumerated right that people have a personal right to own arms for individual use, and a collective right to bear arms in a militia" and cites Garry Wills in the NYT, but the citation does not support that definition ... in fact Wills vehemently argues the opposite, with overwhelming historical support. To "bear arms" comes from the Latin "arma ferre", which means to carry military weapons (the Romans didn't have guns) into battle. To "keep arms" meant to stock them in armories. And "the people" referred to the collective population, not to individuals. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 09:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Nonsense and political drivel. "From the Latin...", hahah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.28.124 (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is correct but a better reference (e.g. the US Supreme Court) should be used. North8000 (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is only correct in terms of the current interpretation of the US Constitution. It does not apply to the rest of the world. What does the term "enumerated right" mean outside of the US Constitution? The reference is incorrect, and, as the user above points out, the referenced article does not support the definition.StopYourBull (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I just realized that there is confusion from the start on this thread. The first sentence is that opening definition of the phrase, not a statement that everyone has or has been given that right. Not that I'm a fan of Wills, but that means that even someone opposed to that right can be used as a source for the opening-sentence definition.North8000 (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The review disagrees completely with the statement made in the opening sentence of this article. The sentence states (solely in terms of a US interpretation) that certain rights are granted; the review argues against this. It does not make any sense.StopYourBull (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I won't much get into the "current interpretation" part ....it is according to the one and only definitive interpretation. Just as SCOTUS decided that the amendment giving women the right to vote is constitutional. We don't go saying "according to current interpretation.....women have the right to vote in the US", we say that they have the right to vote in the US. North8000 (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No. The Second Amendment has been interpreted differently in the past other than the way it was interpreted in 2008. In treating the US Constitution as a "living document" it is certainly open to interpretation again in the future, and parts of it, including the Second Amendment, probably will be re-interpreted.StopYourBull (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we theoretically might also re-institute slavery and take away women's right to vote as well.  :-) North8000 (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Some things are are almost certain, others don't stand a snowball's chance in hell (thankfully). ;-{D StopYourBull (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The current interpretation of the activist Supreme Court (the same majority that invented corporate personhood in Citizens United) ignores and overturns more than 150 years of Court precedent and also ignores the clear history of the rejection by Madison and the First Congress of language proposed by the PA anti-federalists for an individual right to own arms for self-defense. See http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FinkelmanChicago.htm and http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndcourt/state/191st.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riversong (talk • contribs) 23:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there actually a point to this article?

Is mapping US gun politics and the values some US citizens hold on to the rest of the world valid? Surely the rest of the world doesn't think of its laws and culture in terms of those of the US. This entire article is inappropriate for Wikipedia. It assumes the unsupported position that US values can be mapped on to the rest of the world; it is biased heavily in favour of US gun culture mantras; it pays brief (albeit mostly incorrect) lipservice to a few other countries gun laws that are covered in a better and less biased fashion elsewhere in Wikipedia; it apes US gun rights propaganda at the expense of any neutral point of view and reads like a badly-written NRA screed. This article should be deleted.StopYourBull (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with about 10 things that you just said, but must agree that it is organized in a US-centric way. If it were truly about the US, then it it would be a fork/duplicate / shouldn't exist. It's valid scope should be a world scope. In that case the lead should be made more generic, and then the situation (with respect to firearm rights) in various countries covered. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The article is more than just "organized" in a US-centric way; it is about a topic that is peculiarly and almost solely a US concern. There is no "world scope," and that's what makes it pointless. It covers the same material, in a biased way, that is covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. Re-stating the argument over the Second Amendment of the US Constitution and then sprinkling a few other countries on top of it like a garnish does not make this article useful or even credible. Blanketing Wikipedia with this position doesn't make it any more or less correct, and the article is just a waste of resources. Its whole premise could be summed up in two or three sentences in one or all of the other articles that already discuss the US Second Amendment arguments in great detail.StopYourBull (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I sort of agree with you that there is a problem. So the questions are should the article exist, what should be its scope, and what should be its title Few ideas might be:

• A short article on the concept, as defined by that phrase (and the noted very similar ones). Which is what I think you are proposing.
• A world-scale article on firearm rights (or lack thereof). Possibly renamed away from the US centric wording
• Both or none of the above

North8000 (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the inherent issue is that this entire article is predicated on the validity of the by no means universally-accepted concept of "firearms rights" or "gun rights" in the first place. Many if not most countries do not recognise that such a concept exists, any more than there is a "right" to own an aeroplane or a particular type of motor vehicle. As StopYourBull says, this is merely holding up a mirror of American making to the rest of the world, and judging in on almost purely American terms. Many countries do enshrine a right to self defence, but that is absolutely not the same thing. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that we are talking about 2-3 very different definitions of a "right". One is "the government is not allowed to prohibit" or "the government does not prohibit" and the other is "somebody (= the government) will give me one if I don't already have one". North8000 (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm loathe to throw away anyone's hard work, but this article can't work. It just may be too ambitious. The concept is very cogent for US gun politics and Constitutional history, and it certainly is currently of note. To extrapolate the very notion and the voluminous arguments from the US situation to the rest of the world would require descriptions, analysis, and understanding of the history and culture of each individual country in great detail, and that would require more than a Wikipedia article to do it justice. It may be better to salvage the good stuff from this for an already extant article (or articles) on US gun politics or Constitutional history. As it stands, however, the existing article sections about the US "right to bear arms" do need a lot more balance.StopYourBull (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the real work product contained in this article and viable scope is (from my previous list) :"A world-scale article on firearm rights (or lack thereof). Possibly renamed away from the US centric wording " North8000 (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Once again, the rest of the world may not think of owning firearms as a right as it may be thought of in the US, and it may just be pointless to frame it that way without understanding what general rights people have, how these rights are spelled out, and how the rights developed and are enacted. Actual rights would have to entail complete discussions of each country's political and cultural underpinnings and the historical development of that country. I believe that doing this would be a massive undertaking and would necessitate far more than just a Wikipedia article. A discussion of firearm rights is probably best described--by proxy--in terms of gun control or gun politics, which already exist as articles in several forms, in varying states of completion and quality, on Wikipedia.StopYourBull (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Have attempted to clean up the globalization of this article by re-writing the lede. The article clearly has had a significant amount of editing and contributions by many editors over the years, and it would be a shame to throw it out. Yet, as written, it clearly had a "taint" of being too US-centric. Have attempted to address this shortcoming with a re-write of the lede. A point which perhaps needs to be made, with appropriate cites of course, is that the US still largely holds what is now becoming an anachronistic view, of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which originated in English Common Law. Yet, this English Common Law right has largely been superseded throughout the rest of the world, whereas in the United States, by reason of a largely fixed constitution, the view that dominated in about 1791 among English Common Law countries has essentially been "set in stone". This viewpoint, argued by some to be a sign that the US Constitution should become non-fixed and more amenable to more "modern" views, nonetheless remains the basis of the viewpoint that this article is too "US-centric". Perhaps the best way to address these shortcomings is simply to add a slight historical context, making the point of view that is held in the US by some to be based on historical precedent, rather than being too "US-centric". Comments? Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you did some really good work! I think getting into arguing about changing the US Constitution would be going into a tangent tar pit.....the reverse could and would be argued.....it as a model to be followed.North8000 (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen

I have replaced the "globalise" banner, but I think it may be a pointless quest. To be brief, you are looking for something that does not exist. The world, other than the US, tends not to have a right to bear arms. It is something--good, bad, or indifferent--that is peculiar to the US. If you travel the world, you will see that a lot of people have almost no rights, let alone a right to bear arms, and often the people are more concerned with just finding a way to live to care. The best you could do with this article would be to illuminate why the US does have a right to bear arms, which I think you have done admirably, here and in other places, if only you would add a little of the opposing view. Here is some "blog stuff" that shows that Nick Cooper and me are not alone in being skeptical about the universality of the right to bear arms:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/gun-control#comments

a small critique of some of your work on this article here:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=513507

and, if you are up for it, an excellent scholarly discussion of the fixed or malleable nature of the US Constitution:

http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Faculty/Siegel_Heller-HLRev.pdf

Good luck with your work. I'll be watching.StopYourBull (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I've read all of the comments. I don't know which country StopYourBull calls home, but I agree with him 100%. There's no purpose behind this article for the world at-large other than to show our (U.S.) hegemonic point of view; what works for us does not, and should not be expected to, work for everyone else. We are about 4% of the world's population and I feel safe in saying that many visitors who may run across this article don't care about our view on guns. Wikipedia is an outstanding resource used the world over. In my opinion, contributors and authors should consider one simple question: Does the topic have any educational value to the average global reader? (with "average" perhaps being thought of as someone not concerned with political ideology) Education, in whatever form, is the main purpose for coming to Wikipedia in the first place is it not? cwvegas (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all, who the heck needs to kill home intruders/schoolkids! The exact problem is that 70% of homes in some states own a gun- tempting the damn devil.Its to much to expect there will be no gun crime! Look at UK. Doesnt need 70 percent gun ownership to have a lawful society. Removed from top of section (putting words in my mouth) and inserted for 86.4.11.218. I guess it's a comment.StopYourBull (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

In the USA women still have the right to drive cars and vote. My friends from overseas say we should also update and take away those rights too. North8000 (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the vast majority of other countries in the world allow women to drive and vote, so that's not really a valid comparison. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean it as a comparison, it was more a whimsical comment on cultural imperialism......."since we don't have those rights in our countries, Americans should not have them in their country" . Ditto for having a constitution that doesn't change to follow current fashion. North8000 (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality and US centrism tags

I think that the wp:notability of this subject is clear. So then the question is what should be its scope. I really don't see any points or arguments above regarding the issues of the two tags. For example, I see arguments that "keep and bear arms" is primarily a US topic. IF that were true, then that would be an argument for removal of the tags, as coverage of a US topic should follow where it's at.. If anyone has an argument for the presence of either tag, they should make that argument here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The corollary to that argument would be to remove the tag, rename the article "Right to bear arms in the United States," and remove all of the discussion about the right to bear arms in other countries, except to say that this right is peculiar to the US. The point of the discussion above was that very few, if any, other countries have the right to bear arms as it may be written in the US Constitution. So why would you create an article that is supposedly global in scope? To be extreme--and facetious--it would be like writing an article about Honduran banana growing methods and their use in Europe: it is informative about Honduran banana growing methods, but it doesn't yield any information other than that.

I guess one of the exercises that could be done would be to try and find other countries that do even come close to having a right to bear arms. I have looked and I have not found any yet. Anyone else?--StopYourBull (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Mexico has a long history of a constitutional right for citizens to possess non-military arms for legal defense. Possession of guns for hunting is common, too. Non-citizens have no right to arms. There are other countries where citizens have a right to arms in South America, too. Yaf (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm skeptical about Mexico. If you have the documented support for Mexico and the countries in South America. please add it to the actual article. Reference to the actual statement of the constitutional right would be ideal.--StopYourBull (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Even the content makes it clear that it is not limited to the US. We'd have to delete a whole lot of stuff if we restricted it to the US. North8000 (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

No. The content is mostly to do with the US Constitutional right. Even the majority of the lede discusses the US Constitution. I think most of the non-US content could be salvaged for the article on Gun politics.--StopYourBull (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I did a quick check......it looks like about 50% of the article is US, 50% is non-US. North8000 (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

That's unbalanced, considering there are 16 other countries listed.

I agree that an article on the US Constitutional right to bear arms is certainly of note, but, as someone said above, that's a mirror that you can't hold up to the rest of the world.--StopYourBull (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that you are arguing against yourself. If it's largely a US concept, then US coverage should rightly be heavier. But I had a different reason for mentioning the 50%/50%. If we made the title just about the US, then half the material would have to go. Also that 50% non-US material would seem to indicate that it isn't solely a US topic. North8000 (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

No. I'm pretty sure it is solely a US concept. The non-US 50% is just repeating some of what's in the article on Gun politics and adding "there is no right to bear arms." It is a non sequitur: you cannot compare something to something that does not exist. As in my Honduran banana growing example, Honduran banana growing methods are irrelevant for Europe. Just adding a laundry list of other countries does not make the concept global if it does not apply to the other countries.--StopYourBull (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The existance of a RTKBA in the 16 countries can probably be summarised thus:

Australia - none (stated)

Canada - none (stated)

China - none (implied)

Cuba - exists in revolutionary context

Czech Republic - not stated (only liks to relevant GP page)

Finland - none (implied)

Israel - neutral (implied)

Japan - none (implied)

Mexico - exists (stated)

North Korea - unclear (possibly similar to Cuba)

Pakistan - exists as Sharia

Spain - none (implied)

Switzerland - implies de facto

United Kingdom - none (stated)

United States - exists (obviously)

Yemen - exists (implied)

So really there is only Mexico that has a US-like RTKBA; Pakistan and presumably Yemen have a Sharia-type concept; Cuba and presumably North Korea in a revolutionary context; and there is an implication that Switzerland has a de facto RTKBA, even if the law says it doesn't. Seven countries (Australia, Canada, China, Finland, Japan, Spain, the UK) are either stated or implied to have no RTKBA. Ultimately only the US and Mexico really have a RTKBA in the sense framed by the article. That's enough of an imbalance to suggest that a separate page on the issue is not justified, because really all it can say is, "Mexico is like the US, and the rest of the world isn't." Nick Cooper (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course "right" can mean a lot of different things. The two most notable/commonplace are:

1. "The government allows it" (and to what extent)
2. "The government does not have the power to disallow it". Or "there are restrictions on how much the government can restrict it"

There is a status for each country in the world for each of the above. The question is whether this article should grow towards covering those, such as the LGBT rights by country or territory article does, or should it be about a narrower or USA-unique concept with respect to #2? North8000 (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The LGBT article, although not perfect, at least provides an operational definition that can be examined across nations. It is very informative, and fair, but this article is not. I am also bothered by the fact that the discussion of the US right to bear arms here is obviously different than the fair, full, and balanced discussion found here. It seems that "Right to keep and bear arms" has unintentionally become just something that serves to push a particular point of view of US gun rights. The rest of the world has been thrown in to keep the article afloat as being different from already existing articles on US gun rights and politics.

Perhaps another solution would be to remove most of the discussion on the right to bear arms in the US from this article, point readers to the existing articles that already cover the right to bear arms in the US, and then to beef up coverage of the rest of the world, such as it is.

As it stands, this article is still biased toward the US coverage, and that, in itself, is biased toward a particular point of view.--StopYourBull (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the answer. I do know that I disagree with you on one point. With respect to this, Wikipedia NPOV means following degree of coverage of the topic. If the US is the epicenter of it, then there's more coverage of the US. That is the definition of WP:Npov, not wp:pov. But setting that aside, this article basically has three topics:

1. Coverage of the USA-related aspects
2. Non-US coverage of the general principle. And, BTW, while the 2nd amendment is the cornerstone of this, this topic isn't limited to the 2A, so a simple redirect to 2A would not be correct.
3. Coverage of firearm rights (by both definitions I listed above, mostly #1) in non-US countries.

So what do we do? I lean towards continuing to cover the blend of the three, mostly because I don't see a better idea. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not that the US is the epicentre of the right to keep and bear arms, but that the US is the sole instance of the right to keep and bear arms. Approaching the topic from a global perspective is misguided and disingenuous, to say the least. I have taken a good look at both this article and the US Second Amendment article, and I still think that they are covering essentially the same topic, with the Second Amendment article actually giving better and fairer coverage. This article is redundant, given all of the other articles on guns in the US. Trying to salvage this by "beefing up" the coverage of the rest of the world, as I mulled earlier, probably will not work: there either is no right to keep and bear arms in the rest of the world, or anything that appears to be a right to keep and bear arms is culturally or religiously determined and proscribed. I will give some honest thought on how to salvage this article. --StopYourBull (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly,proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. I think taking out the "Gun laws" and adding a short International section from sources that actually use RTKABA by name would be the right balance.J8079s (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Cuba

I changed the Cuba Section. Cubans do have legally owned hunt firearms. Cited Articled only says it will be an Ammisty for not legally owned firearms.

Scope of Article Too Limited

The right to keep and bear arms is not limited to firearms. It includes all types of arms. But this article mistakenly presumes it applies only to guns. The scope of the discussion should be broadened to encompass the scope of the right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.244.28 (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

What else are you suggesting we add? - Camyoung54 talk 22:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This right still exists in the UK

Prior to Saturday 16 August 2014, this article included the following text in its lead section:

The concept of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is derived from the English Bill of Rights Act, 1689, wherein Protestant citizens were allowed to keep and bear arms subject to being allowed by law. The Bill of Rights also established that regulating the right to bear arms was one of the powers of Parliament, and did not belong to the monarch. In most common law jurisdictions, this right has since the early 20th century largely been abolished by statute for example in the United Kingdom, and Australia.

Contrary to the claim in this article, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 is most definitely still in effect and has long since been extended to all four countries within the United Kingdom. This can be verified from the wording of the statute currently in effect. Furthermore since the Statute of Westminster was passed in 1931, the statutory form of this right cannot be altered without the consent of all the Commonwealth realms. It thus still also applies in Australia. Before all my compatriots rush out to the gun shops, there are undeniably severe restrictions on many specific types of arms (firearms and knives) in the UK and in Australia. However, this still complies with the last clause of the 1689 wording of this right ("as allowed by law"). The underlying right to bear arms has been significantly eroded, but it still exists in statutory form, in constitutional form (from the Declaration of Right), and as a fundamental right under English Common Law. I am thus removing the claim that this aspect of the Bill of Rights had been abolished. The more accurate information contained in the article on the Bill of Rights can be consulted for further clarification.

Secondary to the preceding concern, the article text shown above seems to suggest that this right was only afforded to Protestants. This is not true. In 1689, this right (in all three forms) was being restored to Protestants after being restricted to Papists by an Act of the previous monarch James II. I am therefore modifying the first sentence to be clear that this wasn't a Protestant right.
With thanks from ChrisJBenson (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The text you removed did not state that the Statute was no longer in effect, but that the right to bear arms has :largely been abolished by statute. That is because the Statute never limited parliament's power to restrict the right to bear arms. Regarding the statute of Westminster, the only law that cannot be altered without the consent of Canada, Australia and NZ (it does not apply to the other "Commonwealth Realms") is the succession act. The Statute is merely a statute, whether in the UK, the Commonwealth Realms or the former American colonies and places no restriction on any future parliament. Also the right did not extend to Catholics. Whether there had been a pre=1689 right to bear arms is a matter of dispute. TFD (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "abolished by statute" would indeed mean that the statutory form is "no longer in effect". Neither phrase is true about any part of the English Bill of Rights of 1688/1689, other than text concerning impaneled juries. Please verify this straight from the horse's mouth here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction

The Statue of Westminster scope and extent is also described within the Bill of Rights 1689 article. With thanks, from ChrisJBenson (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The wording is largely abolished by statute. Can you provide any case law from the last 300 years that has relied on the right to bear arms? I can certainly provide a recent U.S. case, D.C. v. Heller. The difference is that the right in the UK has been largely abolished by statute. TFD (talk) 06:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Abolished in relation to an individual right is like pregnant - it's all or nothing, so largely applies to jurisdictions. There is a huge difference between a statute or right that has been abolished, and one that has remained exactly intact without textual change. My edit said that the underlying right had been eroded by statutes, but someone else took umbridge at even that fact. ChrisJBenson (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to why you think 1996 was a "culmination," when all that happened then was that certain firearms held by less than 0.1% of the population - and which had not been held for "self-defence" - were restricted. In fact, "self-defence" ceased to be a valid reason for issuing a firearms certificate long before 1996 (NI excepted), and so any residual notion of a "right to keep and bear arms" went with it then. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are the two verions:

Original The concept of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is derived from the English Bill of Rights Act, 1689, wherein Protestant citizens were allowed to keep and bear arms subject to being allowed by law.... In most common law jurisdictions, this right has since the early 20th century largely been abolished by statute for example in the United Kingdom, and Australia In all jurisdictions, common law or otherwise, gun laws vary widely.

New The concept of the right of the people to keep and bear arms was first enumerated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 under the monarchy of William and Mary, wherein the fundamental right to keep and bear arms was restored to Protestants "as allowed by law". It had been restricted "to Papists" by the previous monarch, the Catholic King James II).... This right was significantly eroded by several statutory restrictions culminating in 1996 in both the United Kingdom and Australia, but the underlying right still exists in almost immutable form throughout the Commonwealth of Nations, as enacted in 1931 by the Statute of Westminster.

The new version is wrong on several counts. There is no evidence that Catholics had a right to keep and bear arms nor that 1996 was a significant date, and there is a meaningless reference to the Statute of Wesminster. It also implies that the Act has some relevance today.

However the original version is unsourced and has problems too. There is dispute whether a right to bear arms existed under common law. And Parliament cannot abolish common law rights, only statutory rights. It can however infringe on common law rights or remove remedies.

So I will remove the text. If anyone wants to restore it, they should provide sources and present the issues accurately.

TFD (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your points and your proposal, TFD. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 01:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It is very clear from previous statutes that there was a Catholic right to bear arms prior to 1688/1689. It is universally accepted that there is a pre-existing English Common Law right to bear arms, including by the US Supreme Court. It is also very clear from the authoritative tomes on the matter by Sir William Blackstone. This is specifically cited in the works of English philosopher John Locke (the source of the original wording), the quoted words of T. Jefferson, J. Monroe, J. Madison and G. Washington in the surviving minutes of the US Constitutional Convention, as well as the current US Government Comparative Constitutions Project. However it is clear that there is a politically motivated agenda both here and in the body of reliable sources. Wikipedia's role is to report on the consensus of the content of usually reliable sources, rather than to present the truth. I thus think it fair that this mistitled article can present one side, whilst the other Wikipedia articles continue to depict the historical and current interpretation of this right. Send me a message if you are genuinely interested in reading these sources. I have seen the futility of fighting politically motivated articles before, and I personally have more strategic battles to fight at the moment (against two cancers).

By the way, you are correct. I should have stated statutory restrictions culminating in 1997 (not 1996). These followed the massacres of Hungerford and Dunblane, and the subsequent Labor party extension of Operation Snowdrop. The last two statutes were passed in 1997 and not 1996. Alas, you are incorrect in stating that there is no evidence that the Act is in force today. Check the Crown's current statement on that matter - as cited several times previously and below, including the text that is currently in force.

Official text of the Bill of Rights 1689 as in force today, from the UK Statute Law Database.

With cordial thanks from ChrisJBenson (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you please provide a "secondary source" that explains what you think should be in the article. Obviously the government has no authority to take anything away from you, whether guns, garlic, g-strings or ganga, unless parliament allows them. TFD (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I will reply in full with precise annotations from reliable and respected sources following removal of my personal right to two kidneys (RCC). The best source for the history of the right to bear arms both before and after the English Bill of Right starts around page 118 of Volume 1 of William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (searchable but not downloadable within Google Books). That canonical reference, along with the current UK Law database that I keep citing shows that the right was "illegally" restricted to Catholics ("Papists") immediately prior to 1688 (read the Bill's original introduction). The latter of those two references shows that the right to bear arms "subject to law" still exists intact. It is just that there have been a number of laws that prohibit specific types and categories of arms (certain firearms, certain knives, all lethal noxious gases etc.), listed here (the last one applying to non-felons was in 1997). But underneath the accumulation of specific prohibitions, the "right to bear arms subject to law" remains exactly intact. In your reference to ganga etc., you may be forgetting that the three monarchs immediately prior to William and Mary reserved absolute rights without the consent of government. James II would have confiscated and destroyed your ganga. James I would have tried your dealer as the devil. Charles II would have taxed it and smoked it. Ganga remains unprotected by inherent rights. William Blackstone contrasts your right to bear arms in public with your duty to public sobriety. See you on the other side of Kidney Cancer. With thanks from ChrisJBenson (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

We could really use an outline of the history of the "Right" in England (Great Britain) This edition of Blackstone from 1862 [6] (free ebook) might be a good place to start. J8079s (talk) 06:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Whether you're talking about 1996 or 1997, still neither was a "culmination," because "self defence" ceased to be a valid reason for the granting of a firearms certificate decades previously. That ended the concept of keeping and bearing arms in principal, even though in practice it had ceased even earlier. And why single our Labour when all they did was ban the .22 single-shot pistols that were left after the Conservatives banned every other sort of non-muzzle loading pistol? Nick Cooper (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Blackstone is a bad place to start because his history is questionable as correctly explained in his article. There is a dispute whether the rights in the Bill of Rights actually existed before the document became law. TFD (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Coat rack

An anonymous user edited a previous Coat rack tag which user J8079s then removed. As this tag challenges the entire existence and contents of this article, the placement of the tag at the top of the page seems justified. Havanafreestone (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs to be discussed. There is already a Right to keep and bear arms in the United States article, and then there is this one, and Overview of gun laws by nation. It's like we're clobbering Wikipedia readers over the head with the concept of a "right to keep and bear arms." If there is an article even remotely to do with gun laws and politics, out comes the RKBA language and wikilinks. Put the details in one article, and send readers there, when appropriate. Lightbreather (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Pasting;

It seems this article is being maintained, extensively, to promote the interpretation of 'keep and bear arms' as 'keep weapons for private use and personal defense', probably to promote that interpretation of 'bear arms' in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, i.e. to position private gun ownership as a constitutional right. This interpretation of 'bear arms' is widely disputed, as almost every historic reference to the phrase was in reference to military defense. To find support of this claim that the meaning of 'bear arms' is widely disputed, simply search for 'bear arms' online. This Coat rack tag was removed arguing that the US Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution did indeed apply to personal gun ownership, but that ruling is also widely disputed. This is not just a Talk-page topic but a justified tag, challenging the entire existence and contents of this article. All the selective information about gun/weapons regulations in various countries (which can already be found in Overview of gun laws by nation) seem clearly a coatrack to propose the meaning of 'bear arms' used in this article as factual. It is not. I propose to clean-up this article, remove philosophers and country-references and focus on the dispute about the meaning of 'bear arms'. Or, alternatively, remove this article altogether.

I also agree that this article needs to be discussed. As you state, there are too many articles dealing with the same subject while differing only very slightly in specific focus. This article seems just to be a reiteration of the Right to keep and bear arms in the United States with some "international" chat thrown in. The international section is just a rehash of Overview of gun laws by nation with no real discussion of the "right to bear arms." Whether this is due to shoddy research, the actual lack of information, or just a way to fill the page with information, the article is very poorly done. A proper article would deal with the topic at hand and refer the reader to national laws at Overview of gun laws by nation.

There is also an obvious problem in the wording of the article and maintaining a NPOV, including "cherry-picked" statements from references without including the context of the statement. In some cases this makes the citation inaccurate if not outright fallacious. In particular, the use of incomplete citations from the English 1689 Bill of Rights completely removes the context of the citation and misappropriates it as an absolute endorsement and early precedent for the "right to bear arms." Right to keep and bear arms in the United States actually provides a fairer and clearer treatment of this than does the article we are discussing here.

In sum, I agree with you and actually think that this article should be a candidate for deletion and merging with Right to keep and bear arms in the United States and Overview of gun laws by nation.99.242.102.111 (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The tag was removed due to lack of justification on the talk page. please post your concerns on the talk page do remember this is not a forum.J8079s (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• The people who say this is a coatrack are right. Most of the material ain't about "rights" - it's about regulations. I'm gonna start deleting anything that doesn't mention a "right to keep and bear arms". Plain old laws go in the laws article. Felsic (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC) It's had a coatrack notice on it since July 2014. No one disagrees. Clean-up time.Felsic (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Coat rack cleanup

Next week, If I get the time, I'll start cleaning out this coatrack. Everything that doesn't refer to a right to keep and bear arms goes into the trash. Or moved here. Felsic (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Felsic, you probably meant to say that you intend to cleanup the article and remove unsourced content rather than unilaterally declaring that you personally find fault with some of its content and intend to delete it, right? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not what I meant at all. I meant to say that this article is a coat rack, per the consensus at #Coat rack above and the cleanup tag that's been on the page since June 2014, and that I am intending to remove material which isn't about the topic of this article. You can revert any of my edits, if that's what you want to do. Felsic (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, ' The topic of this article is the right to keep and bear arms. The sources need to be about that topic. Felsic (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverting without discussion? So typical around here.

Private ownership of firearms in China was first banned by the Qing dynasty.

According to PRC law, there are firearms regulations and according to those regulations "whoever, in violation of firearm-control regulations, secretly keeps firearms or ammunition and refuses to relinquish them shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than two years or criminal detention."

WP:OR says sources have gotta be "directly related" to the topic of the article. I don't see nothing about no "right to keep and bear arms" in the sources or in the text. So how come this stuff got put back into the article, eh? Felsic (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, clean-up of this article was Interrupted? There are some places that allow polygamy. If we were to have an article called "Right to multiple spouses" (R2MS) would we list every country and its marriage laws, regardless of whether or not they recognize R2MS?

As has been pointed out in discussions above, the "Gun laws in [country]" articles cover this stuff. This needs to be seriously edited. Just create a List article or something already. Lightbreather (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This is the most honest treatment of the article I've seen. 99.242.108.55 (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you proposed the same for the articles on freedom of speech and freedom of the press? Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are far more universal than is the the right to keep and bear arms. The fact is that, good, bad, or indifferent, the right to keep and bear arms is peculiar to the US in western democracies. With the exception of Cuba and Mexico--where I'm not sure the right actually exists--no other country is as focussed on this topic as is the United States. If you have travelled around the world, you will know that the vast majority of the people are more concerned with the right to feed themselves or the right to have a roof over their head. I think Lightbreather's edit was a foregone conclusion and that the article is completely unnecessary and tries to map US problems onto the rest of the world. 99.242.108.55 (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Preserving "United Kingdom" section

The following was in this article, but it doesn't sync with the little that is at the given main page re a "right to keep and bear arms." The term is mentioned once in that article, in its Gun control legislation in the United Kingdom section, but neither David Kopel or John Pate are listed as sources there. I started to put a "sync" template here, or start a discussion there, but I think preserving this here now is the best next step.

I will put a notice on the page about this. Lightbreather (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Main article: Gun politics in the United Kingdom (including Ireland, Scotland, and Wales)

There is an English common law right to keep and bear arms for self-protection but the possession of certain arms is controlled heavily by the government. The right to bear arms was not specifically made legal until the Bill of Rights 1689, but specifically only for Protestants. The first serious control on firearms after this was not made until the passing of the Firearms Act 1920 more than 200 years later.

England is already mentioned in the "Background" section. I find some of the wording poor. There is for example no conflict between the supposedly common law right to have weapons and firearms laws, since parliament represents the population. TFD (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Completely disingenuous to remove a section because it doesn't "sync" with a "Main" link. Much of Wikipedia would fail that test. I am reverting but I will, for your pleasure, convert the Main link to a See also link. Scott Illini (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

common law/ rights

Common law may speak to "rights" but it does not create them. Rights may be regulated but not to their destruction. J8079s (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No. The sentence implies that this is true for countries with an English common-law tradition other than the United States; the cited reference only discusses this with reference to the United States. If you can find any passage in the reference that states otherwise, then the tag can be removed, otherwise we should repair the passage to impart this bit only to the US and then move it to the section on the US.. 99.242.108.55 (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

That the right is regulated does not make it go away. From the source:

For Blackstone, the English guarantee thus had implications both for individual liberty and the collective action of the people: It was the embodiment of "the natural right of resistance and self-preservation," and could be employed "when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression." 1 id. at 143. Strikingly, despite the importance of Blackstone's influence in the colonies, his treatment of the English right to arms is not addressed in leading works favoring the narrowest readings of the Second Amendment. See Cress, supranote 16, at 26-29 (treating English right and revolutionary period without mention- ing Blackstone's construction of the English right or his work's influence in America); Weatherup, supranote 47, at 974-79 (same). In another work, Blackstone is cited, but the only point emphasized is that his treatment incorporated the language limiting the right to arms to holdings "allowed by law." Ehrman & Henigan, supra note 27, at 10. But see supranotes 91-95 (explaining the irrelevance of qualifying language in English provision for understanding the Second Amendment, given American assumptions against legisla- tive sovereignty). By contrast, the authors ignore that Blackstone's treatment viewed the right to arms as an important right that secured fundamental natural rights, as well as the reliance of the American colonists on Blackstone's broad construction of the English right to arms. See Ehrman & Henigan, supra note 27, at 10.

J8079s (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No. That's not the point. The point is that the US is the only country with an English common-law tradition that has "recognized" it as "pre-existing in common-law." Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc., etc. have not. The sentence should read:

In the United States, a long-standing English common-law right to keep and bear arms has been recognized as present in common law, prior even to the existence of a written national constitution.

and the section up to the talk about open carry should be moved to the US section. It only applies to the US. 99.242.108.55 (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

miscite

From the source "In the United Kingdom, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law" this different than your edit [7] "There is no right to keep and bear arms in the United Kingdom that is either legally or constitutionally guaranteed" J8079s (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No. You have to follow through and read their documented sources for this; read their references 134 and 135. If you do read them you will see that with the exception of maybe Mexico, Cuba, and Guatemala, the US is alone in having a constitutional guarantee of a right to bear arms. The UK does not have a constitutional or legal right to bear arms. Any existing right to "bear arms" from the 17th-century proscriptions on the use of pikes and swords, or from English common-law, has long been superseded by actual legislation brought down by Parliament--the voice of the British people, with origins in the Magna Carta. This talk about common-law still having sway is a lot of malarkey perpetrated by those who conveniently neglect to mention that it functionally means nothing: common-law is just as was done (common) until proper legislation superseded it. Proper legislation in the UK has not guaranteed the right to bear arms. Will you please return my sentence? 99.242.108.55 (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The sentence now reads: "The right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law" this is consistent with the sources. I think you are making a WP:good faith effort to put this in your own words but in general if you need 3 sources to write a sentence it is WP:OR in this case think you are just over reaching to equate private firearm ownership with "the right". There is more to keeping and bearing than private self defense. You are correct to a degree about common law rights, rights are not created by law nor can they be destoyed, they are subject to regulation pretty much everything we have about "firearms" is destroyed by long running pissing matches that that treat wikipedia as a social media. What we have on common law is in much the same boat while some is good see Edward Coke some is as you say "malarky". If we stick with policy WP:NPOV that is I think we can repair the damage but the problem is huge. J8079s (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I am stating what the evidence states: there is no right to keep and bear arms in the UK that is guaranteed either by law or by written constitution. The evidence is there in WP-appropriate format and it supports that statement. Your approach is tantamount to stating that it does not matter that the US Supreme Court has come down favouring the "individual" interpretation of the Second Amendment, it is only the "militia" interpretation that still holds. You cannot have conflicting, exclusive interpretations. I will return the sentence to the way it was as a good faith edit with documented support. There is now, no right to keep and bear arms in the UK. 99.242.108.55 (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Our standard is WP:Verify we are confined to what the source actually says. See also the essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. When you 'follow the evidence" it is WP:OR. From [8]: The "No original research" policy (NOR) is closely related to the Verifiability policy. Among its requirements are: 2 #Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy. (When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. Do not violate the source's copyright when doing so.) I do WP:Assume good faith but I don' come here to chit chat or blog. J8079s (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Rather than revert again I going to make a proposal below and leave a note at IP's talk page J8079s (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know how to take this. It appears to be a threat to take all the marbles and start a new game elsewhere if you can't have your way.Quoting WP policy at me when you have not even read the entire citation I provided is rather ironic. I would remind you that you cannot just delete properly-supported passages and that the entry I made is properly supported. All you have to do is read the entire citation by clicking on the two footnotes, 134 and 135, at the end of the "headline," Just taking enough out of context to support you viewpoint is not valid. As for the note you left on my page, your mention of editors being banned for daring to edit firearms articles is rather strange. 99.242.108.55 (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

This is about behavior not content. No one has ever be banned for WP:BRD. You must cite the source you are actually using in this case a speech by Marco Rubio as told by [9] not ask the readers to follow a series of links. J8079s (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite

In keeping with the concerns of the tags and the subsequent removal of most of the content I am proposing to build an historically based page. This would necessitate removal of most of whats left. There are lots of god sources on the history and wide spread agreement on the components and the origins of rights/duties. While the sources I have access to lean towards lean towards the Anglo-American tradition I do have some access to others. My to do list: Expand the lead to include the components (Militia, police, and self defence (including hearth and home). Take out the nation based sections(which will leave the page nearly blank). Build an article in time oriented sequence (I would start in 1689 and work both ways). I don' see a single sentence that could be kept intact but we've got to start somewhere. Pleas observe the the talk page guide lines and assume good faith J8079s (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest, instead, that this article be deleted and the small section of nations that actually have a "right to keep and bear arms," guaranteed by a written constitution, be added to the article on the Right to keep and bear arms in the United States. This means that Cuba, Mexico, and Guatemala (new) can be added perhaps as "Other Countries with a Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms." What you are proposing is just, once again, repeating the US worldview from the article on the right to keep and bear arms in the US. I fail to see the need to smear this all over WP when it is irrelevant for the vast majority of the world. I would remind you that WP is meant to be a worldwide view and that POV pushing does include trying to push one country's (or a proportion of it) view on firearms-related topics. I oppose what your want to do as it will be just yet another repetitive, redundant, and irrelevant US-centric view on how the world should think about firearms. You have no consensus. 99.242.108.55 (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not build it in a sandbox first, rather than blanking what we already have? And couldn't we use some of the current stuff in a "current status" section of the article? Faceless Enemy (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree with AGF. The right was first placed in statute in England in the Bill of Rights 1689. Whether or not it existed before is debatable. As imperial law, it extended to the entire British Empire and remains the law in the UK and all the former colonies except where repealed. The U.S. and many of its states decided to protect the right in their constitutions and Mexico and other countries adopted the U.S. precedent. It is not as if each country developed it independently. IP, I see no reason to exclude the UK, which does not have a written constitution. The term "constitution" is ambiguous anyway, because it may refer to all the laws or just those laws that cannot be amended except by a special procedure. TFD (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

No need to hurry with junking anything there is nothing actually harmful. This was the "home" page the USA article was spun out from here so to save history/sources and all this is the place to build. Some of the past versions are not that bad. J8079s (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Mass deletion warning

It seems like recently tens (hundreds?) of thousands of bytes were removed, and we no longer have Asia super-section. Most (all?) countries had references, so this seems entirely inappropriate. --Iceburg Lettuce (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

United Kingdom

The UK section reads as if the fire arms acts have removed our constitutional rights. However this have never been challenged in court, in fact Lord Justice Laws in 2002 implicitly stated that UK Common law could not simply be repealed by government legislation. The fact it has never been legally challenged in the High Court in reference to the right to bear arms, doesn't mean we simply no longer have the right. The source quoted only provides details on specific legislation and ignores the rights over UK Common Law over legislative law as ruled in 2002. Projectmayhem666 (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Ian Overton on Pakistan report

Recently, Ian Overton mentioned that a study on Pakistan showed that the number of homicides with firearms increased as people began attaining weapons for personal defense. He mentioned that "give people guns and they'll use it, it's that simple". It should be in his book somewhere (gun baby gun; see http://www.gunbabygun.com/global-numbers-killed-gun-examined/ ) but I didn't find an exact reference. It might be the 2014 global study homicide (https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/GSH2013/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf ) but I'm not sure. Can someone reread, confirm and add this ? Seems quite important to note in article. Xovady (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

An interesting source that could be useful but not for this page. J8079s (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)