Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 25

This is an archive of past discussions about Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

→

Kenossis - you are in violation of 3RR

If you do not restore the new material under "keep and bear arms" I will report you. That includes restoring the title. Give me more lip and I will assume bad faith on your part and not bother warning you for your next infraction.

You have some questions on the talk page that require your input, assuming "that you are NOT acting in bad faith", such as why mentioning the 3 proposed amendments in the Minority Report constitute cherry picking.71.184.177.11 (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Then file it. I gave more than adequate references for my edits to both sections, and SaltyBoatr has given more than adequate reasoning for her/his edits w.r.t. the so-called "Pennsylvania minority" that turns out according to multiple reliable sources to consist of only one disaffected participant who left the convention in disgust. Also, please note that my recent edits are not "reverts", but rather are edits well within WP:Policy which are bringing this article towards better compliance with WP content policy. Y'all have a nice day, OK? ... Kenosis (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You reasons for making changes have no relevance to a violation. 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. Something you are curretly engaging in. If you are in violation you are in violation. Last chance!71.184.177.11 (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Mark Tushnet info

Mark Tushnet's information on what bear arms meant alone should be returned. His claim of what it meant when combined with "keep" should also be returned. Why was it removed? 150.199.21.127 (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I bet because either SaltyBoatr or Kenosis didn't like it!71.184.177.11 (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Anon did not agree to SaltyBoatr deletion of Kopel material

Upon SaltyBoatr's disparaging reference to Kopel's website, I pointed out that Kopel is already used as a reference in the article. SaltyBatr took that to mean that I wanted material referencing Koppel to be deleted. I in no way, manner or form agree to that deletion and any such idea resided exclusively in SaltyBoatr's head.

I therefore ask that SaltyBoar restore the material he deleted.71.184.177.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC).

Sorry for misunderstanding you. Regardless, this is a very high profile article. We have a duty per WP:Policy to try to stick with third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. To that end, we should try to avoid using advocacy websites, which fail both the "third party" measure and the "published with fact checking" measure. Self published websites like Mr. Kopel's have an unclear reputation for fact checking and accuracy. There is little reason to use websites with a topic like this article's topic when so many excellent sources published by third party publishers of excellent reputation exist. The only reason to use lessor quality sources (like advocacy websites) might be when a WP:SPA editor is seeking to push their personal point of view. In my opinion, that is what we are seeing now with this AnonIP, and that is not allowed per WP:NPOV policy. Sorry, this is not personal, it is just policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't each of the "scholars" and "historians" either "pro-gun" or "anti-gun"? How many are truly neutral. When it comes to issues like RKBA, abortion and the death penalty, everybody has a POV. So I believe we should either (1) remove all references to scholarly material from the article or (2) agree on what counts as being an "advocate" so that any material from such a person/organization can be removed. SMP0328. (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Then I assume you have no objections to the deletion of all references for Rakove (who can't count past 2 - see above) and all references to Uviller and Markel who disagree with the Library of Congress - see below - the issue being whether a deranged hermit ("this "minority report" turns out to be no more than the collected ramblings of a single embittered eccentric who departed the convention in disgust") wrote the Pennsylvania dissent or a convention member - 21 of whom signed it per the Library of Congress.71.184.177.11 (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to reach a consensus here. If you delete that material, you will simply be reverted and have accomplished nothing. We must reach a consensus on what kind of material should be in the article before making wholesale changes. SMP0328. (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. While we may never agree on our person points of view, hopefully we can agree to stick with WP:Policy. The main policy point here is how to determine the reliability standard to use. WP:Sources policy describes that In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Considering the large amount of these "most reliable" sources that are available on the topic of this article, and considering that this is a high profile article, the prudent thing for us editors to do is to give favor to the high quality publishers. Clearly, advocacy websites, with obscure fact checking standards are not "high quality" per policy here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we agree that someone contradicting the Library of Congress is a retarded dufus who has no place being referenced in this article? The Library of Congress having the original document in its hands to back up its position, and Uviller and Merkel having jack to back up theirs.

Uviller + Merkel say - see ref 115

Yet this "minority report" turns out, on closer inspection, to reflect no more than the ramblings of a single embittered eccentric who departed the convention in disgust when he was unable to scuttle ratification. As such, the failure of Pennsylvania's one man "minority" merely accentuates the fact that opinion favoring a personal right to arms independent of the militia remained highly marginal in state conventions outside of New Hampshire."

Library of Congress sez - http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/h?ammem/bdsbib:@field(NUMBER+@od1(bdsdcc+c0401)) "Signed on p. [3] by Nathaniel Breading and twenty others; followed by the vote of the convention on ratification of the Constitution. Dated: Philadelphia, Dec. 12, 1787.71.184.177.11 (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we agree on what counts as "advocacy websites". I believe that is a major part of the disputes on this talk page. Also, I believe the anon and SaltyBoatr each need to give a little. Right now, they are simply butting heads like a couple of rams. SMP0328. (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree to look to WP:Sources to determine what counts as an "advocacy website", and more importantly, what is defined per policy to be "most reliable sources". That being: peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Dave Kopel's website falls very short from this policy standard. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And speaking to the AnonIP, with his Library of Congress research posted just above. I am required by the WP:NOR and WP:PSTS policy to ignore and disregard his research and analysis of primary documents. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not "advocacy websites" but "advocacy content" - Original historical documents whereever found are NOT advocacy content. By SaltyBoatrs reasoning if the library of Congress held a document he didn't like it would be an advocacy site. Content that is bought and paid to show a desired conclusion is advocacy content. Saul Cornell, Rakove, Uviller Merkel and others have all received funds to publish material favorable to the Joyce Foundation gun control party line. All those authors published books or articles that are designed to show a desired viewpoint, irrespective of the truth of that viewpoint. That is "advocacy content" and should be removed from the article just as NRA sponsored material seems to have been removed.

As for reliable sources, I would have to say that he Library of Congress with the Original Document is hand (with text and images available for easy confirmation of their comment) is quite a bit more reliable then Uviller and Merkel (who have Jack)!

Lastly as SaltyBoatr (per his own words) can't comment about anything from an "Original Document" he should pack his bags and go away as that is exactly what he is doing when he changes sections of the Second Amendment article. 71.184.177.11 (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you take a moment please to read the policy pages, WP:NOR and specifically WP:PSTS. We can get along better if we agree to follow the rules around here. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I did (see below) and "historical revisionists" are persona non grata!71.184.177.11 (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

deletion of Penn MInority report material from "Early Commentary" secton greaty diminishes that section

The Penn Minority Report included 3 proposed amendments which raised issues discussed throughout the campaign to ratify the constitution. This was the first document proposing amendments to the US Constitution.

These proposed amendments were

7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of [Page 135] themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power.

8. The inhabitants of the several states shall have liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times, on the lands they hold, and on all other lands in the United States not enclosed, and in like manner to fish in all navigable waters, and others not private property, without being restrained therein by any laws to be passed by the legislature of the United States.[75]

11. That the power of organizing, arming and disciplining the militia (the manner of disciplining the militia to be prescribed by Congress) remain with the individual states, and that Congress shall not have authority to call or march any of the militia out of their own state, without the consent of such state, and for such length of time only as such state shall agree.

Since there are a couple of retards on this board who object to ORIGINAL documents based on what website those documents are found (This includes objections to ORIGINAL articles published by authors that THEY cite) I am now including several different websites for this document

http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/antifederalist/minority03.html http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1807

Now the piece de resistance - the Library of Congress with both text and images of the Original Document.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/bdsdcc:@field(DOCID+@lit(bdsdccc0401))

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/h?ammem/bdsbib:@field(NUMBER+@od1(bdsdcc+c0401)) - images of the original document at the library of Congress which notes that the document was "Signed on p. [3] by Nathaniel Breading and twenty others; followed by the vote of the convention on ratification of the Constitution. Dated: Philadelphia, Dec. 12, 1787." and was not the ramblings of somed eranged hermit as a couple of retards on this oard would like you to believe.

Assuming that the library of Congress is correct (they have the original to back up what they say) only 21 of the 23 dissenters signed it.71.184.177.11 (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It makes no sense to include that "killing game" passage twice in this article. Previously it was quoted both in the "early commentary" section and again in the "bear arms" section. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion - Mine is that the "Early Commentary" section in now greatly diminished and needs to be restored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.177.11 (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Brady Campaign material needs to be deleted

Material backed up by cite 147 and the cite itself needs to be deleted. The Brady Campaign is an advocacy group. ^ Legal Action Project of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "Mangling Miller: How the Parker Opinion Distorted and Defied Supreme Court Precedent". http://www.gunlawsuits.org/defend/second/fantasy/pdf/parker-opinion-critique1.pdf. Retrieved 2009-01-06.71.184.177.11 (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That paragraph is describing the positions held by pro-gun and pro-control groups. Per policy, pointing to the websites of the advocacy groups is an appropriate way to source their opinions. Notice that the first footnote points to www.secondamendment.net, and the second to the Brady website. It is appropriate to give balance like that, including both sides' opinions. If that paragraph could be updated by pointing to higher quality sources, for both parts, I would support such. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I say - get rid of both sides and replace it with text from the case itself.71.184.177.11 (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliability - Is the Library of Congress a respected source

SaltyBoatr sez NO!

He better get cracking and get all those images of Historical Documents like the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence and a HELL of a lot of others deleted from wikipedia. FYI: I don't plan on holding my breath while he does it.

Wikipedia policy sez http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications."

Is material from THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS from a respected mainstream source? I and all those historians who examine original documents say yes. Those who examine jack will probably say no. YToo much work and who wants to ruin a bought and paid for conclusion with facts.

wikipedia also sez - Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic,[4] or extremist may only be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals. (ref 4 ^ Examples of such views include certain forms of revisionist history and pseudoscience)

Did wikipedia say REVISIONIST HISTORY????Why I do believe it did! Looks like Uviller and Merkel with their "one disgruntled looney" comment fall under that category. They need to go! 71.184.177.11 (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Fully protected the article against dispute

I full-protected the article so it can't be edited. Please work out your differences and come to a consensus. If consensus is reached before protection expires, feel free to ask for protection to be lifted. If consensus isn't reached and the page is open to editing again, be mindful of WP:3RR, know that several of you will likely qualify to be blocked. tedder (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest SaltyBoatr and the anon each need to give a little to the other's demands. If each feels he's being allowed to contribute, dispute resolution should be easier to achieve. SMP0328. (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You tell me,

1)does the Second Amendment protect the right "to keep and bear arms" or just the right "to bear arms"?

2)Was the Penn Minority report the work of one crazed looney with no supporters or was it signed by 21 of the 23 Penn dissenters as the Library of Congress reports - hint: You can go to the website and check images of the document - the link is above.

3) Last I checked cherry picking involved picking the most favorable viewpoint, what is favorable about having all 3 proposed amendments from the Penn Minority Report referenced in the article? Why show only one, when all 3 are relevant?

What should I compromise about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.177.11 (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There should be your take on the Penn Minority report and SaltyBoatr's take of it or there should be no reference. Having one without the other would lead to legitimate claims of an NPOV violation. SMP0328. (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Penn minority report was the first document that proposed amendments to the US Constitution. It DESERVES inclusion in the article and should not be dissed as the ramblings of a crazed loony. As pointed out, that dissing would be the inclusion of "historical revisionism" and forbidden by wikipedia policies.71.184.177.11 (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

and it is not MY take, it is the take of the Library of Congress.71.184.177.11 (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

When I refer to something as being your take or SaltyBoatr's take, I'm not suggesting either of you made it up or that either of you are being dishonest. I believe it would be better to have both takes on the Penn Minority report, so that each reader can decide for himself which he believes better represents the history of the Penn Minority report. Not having any reference to it would be unfortunate, but could be necessary if no resolution can be reached. SMP0328. (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot stand by and see an important historical document described as the work of a crazed looney.71.184.177.11 (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Library of Congress is a library, not a third party publishing house. Reading a primary document from that library and drawing conclusions as you have done is original research which is not allowed here per policy. I could grant that you are 100% correct with your conclusion, no difference, doesn't matter. You can't use original research here. Non-negotiable. Sorry. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Library of Congress employs more historians than many a University. Example - It's head is a noted expert on Russian history. 96.237.123.191 (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

So if the anon, or another editor, found a reliable source, you would not object to the anon restoring that material to the article? SMP0328. (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

These seems to be an implication that the Library of Congress in NOT a reliable source? Is it or is it not?96.237.123.191 (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Restore which material specifically? Can you point to the diffs? Not knowing specifics, it's impossible to answer specifically. Though in general, the essential thing I am looking for is that it must meet WP:Policy. WP:Sources is an non-negotiable policy, also NPOV WP:Undue, and WP:NOR. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

More obstructionist bulls%%t. Well known tactic of - keep delaying and they will go away - you WIN - it's used in the courts every day of the year That's why we have a (much ignored) Constitutional Amendment for the right to a speedy trial.!96.237.123.191 (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The actual obstruction is that you didn't answer my fair questions. The talk page cannot work as long as we don't talk. Yelling doesn't work here. See these guidelines. SaltyBoatr (talk)

Try answering these two first - Does the Second Amemdment protect the right "to keep and bear arms" or just the right "to bear arms"?

and Why is Saul Cornell, who is in the pay of the Joyce Foundation, receiving $400,000 JUST in start up funds, the person used for so many cites on this article. He outweighs the next guy by at least a factor of 2-3, aperhaps more. 96.237.123.191 (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOURCES

The place to start here is by reading the reliable third party published sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, from the full spectrum of the points of view (including those we don't personally agree with), and then we should edit the article to neutrally and fairly match these sources in proportion to their prominence found in the sourcing. Perhaps the AnonIP would like to start by revealing to us which reliable third party published sources he has been reading that support his desired edits? That would allow us to find a foundation for an agreement. Unfortunately, we are not allowed to use our personal research, or our personal points of view when editing this article. And unfortunately, I see far too much of that personal research and personal POV from the AnonIP, which distracts us from the hard work here on this talk page. Let's stick with the reliable third party published sources, stop talking about our personal point of view, and get to work here finding a compromise. I am all ears. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you stating that the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS is NOT a reliable source?96.237.123.191 (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I might be wrong about this and you might be right. I am saying the Library of Congress is a library. An really excellent and reliable library containing primary sources which you are using for original research now. Wikipedia has procedures to resolve disagreements like this. I recommend taking advantage of them: Wikipedia:Editor assistance, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, WP:Third Opinion, WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard, WP:Dispute Resolution, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, etc.. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The answer is either yes or no. Are you stating that the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS is NOT a reliable source?96.237.123.191 (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Crazed looney or respected judge and member of the presidents cabinet - You decide!

Bio of one of the signers of the Penn Dissent

http://www.archive.org/stream/pennsylvaniafede00hist/pennsylvaniafede00hist_djvu.txt

Breading, Nathaniel, of Fayette county, was born in Little Britain township, Lancaster county, March t6, 1751. His grandfather, David Breading, came to Pennsylvania from near Coleraine, county Londonderry, Ireland, about 1728. His son James married Ann Ewing, and they were the parents of the subject of this sketch. Nathaniel received a classical education, afterwards took charge of the Newark Academy, Delaware, and also taught school in Prince Edward county, Virginia. At the outset of the Revolution he re- turned to Pennsylvania, and was acting commissary under General James Ewing, who was in command of a portion of the Associated battalions during the years 1777 and 1778. In 1784 he removed to Luzerne township, Fayette county, and shortly after was appointed a justice of the peace, and, No- vember 6, 1785, one of the judges of the Court of Common Pleas. On the 5th of March, 1785, he was appointed by the Assembly one of the commissioners to survey the lands re- cently purchased from the Indians north and west of the Ohio and Allegheny Rivers to Lake Erie, as also to assist in run- ning the boundary-lines between Pennsylvania and Virginia. He was a delegate to the Pennsylvania convention to ratify the federal constitution, but in deference to his constituents did not sign the ratification. He served as a member of the Supreme Executive Council from November 19, 1789, until the dissolution of that body by the adoption of the constitu- tion of 1790. He was commissioned one of the associate judges of Fayette county, August 17, 1791, and served con- tinuously during the several changes of administration until his death, a period of thirty years, perchance the longest term of any who filled that honorable position. During the excite- ment in Western Pennsylvania consequent upon the enforce- ment of the excise laws, Judge Breading, although these were obnoxious to him, took a bold stand in the maintenance of law and order. As the result, much of his property was burned by the insurgents. He was one of the delegates from the county to the conference held at Pittsburgh, September 7, 1791, to take measures toward suppressing the threatened in- surrection. Apart from the public positions Judge Breading filled so faithfully and honorably, he was engaged in various enterprises looking to the development of the Western country. He died on the 21st of April, 1821.

In US government terms, The Penn Executive Council would be the equivalent of the President, Vice President and his advisers (the Cabinet).

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

The Supreme Executive Council of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (also known as The Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania and, where state affiliation was understood, The Supreme Executive Council, The Executive Council, or simply Council or The Council) comprised the executive branch of the Pennsylvania State government between 1777 and 1790. It was headed by a President and a Vice-President (analogous to a Governor and Lieutenant Governor, respectively). The best known member of the Council was Benjamin Franklin, who also served as its sixth President.96.237.123.191 (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

#2 Crazed looney or respected member of cabinet and long term member of the US House of Representatives - You decide!

http://www.archive.org/stream/pennsylvaniafede00hist/pennsylvaniafede00hist_djvu.txt

SmiliE, John, of Fayette county, son of Thomas Smilie, was born September 16, 1742, in county Down, Ireland. His father came to Pennsylvania at an early period and settled in Lancaster county. The son early espoused the patriot cause, and at once took sides, being a member of the County Com- mittee, of the provincial conference held at Carpenters' Hall June 18, 1775, and that of June 18, 1776. In the latter year, and that of 1777, he served as a private in the Associators, and continued in that situation during the most critical periods of the war. In 1778, and again in 1779, he was elected to the General Assembly from Lancaster county, and became an ardent promoter of the act of 1780, providing for the gradual abolition of slavery in Pennsylvania. In 1781, he removed with his family to then Westmoreland county, and was chosen a member of the Council of Censors, 1783- 84, from that county. When the county of Fayette was or- ganized in 1784, he was chosen its first Representative in the General Assembly, re-elected in 1785, and served in the Supreme Executive Council from November 2, 1786, to No- vember 19, 1789. He was a delegate to the Pennsylvania convention to ratify the federal constitution in 1787 — op- posed the ratification — and was one of the anti-constitutional party who were mobbed in Philadelphia on the evening of the 6th of November, that year. With Gallatin, he repre- sented Fayette in the State constitutional convention of 1789-90. In 1790 he was elected to the State Senate, but in 1792, having been elected to the third Congress, he resigned the last year of his senatorial term. He was sent to the Penn- sylvania House of Representatives in 1795, '96, and '97, and was a presidential elector in 1796. In 1798 he was again chosen to Congress, the sixth, and re-elected to the succeed- ing Congresses up to and including the thirteenth. He died at the city of Washington on the 29th of December, 1813, aged seventy-one years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.123.191 (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

#3 Crazed looney or respected judge and member of the presidents cabinet - You decide!

http://www.archive.org/stream/pennsylvaniafede00hist/pennsylvaniafede00hist_djvu.txt

Baird, John, of Westmoreland county, was born about 1740, in Lancaster, now Dauphin county. He removed to Westmoreland county about 1770, in company with some Scotch-Irish neighbors, and took up land in what was after- wards Huntingdon township. He appears to have been a man of mark west of the AUeghenies, but in all the histories recently published no mention is made of him. He served as one of the overseers of the poor in 1773; was appointed by the constitutional convention of 1776 one of the board of commissioners for Westmoreland county, and commissioned a justice of the peace June 11, 1777. During the war of the Revolution, and in the border wars of his section, he was very efficient in recruiting the military forces. He was a member of the Supreme Executive Council from November 18, 1786, to November 25, 1789; and a delegate to the Penn- sylvania convention to ratify the federal constitution in 1787, but his name was not signed to the ratification. He was one of the members of the anti-constitution party who were mobbed in the city of Philadelphia on the 6th of Novem- ber, 1787. He was a member of the General Assembly in 1 789-' 90, and of the House of Representatives in 1790 and 1791. Under the constitution of 1790, he was commissioned one of the associate judges of the county, August 17, 1791. Mr. Baird, we are inclined to believe, died about the begin- ning of the present century. 96.237.123.191 (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

#4 Crazed Looney or sucessful politician and businessman - You decide!

http://www.archive.org/stream/pennsylvaniafede00hist/pennsylvaniafede00hist_djvu.txt

Orth, Adam, of Dauphin county, son of Balthaser (died October, 1788) and Gertrude Catharine Orth, was born March 10, 1733, in Ivcbanon township, Lancaster (now Leba- non) county. His parents came to America in 1729, and he was thus brought up amid the dangers and struggles of Penn- sylvania pioneer life. He received the limited education of the "back settlements," and yet, by self-culture and reading, became a man well informed and of more than ordinary intel- gence. During the French and Indian war he commanded the Lebanon township company in Rev. John Elder's rang- ing battalion. In 1769116 was one of the commissioners of the county of Lancaster. During the Revolution he was early identified with the movement, and, although well ad- vanced in years, assisted in the organization of the associated battalions, and was appointed a sub-lieutenant of the county March 12, 1777. Upon the formation of the county of Dau- phin, he served as a Representative in the General Assembly in 1789 and 1790. He was a delegate to the Pennsylvania convention of 1787, but opposed the adoption of the federal constitution, and took an active part in the Harrisburg con- ference of 1788. For a long period he operated and owned New Market Forge, which at his death he bequeathed to his son Henr^^ He was one of the pioneers in the manufacture of iron in Lebanon county, a man of energy and indomitable perseverance. He died November 15, 1794. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.123.191 (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

#5 crazed looney or sucessfull poitician and military man - You decide!

http://www.archive.org/stream/pennsylvaniafede00hist/pennsylvaniafede00hist_djvu.txt

Hanna, John Andr:^, son of Rev. John Hanna and Mary McCrea, was born about 1761, at Flemington, N. J. He re- ceived a good classical education under his father, who was a most excellent tutor. He served in the war of the Revolu- tion, towards its close came to Pennsylvania, and studied law with Stephen Chambers, of Lancaster, whose acquain- tance he had made in the army, and was admitted to the bar of Lancaster county at November session, 1783. He located at Harrisburg upon the formation of the county of Dauphin, and was among the first lawyers admitted there. He took a deep interest in early municipal affairs, and there was little transpiring looking to the welfare and development of the new town in which Mr. Hanna did not take part. His marriage with a daughter of John Harris, the founder, brought him into unusual prominence. He represented the county in the Legislature, and in 1795 was elected to the United States Con- gress, a position he filled up to the time of his death by suc- cessive re-election. During the Whisky Insurrection he was a brigadier-general of the Pennsylvania troops, in command of the second brigade, second division. In 1800 Governor McKean commissioned him a major-general of the third di- vision of the militia forces of the State. He died at Harris- burg, on the 13th of July, 1805, aged forty-four }'ears.

Should I go on - There are a total of 21 signers????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.123.191 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

So what? We have shown multiple reliable sources that say the document was hastily written by one disaffected person. You have changed the subject to how many signers, and objectively, 21 signers doesn't seem to be all that many. Per reliable sourcing the document was "firmly rejected by the majority of the state's voters and legislators" and "the address did not bear the imprimatur of the state convention" The document was still hastily written one one disaffected person. Further, I don't understand your outrage. The article presently gives more than adequate coverage to the fact that there was contention, conflict and compromise when it was drafted. People disagreed. It is logical, and policy, for the article to give greater emphasis to the majority opinion than the minority opinion, while covering both neutrally and fairly in proportion to the prominence. And presently exactly what the article does. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You have shown exactly one such reference. That would put it into the minority opinion category that wiki policy sez should not be included in wiki articles.96.237.123.191 (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

New Backup for Penn Minority Report

http://www.archive.org/stream/pennsylvaniafede00hist/pennsylvaniafede00hist_djvu.txt

page 21

Having given a history of the two conventions, the ad- dressers repeated the fifteen amendments they offered in con- vention, and summed up their reasons of dissent under three general heads. They dissented because so wide a domain could never be governed save by a confederation of republics having all the powers of internal government, but united in the management of their general and foreign concerns. They dissented because the powers vested in Congress would break down the sovereignty of the States, and put up on their ruins a consolidated government, "an iron-handed despotism." They dissented because there was no bill of rights securing trial by jury, habeas corpus^ liberty of conscience, and freedom of the press. Twenty-one of the twenty-three minority signed the address.

On the Importance of the Minority Report

from Preface of book liked above

It is true, the majority of the Convention refused to have their verdict weakened by allowing the minority to enter their reasons of dissent on the Journal; but these reasons with proposed amendments were issued as a broadside, and spread all over the country. They show that the battle was fou(;lit out here and conclusions reached that in many cases commended themselves to the majority of the people. The amendments thus unofficially offered were the forerunners of those of Massachusetts and Virginia, and undoubtedly formed the basis of what Mr. Madison laid before the House of Representatives in 1789.

From page 19 of book reference above

From the character of the constitution as a whole the de- bate drifted off to the particular articles, and objection after objection was raised by the opposition. The Vice-President was a needless and dangerous officer. The Senate ought not to make treaties, nor try impeachments, nor have a share in che appointing power ; nor its members be elected for so long a term as six years. Representation in the house was too small. The power of Congress was too great. It could bor- row money, keep up a standing army, lay taxes, deprive electors of a fair choice of their representatives, call out the militia, and make all laws necessary to put these powers into execution. The President ought not to have the pardoning power. Trial by jury was not secure. It seemed, indeed, as if the whole plan of government was, in the opinion of the opposition, bad. This Mr. Findley protested was not the case. The opposition had no wish to reject it. A few amend- ments would remove every objection, and these Mr. Whitehill presented to the convention on the morning of the twelfth of December. They were fifteen in number, and are remark- able as containing the substance of the ten amendments after- wards added to the constitution. Similarity so marked can- not be accidental. There is much reason, therefore, to believe that when Madison, in 1789, drew up the amendments for the House of Representatives, he made use of those offered by the minority of the convention of Pennsylvania.

But the majority of the convention had no wish to use them, and, when the motion was made to adjourn to some future day, that the people might consider them, it was voted down by forty-six to twenty-three. By precisely the same vote, the constitution, just as it came from the body that framed it, was ratified a few minutes later. Without waiting to sign, 96.237.123.191 (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What is this source? Who wrote it? It looks like a hodgepodge of blurbs about antifederalists in PA pulled from somewhere, but I'd be interested to know by whom and from where this stuff was culled. As to the article text w.r.t. the Pennsylvania minority, presently it reads as follows:

"Another non-military usage of the phrase is found in a one-man Pennsylvania "minority report" published after the ratifying convention [cited to Uviller and Merkel who in turn cite to other RSs, with selected quotation from the "minority report"]."

At least until this discrepancy is sorted out, I would advocate changing the text of that passage to something like:

" Another non-military usage of the phrase is found in a Pennsylvania anti-federalist "minority report" published after the state's constitutional convention: [followed by selected quotation from the "minority report"]

Just to be cautious here, I'd recommend a citation to Uviller and Merkel, and another WP:RS representative of the position that the minority consisted of, what was it?, twenty-something participants/signers, whether they were in fact part of the convention or not. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that goes far enough. Reading U&M page 83-84 I see that the leading Pennsylvania Anti-federalists actually didn't believe in a universal right to arms, but only in one linked to lawful militia under lawful authority, and the Pennsylvania Anti-federalists supported exclusion of the right to arms from nearly half the population...excluded from Loyalists, women, blacks, etc.. The modern interpretation of the Penn minority report supporting a broad individual right is historical revisionism not supported by history, at least according to this reliable source. Though I acknowledge that there is a spectrum of opinion about this in WP:RS, and we should represent it neutrally. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Well, I suppose we have about six days to work it out, hopefully to a reasonable consensus, so as to hopefully avoid an edit war when the article is unprotected again. Bye for now-- my work calls me elsewhere. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you capable of clicking on a link and LOOKING?

I will be deleting all Uviller and Merker material once this article is unprotected as they engage in HISTORICAL REVISIONISM - forbidden by wiki policies - and SLANDER - also forbidden by wikipedia policies.96.237.123.191 (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr (or is it Ms.?), there's no need to bring your gun to the discussion here. LIke it or not, there are some editorial policies that we all are obliged to follow. Among them are WP:WEIGHT, WP:V#Reliable_sources, and WP:PSTS. Clearly there's a disagreement among the reliable secondary scholarly sources (as differentiated from the countless web-based "friends-of-the-NRA" talking points and the like). Again, I recommend that the article reflect this difference in the reliable sources' views of what the Pennsylvania minority consisted of. If there's a rational reason for not doing so, please present it in writing. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am capable of looking, and I looked. You are using primary sources, and that isn't allowed per policy WP:NOR. We must use reliable third party published sources. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you can't look after all. THAT IS THE TEXT OF A BOOK printed in the 1800's you retard!96.237.123.191 (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Name calling doesn't help your cause. When I clicked one of the the links you provided it was mixed with gibberish, and clicking through[1] I saw that the book was published by "Philadelphia", presumably the City of Philadelphia, therefore I said primary source. Looking again I see also the involvement of "IXQriRKR PRIXTIXG AND PUBLISHING CO., ", scanning error, Inquirer Printing and Publishing Co. but the Library of Congress indicates they are the printers, not the publisher. Looking at the pdf scan of the book I think the Library of Congress is wrong about that company being just the printer and that Inquirer Printing and Publishing Co. should be considered the publisher. This is a borderline case, though I now agree that is a probably secondary source, a quasi government document and not a third party. Still I now personally think it qualifies as a source for the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are you Salty Boatr responding to a message left for Kenosis? Why do I get the feeling he is another of your aliases, and not only have you been engaging in continious edit wars for years, per your talk page, but you have created multiple Id's to avoid getting caught and further punished?96.237.123.191 (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to accuse me of sock puppetry, but article talk pages is not the right place to do it. Sock puppetry reports should be make at the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations page. This article talk page is for discussing this article, and negotiation a resolution to our dispute about this article. Checking out for now, I will check back in later when hopefully you will be more amenable to discussing the article dispute and negotiating a resolution. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Already added it to the 3rr violation for Kenosis and also left message for Teder (administrator? who froze the article))- Don't take this wrong but I hope you are Kenosis and you get banned for life.96.237.123.191 (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

question for AnonIP

When AnonIP comes back from his wikibreak, I have a question. Reading through the book in his links[2] I am having trouble finding where it is discussed about the writing of the "minority report" and of the signators of the "minority report". I see on page 426 that Mr. John Smilie upon defeat in the vote actually refused to write down the report, and formally withdrew his motion. Obviously at some point in time this report was committed to writing, and signed, it is just that I don't see that event documented in that book. Could you please tell me the page numbers that document the event of the signing of the report? Also, does the book identify who wrote the report? As John Smilie refused to do the writing, I ask who actually did the writing? SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Do Uviller and Merkel identify the crazed looney who wrote the report? Was it the crazed judge, the crazed brigadier general, the crazed cabinet members, the crazed industrialist? Just WHO was that crazed looney exactly? Do Uviller and Merkel know? Because f they don';t then they are blowing stuff out their rear ends just like you do.

To repeat I will be deleting ALL Uviller and Merkel material as they engage in HISTORICAL REVISIONISM and SLANDER - both against wiki policy. 96.237.123.191 (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me. Trying to assume "good faith". I was attempting to read the source you provided as support of your edit. I found that it did not discuss the so called "Pennsylvania minority report". I asked you to help verify your claims by locating them in your source. You evade.

By the way, I have read large swaths of your 800 page book from 1888 and while I find it to be a quite entertaining book, it appears to be a fictionalized documentary. In other words, I am not sure how to tell what is based on documentation and what is based on fictionalization in that book. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears yo are blowing more Sh*&^ out of your rear end. and I have ample evidence that YOU care jack about "good faith" except when it benefits you

The VERY FIRST SENTENCE of that book states.

PREFACE.
The object of this book is to show the circumstances under which the Federal Constitution was ratified by Pennsylvania.

96.237.123.191 (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Disrupted editing

Immediately after a return for being banned for disruptive editing, this AnonIP has returned with more disruption on the talk page, which is a bannable offense. I don't know how to find a way to reach compromise and find collaboration with this disruption on this talk page. My advice is to set aside personal opinion and personal research and to focus instead on the specifics of what we read about this topic in reliable sourcing. I ask again, for at least the third time. AnonIP, exactly what are you reading that forms the basis for your opinion? Which sources exactly, and mention page numbers please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Was it YOU that got me temporarily banned, in response to reporting you for using multiple ID's to avoid getting punished for 3RR and edit warring violations? Why were you responding to a message to Kenosis like you were Kenosis? 96.237.123.191 (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Pennsylvania minority"

IP 71.184.177.11 earlier called to my attention in her/his talk comments above, quoting Uviller and Merkel, to the effect that the so-called "Pennsylvania minority report" that has been widely advanced and selectively quoted in numerous web-based sources, might have amounted to a single individual. The story seems to be that this individual by the name of Whitehill was a marginal opinion at the Pennsylvania convention, who left it in disgust and published essentially his own opinion with some additional signatures of people who, AFAICT to date, have not been demonstrated by any reliable sources to have been actual participants in the Pennsylvania convention. As always, I'm totally open to reliable historical evidence to the contrary, but thus far I don't see any such reliable evidence that says anything other than what Uviller and Merkel assert based upon yet other scholarly sources (e.g., The Complete Bill of Rights 181-83 (Neil H. Cogan ed., 1997), and Garry Wills, Why We Have No Right to Keep and Bear Arms, N.Y. REV. BOOKS, Sept. 21, 1995, at 62, 64-65 (setting forth a scholarly exposition of the etymology and technical meaning of bearing arms).
I wasn't able to find Wills's work that Uviller and Merkel cite, but I was able to track down the following: Garry Wills (2002) A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government.
Wills writes, at p253ff.

"At the last minute, before the Pennsylvania convention voted to ratify the Constitution, a delegate named Robert Whitehill filed a list of fifteen changes to be made to the document, reducing it to even less authority than was granted in the Articles of Confederation (R 2.597-99).

In the convention he resorted to every device to delay and defeat ratification. He insisted that there were inadequate safeguards against a tyranny and on the day of ratification attempted, without avail, to have fifteen articles incorporated as a bill of rights.[fn2]

The items on the list were never discussed in the convention, which went on to approve the Constitution. Five days after that vote, Samuel Bryan, who had not been a delegate in the convention, assembled some quickly obtained and miscellaneous objections to the Constitution--including Whitehill's list, along with some things that contradicted it--and published this under the misleading title The Dissent of the Minority of the Convention (R 2.617-49), under which title the NRA defenders cite it. Whitehill deals with guns in three of his fifteen headings. Article 8 begins: "The inhabitants of the several states shall have liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times ..." But the passage the NRA people like best is from article 7: 'That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purposes of killing game ..." (emphasis added). From this we are to conclude that this one man, who could not even get a discussion of his points started in the convention, in explaining to us the meaning of the Second Amendment, drafted by Madison, who was in total disagreement with every other thing in Whitehill's list (which returned total sovereignty to the states and reduced the federal judiciary's jurisdiction to extra-state relations). This violates the Jeffersonian maxim that we should expound a document's meaning from those who approved it, not those who disapproved.
..... But this is the least of the objections to the use of Whitehill. There is another item in his list which is relevant to the Second Amendment, in ways that articles 7 and 8 are not. Whitehill's article 11 reads, in its entirety:

That the power of the organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia (the manner of disciplining the militia to be prescribed by Congress) remain with the individual states, and the Congress shall not have authority to call or march any of the militia out of their own state, without the consent of such states and for such length of time only as such state shall agree (R 2.598).

If Madison had drafted the Second Amendment to agree with Whitehill's militia article, Patrick Henry would have been pleased, since that would have invalidated the constitutional provision for federalizing the militia (Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16). In fact, Whitehill's phrasing exactly reverses and cancels that of Clause 16, which gives Congress (not the states) the power "to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia." This is what, it can be seen from their own representations, the real spokesmen for the minority wanted to accomplish by a right to keep and bear arms. Whitehill, here as elsewhere, not only gives Congress less power than it would have under the Constitution but less than it already possessed under the Articles of Confederation--since Articles VII and VIII of that document gave Congress the authority to lead militias out of state "for the common defense" (R 1.89). No one in the minority that Samuel Bryan made Whitehill speak for was asking for less power than the articles granted.
..... Rather than deal with Whitehill's article 11, the item clearly related to the Second Amendment, the proponents of private ownership go to other items distant in meaning from this, and claim that they of all things explain what Madison meant in the Second Amendment.

[Wills continues on page 255 ff w.r.t. Whitehill's "minority report" and its relationship to property rights in Pennsylvania.] ... Kenosis (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kenosis for your work digging up this well sourced and detailed information. This seems to fall into the topical category of "federalist versus anti-federalist" debate which is already covered in the article in some detail in the second half of the "Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution" section. Personally, I am of the opinion that a neutral coverage of this in this article must be done without undue weight of one POV over another. Presently that balance point seems properly set already. I would support coverage of more detailed analysis of the minutia of the Pennsylvanian "federalist versus anti-federalist" debate in another more detailed article, perhaps in History of Pennsylvania#Statehood and constitutional government. Detailed coverage of such minutia of Pennsylvanian history is important, but it is inappropriate is a general overview type of article like this federal 2A article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and please pardon yet another lengthy comment that follows, though I think it's merited here due to the confusion about the misleadingly titled document commonly called the "minority report" of Pennsylvania. TBH it is a pain in the neck to spend additional time and effort repeating work that scholars already published in this topic area have already done, which is of course in part why WP has editorial polices such as WP:PSTS directing us how to present topics like this to readers in WP:Summary style.
.... Based on this research, in my opinion it was not entirely unreasonable of the anon IP to question Ulliver and Merkel and to consult a source such as that to which we were referred multiple times above on this talk page, James Wilson, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 1787-1788 (1888) published by The Historical Society of Pennsylvania, to try to confirm what the many web-based advocates of a personal right to "bear arms" are asserting on their websites. Unfortunately though, it's clear to me that the anon IP commentator hadn't read this source in any significant depth with a NPOV (and I also apologize to the anon IP that I mistook the countless aberrations in this source to be a "hodgepodge" in my comment several talk sections above, when it now appears to me the many aberrations were mere scanning errors by whoever transduced the original publication into digital form for the Library of Congress). Having said that in defense of the principle of WP:AGF, I'll get right back to the substance of the issues here, and hopefully bring this extended talk-page discussion towards closure:
..... It seems to me the Uviller and Merkel source and the sources upon which they draw including those by Garry Wills, are consistent with what's presented in the 1888 book Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution. At p83 ff: one finds: "some insights at A Mock Protest." "Another was a mock protest entitled: The Protest of the Minority, who objected to calling a convention for the purpose of adopting the federal constitution. ... Because a disaffected member of the federal convention from Virginia, in a closet conversation with R. Whitehill, disapproved of the federal government, and we hold it to be our duty rather to follow his advice, than the inclinations of our constituents." This turned out to be somewhat prophetic, because subsequently the voters gave Robert Whitehill freedom from the burdens of his office in Cumberland County, PA. (The author comments on the consequences received by some of the anti-federalists in his first chapter "The Struggle for the Constitution", commenting on Whitehill at page 6). The debate about whether to even hear Whitehill's proposed 15-article bill of rights is presented at pages 421 ff with some prefatory material leading up to page 421. The fifteen articles that would ultimately turn out to be published by Bryan along with other dissenting anti-federalist material appear to me to be completely consistent with the Pennslyvania "minority opinion" that is oft-quoted today by advocates of an individual right to bear arms irrespective of state or national defense and police powers. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks that is interesting stuff. Too detailed for inclusion in this federal 2A article, but worthy of inclusion in another more topical article, such as Samuel Bryan, Letters of Centinel, Anti-Federalism, History of Pennsylvania and/or United_States_Bill_of_Rights#The_Anti-Federalists. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, it is interesting and also very obscure, and doesn't belong in this article. It goes solely to confirm that Uviller and Merkel, and Garry Wills, are reliable secondary sources for the words "one-man minority report" where the article currently says in the section on "The meaning of 'bear arms': "Another non-military usage of the phrase is found in a one-man Pennsylvania "minority report" published after the ratifying convention [followed by a blockquote of Whitehill's oft-quoted Article 7]". Frankly the only reason I can see to include this snippet of Whitehill's "Article 7" is because it's so often used today by advocates of a personal right to bear arms. But the footnote to Uviller and Merkel confirming the reality that it was part of a proposed bill of rights that overall reflected an extremely marginal view of the late 1700s in Pennsylvania is needed to keep the statement in proper perspective. I'll try to remember to add a citation to Garry Wills's work quoted above, after the article is unprotected. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting to notice on pg 16 of that 1888 book that two of the three leaders of the anti-federalist cause in the Pennsylvanian constitutional convention were from Fayette County and Westmoreland County, and these counties are located in the Monongahela Valley which was the site of the Whiskey Insurrection just a few years later; which the first use of the Second Amendment and the Militia Act to crush an insurrection. It might be worth researching this to see if there is a connection between the anti-federalists and the "Pennsylvania minority" with the later Pennsylvanian insurrectionists behind the Whiskey Rebellion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Full text of the amendment

It is probably prudent that we go with the full text[3][4][5] of the Second Amendment which reads "Article the fourth..... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." I cannot think of a good reason to truncate the first three words and the five dots, as is the present case in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text? TBH, I think it's already confusing enough with the references to different versions with different capitalizations, etc. IMO, quoting "Article the Fourth" might be unnecessarily confusing for those who aren't yet familiar with the fact that 12 amendments were proposed and two of them didn't get ratified, thereby making this one the second rather than fourth. Perhaps a brief sentence to this effect might be less confusing than including it in the quotations. ... Kenosis (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not clear which Wikipedia policy covers simplifying things to be "less confusing". The policy WP:V kind of mandates that we have little choice but to stick with what is verifiable written. Take a look at the original[6]. Also, I see several dozen books[7] that use the full wording. Abridging the wording for the sake of "less confusion" seems against policy. Confusing compared with what? It would be better to go with the literal text and explain it so it isn't confusing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Footnote 113 needs an extra carriage return inserted

Footnote 113 is too long for the Printable Version of this page. It needs a carriage return inserted into the very long URL, please. Dhuberma (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Now replaced with a somewhat shorter hyperlink. Unfortunately, it's difficult to link to a title in Google Books with a short URL due to the way they process searches, with a lot of information built into the URL itself. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Saul Cornell overrepresented

His proper representation is the article should be zero as he is in the pay of the criminal anti-gun groups. Deprivation of constitutional rights is considered "criminal conduct" under US law and the right to keep and bear arms is in fact "a right". Mr Cornell is in fact no just a "criminal" but what the Founding Founders would consider a "domestic enemy" of the US Constitution.

as an example of willful misrepresentation of the facts the article refers to his "SCHOLARSHIP" as follows within "Meaning of bear arms"

Likewise, attorney Sayoko Blodgett-Ford notes a non-military usage of the phrase in the Pennsylvania ratifying convention:

[T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed..."[62]

A number of scholars, including Garry Wills, Jack Rakove, Saul Cornell have all noted that this text, written by the Anti-Federalist minority of a single state was hastily written and never emulated by any other ratification convention.[107]

The above overlooks the fact that many if not most (I haven't looked at all 50 state constitutions) also consider the right to bear arms a "right" not to be infringed upon. New Mexico's language is quote close to the above "hastily written" language from the Penn. Convention.

From the Tennessee Constitution

§ 26. Weapons; right to bear arms

That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

From the Pennsylvania Constitution

Section 21 . Right to Bear Arms The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

From the New Hampshire Constitution

[Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

From the Vermont Constitution

Article 16th. Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

From the Rhode Island Constitution

Section 22. Right to bear arms. -- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

North Carolina

Sec. 30. Militia and the right to bear arms.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;

South Carolina

SECTION 20. Right to keep and bear arms; armies; military power subordinate to civil authority; how soldiers quartered.

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

Kentucky

Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

New Mexico

Sec. 6. No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

Colorado

Section 13. Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

Ohio

§ 1.04 Bearing arms; standing armies; military powers (1851) [ View Article Table of Contents ]

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

Alaska

§ 19. Right to Keep and Bear Arms

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. [Amended 1994]

Massachusetts

Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.

Connecticut

SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Kentucky

Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

Alabama

That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Hawaii

Section 17. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. [Ren Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]

Texas

Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime

etc etc etc 98.118.13.18 (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Almost all of the material in the article came about via consensus; check the archives for details. Trying to remove the material you cite would be like pulling teeth. A better idea would be for to present reliably sourced material you feel would improve the article. SMP0328. (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the Second Amendment and there is a separate article about the Right to Bear Arms. With your emphasis on the various state constitutions, it appears you are confusing the two. Each state treats this right differently, and what the states choose to do has little implication to the federal, so you logic appears disjointed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects a right to keep and bear arms.

Your logic appears disjointed. 71.174.135.96 (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, both of you, leave off the snide remarks and focus on the content. Your contribution is welcome, 71.174.135.96, but you need to comply with the rules. Without reference, the text you added appears to be your own research or your own conclusion; neither of which is allowed. You need to add references to show that you are adding a neutral summary of a conclusion made in a reliable source. One for the "would not ratify" portion and one tying the New Mexico text to the Second Amendment should suffice. I've removed the text until then in the spirit of bold, revert, discuss. I'll be glad to put it back in after you provide the sources. Celestra (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added sourced material making the point desired by the anon, but without either focusing on any particular State or on any State Constitution. SMP0328. (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Celestra - The following already appears in the article "New Hampshire further demanded that "Congress shall never disarm any citizen except such as are or have been in actual rebellion."[62]". The New Mexico Constitution is here http://www.harbornet.com/rights/newmexio.txt. Assuming that the references are added (one of which would be a duplicate) do you have further objection to restoring what was deleted? 76.119.249.171 (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

With an inline citation to reference 62, that first part would have been fine, IMO. I think SMP's alternative works as well. I'm not sure that both are needed, but I'd be fine adding that as a specific example supporting his general statement. The NM constitution portion, though, still comes out as sythesis; merely presenting unrelated facts to lead the reader to a conclusion is not allowed, you need a source that makes the claim that the fact the NM constitution includes that text has something to do with the framing of the second amendment...which seems unlikely since NM didn't become a state until 1912. Celestra (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

SMP's alternative has an obvious failing - he states "However, many other ratification conventions expressed a desire that the Constitution be amended in order to prohibit the federal government from preventing any person to peacefully bear arms.[110]" The failing is simple, to bear arms means to engage in warfare, HOW DO YOU "PEACEFULLY" engage in warfare? The founders clearly wanted the right of the people to engage in warfare protected. This right is not about just about simple self-defense from criminals. It includes the defense of the State and the United States which can only be the right to engage in warfare.

My objection to the current language is that per the current language, Cornell and his fellows are shown as sidelining the Penn Convention language as belonging to a fringe group. The fact that New Mexico decided to use essentially the same language in its Constitution shows that it is NOT a fringe opinion, but an opinion with widespread support. This "widespread" support is the reason we have the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment in the first place.

The Penn Constitution states that in Section 21 . Right to Bear Arms "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." This language clearly shows that a citizen has the right to engage in warfare to protect his state. 96.237.125.232 (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

On what basis do you believe that "bear arms" can only be done in warfare? SMP0328. (talk) 04:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

On what basis do you believe you can bear arms in defense of your state and county WITHOUT engaging in warfare? Are you going to take your gun (assuming you ha a gun) and face an invader with a flower in the barrel?71.174.140.113 (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The NM constitution's language is not consistent with the belief that "bear arm" (or, at least, "keep and bear arms") only refers to warfare. Paraphrasing for clarity,

"...to keep and bear arms

for security and defense,
for lawful hunting and recreational use and
for other lawful purposes,..."

More importantly, though, SMP's use of peaceful appears to be as a synonym for "quiet" as in "quiet enjoyment." Celestra (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The article currently shows "The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines the phrase To bear arms as "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." and unless you use silencer the use of a gun is NOT "quiet" as in "quiet enjoyment."71.174.140.113 (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should be using Black's Law Dictionary. Quiet enjoyment is a term used in property law. I believe Celestra was using it, in the RKBA sense, to mean a person being able to peacefully bear arms without interference by others. As for your warfare reference, does a hunter bear arms when he's hunting game? A person can peacefully bear arms. Bearing arms does not necessarily mean to engage in warfare. Are people who are firing at a shooting range engaging in warfare? SMP0328. (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's see: Was there a peaceable baring of arms at Concord and Lexington, Bunker Hill, or any of the other major "incidents" of the Revolutionary War, may of which were fought EXCLUSIVELY by the various militias? Was the "shot heard round the world" a peaceable baring of arms. I personally think anyone who states that they were needs to get a different set of meds. 98.118.22.23 (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So because firearms can be used for warfare means they can't be used for any other reason? That's pretty flawed logic. Firearms can also be used for peaceful purposes (e.g., hunting and target practice). SMP0328. (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Which part of "in defense of THEMSELVES and of their state" do you need help with?98.118.22.23 (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Celesta - per yur comment above "I've removed the text until then in the spirit of bold, revert, discuss. I'll be glad to put it back in after you provide the sources."

Sources have been provided - please restore as you stated you would98.118.22.23 (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

A source was provided for the first part and I am waiting for the author to say whether he wants to add that as a specific example of SMP's more general statement. The NM text is from much later in history and can't be used here as I explained above. Your IP geolocates to Boston, Arkansas and the author is from the outskirts of that other Boston, so I guess I'm still waiting. Celestra (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am the author. You specifically stated that "I'll be glad to put it back in after you provide the sources." Sources for both questioned statements have been provided. Please restore.98.118.22.23 (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, you're the author. The sources you provided do not allow me to "put it back." The question about adding it to the other text remains open. What would you like to do? Celestra (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words! You stated "I'll be glad to put it back in after you provide the sources.". I provided the sources. Put it back!98.118.22.23 (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Read the discussion again...slowly. I have explained where we are twice now. Continuing to ignore what has been discussed is not useful; either respond to what has been said or drop it. Celestra (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

More Weasel words! You stated "I'll be glad to put it back in after you provide the sources.". I provided the sources. Put it back!98.118.22.23 (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This "hastily written" language of seems to have gotten a bit of mileage, aside from the New Mexico Constitution. Currently appearing in this article is a reference to court language in Bliss v Commonwealth "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state must be preserved entire, ...". Perhaps it wasn't "hastily written" after all. Could it be that Cornell and his ilk are selectively blind, or that someone on this board is skewing the language to minimize its importance? HHHHMMMMM! Could be!98.118.22.23 (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting for someone to tell me why Saul Cornell, who received $400,000 just is "startup" funds from the Joyce Institute to support the Joyce Foundation ant-gun party line is the MOST WIDELY USED SOURCE in the article, by a factor 2-3.96.237.123.191 (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

STILL waiting for someone to tell me why Saul Cornell, who received $400,000 just is "startup" funds from the Joyce Institute to spread the Joyce Foundation ant-gun prpaganda is the MOST WIDELY USED SOURCE in the article, by a factor 2-3.96.237.129.194 (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Why just "bear arms" when the right is "to keep AND bear arms"?

Why is the right discussed under "Meaning of bear arms" just about "bearing arms" and no mention made on the "keeping of arms"?

Looks like someone is trying to keep reference to civilian usage of arms for self defense as minimal as possible and accentuate the military aspects of the right. That's straight out of the gun control playbook.

The second amendment protects both civilian and military use of arms. 98.118.22.23 (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't "keep arms" implied in "bear arms"? Anytime you can "bear arms" you have to be able to "keep" (i.e. possess) it. Whoever can legally "bear arms" must necessarily be able to legally "keep arms". SMP0328. (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not at all clear that "keep" necessarily meant "possess" in 18th Century English. Keep also meant "to maintain" as with the expression "keep up", or "tavern keeper", etc.. Or, for instance a militia could keep an arsenal, maintaining public arms in an armory versus the possession of private arms. The people of Concord collectively kept a public armory for the purpose of bearing arms which the British troops raided. This is described in reliable sources. For instance Article 6 of the Articles of Confederation says "...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed ..." a contemporaneous usage of "keep" that does not mean "possess". SaltyBoatr (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The gun control playbook is to focus on the "militia" portion of the Second Amendment and try to convince people that the Second Amendment was only about the militia. The "keep" portion of the Amendment shows that it includes the right to "keep" arms a home, which could then be "borne" when needed, whether for self defense or defense of the state.98.118.22.23 (talk) 12:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

How about the the people of Concord individually kept their private arms at home so as to be ready should the British raid the town, defending themselves from criminals, possible Indian raids, and for killing the ocassional wild turkey they ran across.

I can just see it, Isaac sees a wild turkey in his back pasture, runs over to armory, yells to guard Hi Nat! I need to get my musket to get that wild turkey I just say in my back yard. Nat replies: Sorry! You need to file the withdrawal form in triplicate fist, file one set with the commander office, keep one for your records and one gets filed here for our records. We wouldn't want those muskets taken out and resold on the black market. Isaac quickly fills out forms (being one of those lucky enough to have enough schooling to be able to read and write), guard gets his musket, and then Isaac runs to his back pasture to find that the turkey has LONG SINCE departed.

Just out of curiosity, has ANY historian found ANY musket withdrawal slips at Any Revolutionary war armory in ANY of the 13 original colonies? I haven't heard of any such find.98.118.22.23 (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

By that logic, everything you have not heard to be false must be true. Can we instead discuss what you have been reading which forms the basis for your ideas? Please take a moment to read the Wikipedia:Five pillars. For editors with different personal opinions to coexist we must avoid discussion of editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions. Instead we should discuss the opinions we read in reliable third party sources, and not primary sources. What third party sources have you been reading? I would like a chance to read it too. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that with all the "scholarship" done on the Second Amendment, SOMEONE should have found all those armory withdrawal slips which the members of the militia (per gun control nuts) needed when they decided to go turkey hunting. If they haven't found any yet, then they don't exist! 98.118.22.23 (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Your failure to respond to constructive questions is counterproductive to the talk page. Your continued name calling is also counterproductive. Can we redirect this talk page discussion towards a discussion of what we read in reliable sources on this topic? Attempting to answer your question: A solid example of militiamen using weapons from the federal armory instead of their personal weapons is described in Alexander DeConde's book, page 40. Right after Second Amendment was adopted, and following the Militia Act of 1792 General Knox prepared an estimate of militia preparedness and found that only 20% of the militiamen owned personal weapons, and the remainder used weapons provided from the federal armory. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Unlike some who act as censors for the article, I'm more interested in being constructive and improving it then using a scorched earth policy on opposing viewpoints.

BTW: I believe the reference you gave to back up the "hastily written" quote doesn't not seem to match any of the references used in the article, does not give the authors name, same for the books title (or article title if it was an article).98.118.22.23 (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Your reference to General Knox does not help your case as it was post revolutionary war and post moving the power to arms the militia to the central government through the US Constitution. Your previous argument was about Revolutionary War era Concord and not post Revolutionary War Unknown city. You said The people of Concord collectively kept a public armory for the purpose of bearing arms which the British troops raided.. I say you are full of it.98.118.22.23 (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Per you link above 450,000 men belonged to the various militias of which 1 in 5 "possessed their own firearms". That's over 100,000 weapons. The government on the other hand had only 44,000 muskets, half of which were damaged. Per your own link, it looks like the vast majority of militia weapons were personal weapons and not armory weapons. There is NOTHING on that linked page about the use of government weapons "instead of" personal weapons as you allege. The author is talking about the availability (mostly the lack of it) of government weapons to supplement personal weapons. Armory weapons were to be used to arm those militiamen who did not HAVE any personal weapons. Did I mention you are full of it!98.118.22.23 (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

On a followup page the author quotes Knox as stating that fewer then a third of the militia "owned arms" as required by the Militia act of 1792 due to the fact that the Act provided no way to enforce the "self arming" of citizen-soldiers. Pokes a hole in your The people of Concord collectively kept a public armory for the purpose of bearing arms which the British troops raided. so big that even an idiot would be shamed back into his hole to hide until the incident was forgotten (aka wiped off this talk page).98.118.22.23 (talk) 03:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

On page 43 the author comments that in the next year (1808) the government started distributing arms to the militias eliminating the need for citizens in the compulsory militias to "pay for their own guns". Another hole in the The people of Concord collectively kept a public armory for the purpose of bearing arms which the British troops raided.' Do you even read what you post to support your misguide views, or do you just assume that no one will ever check up on you? 98.118.22.23 (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

added material under "to keep and bear arms" directly from another wiki article of that same name - from here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms

This should HOPEFULLY avoid argument from a certain censor who seems to think he owns the article.98.118.13.212 (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Uviller and Merkel - clean sweep or not?

The following is a cite (now deleted) which GREATLY differs from accepted historical fact - see material about Robert Whitehill above, also see previous comments that the Library of Congress states that of the 23 dissenters 21 of them signed the Minorty Report

^ H. Richard Uviller & William G. Merkel, The Second Amendment in Context: The Case of the Vanishing Predicate, Chicago-Kent Law Review, Symposium on the Second Amendment, vol. 76, 2000: 403. See Section 4 (page 485-486), and fn's 345, 346, 347, 348, 349: "The Antifederalist Critique of the Federal Military Power and the Crusade for a Bill of Rights". "In Pennsylvania, as several commentators have pointed out, an address favoring a personal right to arms was circulated by a disaffected "minority" after that state's convention concluded its affairs. Yet this "minority report" turns out, on closer inspection, to reflect no more than the ramblings of a single embittered eccentric who departed the convention in disgust when he was unable to scuttle ratification. As such, the failure of Pennsylvania's one man "minority" merely accentuates the fact that opinion favoring a personal right to arms independent of the militia remained highly marginal in state conventions outside of New Hampshire."

The Library of Congress has the text of Minority Report here http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/bdsdcc:@field(DOCID+@lit(bdsdccc0401)) the end of which lists 21 names of those who signed, followed by the names of those in favor and those opposed to the Constitution. One does not need even TWO brain cells to notice that the names of the signers match the names of those opposed.

The Library of Congress also provides a pictures of the document so one can look at who signed it - see page 3 for signatures

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=bdsdcc&fileName=c0401/bdsdccc0401.db&recNum=2&itemLink=r?ammem/bdsdcc:@field(DOCID+@lit(bdsdccc0401))%23c04010001&linkText=1

BTW: In a fit of historical revisionism and POV push Kenoss/Salty Boart stated that there is NO evidence that those who signed the document were actually convention delegates. A picture of the document should be evidence enough.

As Uviller and Markel have destroyed an evidence that they know what they are talking about with the above quote, and at best are LOW QUALITY sources, I belelieve that all references to them need to be removed so as to improve the quality of the article.

Does anyone other then Kenosis/Salty Boatr object to this removal? 98.118.13.212 (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy, per WP:SOURCES the quality of the source is based more on the reputation of the publisher than the opinion of the editors about views of the author. We generally are looking for the best sources which are "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". In this case which you question the publisher is the Chicago-Kent Law Review, which is a high quality source. If you disagree, feel free to seek other opinions at the WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The text of "The Address and reasons of dissent of the minority of the convention, of the state of Pennsylvania, to their constituents" (the so-called "Pennsylvania Minority report") is indeed the document published by anti-federalist Samuel Bryan (who published psuedonymously as "Centinel" and who wasn't at the convention). The publication includes the material written by fellow anti-federalist Robert Whitehill, who was at the convention as a leader of the vehement anti-Constitution minority. So what? It advocates giving the federal government even less power than already existed in the Articles of Confederation, which, as already pointed out in multiple reliable sources, was an extremely marginal position even back in 1787 prior to the adoption of the US Constitution. Whatever its historical value as a curiosity that some argue had in it seeds of the Bill of Rights, this article is not the place for a detailed presentation of such a highly marginal position of 1787 which proposed to take away the power of the federal government to conduct national defense and give that right back to the states to decide where and when troops from each state would willingly fight in the national defense. I'm sorry, but it's ridiculous and it has no legitimate place in this article unless properly qualified to the reader as an extreme anti-federalist position of its day. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The document in question is the first written proposal for amendments to the US Constitution. 3 of those amendments have to do with arms and the militia. It is therefor a significant document with respect to both the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment.

Your statement that a desire to have a Bill of Rights as part of the US Constitution was a "marginal" opinion is at best a delusion. You are aware that the US Constitution has a Bill of Rights are you not?

RE:Your statement that Robert Bryant PUBLISHED the document has no bearing on who WROTE it. From all the evidence Robert Whitehill was the author.

Also: Are you AGAIN stating that the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS is not a good source?96.237.129.194 (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Kenosis/SaltyBoatr: Having come to the conclusion that I can't trust a single word you write, please provide evidence that Samuel Bryan published the document in question. Historic records show that the document was published in newspapers throughout the "former colonies" and not by a singe person.96.237.129.194 (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

We're obliged to follow third party reliable sources, not to do our own WP:Original research from primary sources. As to sources w.r.t. Bryan, I already gave a couple at Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#"Pennsylvania_minority" several sections above. Below I've provided a few more of the many reliable secondary sources which base their conclusions on historical evidence that Samuel Bryan, when he took credit for being the anti-federalist author "Centinel" also took credit for publishing the "Pennsylvania dissent" on which he placed the names of 23 dissenters of the PA convention. It is the consensus among scholars in this area that Bryan's taking of credit for this should be taken as fact, and that the evidence in its totality is consistent with Bryan's subsequent self-admitting that he was the one. A minority of academic sources say that it might have been Samuel Bryan's father, Judge George Bryan, with some holding that the father likely collaborated with him on the project as they did on numerous other anti-federalist activities. In this document which was cobbled together with various dissenting materials produced by the anti-Federalists in 1787 Pennsylvania, he included Whitehill's 13-article "bill of rights" which never reached the floor of the PA convention.
..... But either way it doesn't belong in this article in any depth, or even as a quote, because it is an extreme anti-federalist view which, as I noted just above, proposed to take away the power of the federal government to conduct national defense and give that right back to the states to decide where and when troops from each state would willingly fight in the national defense. The position advocated by Whitehill, which never reached the floor of the convention, actually advocates giving the federal government even less power w.r.t. national defense than already then existed in the Articles of Confederation. Again, there's no place for it in this article, unless carefully qualified for the reader as the extreme anti-federalist view that it actually is. Both SaltyBoatr and I think it's way too far afield to give it a proper NPOV perspective if included in the article.

*David J. Siemers (2003) The antifederalists: men of great faith and forbearance, p91.
*David Wootton (2003) The essential Federalist and anti-Federalist papers, p xi.
*Maeva Marcus, James R. Perry (1985) The Documentary history of the Supreme Court of the United States ..., Volume 4, 1789-1800, p503-504, fn1
*Stephen P. Halbrook, "The Right of the People or the Power of the State: Bearing Arms, arming Militias, and the Second Amendment", Valparaiso University Law Review, 1991.
*Saul Cornell (1999) The other founders: Anti-Federalism and the dissenting tradition in America, p 117.

... Kenosis (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And, as I have said before, this 'Pennsylvanian minority' historical issue is interesting, but it is too far off topic to be included in this article. Given proper WP:V and WP:NOR it does deserve coverage elsewhere in Wikipedia. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Look like we are back to an edit war

Kenosis has reverted my changes back to his historical revisionist and slanderous POV98.118.13.212 (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Much has already been written about the 'Pennsylvanian minority', see above and I will not repeat it here now. In addition, I see policy problems with the recent AnonIP addition relating to policy []WP:SYN]] and I have removed the passage until that, and the other problems (see above) are resolved. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This is precisely this same issue discussed a week or two ago. As noted above, this material on a "minority report" was drafted by a single individual and the material itself was never actually part of the Pennsylvania constitutional convention, but rather was published afterward by vehement anti-federalist Samuel Bryan .
..... IP 98.118.13.212, you appear to also have been using IP addresses 71.184.177.11, 98.118.22.23, 96.237.123.191 (and 96.237.129.194 as of 20:26, 31 October 2009), all in the Quincy/Cambridge area of Massachusetts. If I'm not mistaken, you appear to have already been blocked twice (User_talk:96.237.123.191) for edit warring and incivility, and are now again attempting to impose your POV, editing style, personal interpretation of WP policy and personal interpretation how the literature might relate to this topic.
..... May I recommend getting a WP username so it's easier to keep track of who's who. In the future, whatever username or IP address(es) you choose to use, kindly do not remove reliably sourced content without gaining consensus for such removals on the talk page, and please endeavor to respect other WP policies rather than gaming them to advance a particular POV with extremely little WP:WEIGHT in the context of this particular article. Also please see WP:AGF, WP:BRD and WP:Civility, as there's definitely some flexibility in the accepted WP conventions about how aggressive one should be in editing and discussing. But I believe you're a good bit out of bounds at this stage, both substantively and behaviorally.
..... For now, I'll just revert the removal of reliably sourced material, leaving the three "PA minority" paragraphs in, until this can get sorted out further by a broader set of participants in this article. ... 15:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC) ... ... I see SaltyBoatr has reverted back to essentially the last version by Razorflame via my last revert. Fine by me. Bye for now. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have again removed historical revisionist POV push and SLANDER of a noted historical figure added to the article by Kenosis/SaltyBatr.96.237.129.194 (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Kenosis/SaltyBoatr has restored slanderous material on Robert Whitehill for the third time and I have now reported them for engaging in an edit war.96.237.129.194 (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

AFAICT Kenosis has yet to master Googling

This revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=323214046&oldid=323213470 uses the excuse that "AFAICK there's no valid cause to think the "James Wilson" who wrote this book in 1888 was ever a Supreme Court justice."

First of all the book in question was REPRINTED in 1888 for the Pennsylvania Historical Society and was not written that year.

Second of all, a google search of "James Wilson" and "Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution 1787-1788" turns up this wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Wilson showing that not only was Jame Wilson an Associate US Supreme Court Justice, but also a member of the Pennsylvania ratification convention and a member of the group that drafted the original version of the US Constitution, to be later revised at the Constitutional Convention.

That wiki article features a section on Mr Wilson's "Supreme Court Appointment". Since Mr. Wilson passed away in 1798 it is HIGHLY unlikely that he wrote that book in 1888.

Per above I am restoring the reference to Mr Wilson as an Associate Supreme Court Justice, deleted by Kenosis.

To cut off Kenosis/Salty Boatr from at least one possible obstructionist tract, I point out that JOHN BACH McMASTER and FREDERICK D. STONE were the editors and not the authors of the book "Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution 1787-1788"71.174.135.195 (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

i commented about this above at this section. It's not a reliable source for anything relating to this article. I've removed it from the citations per WP:PSTS and WP:V#Reliable_sources. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Kenosis/SaltyBoatr trying to have it both ways

From above comments they seem to think that "Centinel" authored the Penn Minority Report They also state that "Centinel" was not a member of the Penn Ratification Convention. Whether that is true or not is open to question as other sources consider Robert Whitehill the author, going so far as to call him "father of the Bill of Rights" http://explorepahistory.com/hmarker.php?markerId=851

Robert Whitehill (1735-1813) is not very well known today, but it is not too much of an exaggeration to call him the father of the Bill of Rights.

Yet they keep on adding back to the article the following slanderous quote by Uviller and Merkel in the citations.

no more than the ramblings of a single embittered eccentric who departed the convention in disgust when he was unable to scuttle ratification. As such, the failure of Pennsylvania's one man "minority

As Kenosis/SaltyBoatr pointed out the "Centinel" was not a member of the Convention, he could not have been a one man minority.

I am yet again deleting that particular Uviller and Merkel quote (now showing twice in the citations) for SLANDER of a historical figure, being a "tiny minority opinion", which has no place in a wiki article, and being "historical revisionism, which also as no place in a wiki article, and for being self published "paid propaganda" - see below.71.174.135.195 (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Kent Law Review

Having a bit of time on my hands, I took a look at references to the Chicago Kent Law Review and found that the article from which the SLANDEROUS (and historical revisionist and tiny minority opinion) disputed comment by Uviller and Merkel originated from, was from an issue "lavishly funded by the Joyce Foundation" which controlled the content of that issue.

Here http://www.barackbook.com/Profiles/TheJoyceFoundation.htm I found the following

The NAS Study Will Receive $109,000 From The Prohibitionist Joyce Foundation, Which Lavishly Funded The Chicago-Kent Law Review’s One-Sided Anti-Second Amendment Symposium Last Year [2000], And Which Has Contributed Generously To Gun-Prohibition Groups.” (David Kopel and Glen Reynolds, Op-Ed, “Political Science,” National Review, 8/29/01)

from here http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Joyce_Foundation

The Joyce Foundation has sponsored symposium issues of some law reviews, generally offering to pay for the symposium if an external editor is selected. The editor carefully solicits and chooses the articles to appear in the symposium. The Joyce Foundation then pays for the cost of copies to be distributed to judges and legislators. Law reviews that have cooperated in this manner include:
* Chicago-Kent Law Review (Vol. 76 No. 1, 2000, edited by Carl T. Bogus) * Fordham Law Review (Vol. 73 No. 2, November 2004) * Stanford Law and Policy Review (Vol. 17:3, Spring 2006, editorial contributions by Saul Cornell)

And here http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/joyce_foundatio.php

Why would I say Joyce is at it again? Well, in 2000 Chicago-Kent Law Review issued a similar symposium issue. A bit of inquiry found ... well, let me give you background first. Law reviews are run on a shoestring. They're edited by students themselves, and very proud of that tradition. Editors get paid a pittance (I got $600 a year back in 1975), and authors of articles never, never, get paid.

A bit of inquiry showed that Joyce had done some serious bankrolling. The law review consented to having an outside editor for that issue, who surprisingly was anti-Second Amendment. (And when pro-Second Amendment law professors volunteered to write, he refused to allow it). He got paid $30,000. Authors of the articles in it got $5,000 each for their time. The rest of the grant went for buying a load of reprints to be sent to judges. So Joyce had essentially bought a issue of the review, stacked the deck of authors, and then mailed a load of copies to judges.

BTW: The outside editor was Carl T. Bogus, a well known Joyce Foundation talking head. In wiki terms Carl T. Bogus is a "meatpuppet".

Instead of being a "good source" of material, ALL articles in that particular issue should be taken with a grain of salt as they are in effect "self published material" by the anti-gun Joyce Foundation.71.174.135.195 (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This link http://www.potowmack.org/resource.html provides the titles of the article in the suspect Chicago Kent Law Review issue - However the links to the articles themselves are dead. The text of those articles need to be found elsewhere. Besides Uviller and Merkel, the Second Amendment article contains a couple of citations to Ravoke's article in that suspect issue. Those two citations should be checked for "historical accuracy". 71.174.135.195 (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Penn Minoriy Report- the REAL story - No POV - No lies - No revisonist history - and most certainly no SLANDER

Unlike the lies and POV propaganda spouted by Kenosis/Salty Boatr here are some actual facts on who presented and authored the Penn Minority Report. His name was Robert Whitehill and his bio can be founds here http://explorepahistory.com/hmarker.php?markerId=851

Not only was he NOT a looney as Kenosis/Salty Boatr portray him but history considers him "arguably the father of the Bill of Rights" to the US Constitution. No less then 8 of his proposed Amendments in the Penn Minority Report made their way into the US Bill of Rights.

Not only did he not hurry to prepare the Minority Report, he already had portions of it written 10 years previously when he either AUTHORED or helped author the Penn Constitution of 1776. Portion of the Minority Report are verbatum Penn Constitution of 1776.

Not only was he not "relieved of the burden of his employment" after the Convention as Kenosis/Salty Boar alleged but he served till the day of his death, holding among other things the position of Speaker of the Pennsylvania State Senate and serving as a US Representative till the day he died in 1813, over 20 years after the Convention.

Quote from the above link

A drafter of the 1776 state constitution,

Robert Whitehill (1735-1813) is not very well known today, but it is not too much of an exaggeration to call him the father of the Bill of Rights.

A comparison of Whitehill's 14 points to the Constitution, the nation's "Bill of Rights," shows that eight originated from his proposals.

Throughout his forty-year political career Whitehall represented the considerable number of Pennsylvania farmers who favored local government and mistrusted the concentration of power in the state and federal governments. Today, many of his arguments still make sense to those who fear that the federal government - especially the president and judiciary - have usurped too much power from the American people.

His bio here (pages 756 and 757) agrees with the above http://www.archive.org/stream/pennsylvaniafede00hist/pennsylvaniafede00hist_djvu.txt

Whitehill, Robert, of Cumberland county, was born July 24, 1735, in Salisbury township, Lancaster county, Pennsylvania. He was the son of James Whitehill and his wife, Rachel Cresswell, and younger brother of the subject of the preceding sketch. He was educated in the school of the Rev. Francis Allison. In the spring of 1771 he removed to Cumberland county, locating on a farm two miles west of Harrisburg. His entire public life was a successful and bril- liant one. He was a member of the County Committee of 1774-75; of the convention of July 15, 1776; of the Assembly, 1776-8; Council of Safety from October to December, 1777; member of the Supreme Executive Council, December 28, 1779 to November, 30, 1781; of the Assembly, 1784-7; under the constitution of 1790, member of the House of Represen- tatives from 1797 to 1801, and of the Senate from 1801 to 1804. During his term as Senator he was speaker of that body, and presided at the celebrated impeachment of the Su- preme Court of Pennsylvania. In 1805 he was elected to Congress, and continued to be a member thereof until his death. From 1774 to the time of his death he filled almost every position in the gift of the people. In the Pennsylvania convention to ratify the federal constitution of 1787 he was one of the leaders in opposing the ratification, and it is to be regretted that his remarks were not fully reported. He died at his residence in Cumberland county, two miles west of the Susquehanna, on the 7tli of April, 1813, while a member of Congress.

Yet another Bio - http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=W000404

and another http://books.google.com/books?id=d7_akH9VO_cC&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=%22Robert+Whitehill%22+Pennsylvania&source=bl&ots=skjjODcmtG&sig=OHbb_Yswd_-LkNvwY_wha3Xq7hs&hl=en&ei=e6TrSu3SGcKelAevo7T_BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CCIQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=%22Robert%20Whitehill%22%20Pennsylvania&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.13.212 (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough point about Whitehill's later political career. On this issue I'm inclined to take at face value the assertion of the "Explore PA History" website:

"Throughout his forty-year political career Whitehall [sic] represented the considerable number of Pennsylvania farmers who favored local government and mistrusted the concentration of power in the state and federal governments. Today, many of his arguments still make sense to those who fear that the federal government - especially the president and judiciary - have usurped too much power from the American people."

I'm also inclined to take at face value what appears to be Judge Wilson's assertion that the voters of Cumberland County voted him out after the convention (at p6 of Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 1787-1788). And, one might indeed wonder how James Wilson, who who died in 1798 and who is implied in writing by the "editors" to be the author of this work (see the title page), knew anything about Whitehill's later political career through 1813? Well, a more thorough NPOV reading of this source indicates that although the bulk of it consists of James Wilson's writings, it is said by its editors to have been cobbled together from Judge Wilson's "squibs and essays", along with opinion and commentary added by editors John Bach McMaster and Frederick Stone, and first published in 1888 by the Pennsylvania Historical Society. In other words, it's not James Wilson's book. Among the commentary added by the editors is the following:

"From the squibs and essays, many exceedingly unwise and dry, but all showing forth the popular views of the Constitution, such a selection has been made as seems to fairly represent both the Federal and Antifederal side. Much has been omitted, but whatever has been omitted has generally been said somewhere else in better form."

Note carefully that the editors of this selection of Judge Wilson's squibs and essays say that "many [of them are] exceedingly unwise". This is, of course, serious reason to question the reliability of this source, in part because Wilson was then, and is today, regarded as a mainstream federalist who among other things served as a justice on the Supreme Court. More importantly to us as WP editors, this sort of thing is among the countless reasons for why WP policy instructs us not to do original research and/or original synthesis that advances a position, and to rely on reliable, secondary sources. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Your sources, that told you, Whitehill had 13 proposed Amendments are better? ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.19.104 (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)