Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution: Difference between revisions

The word 'most' in the 3rd introductory paragraph.

Please see above, there are serious NPOV problems with a description of the courts over this as being merely a disagreement. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I repeat my question; what is the problem with the 3rd intro paragraph, in which every statement is cited? Is there a problem with one of the cites? Yaf (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As it presently stands, the 3rd intro paragraph states, "Another major point of contention is whether it protects against infringement of an individual right to personal firearms<ref>[http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf''Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right''], [[2004-08-24]]</ref> or a collective State militia right.<ref>{{cite book |last=Holder |first=Angela Roddy|title=The Meaning of the Constitution |pages=pp. 64|publisher=Barron's Educational Series |date=1997 |isbn=0-7641-0099-8}}</ref> The [[United States court of appeals|United States Courts of Appeals]] are in disagreement over the "collective" interpretation and "individual" interpretation <ref> ''[[United States v. Emerson]]'', ''[[District of Columbia v. Heller|Parker v. District of Columbia]]'', and ''[[Silveira v. Lockyer]]''</ref>. There is also a "modified collective" view that holds the right is protected for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a [[militia]].<ref>[[Michael C. Dorf|Dorf, Michael C.]] (2001),Findlaw-Writ[http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20011031.html]</ref>". Is there a problem with any of these cites? Yaf (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no word "most" in the 3rd paragraph. How is the word "most" at issue? Yaf (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yaf has removed the word 'most' on several instances, here is one example diff. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This intro must accurately summarize the article, and the article describes 9 to 2. It is a POV push to indicate that 9 to 2 is a mere disagreement. The accurate description would include the word 'most courts'. In short, your favored version, omitting the word 'most' is a POV distortion typical of a pro-gun POV push. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What is your WP:RS that states there is no "disagreement" among the courts, and that the Supreme Court has rescinded cert to resolve this disagreement among the courts? Yaf (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the text does not say "mere disagreement"; it says disagreement. Wouldn't "Mere disagreement" be a distortion? Are you now favoring a change to "mere disagreement"? Yaf (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you oppose the word 'most' in the third intro paragraph? You have removed it several times, why? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster dictionary lists disagreement as being:

• 1: the act of disagreeing
• 2 a: the state of being at variance : disparity b: quarrel

By this, I would say that def. 2a, the state of being at variance, is a proper summary of the present Supreme Court state of affairs after declaring cert on Heller/Parker, to resolve the variances of interpretation that historically have existed between the detailed historical viewpoints of the various courts. The last paragraph of the article, on Heller, discusses this; likewise, the detailed discussion in the article contains the information on the historical cases, including the more recent 2 cases that have gone at variance with the historical 9 cases treatment. Using "Most" as you propose would be a POV-push that the Heller case is not before the SCOTUS, and that wording would treat this case as being insignificant. It is more accurate to state "disagreement" in the sense of definition 2a with full disclosure in the article regarding the historical 9 cases, the more recent 2 cases, and the Supreme Court granting cert to resolve the variances (solve the disagreement) between these cases. But "Most" would imply that no summarization including the Supreme Court case content is at issue. This would not be accurate. Why do you not want an accurate article? Yaf (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Accurate? Then why did you mis-write: the historical 9 cases, the more recent 2 cases? You should have written 9 districts are unambiguously 'collective' and two districts are split 'collective' versus 'individual'. (And in the Fifth District, there are about eight 'collective' rulings subsequent to that rogue 'Emerson' case. See for instance United States v. Gipson (2006), United States v. Patterson (2005), etc.)

Ratio of 178 to 2. When measured in number of cases, the difference is even more stark. Of the roughly 178 cases in the history of the court that speak to the to the 2A. Of these 178 cases only two have found an 'individual right'. See here[2] for a summary of these 178 cases. By a vast amount, most of the case law has not been sympathetic to the 'individual right' hypothesis. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

All of the case law until 1905 was sympathetic to the "individual right" protections, except for that one little case in Arkansas from back in the 19th Century, if I recall correctly. And, it even had an individual right protection for travelers when "upon a journey" :-) Then, in 1905, the shift started, to rewrite history. The importance now is that there is a disagreement among the districts; this is factual, it is properly cited, and is properly noted in the article. The details on the key cases in each of the 9 districts against gun rights and in the 2 key cases in the 2 districts that revert back to the original interpretation are duly noted in the body of the article. Likewise, the granting of cert to resolve the variance (solve the disagreement) among the differences of opinion is noted in the body of the article, and must likewise be summarized in the lede. In legal parlance, quantity of wrong decisions does not presume correctness of these decisions, as you seem to want to push. Am removing the NPOV tagline, as the article is neutral, factual, and cited. If you wish to make changes to add more balance, that is fine, too, provided that additions are made with cites, but the summary is supposed to be factual, neutral, cited, and be a summary (i.e., be short). It is. Yaf (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not neutral, see my explanation above. You now claim 'all the case law until 1905', please cite. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Have restored the text containing the details of "until 1905" to the article, which you had previously removed. Now cited. Yaf (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing state law with federal law. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

State courts are permitted to interpret the United States Constitution, so such decisions are relevant to the article. It should be made clear in the article which decisions are from federal courts and which are from state courts. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Heck, international law, foreign national law, God's law, and imagined law are also often used by the Supreme Court. For the most part, the Supreme court 'votes' on cases rather than interpreting the law. Once they've voted, they support their position however they fell like. Usually, there is support for either side SOMEWHERE out there. Is there any debate about this fact? Pedophilia, believe it or not, has a small level of support in the courts. --Asams10 (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

<--My concern with "most" is, it's not a settled issue. SCotUS hasn't ruled, so it makes no difference if most of the Districts have ruled 1 way/another. That's the system, & you're bound to get a lot of variance. Tallying them gives undue weight, or the appearance of a decided issue, to one side. And don't go accusing me of pro-gun bias; that's an ad hominem, not an answer. Trekphiler (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Miller revisited

I thought that everyone knew the the 1939 decision in Miller explictly stated that the 2nd Amendment didn't apply because (Miller having died), no one brought the question of whether the arms (specifically, a shotgun of length less than 18 inches) had a relationship to a "well-regulated militia". The question of whether Miller had a relationship with a "well-regulated militia" was not discussed by the court. It also seems relatively clear, but dicta, that the Miller Court did find an individual right, as Miller was clearly not a member of an organized militia. Could you point me to previous discussions on this matter? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

{{editprotected}} This dispute is over the neutrality of the article. Considering this is a NPOV dispute, could the {{POV}} tag please be restored to the top of the article? Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Considering that an editor wants to maintain a POV tagline on this article, inserting NPOV questionable material, can we just leave the article alone? Thanks. Yaf (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

N Both edits declined. This disagreement seems to be the reason for the article's protection. It will not be solved by edit requests. See WP:DR, WP:3O. Sandstein (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Yaf (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I'm here in response to a plea posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. In my opinion, a POV tag is appropriate on an article currently under a NPOV dispute on its talk page. However, in this case the dispute is about the POV tag itself. Therefore, the article was correctly protected (regardless of whether The Wrong Version was protected) until the dispute is resolved.

I recommend you both come to an agreement on how to resolve the NPOV dispute. Then the article can be unprotected, the changes made, and there would be no need for the tag. -Amatulić (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So, I take this to mean that you support the right of one single editor to insert {{POV}} material that is uncited, then force a POV tagline onto an article in perpetuity? This doesn't seem right. Shouldn't the goal be to insert only cited material, and to address POV issues, rather than permit them to exist permanently? Yaf (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yaf made the same incorrect assumption in a post on my talk page. As I replied there, the {{POV}} template does not sanction the retention of material which is not in compliance with the neutral point of view policy but identifies the existence of a particular kind of dispute and invites discussion on the article talk page, which is not protected from editing. — Athaenara ✉ 05:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So, the correct assumption is that a single editor should be permitted to insert {{POV}} material that is uncited, and use other methods to force a POV tagline onto an article in perpetuity? This is an impasse. Yaf (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yaf posted again (diff) on my talk page:

"So, as long as the POV label remains, the disrupting editor is permitted to keep the disputed POV label, and no resolution can be reached, as the disrupting editor has "won". Hmmm. How does one address an editor that wants a POV label on an article to remain permanently, and not resolve the POV issues regarding the label itself? The disruptive editor inserted disruptive uncited material, and inserted the POV label to achieve the desired POV labeling and to keep the article perpetually tagged as POV. This is an impasse. Yaf (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)"

NOTE (as in the edit summary for my reply): I request that Yaf not export discussion from this page but keep it here where such discussion belongs. — Athaenara ✉ 05:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The full dialogue should be included for context:

"Noticed that you put a POV tagline on this fully-protected article. So, I take this to mean that you support the right of one single editor to insert {{POV}} material that is uncited, then force a POV tagline onto an article in perpetuity? This doesn't seem right. Shouldn't the goal be to insert only cited material, and to address POV issues, rather than permit them to exist permanently? Yaf (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The {{POV}} template identifies the existence of a particular kind of dispute which is being discussed on an article talk page. Contrary to your stated assumption, it does not sanction the retention of material which is not in compliance with the neutral point of view policy.

Note also that it invites discussion of the issues on the talk page, which is not protected from editing as the article presently is. — Athaenara ✉ 05:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So, as long as the POV label remains, the disrupting editor is permitted to keep the disputed POV label, and no resolution can be reached, as the disrupting editor has "won". Hmmm. How does one address an editor that wants a POV label on an article to remain permanently, and not resolve the POV issues regarding the label itself? The disruptive editor inserted disruptive uncited material, and inserted the POV label to achieve the desired POV labeling and to keep the article perpetually tagged as POV. This is an impasse. Yaf (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Please re-read what I actually said. — Athaenara ✉ 05:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I can only read what you actually wrote :-) Argggh. Yaf (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)"

Third opinion - second request

I'm here again, because another third opinion was requested.

Yaf: Your question is a non-sequitur.

You seem to be equating the insertion of the POV tag with the restoration of a sentence that has a fact tag. Those look like two different things to me. The POV tag is there because an editor perceives other POV problems with the article, discussed at length on this talk page above. Therefore, restoration of a tagged sentence in the same edit isn't necessarily the whole reason the POV tag is there.

The fact remains, an editor has tagged the article as having POV problems. The POV problems are discussed above, and have not been resolved. If an additional problem has been introduced by the restoration of one sentence that lacks a source, then that should be discussed also, as a separate issue.

This article is now protected so you can come up with a constructive way to change the article that resolves the problems described. I see arguing going on above, but no solutions being proposed. Asking for third opinions about an editor's motivations for tagging an article isn't going to resolve the issues. If you want a third opinion about the substance of the actual NPOV dispute, just ask, but be sure to state the positions neutrally and concisely. Also remember, Wikipedia:Third opinion is to be used only when the dispute involves two editors. If more participate, then you need to take it to arbitration. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. An incongruity exists, but I don't believe it to be my question. It is time to let things cool off. If the current California-based consensus is that the article on the Second Amendment to the United States should have a perpetual {{POV}} label, and never be allowed to achieve good article or other notable article status, so be it, I can understand that feeling. I have higher hopes, though, for eventually achieving an NPOV article worthy of being a Good Article, or better :-) Yaf (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Your reply presumes much that doesn't follow from what has been written:

• The geographic location/origin of editors here is irrelevant. What does California have to do with any discussion following the third opinion request? This is treading the ragged edge of the no personal attacks policy.
• No one has suggested or even implied that the article "should have a perpetual POV label". Be careful about assuming meanings or motivations that don't exist. Remember the guideline: Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
• "Never be allowed to achieve good article status"? This talk page is for the purpose of discussing the article and how to improve it. Focusing instead on the motivations of others is unproductive. Assume good faith.
• You can understand what feeling? Feelings aren't at issue here, or shouldn't be.

I, too, have high hopes that an article about such an important subject can eventually reach GA or even FA status. I also agree a cooling-off period is in order. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute, 3rd intro paragraph

The essence of the NPOV problem is the wording of the third intro paragraph. I propose we go back to the 3rd paragraph of the AliveFreeHappy version[3] of 20:59 November 29,2007. If accepted, I would then agree to the removal of the POV tag. SaltyBoatr (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Great start on resolving the issue. That's the kind of offer I was hoping to see. Yaf, what say you?

If disagreement remains, please propose alternative text here. Once agreement is achieved, there will be no further need for article protection. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The OR clause, regarding predominant views and court precedences, is not borne by the cited facts. The current text is:

→ Question in re third paragraph from current version of the article's text:

→ "Another major point of contention is whether it protects against infringement of an individual right to personal firearms[5] or a collective State militia right.[6] The United States Courts of Appeals are in disagreement over the "collective" interpretation and "individual" interpretation [7]. There is also a "modified collective" view that holds the right is protected for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a militia.[8]"

This does not presume an OR position related to the ultimate outcome or merit of the current Heller case that is also mentioned in the article, which has changed the landscape since the proposed and now dated earlier version of the paragraph. The current paragraph recognizes the variances between the various districts, and the shift that has occurred, in that the Supreme Court of the United States has since granted cert and has not yet ruled on the interpretations and that there is disagreement among the various districts. In Supreme Court cases, the number of precedences is not a good indicator of how a ruling will come down. Using the "predomininant view" language, a reader is mislead to believe that there is no disagreement, and that the Supreme Court has not taken on resolving this disagreement. The lede should summarize the entire article, not an historical earlier view of the article. Yaf (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Two versions of the third paragraph

Template:Multicol February 2008 (current):

Line 1:

Another major point of contention is whether it protects against infringement of an individual right to personal firearms^[5] or a collective State militia right.^[6]

Line 2:

The United States Courts of Appeals are in disagreement over the "collective" interpretation and "individual" interpretation.^[7]

Line 3:

There is also a "modified collective" view that holds the right is protected for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a militia. ^[8]

Template:Multicol-break November 2007 (three months ago):

Line 1:

Another major point of contention is whether it protects against infringement of an individual right to personal firearms^[5] or a collective State militia right:^[6]

Line 2:

the predominant views and court precedences favor the "collective" interpretation, but the "individual" interpretations are supported by recent court cases such as United States v. Emerson and Parker v. District of Columbia.

Line 3:

There is also a "modified collective" view that says the right is protected for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a militia. ^[8]

The citations (as numbered in both versions):

5. Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right, 2004-08-24

6. Holder, Angela Roddy (1997). The Meaning of the Constitution. Barron's Educational Series. pp. pp. 64. ISBN 0-7641-0099-8. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

7. United States v. Emerson, Parker v. District of Columbia, and Silveira v. Lockyer

8. Dorf, Michael C. (2001), Findlaw-Writ

Lines 1 and 3 are the same, except for fullstop vs. colon at the end of line 1. Please explain (both of you) precisely what is acceptable/unacceptable about either version of line 2. — Athaenara ✉ 14:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Postscript 1: BTW, I removed {{POV}}. — Athaenara ✉ 14:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Postscript 2: It seems to me that the current version is adequate for introductory purposes if and only if the courts' disagreement is fully explained in a later section. — Athaenara ✉ 14:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

:It is hard to assume neutrality from Athaenara in light of this[4].

The problem with the second sentence new wording compared with the Nov07 consensus wording is that the new wording gives undue weight to the pro-gun hypothesis that the courts are split roughly equally between 'collective' and 'individual' interpretations. See above, I have already written too much and to write it again would be repetitive. For instance, I have cited using reliable sourcing that the court cases rank 176 'collective right' case rulings and only 2 'individual right' rulings. There is a clear pro-gun POV push to give undue weight to the exceptional rulings and down play the predominant rulings. It would also be helpful if you read the prior discussions, including those from November when extensive consensus negotiations occurred to establish the Nov07 introductory section wording. And, the essay Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight describes well my concerns about undue weight in this application. Systemic bias also comes into play here where in the run up to the Heller SCOTUS decision, pro-gun editors tend to be disproportionately attracted to the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the second column version of the statement in contention, i.e., "the predominant views and court precedences favor the "collective" interpretation, but the "individual" interpretations are supported by recent court cases such as United States v. Emerson and Parker v. District of Columbia" is that this makes an Original Research claim through stating a "predominant view" exists when it does not, implying that there is nothing at issue here, i.e., move along gentle reader. Likewise, the historical court precedences favored one view, whereas the more recent court precedences have favored another view. In short, there is disagreement among the districts that has changed over time. That is the reason that the Supreme Court has granted cert on this, to resolve the variance among the various districts. Claiming "predominant views and court precedences favor" anything is presumptive, and is Original Research. The most neutral point of view, and most factual, is simply to state that "The United States Courts of Appeals are in disagreement over the "collective" interpretation and "individual" interpretation.^[7]" It is worth noting that full details on the historical 9 versus 2 districts that have supported different views is fully contained in the article. Likewise, full details on the Supreme Court case Heller/Parker is also contained in the article. Neither of these detailed sections or their contents are in dispute. Only the summary is in dispute, in which one version stresses an Original Research claim that a "predominant view" exists, implying that there is no disagreement, whereas the other version simply states in a summary that a disagreement exists. As editors, we should not insert our own bias into the summary, to claim a "predominant view" or older versus more recent court precedences favor a "collective" interpretation and are somehow more "correct". Rather, a neutral, factual statement of fact, that a disagreement exists (in the sense of there being a variance among districts), with full details in the body of the article explaining the differences, as well as the details of the Supreme Court case in which this disagreement will be shortly resolved, is the proper weight for summarizing the whole body of the article. Yaf (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yaf's logic is self contradictory. He argues that the intro doesn't need the predominate view qualifier because it is 'original research' and at the same time argues that the predominate view qualifier is not needed because it is "fully covered" in the article. Yaf, in calling my proposed text 'original research', ignores the several reliable source citations I have made (see above). Neither does Yaf acknowledge the irony that he is arguing that the pro-gun bias be inserted when he argues against inserting bias. Yaf also complains of 'original research' yet his argument in his sentence four "That is the reason that the Supreme Court has granted..." appears to be entirely original research. Yaf also doesn't acknowledge my concern of Systematic bias. Yaf also fails to address my concern of pro-gun POV push seeking to characterize a 176-2 split as a simple disagreement of the court. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Refuting Yaf's accusation of 'original research' quote: "The Court has consistently favored a collective (militia-based) rather than an individual-based interpretation of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. More than 100 federal and state appellate court decisions, dating back to a 1939 Supreme Court ruling, have held that the Second Amendment is no barrier to reasonable gun regulation enacted for the public health and safety" Dr. James Lucier America's Guns and the Second Amendment. Page 66 [5]. This is just one cite that states the 'predominate view' point succinctly, I have provided several others above, and could provide many more reliable cites. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It is worth noting that this reference is from 2006, a date that is prior to the Heller appeal and prior to the Supreme Court granting cert to resolve the disagreements. Yaf (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not universally agreed that the Miller decision interpreted the Second Amendment under a "collective right" model. [6] [7] --SMP0328. (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually read those two blogs before you posted them here in an attempt to bolster your argument? Your first link says: "The decision contains many other examples of Militia laws, regulations, and history which are consistent with a collective Right to Bear Arms. ... The history selected by the Court emphasized a collective right to bear arms." And, your second link says: "Most other circuits courts had concluded the Second Amendment protects only the rights of states to maintain militias."

Both of your links, instead of making your case, actually prove my point about predominant view of the court being collective. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is from link #33:

Did Miller have a right to keep and bear his shotgun?

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

The Court did not expressly rule. This question was returned to the lower court. The Court did raise the question on whether a shotgun was a weapon properly used by the militia, if a shotgun was a weapon properly used to enforce laws, suppress insurrections, or repel invasions. While the Court did not make it explicit, it would seem that if Miller's defense could establish shotguns are properly militia weapons, Miller would likely have a right to carry the shotgun.

This is from link #34:

Miller is subject to two possible interpretations. One, that the Second Amendment is an individual right, but that the right only extends to weapons commonly used in militias (the defendants in Miller were transporting sawed-off shotguns). The second--broader--view of Miller is that the Amendment guarantees no rights to individuals at all. --SMP0328. (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually Miller is subject to infinite possible interpretations by billions of commentators, you use a straw man argument. The actual question at hand is different: How did the courts interpret Miller? The answer per solid WP:RS sourcing is that the courts have ruled predominately (by a ratio in excess of 100 to 2) that Miller described a 'collective right'. Therefore the 'predominate view' of the court is collective.

All of these discussions clearly establish that there is a disagreement among the various decisions. As stated previously, the Supreme Court is currently working to resolve the disagreements among the districts and decisions. Does anyone have a WP:RS that states that there is no disagreement, or that the Supreme Court has rescinded cert? If not, it seems clear that the statement that is presently in the article, stating that there is a disagreement, is the most neutral, factual, and appropriate statement. Any other statements regarding "Most" historically have favored ..., "Most recently" have favored ..., or similar other attempts to push any POV will serve only to act as a {{POV}} magnet for further {{POV}} edit wars. What say you? Yaf (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Straw man argument. I agree there is a disagreement among the court decisions, by a ratio of 176 to 2. I disagree about the neutrality of a statement that such a disproportionate disagreement can be called simply a 'disagreement'. This gives undue weight to the tiny minority, which is a pro-gun POV push. 176 to 2 by fair weighting needs to include the 'predominate view' qualifier to comply with WP:NPOV policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. This is progress. We agree that there is a "disagreement" among the court cases and decisions among the 9 districts, 2 districts, and the, thus far, tacit district(s). Now, what is the proper weight for the summary in the lede in light of the Supreme Court granting cert in November 2007 to resolve the variances among these varied opinions? Should it be 0% as you propose, or should we give the "disagreement" more weight? Yaf (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Heller cert is already covered in intro paragraph four. The weight of the two outlying court decisions is presently given too much weight by their being explicitly mentioned in paragraph three. I actually favor providing balance to that by mentioning that the two outlying decisions run contrary to 176 other rulings, but am willing to concede to the compromise wording which was agreed upon back during the consensus negotiations last November. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no weight given to the two more recent decisions. The current protected version is:

"Another major point of contention is whether it protects against infringement of an individual right to personal firearms[5] or a collective State militia right.[6] The United States Courts of Appeals are in disagreement over the "collective" interpretation and "individual" interpretation [7]. There is also a "modified collective" view that holds the right is protected for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a militia.[8]"

Hence, this wording is more balanced than what you propose. It also avoids being a {{POV}} magnet to attract further edit wars. I would think that not mentioning the two cases to which you object so strongly in the lede would be more neutral. Yaf (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal suppresses the predominate view of the courts, which the 'collective' interpretation, and therefore gives undue weight to the minority view in voliation of WP:NPOV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"predominant view" is OR. the district courts are independent entities. they have decided different numbers of cases, over different timelines, dating back - what, a century? suggesting a "predominant view" suggests homogeneity. my own OR based upon the list of all those court ruling? there's an awful lot of shady lawyers out there, willing to argue second amendment cases where the contention is a loser at face value - convicted felons crying because they can't get their rights restored. it's a basic fact of rights - they confer upon law-abiding, mentally sound, adults. that's why felons can have their freedom restricted in those places called "prisons". the majority of these "second amendment" rulings should never have even be let into a courtroom, since most of them are convicted felons arguing their second amendment rights have been violated. but as i said, that's my own OR. "predominant view" is also OR. Anastrophe (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No. The court record is solidly sourced (see above). It is not original research to state that historically the courts, by a overwhelming majority, have taken the 'collective rights' view of the 2A. (By one well sourced count, by a ratio of 176 to 2). I am not stuck on the word 'predominate', and can compromise the exact wording but this critical concept must be included to avoid giving undue weight to the minority view. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

With dated sources. Your proposal suppresses the obvious shift in public opinion that has occurred, suppresses the extent of the disagreement necessitating a Supreme Court review, and is clearly a POV push supporting the historical opinion that existed from circa 1905 to circa 2001, while giving no weight to the shift of opinion back to the strict constitutionalists' opinions that existed from 1789 until 1905. Additionally, the purpose of the lede is to summarize the present state of affairs relative to the sum total of the article, not to belabor an historical state of affairs. If we put your proposed wording in the lede, then, for balance, we would have to state something along the lines of "... but recent cases have engendered a shift in opinion necessitating a review for the first time since 1939 by the Supreme Court of the United States to resolve the disagreement that has arisen among the district courts, as well as to resolve the shift in opinion that recently has favored an "individual" rights interpretation instead of the historical "collective" rights interpretation previously favored by District Courts". This type of wording would be needed for NPOV balance with a dated historical "Most" statement as you propose, taken from a reference that predates the Heller/Parker shift. However, such wording would be way too lengthy for the lede, which is supposed to be an article summary. Why not just state there is "disagreement" and let the body of the article (already written) flesh out the details of the historical perspectives. An introduction is supposed to summarize the current state of affairs for an article, not push an anti -- Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) agenda POV in the face of every reader, attracting further {{POV}} edit wars. Yaf (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dated sources? Shift of opinion? Your bias shows. In the DC circuit there was a 'collective rights' ruling as recent as 2004 with Seegars v. Gonzales, and in the Fifth there have been thirteen 'collective/states rights' rulings since Emerson (United States v. Darrington, etc.). Not to mention the dozens of other 'collective' court rulings in the other districts since 2001. It is you who is using original research. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comment about post-Emerson collective-right decisions in the 5th Circuit intrigues me. What is your source for that? PubliusFL (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

'Collective/states rights' decisions, a whole slew of 2A cases in the Fifth were recently rejected on the 'reasonable restriction' theory. See here[8]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahh. In the context of the 2A, "states rights" can mean two very different things. Especially when used in conjunction with "collective right," it can refer to the idea that the right to bear arms is held by states rather than individuals. But it can also refer to the broader idea in constitutional law that prohibitions on the federal government do not necessarily apply to the states (with the specific application, in this context, being that the 2A only restricts federal law). When you used "collective/states" together like that I thought you intended the former meaning, but it looks like you meant the latter meaning. I don't see any post-Emerson 5th Circuit cases concluding that the 2A guarantees a collective right or right belonging to the states (as opposed to one merely unenforceable against the states). PubliusFL (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The major shift in public opinion only occurred in the last 1 and a fraction years (2007-2008), although a shift in judicial opinion began in 2001 with the Emerson case. When the major shift occurred, the Supreme Court granted cert to resolve the variances, around November 20, 2007 as I recall. As you have agreed previously, a disagreement of opinions exists among the districts. The Supreme Court is working to resolve this difference. Where is your cited source that the Supreme Court has rescinded cert, or that we should use a now-dated point of view push in the lede of this article to "summarize" the article and play down the significance of the Supreme Court case, the first since 1939 to address the "individual" rights question of the Second Amendment? Inserting a now-dated version of opinion is not neutral, or even factual, considering the Supreme Court granting cert. Yaf (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like SaltyBoatr's concern is that the "disagreement" language is that it conceals that fact that currently the great majority of federal circuits reject the individual right view. It looks like Yaf's concern is that the previous versions of line 2 ("most"/"predominant views") give insufficient weight to the fact that a definitive Supreme Court decision is in the wings, and will not be decided on the basis of tallying up circuits. So how about this -- we address Yaf's concern by moving the reference to the Heller case from the 4th paragraph up to the 3rd, and make the line 2 sentence something like this: "At present, only two of the thirteen federal circuits have adopted the individual rights view, but a Second Amendment case currently under review by the Supreme Court (District of Columbia v. Heller) is expected to resolve the jurisdictional split." PubliusFL (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that suggestion is constructive, and I could accept it. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

One caveat, we probably need to pay more attention to defining the 'individual rights view' which is widely ambiguous. For instance, one take on a definition is 'full incorporation to the states' (not on the table), another is the 'right of insurrection' (not on the table), and another (under SCOTUS consideration with Heller) is 'subject to reasonable restrictions'[9]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Great progress! But, how about if we use the following wording, instead:

"At present, two of the thirteen federal circuits have adopted an individual rights view, but a Second Amendment case is currently under review by the Supreme Court (District of Columbia v. Heller), having been granted certiorari, to resolve the jurisdictional split [7]."

This wording avoids a WP:NOT problem, i.e., Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, as well as removing the "only" POV language. I could accept this variant of wording. Yaf (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Any compromise should include that each circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals is not bound by a ruling of another circuit. That's why there can be contradictory rulings among the various circuits. So the fact that "more" federal courts have followed the "collective right" model is irrelevant in the Fifth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit. I've already included this clarification in the body of the article.

Also, I recommend a separate section be added to the article that would describe the differences between the various suggested interpretations of the Second Amendment. That would help someone, who is not familiar with the RKBA issue, to understand what's being debated. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Yaf's proposal above conceals that fact that currently the great majority of federal circuits reject the individual right view. Doing so would cause an undue weight problem and violate WP:NPOV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So, does that mean that we are in agreement with the proposed wording I mentioned above, or is additional work still needed on the wording? Yaf (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree to PubliusFL suggested compromise, which would have the third paragraph of the intro read:

"Another major point of contention is whether it protects against infringement of an individual right to personal firearms or a collective State militia right. At present, only two of the thirteen federal circuits have adopted the individual rights view, but a Second Amendment case currently under review by the Supreme Court (District of Columbia v. Heller) is expected to resolve the jurisdictional split. There is also a "modified collective" view that says the right is protected for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a militia."

I would agree that the undue weight problem is fixed by this compromise wording, and then the POV tag could be removed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this third paragraph wording, as it violates WP:NOT, violating WP is not a crystal ball. I also object to the word "only", as this is POV pushing language. This proposal also does not contain references. Hence, for all these reasons, this proposal is unacceptable. Yaf (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the "under review" phrasing by itself is meaningless. Many cases are under review, and never even achieve cert worthiness. There is a vast difference when cert is granted, especially for so-called "percolating issues" such as this. Yaf (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Balancing POV

{{RFCpol | section=RfC: POV dispute on Second Amendment to the United States Constitution !! reason=What is an appropriate summary wording for the introduction regarding "individual" vs. "collective" rights positions of the circuit courts? !! time=22:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)}} removed upon reaching consensus. 18:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Which wording is most neutral for the third paragraph of the introduction?

• The better question is: Which wording gives the most neutral balance to the points of view, avoiding undue weight to the minority opinion?

• Or perhaps the better question is: Which wording gives the most neutral balance to the points of view, avoiding undue weight to the historical "collective" rights view in light of the two more recent "individual" rights views and with the Supreme Court having granted certiorari to resolve the jurisdictional split?

What about creating a section that lists all of the U.S. Court of Appeals dealing with the Second Amendment. That section would also include a clarification regarding the independence of each circuit from one another. That clarification would make it clear that a 9-2 split is not binding nationwide. The Introduction could then simply have a reference to that new section. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't oppose this idea. But it doesn't do much to solve the NPOV problem with the introduction caused by the Monobi/SMP0328 edits of February 13. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Such a section would probably be a good idea. Incidentally, regarding the so-called "NPOV problem" to which you refer, these edits by these two editors were less POV than the preceding version, which attempted to put undue weight on an historical preponderance of "collective" rights without regarding the shift to "individual rights" that has occurred with first the Emerson case and now with the Heller/Parker case that has gone before the Supreme Court. Insisting on a now-dated POV, relative to a now hotly-disputed issue that is being resolved by the Supreme Court (to resolve the jurisdictional split), is not NPOV. Also, the older version acts as a {{POV}} magnet. Yaf (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I genuinely appreciate your willingness to discuss this matter. We agree about some things and disagree about other things, and hopefully can negotiate a compromise to our disagreements. Interestingly, we seem to agree at the core about a preponderance of court opinion. You write above "...an historical preponderance of "collective" rights". This preponderance of court opinion is the same one that I see. Our point of disagreement, rather, is whether this preponderance is past tense (as is your point of view), or a present tense, (which is my point of view). Can we discuss the 'tense' of the preponderance of court view some more. Is it historical, or is it present tense? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, (the following is courtesy of scot):

"over 30 state governments, 250 members of the House of Representatives, and 55 Senators have signed a resolution authored by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott backing the individual rights interpretation of the second amendment. Several politicians from the state of Montana, including the Montana Secretary of State, have signed a resolution indicating that, if the Supreme Court rules against an individual-rights interpretation of the second amendment, the compact between the United States and Montana would be violated, and that the state "reserves all usual rights and remedies under historic contract law" should that occur. "

This clearly supports a shift in public opinion that is likely of a greater magnitude than the shift in public opinion just prior to the Civil War that led to the compromise attempts by Henry Clay to avoid the Civil War, what with involving 30 states already. This magnitude of shift in public opinion clearly represents a major change of state. Emerson and Heller/Parker are but the tip of the judicial iceberg that is fueling this shift. Based on this, I would say the "collective" rights view is definitely past tense. Likewise, the so-called "California-consensus", for banning handguns in San Francisco, was recently overturned by the courts, again reflecting a shift in judicial opinion even in a Federal Court District in which the position formerly was strictly a "collective rights" view. We need to represent the current state of affairs in the article, not advocate a dated POV. Yaf (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This dispute is not about public opinion, or the opinion of politicians. Rather this dispute is about the preponderance of court opinion. And, about that we have agreed. The preponderance of court opinion is 'collective'. We simply disagree whether it is past tense, or present tense. Can we talk about that distinction instead? Your 'tip of the iceberg' metaphor involves prediction of the future I think. I hope we agree that we should not predict the future in Wikipedia. So, again, can we discuss whether the preponderance of court opinion is present tense, or past tense? SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. The debate we are having right now will almost certainly become largely moot before the year is out, and the article will have to be changed dramatically one way or the other depending on how the Supreme Court rules in Heller, but for now the current state of the law is that some view of the 2A other than the "Standard Model" individual right view (whether the "collective right" view, the "modified collective right" view, the "sophisticated collective right" view, or the "limited individual right" view) is currently binding precedent, and therefore "the law" as applied by the courts, in 11 of the 13 federal circuits. PubliusFL (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the collaboration. I agree, in some way we should see a different landscape after a Heller ruling. This begs the question of how to neutrally describe the issue being judiciated. The name "Standard Model" was coined by Glenn Reynolds in 1965 is not neutral or accurate. I also don't think the name "Individual rights model" is best because it is far too ambiguous. We should be careful to describe exactly what is being reviewed by the SCOTUS, which is the banning of a class of gun by federal law. State law in not being reviewed. Neither is the 'right of insurrection'. The name issue is tough because actually the "Individual right model" name has been commonly used to cover a wider spectrum of hypothesis than that now on the docket; from the 'right of insurrection', to the 'full incorporation', to 'unlimited right to weapons', to the 'subject to reasonable regulation' (with a full federal ban on handguns being questioned as 'not reasonable regulation' currently on the docket with Heller). The best neutral name for this 'individual' camp I think would be the Individualist View. This choice is most precise to describe the current state of affairs, plus it is plainly neutral having been used by both Dave Kopel[10] and by Robert J. Spitzer on both sides of the POV divide. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The "preponderance of court opinion" is past tense for those living in the two districts in which the "individual" rights model has already been judicially declared. In 7 other districts, the "preponderance of court opinion" has been "collective", although the shift recently in the California-handgun ban in San Francisco indicates that even the "collective" label may not be an apt and sole adjective that can be used any longer. Among the other districts, the interpretations are different again, or non-existent. "Preponderance of court opinion", in terms of meaning "correct" for a lay reader, is not about doing a simple tally of court decisions. Rather, it is about the decisions that have come down in the particular district one chooses for discussion. Once the Supreme Court rules on Heller/Parker, the variance among the districts will likely only be reduced, but not eliminated. I agree that the article will require a massive re-write upon the decision coming down. But, I am not certain that we will see anything other than a narrow decision, leaving much to be decided in the future by the court(s). As for the "individualist" label, I am not certain whether even this is an accurate label. Considering the complexity, perhaps the present wording, expressing "disagreement", is about the best statement that can be used, at least in terms of universal accuracy. "Preponderance of court opinion" certainly has no bearing at the present time in the two districts that have taken the "Individual" rights view. Yaf (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we've moved beyond "preponderance of court opinion" language for the article itself. My proposed language would note that, at present, only two of thirteen circuits have adopted the individual right interpretation, but that the Supreme Court is expected to address the issue soon in Heller. That language avoids the impression that the weight of court opinion is uniform across the country. I agree with you that "individualist view" is probably not the best term, as it does not seem to be a term in common usage. Most of the uses I can find are connected to a single scholar, Robert Spitzer. The freecolorado.com link provided by SaltyBoatr does not attribute the term "individualist view" to Kopel himself -- it appears to be a blogger's own characterization of Kopel's position. PubliusFL (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I find the PubliusFL suggested wording [11] for the third paragraph acceptable. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe the suggested wording is acceptable. "Only" is POV language. Likewise, there are different degrees of review, and certiorari granted is a much more accurate description of the current status. Yaf (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you suggest compromise wording? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I would propose wording along the lines of:

Another major point of contention is whether it protects against infringement of an individual right to personal firearms[5] or a collective State militia right.[6] At present, two of the thirteen federal circuits have adopted an individual rights view, but a Second Amendment case is currently under review by the Supreme Court (District of Columbia v. Heller), having been granted certiorari, to resolve the jurisdictional split.[7] There is also a "modified collective" view that holds the right is protected for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a militia.[8]

This would avoid the "WP is not a crystal ball" problematic wording with the phrasing of "expected" as well as the POV language, as well as more clearly defining the degree of review. Yaf (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr wrote:

"Another major point of contention is whether it protects against infringement of an individual right to personal firearms[5] or a collective State militia right.[6] At present, two of the thirteen federal circuits have adopted an individual rights view. A Second Amendment case is currently under review by the Supreme Court (District of Columbia v. Heller), having been granted certiorari, to resolve this jurisdictional split.[7] There is also a "modified collective" view that holds the right is protected for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a militia.[8]"

Yaf (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I made a few grammar changes above, which suspect are non-controversial. I find this compromise to be pushing the edge of the POV neutral point, but I could accept this compromise wording. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can accept this compromise wording. Yaf (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

By agreed consensus, change third paragraph of the introduction to:

Another major point of contention is whether it protects against infringement of an individual right to personal firearms or a collective State militia right. At present, two of the thirteen federal circuits have adopted an individual rights view. A Second Amendment case is currently under review by the Supreme Court (District of Columbia v. Heller), having been granted certiorari, to resolve this jurisdictional split. There is also a "modified collective" view that holds the right is protected for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a militia.

remove {{POV}} tagline and unprotect article. Thanks. Yaf (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, for missing this problem before, but I was just checking the refs, and find that the first footnote points to the out of date 2004 DOJ brief on this, the more recent DOJ brief online copy here should be used. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Either works to establish a major point of contention just as well. Hopefully, an admin can make this requested change, or just unprotect the page and we can make it. Whatever is easier. Thanks. Yaf (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I edited the third paragraph of the introduction per the consensus here and removed {{POV}} (diff). Page protection is scheduled to expire two days from now. — Athaenara ✉ 21:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the new Introduction. Should this article be semi-protected? I just reverted vandalism to the Introduction. --SMP0328. (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

One case of simple vandalism is hardly cause for protection. If it gets worse, I'll counter it somehow. —EncMstr 00:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OK for now. Glad to know you'll be watching. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

States rights

From the Constitution

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

From the above it can be seen that while Congress has the authority to set standards (and provide at least some of the funding) for the militia, responsibility for training and leadership of the militia belong to the states. The fact that leadership is at the state level shows that the militia is a state institution.

Since the militia is (was) composed of all able bodied men of military age, any restriction on the people bearing arms would be an infringement on a state body (the militia). It would therefore follow that any restriction on arms MUST be at the state level.

Amendment 2 A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (The word State refers to the individual states making up the US) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.(if the right can be infringed by the federal government, then the federal government can disarm the states.)

It is probable that the 2nd Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming the states and to make a possible military takeover through use of the army and navy (both federal institutions), less likely. Such a takeover would result in the federal government turning into the "master" of the states instead of their tool and would result in greatly expanding federal powers and restrictions on state powers after such a takeover. One need only look at the vast expansion of federal power and restrictions on state powers after the Civil War to see that this has in fact happened.

The preamble to the Bill of Right states that the Amendments in the Bill are restrictions on federal power.

First part of the Preamble

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The only conclusion possible is that the federal government has no Constitutional power to limit arms and is specifically forbidden from doing so.

As the popular saying goes

which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." don't you understand?

4.156.252.88 (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I tend to agree with you as legal matter, SCOTUS does not agree, and we would need WP:RS to that effect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

SCOTUS has so butchered the intent and plain wording of the Constitution that every Supreme Court Justice for the last hundred years is guilty of breach of their oath of office.

As the popular saying goes

which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." don't you understand?

4.156.252.213 (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This article suffers from too much POV pushing and original research already. Re-read WP:Policy SaltyBoatr (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 44 states

By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government.

Notice the word "taught" as used above. That word implies a widespread awareness of the idea of a military takeover. Add in the various warnings regarding the dangers of standing armies and there can be no doubt that the idea of a military takeover by the federal government had occurred to the founding fathers.

A militia controlled by the states would act as a bar to that type of power grab. A militia disarmed through federal law, would not.

As the popular saying goes

which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." don't you understand? 4.156.27.67 (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

4.156.27.67 and 4.156.252.213, you need to add references to what you are saying. References would make your arguments stronger. --SMP0328. (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are unaware that Federalist 44 IS a reference then you should not be a referee (or whatever you are) on ANY topic involving the Constitution.

I advise you look up "The Federalist Papers" in order to expand your knowledge of sources. I also advise you to take some time and actually read then to increase your understanding of the Constitution. The previous assumes that you have read the Constitution, which the vast majority have not. If you haven't, then you should start by reading that.

as for warnings against standing armies, here are a couple

Thomas Jefferson on Standing armies

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789.

James Madison on Standing Armies

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

The Declaration of Independence even had standing armies as one of the complaints

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

As the popular saying goes

which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." don't you understand?

4.156.252.250 (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I know of The Federalist Papers. You need to understand that at Wikipedia you need to provide a link to a source, even if that source is well known. --SMP0328. (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Federalist Papers are not a WP:RS for current legal issues. They may be relevant for legal issues of the time. Again, I agree with you, but what you've written cannot be placed in the article without appropriate cites. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

i've removed the 'unreferenced' tag on this section. ref tags are for use in article space only. talk pages have no requirement for citations. that said, talk pages do have a requirement that they be focused specifically on article improvement - they are not generalized forums for debating the issues, and on that basis, most of the commentary in this section could be reasonably deleted. please, fellow editors, keep commentary brief and on the point of improving the article. Anastrophe (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Here we have a 2nd Amendment case going to the Supreme Court any day now, and we can't cite source material on the 2nd Amendment and why it was created.

and lets not forget that this section is probably going to be deleted.

JOY!!!!!!!!!!

Anyway!

The correct paper for the Hamilton quote is 29 not 44. My mistake.

www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm

The US law defining the "militia". Many of the states probably have their own definitions.

www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Since the ANTI-Federalists managed to create enough opposition to the Constitution that the Bill of Rights was created due to this opposition and was a REQUIREMENT by many of the original 13 states in order to approve it, here are quotes those opponents

Fderalist Farmer letter 18

www.constitution.org/afp/fedfar18.htm

it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them

Patrick Henry - also an ANTI-Federalist is cited with the following quotes

quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/patrick+henry

Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

Hope the above links make you happy, but I seriously doubt any of them will be used.

As the popular saying goes

which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." don't you understand? 4.156.27.227 (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

These sources could support a history or origin section, or I'd suggest summarily archiving as a discussion about the subject rather than about article improvements. I'm afraid it has nothing to do with the current (20th century and following) interpretation sections, much as we would like SCOTUS to actually read the Constitution they are defending. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely DENY that that the Supreme Court is DEFENDING the Constitution. The Constitution lists GOALS and powers delegated to the federal government, by the states, to meet those goals. Those powers are exclusively for organizing the federal government, creating a postal service, for regulating interstate commerce and for dealing with foreign powers. Regulation of gun ownership and membership in the militia fall under NONE of above.

The Bill of Rights was passed as a UNIT, and the preamble is a part of what was passed. That preamble thus applies to the second amendment.

The fist part of the Preamble of the Bill of Rights states

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The second Amendment consists of BOTH a declaration and a restriction.

The restriction being "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

and instead of an "origin" or "history" section why not a section showing either that the Supreme Court either hasn't the brains to find its collective ass with both hands, directions, a map, and a GPS or is in willful violation of the oath of office.

As the popular saying goes

which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." don't you understand?

4.156.111.52 (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of just about every word of the second amendment seems to be listed in the article except for the most important one. Why not add it!

www.thefreedictionary.com/infringement

1. A violation, as of a law, regulation, or agreement; a breach. 2. An encroachment, as of a right or privilege.

Noun 1. infringement - an act that disregards an agreement or a right; "he claimed a violation of his rights under the Fifth Amendment"

2. infringement - a crime less serious than a felony

WOW! Infringement is a CRIME!!!!!!! Who would have thunk it!

As the popular saying goes

which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." don't you understand?

4.156.111.52 (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

as a matter of etiquette, and in general policy, users are discouraged from using lengthy 'signature lines on talk page posts. please stop repeating the 'As a popular saying goes' signature. while i happen to share the sentiment, it becomes tiresome seeing it repeated. wikipedia talk pages don't hide read comments as on a typical forum. thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

To further complicate the issue, doesn't the definition of "militia" (a collection of armed citizens) imply private ownership & possession of firearms? Trekphiler (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Why yes! Yes it does. The PLAIN intent and purpose of the second amendment was to bar the federal government from disarming the state militias. As shown on this page (in a different section), by LAW the militia is every able bodied male of military age. Further, per the US Constitution Article 1 , Section 8, the federal government is OBLIGATED to ARM the militia, not to DISARM it.

Having personal weapons is a part of your right to self defense and was considered by the founders an INALIENABLE right. In my opinion this personal right was not the subject of the second amendment. Under the State Constitutions, the states are granted powers by the residents of those States. The States, through the Constitution, transfer some of their granted powers to the federal government. Since no State at that time was given, or claimed, the power to disarm a law abiding citizen, then such a power could not have been passed on to the federal government. Laws disarming a law abiding citizens by either the states or the feds are therefore contrary to the powers granted by the US Constitution and the various State Constitutions. I feel it is safe to say, even without reading all of them , that NO Constitution grants such a power to ANY State.

I dare ANYONE on this board to tell me which of the listed powers of the US Constitution GIVE the feds the power to take away the RIGHT to self defense.

If no one can cite such a power, then this lack should be included in this article.

4.156.252.195 (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you claiming that there's a RKBA for individuals and for State militias? --SMP0328. (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

IMO they are different offshoots of the BASIC right of self defense. The individual has the right to defend himself and has the right to obtain and keep weapons for that reason. The States have the right to defend themselves (and per language in the US Constitution retain that right) and by retaining power of the militia can do so. One is an individual action and the other a group action at the state level. Both are applications of the right of self defense. Both the individuals and the militia have a RKBA for that purpose.

4.156.252.230 (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

From the Pennsylvania Constitution

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

from sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html 4.156.252.230 (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

from the Delaware Bill of Rights

§20. Right to keep and bear arms.

Section 20. A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. (4-16-87)

www.state.de.us/facts/constit/welcome.htm

Massachusetts Constitution - not as clear and concise as the above - but shows that the right of personal self defense was considered separate from the collective right to defend the State.

Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property;

Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. 4.156.252.230 (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to mulitple State Constitutional provisions dealing with the RKBA.[12] --SMP0328. (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Infringement

The article uses the word 'infringement' eighteen times and never discusses what the word means in the context of the 2A. Lots of people, like the IP editor just above, hold the view that the dictionary definition is operative. Of course, essentially all of the gun control POV disagrees, but set that aside. I also see that the large majority of the pro-gun POV also agrees that the dictionary definition does not apply either. I see that only the very extreme of the pro-gun POV fringe believes that infringement in the context of the 2A means literally no encroachment of the 'right' is allowed. Witness the recent pro-gun amicus briefs, which include position statements of various pro-gun entities. Essentially all of these briefs, both the pro and the con, support reasonable federal regulation of firearms. In these amicus briefs I see that 'infringement' allows the prohibition of firearms for classes of people, and the prohibition of types of firearms, and the prohibition of firearms in certain locations. In short, the ambiguity in the article about the meaning of infringement it gives undue weight to the fringe belief that the dictionary definition applies to the 2A. Infringement for the vast majority of the POV's on this topic is not the dictionary definition. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

all rights under the constitution are restrictable for certain classes of people; this is neither novel nor news. for those who are not within those classes, the right shall not be infringed, and this is applicable to all the other rights codified in the constitution. no law-abiding, mentally fit, adult citizen can legally have their right to free expression infringed. however, the mentally ill may legally have their right to free expression infringed. just as those in the penitentiary cannot vote, nor can they publicly assemble. the issue pertains to infringing the right of non-criminal/law-abiding, mentally fit, adults, to keep and bear arms, which is what is occurring in DC, and elsewhere. Anastrophe (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We agree then. In the context of the Constitution, the word 'infringed' has a different meaning than that found in the dictionary. The constitutional meaning is closer to" 'reasonably restricted' or 'infringed subject to reasonable exceptions'. With this being the case, about ten usages of the verb infringed in the article are ambiguous and should be clarified. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

we are not entirely in agreement. the majority of the instances of "infringement" within the article are within quotes of various versions of second amendment writings. so it would be more useful to know the specific instances that are troublesome. furthermore, i don't see that the dictionary definition quoted above differs at all from its use in the constitution. again, all rights have the simple, basic restriction i put forth above, because rights only confer upon law-abiding, mentally fit, adults. so the use of infringed within the amendment has the same meaning as "shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech". or "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". these other amendments make adamant statements that the rights will not be restricted - but within the common theme at all times that they do not apply if you are outside the class above. are you in favor of 'reasonable restrictions' on your ability to edit here on wikipedia? for example, being limited to editing here only once a month? or possibly being prosecuted if you utter a curse word on a talk page? some would consider those 'reasonable restrictions' - but they are not. they are only reasonable if you're in the class of people for whom such rights are explicitly not conferred. Anastrophe (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The usages of the verb infringe in the direct quotes, obviously are OK. There are usages as a verb in sentences outside the direct quotes; with the meaning 'reasonably restrict'. Those usages are ambiguous. I don't see your distinction. In a constitutional sense, yes you and I both agree that 'infringe' means subject to reasonable restrictions. But the dictionary sense does not have include 'a subject to reasonable restriction' exemption. Therefore, the use of the verb 'infringe' (excluding the direct quotes) is ambiguous relative to the dictionary. Specifically, the intro uses that verb in its ambiguous sense six times, also several other times down through the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Have any of the federal court decisions dealing with the Second Amendment referred to the word "infringed" (other than quoting the Amendment)? If not, then I suggest waiting for the SCOTUS decision in the Heller case. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait for what? Even Dick Heller argues about "infringement" on page one of his writ[13], and then on page two acknowledges "however else (the District of Columbia) might regulate the possession and use of arms". Thus Heller argues against a complete ban of handguns, not against plain regulation. Clearly, all but the extreme pro-gun fringe agree that a Constitutional definition of 'infringement' allows significant regulation. I have read many of the Heller amicus briefs now, and did not find even one that argued against reasonable firearm regulation. The argument boils down to disagreements about what is reasonable regulation. The Constitutional definition of to infringe is different (and looser) than the dictionary definition. The article suffers from that ambiguity. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree to any notion that the Constitution gives the feds ANY power to regulate arms within any State. The meaning of infringe in NOT debatable. The founders were all intelligent men and knew the English language better then most people posting here. If they wanted the feds to have the power to control guns they would have said so. THEY DID NOT SAY SO! The 10th Amendment PLAINLY states any powers not given, ARE NOT GIVEN! and continue to RESIDE either IN THE STATES or IN THE PEOPLE. What is so FREAKING HARD to understand about that? The militia is a State body and necessary to the power of self-defense expressly RESERVED to the states within the Constitution. ANY regulation of arms for the militia would therefore have to be a STATE power. The militia by US law is every able bodied male from 17 to 45. That is US law and also not debatable. Regarding the Heller case, Washington DC is a NONSTATE territory managed by the feds and and the above does not apply. The feds CAN regulate the militia in such areas since the feds have all RESERVED state powers in NON STATE territories. An additional issue is that the power of SELF-DEFENSE is an innate and unalianable RIGHT of ALL PEOPLE and is so expressed in some STATE Constitutions. Taking away the ability to own ANY guns INFRINGES on that right at both the state level, by disarming the militia, and on the individual level, by disarming the individual. and don't give me any bullshit about how guns cause crime. Almost a million people a year use guns to defend themselves FROM crime and EVERY single study shows that widespread gun ownership deters crime. I HOPE no one here is so brain warped that they believe that a strong military deters military aggression by other countries and is necessary, while at the same time individual gun ownership (the individual version of a strong military) does not deter crimes (aggression) by other individuals and is not necessary.

Article 1 Section 10 US Constitution reserves to States the right to defend themselves.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. 4.156.27.127 (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Have added a new section "Shall not be infringed" with cited pertinent comments by the SCOTUS on this from 1897. This should be a start. Yaf (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Supreme Court has ruled on a number of occasions that the PLAIN EVERYDAY meaning of a law IS the law, unless specific information is available that a secondary meaning was meant. The plain everyday meaning of "shall not be infringed" means exactly THAT.

For those that can't quite grasp the meaning of "infringe". If you own a patent is it OK for the feds to strip you of ALL rights under that patent and therefore let anyone and everyone "infringe" on it?

RE: mentally fit, in the discussion above. Who judges mental fitness? and how do you decide if that person is competent to act as a judge? Is anyone advocating setting up some kind of mental health Gestapo that can strip people of their rights WITHOUT a conviction in a court of law?

I for one am 100% opposed to any such thinking. 4.156.252.90 (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

the concept of mental fitness has been around for centuries, and it is a "reasonable person" test, much along the lines of "plain everyday meaning" you cite for interpretation of the law. nobody has suggested setting up a "mental health gestapo", so that's merely an annoying red-herring. all rights confer upon law-abiding, mentally-fit, adults. period. technically, children don't even have the right to free speech, even though it is more often than not tolerated under the law. as well, children used to be able to buy guns and use them for target practice, but that time has long since passed, unfortunately. Anastrophe (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

A red herring you say? Then what have you to say about "The Veterans Disarmament Act". Welcome to the Mental Health Gestapo - American Style where the men and women who fight for this country get their unalianable rights taken away from them - FOREVER!

www.newswithviews.com/Pratt/larry81.htm 4.156.252.6 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

State law and state constitutions.

I just removed Yaf's insertion of the section on state court cases and state law. While this may be of interest to the issue of gun rights, it is an issue of gun rights under state law. I don't see that the gun rights under state law is relevant to the federal law. I am open to discuss this. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is state interpretations of the Second Amendment. Please read the content before deleting. It is all properly cited. Have restored. Yaf (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

These passages are seem to be copy and pasted from pro-gun websites. I agree that the state courts address state law about state rights to firearms, but this is a federal article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

How is Buzzard considered a pro-gun push? It clearly established the first "collective" statement regarding the Second Amendment. Yaf (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

State v. Buzzard, (4 Ark. 18) was about Arkansas law in Arkansas state court. State jurisdiction, not federal. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

True, it was a state court, but it was the first collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, "The Arkansas high court further declared "That the words "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State", and the words "common defense" clearly show the true intent and meaning of these Constitutions... ". State interpretation of the US 2A was clearly at play here. Yaf (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In play in Arkansas. So what? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"State law about bear arms is pro-gun POV push, see talk please." saltyboatr, this is obnoxious. essentially you are saying that well-cited, historical information cannot be added to the article if it doesn't entirely support your POV. that's intolerable. you are way too quick with the POV tag, and with edit warring. furthermore, "These passages are seem to be copy and pasted from pro-gun websites." - are you prepared to back up that assertion? you're accusing Yaf of plagiarism if so. Anastrophe (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I did some Google searches, and found that Yaf's long insertion appears heavily drawn from pro-gun websites. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your claim is Original Research. And, it is totally false, I might add to claim this addition comes from pro-gun websites. I also consider your claim to be a personal attack. I also do not see how "collective" right content, such as contained in this insertion, can be considered pro-gun. This addition is a balanced historical perspective of the first state law cases dealing with interpretations of the 2A, presenting both "individual" interpretations (e.g., in Kentucky) and "collective" interpretations (e.g., in Arkansas). These formed the historical basis of thought and established the legal foundation regarding the two dominant views about the 2A that exist today. Since then, there have been further bifurcations of these two views into more precisely defined categorizations among the different types of "individual" and "collective" rights, respectively, but details regarding these further subdivisions are not appropriate for a summary article on the 2A. Clearly, it is difficult for readers to understand the current baseline arguments regarding "collective" and "individual" rights relative to the 2A, and it is entirely impossible without including cited historical information in the 2A article in the form of a summary regarding a short history of these interpretations. If I were simply pushing a "pro-gun" agenda, then I counter it would be counterproductive to include both "individual" and "collective" right interpretations such as this insertion contains. Rather, my goal is for this article to present a balanced NPOV approach with appropriate cited facts, that does not push either an "individual" nor a "collective" rights interpretation. A continuous claim of "pro-gun this" and "pro-gun that", assuming every editor is "pro-gun", counter to a "collective" right interpretation, and that any point of view (whether cited or not) that is counter to a "collective" right is {{POV}} and should be tagged immediately without working to resolve differences by participating with wordsmithing the wording, is counterproductive to producing a factual and balanced article. Lets focus on improving the article, not on labeling all the edits of other editors as "pro-gun", or making false claims of plagiarism regarding other editors. Yaf (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any issue with the article as it presently exists? Yaf (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Why should this article expend space on state law? Your section deals with how state court making decisions about state law. The article is already longer than WP standards, and could you please justify why adding a wordy passage, 8,000+ characters, for something tangentially related at best. This comes closer to an issue of trivia about the 2A. You are trying to insert the state law info, make your case why this is relevant enough to justify scarce space in an article about a federal provision. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not about state law. Rather, it is about the first interpretations of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution that happened to have occurred in state courts. These established the dominant baseline thoughts regarding the Second Amendment, that exist to the present; leaving out these historical details clouds the discussion, while also pushing an unbalanced "collective" rights interpretation. Our goal should be to present a neutral point of view, not push any particular agenda. Yaf (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

this article is in an electronic encyclopedia. "space constraints" is a canard, there are articles orders of magnitude longer. this article also discusses the british common-law origins of the second amendment - based on your rationale saltyboatr, we should cull that too, since it doesn't specifically have to do with the federal 2A. Anastrophe (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Heavy reliance on origninalism causes POV skew.

I was asked why I see a POV problem with the recent insertion[14] of early 18th Century 2A commentary from state courts. My observation is that the article suffers from a lack of balance in perspective, with a heavy reliance on the pro-gun theory of Constitutional interpretation known as Originalism. (See also[15].) This POV skew is pervasive throughout the article and also is commonly found on pro-gun websites and publications. This POV skew is presently made worse by Yaf's insertion, which attempts to divine the thoughts of the founders. To attain POV counterbalance against the excessive originalism, either some of the originialist material should be removed, or split out to another article. Alternately counterbalancing material could be added, but the article suffers from too much length already. Hopefully we can work out a mutually acceptable compromise to fix this POV balance problem, and in the mean time while we do this work, I ask that the {{POV}} tag be added back to the article. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Not done (see below) Happy‑melon 15:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Assuming every edit is "pro-gun" is tiresome, and patently false. Writing a balanced Second Amendment article requires content from both "collective" right interpretations as well as "individual" right interpretations, both with citations, to avoid pushing a single point of view of "collective" rights, only. Having only "collective" rights content would itself be a violation of NPOV. The insertion, with cited facts, presents both "individual" and "collective" rights, improving the article, and, I believe, is written in a neutral point of view, with information on both views. Yaf (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You miss my point. The originalist theory of Constitutional interpretation, favored by pro-gun advocates, is too heavily represented in the article. That results in a neutrality imbalance, which violates WP:NPOV policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Originalism has been associated with Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork, who are conservatives, but also with liberals, such as Justice Hugo Black and Akhil Amar. Again, assuming every comment and every edit is somehow "pro-gun" is tiresome. Advocating a widely-held method of interpretation of the US Constitution with proper citations is not a neutrality imbalance. Rather, proposing an unbalanced approach that leaves out cited facts that one editor simply doesn't like is not a balanced method of writing a Wikipedia article, nor is it generally advocated. All major views should be included, with citations of course. Yaf (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You basically admit your bias you wrote above "These established the dominant baseline thoughts regarding the Second Amendment". That is an originalist theory, and the originalist theory is the predominate pro-gun theory. Where is the contextualism in the article? Is there balance? No, far from it. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No, there is nothing about originalism theory written or discussed in the 2A article. However, there are two primary schools of thought regarding interpretations of the 2A; does it pertain to "individual" or "collective" rights. These categories are further broken down into shades of interpretation of the various "individual" rights and the various "collective" rights, but the top level taxonomy remains. I am not proposing that we break this taxonomy down further than the "individual" vs. "collective" rights; the article would grow way too much. But, this fundamental dichotomy is the heart of the question that is presently before the Supreme Court in Heller/Parker, and an historical perspective of how it came to be is needed for proper coverage and understanding of the Second Amendment. Context for Wikipedia is established by citations and references, not by eliminating cited facts because one editor says, "I don't like it." Again, assuming every comment or edit is somehow "pro-gun" is getting progressively more and more tiresome. Can we instead focus on improving the article, rather than pushing a "collective" rights viewpoint to the exclusion of all other viewpoints? Yaf (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, you miss my point. This is not just a 'collective' versus 'individual' question. The foundation of the theory commonly favored by 'pro-gun' activists is that somehow the intent of the founders should be given extra weight. The POV pushing in article is to establish the intent of the founders to advance that cause. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The founders died out in the 1820's. So, from this, can one presume that you object to any mention of the "individual" rights case, which came in 1822 in Kentucky, while some of the founders still lived and presumably had influence? On the other hand, the "collective right" interpretation case was in 1842 in Arkansas, so are you OK with that content, as it was two decades after the founders had died out, and presumably didn't involve the founders? Yaf (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your ignore your footnote 52, where you attempt to directly raise the significance of Kentucky thought, where you use a pure originalist hypothesis. Also, other examples in the article of reliance upon originalist theory, resulting in imbalance in violation of WP:NPOV policy, is the excessive analysis of the writings of George Tucker and Joseph Story. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Saltyboatr, why don't you simply add more material to balance out any bias you feel is present in the article? As the old saying goes, "the answer to free speech is more free speech." --SMP0328. (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

to echo that, lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete wears thin, and warps the intent of NPOV. Anastrophe (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a suggestion that amounts to something like an arms race. The article is already nearly triple the ideal article size, and making the article larger like you suggest seems like bad advice. A better option would be to reach a consensus agreement as to how much 'originalist' versus 'contectualist' material is appropriate for a neutrality balance amount, (probably 50:50) and then edit up and down each type to reach that amount. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This neutrality problem with the article may be hard for you to grasp, but I think Saul Cornell says it well "(T)he Bill of Rights has been cast in terms of a simple dichotomy: either the Second Amendment protects an expansive individual right similar in nature to freedom of the press or it protects a narrow right of the states to maintain a well-regulated militia. ... Framing the meaning of the Second Amendment in terms of such a simple dichotomy fits well with the politics of the modern gun control debate." This article has too long suffered inappropriately from being a pawn in a gun control/gun-rights debate. This insertion[16] of 'orginialist' material by Yaf is just the most recent of a long series of POV pushing edits. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

When you refer to "consensus" regarding this article, it appears to me to be code for you consenting to substantive changes to this article. You don't own this article. Nobody owns any Wikipedia article. Yet you keep dictating which edits are to be permitted and which are to be banned. You are alone here, so the wise course would be for you to compromise instead of acting as if this article is your personal property. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to discuss this, and instead of addressing my concerns or answering my questions, you attack my intentions. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we discuss the use of originalism in this article and the effect on WP:NPOV? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you didn't show how your references to a "consensus" is anything more than meaning that we must get your consent in order to make substantive edits to the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:Consensus involves a discussion. I am still waiting for some discussion about the excess reliance upon an orignialist theory, and epitomized by Yaf's insertion[17] of early state court commentary. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The early state court commentary established the two major viewpoints that exist today regarding the Second Amendment; hence, this history is necessary for understanding the dialogue that exists today regarding the Second Amendment (e.g., Heller/Parker before the Supreme Court, etc.) The article on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is about the Second Amendment, not about various theories of interpretation (originalism, contextualism, etc.) of the US Constitution. It is entirely inappropriate to bog this article down with content regarding multiple theories of interpretation regarding the US Constitution. On the other hand, all major viewpoints regarding the 2A, having significant representation and sourced/cited material, does seem appropriate for inclusion in this article, which are the results of applying these theories. Simply suppressing one set of views and cites that only one editor finds "offensive" is not going to resolve the issue. Rather, insertion of cited material necessary to balance the coverage is the best way to resolve any perceived imbalance in the article. On the other hand, if there are no sources dating back to the time periods of concern regarding alternative historical interpretations, then perhaps that is indicative that such theories do not have verifiable cites, or are not widely supported, or are of modern origin unrelated to the historical record. That said, such points of view, provided there are reliable sources/cites, are still entirely appropriate for another section that could be titled, say, Modern commentary about the Second Amendment. This way, all major points of view would be present, assuming, of course, that references necessary to support such modern claims exist. Consensus is about meeting the majority of editors concerns and covering the major topics that pertain to the subject matter well; consensus is not about skewing an article to reflect one editor's unwillingness to recognize legitimately cited and sourced statements, or to skewing an article to avoid having one unwilling editor have to provide difficult-to-cite-material that perhaps does not exist. It also appears that all editors who have commented above are OK with the present wording, save one. This looks like consensus to me. Yaf (talk) 16:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, you miss my point. Instead you argue against a straw man. The fact remains at present, the bulk of the article builds from the premise that there should be a strong weight given to the intent of the founders about the Second Amendment. This concept, that the intent of the founders should be given heavy weight, is typical of arguments used by the pro-gun POV. There are other methods as to how to interpret a constitution, these other methods disproportionately represented in the article causing this neutrality problem. Could we start by discussing that excess or deficient use of the various constitutional theories might skew POV? You skip this step and jump right in as to why your use of extra heavy use of an originalist theory is better. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And specifically, I disagree that those state courts were ruling on the federal Second Amendment. Obviously, they were ruling on state law, and that is off topic here. I agree that those state courts were ruling on a state based right to bear arms, but this article is about the Second Amendment, which is not about a state based right, but rather a federal right. You are confusing the two, as is commonly done to push a pro-gun POV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

by this rationale, all mention of the british common-law origins of the 2A must be culled, because they are discussing things that aren't the 2A proper. furthermore, the article does not not make the POV distinction that one interpretation has 'strong weight'. the article cites historical sources in discussing the history of the 2A. if you have historical sources that differ, add them to the article. if the historical record supports a different interpretation than the contemporary intepretations, then please add it. the historical additions however must be given appropriate weight to their historical prevalence. Anastrophe (talk) 18:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, straw man arguments. The origin of something is different from the subsequent. Is section 12 of the Liberian Constitution on topic? In Liberia, similar to Kentucky and Arkansas, a right followed subsequent to the 2A. All three are similar, subsequent and therefore tangential at best. And, you neglect to address my question in yellow above. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

a common "anti-gun POV" (that in response to saltyboatr's repeated, offensive non-sequiturs that 'xyz is typical of a pro-gun POV push') is that the second amendment confers a "right" to the states (ignoring for the moment that govt cannot be conferred rights, only powers). since this argument claims that the right is held by the states, then discussion of how various states have historically interpreted that conferral of "right" is directly relevant. furthermore, please stop with hectoring repetitions of 'you didn't answer my question'. in fact, i did, indirectly. if you have historical sources that balance a perceived POV to the historical record, please add them. NPOV is not an excuse to remove properly sourced, relevant material. it is your opportunity to add balancing material. Anastrophe (talk) 20:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, you don't seem to understand my point about skewed reliance on different types of constitutional theory affecting POV balance. Your favor of 'historical' mirrors an effort to infer the intent of the founders is part of an originalist constitutional theory. If you answered my question indirectly, I don't see it. Could you answer directly? Also, with an article triple the size recommended, your suggestion to 'just add more' doesn't necessarily make sense and runs contrary to the policy. Per that policy, the rule of thumb is that article of this size "Almost certainly should be divided up". Explain please why 8000 characters should be expended on state law? Could a state law section be split out? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

you are citing a guideline, not a policy. beyond that, i refuse to indulge in any more of your WP:SOUP rhetorical methods. i've been down this road before, where i respond, and you continue to hector that i did not. it is unconstructive, and contentious. i'd rather slam my hand in the door. Anastrophe (talk) 21:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If editors are unwilling to discuss this, there is no way achieve consensus, as WP:Consensus is "reached through discussion...". SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

editors are not obligated to indulge WP:SOUP masqueraded as discussion, nor does consensus mean that "if but one editor disagrees, there is no consensus". Anastrophe (talk) 21:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A quote from WP:Consensus:

Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence, silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community. In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected.

When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite reasoning, cooperation, and if necessary, negotiation on talk pages, in an attempt to develop and maintain a neutral point of view which consensus can agree upon.

So when are there "disagreements"? Does one person not agreeing with the edits of others mean there must be a negotiation? If so, then SaltyBoatr effectively owns this article. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome, just that everyone can live with the outcome. SaltyBoatr, can you live with the historical record cited in the article with Reliable and Verifiable sources, with the additional outcome for you to add balancing cited material supporting your preferred views, instead of asking for the deletion of material that you do not like? If so, then we have reached consensus. On the other hand, if the discussion that has been going on on this talk page ad nauseum is not considered discussion by you, then yes, there is a problem. Yaf (talk) 22:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we agree on the issue highlighted in my question in yellow above? SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Question is a non-sequitur, relative to the proposal I made. Yaf (talk) 22:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't accept your proposal. Now please discuss the issue marked in yellow above. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I hereby propose that a consensus has been reached. The article should be released from full protection. If SaltyBoatr attempts to alter the article in defiance of this consensus, he should be appropriately disciplined. If SaltyBoatr is necessary for there to be a consensus, then we should still release the article from full protection and then rename the article "SaltyBoatr's article on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution." --SMP0328. (talk) 22:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. if user saltyboatr wishes to add well-researched/sourced/cited material pertaining to the 2A contrary to yaf's recent, excellent quality additions, he's welcome to do so. insistence that well-written, properly sourced material be deleted is an abuse of the spirit of WP:NPOV. Material that accurately represents a POV - in fact bolstering it with high quality/value sources - is not fodder for deletion. the fact that yaf's contribution also contains a cite that supports saltyboatr's POV further emphasizes that the addition isn't biased - except by the historical facts. Anastrophe (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment, it seems that if you are right you could then directly answer my questions above, and make your case using the power of logical reason. Instead you seek to 'indirectly respond', and attempt to appeal to the illusion that a popular vote without real discussion is a "consensus". Let the power of reason carry your logic. Stop evading my questions. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

you are attempting to reframe the debate to meet your own narrow definitions, in order to preclude consensus, so as i've said before, i'm not going to indulge your WP:SOUP tactics. Anastrophe (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you read this? This is not 'my own narrow definitions', but rather a mainstream well sourced concept. Why won't you discuss? I find your WP:SOUP accusation to be offensive and a personal attack. Are you (and the other editors around here) willing to resolve this dispute? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

and it continues. for every statement, there is a tangential "question" to reframe what is under discussion. my plain wording in response to yours means this (since apparently it has to be spelled out with excruciating precision - though i'd wager there will be more soup in response): you are insisting that the issue in question for consensus is your statement - posed as a rhetorical - "Could we start by discussing that excess or deficient use of the various constitutional theories might skew POV?". i, and other editors, reject that narrow definition of the consensus discussion, primarily because your question has been answered numerous times, yet you refuse to even acknowledge the answers - merely repeating the hectoring "you haven't answered my question". please stop. this is the very definition of WP:SOUP. several editors here have specifically addressed your "question", yet we get more questions, and challenges claiming your question hasn't been answered, in response to our answers. my post a few up - with the bold type Agreed - frames my response to the issue in contention. it answers your "question". more to follow.Anastrophe (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that amounts to a 'no' answer, and thereby puts a focus on the foundation of our disagreement. I hold that the method of constitutional analysis theory affects point of view. (See here[18] for cite.) You feel that it does not. It is you (and Yaf) who are trying to insert the material. You have the burden of proof. Explain why your method constitutional analysis theory can be imbalanced in the article at the same time as being consistent with the WP:NPOV policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You jest. The issue is that an over reliance upon an originalist theory of constitutional analysis which causes an POV neutrality problem. Yafs insertion of his 'state court' commentary has two fundamental problems 1) That it tips the already uneven use of originalist material further off a neutral balance point. And 2) that it pertains to state issues and is off topic in a federal 2A article.

(There is also, I guess, another dispute as to whether there even is a neutrality dispute.) So far, I have been unable to get any discussion of this 'originalist' neutrality problem, so we are far from completion of a consensus process . Discussion needs to happen in a consensus process and it has not yet happened. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion needs to happen with a willingness by all editors to accept that alternate views exist, with historical citations being permitted that establish when these differing views occurred and that they did occur. Framing the discussion in terms of orginalism versus contextualism is a false flag argument, attempting to downplay the framework of cited content, to favor instead the push of a POV that wishes to suppress the historical evidence in favor of pushing a "collective rights forever and only" POV to the exclusion to all other major views. As long as an editor "denies the holocaust", for example, the same argument is often used to deny WW II history regarding the Germans. Lets start from cited facts, without trying to impose a slanted POV into the article. Lets focus on cited content, rather than whether or not an article bows to a single viewpoint. If an editor wishes to insert content supporting a "collective rights" view, that is fine, with cited content. On the other hand, denying the "individual rights" view pre-dates the "collective rights" view, or that it should be suppressed, is not a proper way to develop a balanced article. Yaf (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

edit request

{{editprotected}}

Until this dispute is resolved, I ask that the {{POV}} tag be added back to the article. The tag was inappropiately removed[19] 3 minutes prior to page protection by Adams10, with the edit summary "(rv: though it's disputed, there is NEVER going to be a concensus." It is also notable that Adams10 is a declared partisan in this NPOVdispute, but he has since not participated in any discussion to resolve the dispute. The fact that a NPOV dispute exists was known even to Adams10 while removing the POV tag! Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

 Not done The presence of full protection should be more than enough warning that something is wrong with the article. Please read meta:The Wrong Version for a light-hearted explanation of why the protecting admin did not modify the page (as mandated by WP:PPOL). If you think the page protection was inappropriate, you should post on WP:RFP. Happy‑melon 15:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

furthermore, i formally object to the blanket use of the POV tag at the top of a long article. the POV tag should be applied to the section or sections the editor has a concern about. current use of the POV tag recently has been as a 'POV bomb' that gets dropped the minute this editor objects to a particular edit. it's a form of edit warring. Anastrophe (talk) 17:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, except in the cases where the POV issue is pervasive throughout the article. Like in this instance, there is disproportional use of the originalist hypothesis throughout the article causing a POV neutrality problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

um, no. you're ignoring that you've been dropping the POV tag like a bomb for individual changes to the article. a single edit does not make the entire article POV. reserve use of the tag for the specific sections you have a problem with. Anastrophe (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments of 4.156.x.x

The above anon has posted on this talk page more than once, but none of his comments are related to this article. Instead, he is simply making editorials regarding the Second Amendment and other issues. I believe that the editorials of 4.156.x.x (appears to be the same person) should be removed from this talk page. I tried twice to remove one of his editorials, but he put it back both time. I don't want to run afoul of the Three-revert rule, so I've started this new section. How do all of you feel about this? --SMP0328. (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Somebody thought enough of what I had to say to add a section on the word "infringe". Have you been as lucky?

4.156.252.6 (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

My comments are not about what you said, but where you said it. A Talk page is for discussing its article, not the subject of the article. For example, a Talk page for an article about a product is not where a review of that product should be placed; it's for discussing the structure and content of that particular article. --SMP0328. (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You abjection ARE about what I said. The subject of the article is the second amendment, the content therefore is about the second amendment. A discussion on the PLAIN meaning of the second amendment is therefore acceptable as this page. The second amendment by PLAIN reading is a prohibition on the federal government BARRING it from disarming state militias. Since every able bodied male aged 17 to 45 is a member of the militia BY US LAW then taking away the right to KEEP and bear ams of any such person is contrary to the second amendment. The fact that you don't LIKE that point of view or don't agree with it, or BOTH, doesn't not make that point of view less valid.

4.156.252.86 (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to what you are saying. I object to where you are saying it. This Talk page is about the article, not the Second Amendment. Do you notice how everyone else is discussing what should be the content and structure of the article. That's what you do on a Talk page. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

i'd propose that it's time to archive this talk page anyway, which will have the dual effect of setting aside such editorials, then future editorials can be dealt with individually - when they'll be more apparent than when inserted into the middle of the page. just a thought though.Anastrophe (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Militia

I have stated several times that the militia BY US LAW (US Code Chapter 10) is composed of every able bodied male aged 17 to 45. I ask that this be included in the article as a relevant item.

Link to US Code of laws showing that that definition still holds. The law was last revised in 2006. It also looks like I was partially wrong as "under 45" means 44. Many states have their own laws defining the militia which differ from the federal version.

text of the main body of the law follows from -- uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt

-EXPCITE-

   TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
   Subtitle A - General Military Law
   PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
   CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-

   Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-

     (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
   males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
   313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
   declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
   and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
   National Guard.
     (b) The classes of the militia are - 
       (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
     and the Naval Militia; and
       (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
     the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
     Naval Militia.

4.156.252.86 (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

informal vote for consensus; please answer 'yes' or 'no'

should the material added by user Yaf concerning historical state interpretations of the 2A be deleted from the article?

• No. Anastrophe (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Yes. Not actually state interpretations of the 2A, but of similar clauses in state Constitutions. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• No. State Constitutions usually use similar wording to the Second Amendment. Any differences from the Second Amendment could simply be noted in the article, rather than removing the material. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Yes SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• No The text clearly contains state interpretations of the Second Amendment of the United State Constitution; "as it existed at the time" for Bliss, and "both constitutions" for Buzzard clearly state that these cases texts refer to the Second Amendment in addition to being interpretations of state law. The controversy of the dichotomy of "individual" vs. "collective" rights regarding the 2A makes no sense without an historical perspective from whence it came. Content should stay. Yaf (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

commentary on informal vote above

WP:CONSENSUS is not obtained by counting votes, but by weighing arguments. Using just yes or no violates WP:VOTE — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

what part of "informal" isn't clear? i made no claim that this is formal, binding, irrevocable, or final. Anastrophe (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:VOTE suggests you should add "... or helpful." Restricting explanations to a sentence may be helpful, but suggesting that there not be any explanation is not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the restriction, while still requesting people answer "yes" or "no." Once a "yes" or a "no" is given, a short comment could be added to explain the vote. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That's quite reasonable. We have a number of editors who would add multiple paragraph explanations. (As an aside, is briefs an oxymoron?) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

i brought the informal vote because there has been significant discussion of the issues, with thus far one editor using obstructionist tactics to insist consensus cannot be found - by either moving the target whenever discussion engages - or by insisting that the existing discussion isn't really discussion of the issues. as has been pointed out, consensus does not require the explicit agreement of every involved editor. Anastrophe (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

further in response to your commentary in your informal vote. the reason the material is useful is this: if we presume that the second amendment 'confers a right' to states for the arming of their militias, then it is directly relevant to an examination of that interpretation to describe the manner in which the states historically responded to that conferral. Anastrophe (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between "significant discussion" measured in the number of words, and a productive discussion. Am I wrong for wanting direct answers to questions asked? Questions with answers, leading to a better understanding of an opponent's point of view, that is what makes a productive discussion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It is wrong to engage in "bring me another stone", ad infinitum, type questions, to keep an article perpetually in turmoil without providing any significant or productive edits. Likewise, since when does an editor become an opponent[20] instead of just being another productive editor. Your bias shows regarding your attitude towards all other editors with any edits that add cited content that doesn't precisely agree with your "collective" rights and militia-only-based POV. Yaf (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me. From my perspective the talk page discussion these last three days about my POV concerns has been a argument over whether or not we should discuss my POV concerns. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Article length

The article is nearly triple the recommended length. Can we discuss splitting out portions? SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Once the Supreme Court rules in the Heller case, a large amount of the article will have to be either reformed or removed. To do so now would lead to further charges of NPOV violations. --SMP0328. (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly a thinly-veiled approach attempting to removing any content that goes counter to a "collective" rights POV. Yaf (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

i agree that the article is quite long. i disagree that material should be split out, or that length is implicitly a problem. my recommendation would be that - rather than culling material en masse, existing material be condensed. saltyboatr has made no secret of his desire to remove material he believes is POV. that is an argument i reject, because most of the article deals with historical fact, and if the history favors one view over another, that's the history that must be told - you don't bend history to maintain "NPOV" - just as, for example, you don't cull examples of brutal racism from the history of the US simply because today we reject segregation, lynchings, etc. - to do so would be to misrepresent the historical facts. so, that said, my suggestion is simply one of condensation. many of the arguments and examples in the article could be written with greater brevity, without actually removing valid, cited material. all that said, there are article length guidelines on wikipedia, but we are not constrained as we would be in a paper encyclopedia. on a technical basis, the length of an article is less of an issue than is template and citation transclusion, which dramatically affects load times. for example, time how long it takes to load the Barack Obama article, compared with loading this article. both articles are about the same size, but the former takes a fair bit longer to load than this article due to the templates and large number of cites (as i write this the load times aren't too bad, but that's because it's sunday morning, and WP activity is low). Anastrophe (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

All three of you are painting this as a POV battle. How can we proceed with this as the basis? Perhaps? SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

so, rather than discussing any of the merits of the thoughtful arguments i just made, you'd rather meta-analyze it, reframe it, and take it to dispute resolution. once again, an exacting example of WP:SOUP. this is becoming incredibly tiresome. you are unwilling to discuss the issues, not "us". we have one editor who changes the discussion any time discussion ensues. a moving target that can never be hit. perhaps dispute resolution is the way to go, as it will shed greater light on these obstructionist methods, and perhaps bring some censure for abusing policy. Anastrophe (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. I ignored your argument, because I confess my discouragement at your refusing to discuss the issue of your use of the originalist method of constitutional analysis. In your post of 18:43, you argue the merit of "the historical facts", as if they should be given special weight. This is a form of originalist theory. The article is already heavy with this. You are presuming that heavy use of an originalist theory is irrelevant to POV balance. I disagree. Are you willing to discuss this? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

ahem. need i point out, again, that this is WP:SOUP? this section is discussing the length of the article. i have never ignored or refused to discuss the issue of originalist theory, you've simply refused to accept or acknowledge the discussion. i am not arguing that any theory should be given special weight at all, for that matter, i've not used 'originalist method of constitutional analysis' as i've added no material pertaining to that to the article. the material in question regarding the states presents historical facts, from which the reader can come to conclusions. but again - we're now discussing here matters from other sections of the talk page - the target has been moved. i can no longer indulge this madness. Anastrophe (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue of WP:SIZE remains. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Originalist theory

Anastrophe writes "i have never ignored or refused to discuss the issue of originalist theory". I must have misunderstood you here then[21]. Stop your repetitious SOUP smears please, I find them to be offensive, and a waste of bandwidth. Try some WP:AGF. If you have discussed the issue of originalist theory, show me the diffs please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

None of my edits have made any attempt to frame the 2A in terms of originalism or contextualism. Rather, I have focused on writing content using cited historical facts, with reliable sources, for a largely historical article regarding the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution that dates from 1791. Claiming that all such cited facts from reliable historical sources push originalist theory, and should be removed because these are historical sources, ignores the history of the 2A. Claiming that contextualism should be used to remove reliable statements based on reliable historical sources is an attempt to suppress the history associated with the 2A. Why can't we focus on cited content, rather than trying to mis-frame the argument in terms of esoteric theories of US Constitutional analysis. To attempt to frame the discussion in terms of "originalist" vs. "contextualist" theory is Original Research at best, and malice at worst, that attempts to suppress the use of cited, factual statements. Wikipedia is not censored, neither should our history be censored. An editor doesn't have to agree with all of the cited historical views and court rulings of our country (racism, slavery, Dred Scott decision rulings, etc.), but denying the history even exists is a false flag attempt to warp our collective history through deleting facts. Lets return to writing an article with cited historical facts, not push an agenda to suppress such facts. Yaf (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unaware that when you focus your writing content on the historical facts, you are giving emphasis and weight to an originalist view of constitutional interpretation. It is very possible that this process is unintended, and/or subconscious. Your intent doesn't matter as much as the effect of your pattern of edits. This appears to cause a systemic bias, where editors like you, bring their experience and learned conceptions about the 2A tend to skew the POV based on a implied importance of 'historical analysis'. You seem to have trouble seeing your own bias, which is not an uncommon human trait.

Specifically, address your footnote 52, which plainly is an attempt to give importance to the intent of the founders. Pervasive throughout the article is an subtext of heightened importance of the intent of the originators, hence the name 'originalist theory'. This skews the POV neutral balance point of the article. By a rough estimate, about 2/3rds of the article plays to the originalist method of constitutional interpretation.

This is not original research, see here[22]. I take offense at your suggestion of malice. And it is a straw man argument that I favor hiding history, all I am doing is pointing out that the article suffers from a skewed POV in violation of the WP:NPOV policy which has resulted from a too heavy emphasis on the importance of the originators. A skew made worse by your recent edit. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

How much of the article do you want deleted? Do you feel that the original intent of the Second Amendment is irrelevant, or simply that it's overrepresented in the article? --SMP0328. (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not advocating to delete properly sourced and non-OR content, as I think that the obvious solution is to split out portions of the article in to a detailed article History of the Second Amendment or some similar name. I am flexible and prepared to collaborate on the details etc.. As a start, I suggest that Yaf's recent commentary from early state courts should be split out. Probably also the "Early Commentary" Joseph Story and George Tucker material. This has a dual benefit of bringing down the ratio of originalist theory material neutrality imbalance, plus would bring us more in line with the WP:SIZE guidelines. No I believe that orignialist theory on the Second Amendment is very relevant, I just have a problem when it is disproportionately represented in the article skewing the POV balance. SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

if an article entitled History of the Second Amendment were created pursuant to the above, would we have your word that you would not attack that article after its creation as being POV and imbalanced because it didn't adequately represent contemporary theories you favor? i ask this because you state that doing so would have the "benefit of bringing down the ratio of originalist theory material neutrality imbalance" - but then, once all that information is in the History of the Second Amendment, it would implicitly then be even more 'imbalanced' than this article - and fodder for more POV-bombing. note that i'm not advocating creation of such an article - and further, i would strongly object if this implied removal of all of the historical information from this article, which would put this article at odds with those for the other amendments. for that matter, splitting off the history based upon a POV objection is what is commonly characterized here on WP as a "POV fork", which is generally disrecommended. Anastrophe (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a History of the Second Amendment article would not have the same 'originalist theory' concerns as the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article because by defintion, the 'history' article would focus entirely on 2A history. Predicting the future is impossible, but I am optimistic that this could easily serve as a path to workable compromise and solution to this POV dispute. And besides, we still need to deal with a WP:SIZE article split-out and this compromise could solve both problems. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So, SaltyBoatr's proposal is to remove all "OR content" that is simply any and all cited "historical facts" that happen to be counter to his POV, which he claims as being roughly "2/3rds" of the present article and that he states should be removed, or moved away, in a prohibited POV-fork. This isn't a question regarding the veracity of any cited source, or a discussion of improving citations. Rather, it is simply instead the rantings of an editor that wishes to impose his sole POV (without historical facts, I might add) into the article, with essentially the attitude that the cited historical facts be damned. Posting a non-reliable source here, then claiming it is relevant, is bordering on malice. On the other hand, advocating that we should not use cited historical facts in writing an article on the historical Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, is clearly disruptive, being contrary to the policies of Wikipedia to evaluate editors' content on the basis of cited reliable sources, questioning any content that is not cited, and is malice. Yet, with SaltyBoatr, it is not the citation that can be questioned as being reliable that is at issue, instead it is his sense of what is important that is important, contrary to cited reliable source content. Likewise, calling other editors "opponents" as SaltyBoatr has done is entirely unacceptable. Similarly, calling my contributions plagiarism and claiming that they are copied from "pro-gun websites" is likewise a personal attack. No more arguing; we should cease to feed the troll... I move that we take this to formal mediation, leaving the present article locked down until resolved, as arguing for the inclusion of high-quality, reliable, historical source data with cites is presently not permitted by one very disruptive editor. It is this disruption that is preventing the resolution of the present lock down of the article, preventing it from being improved. Enough is enough. Let's not feed the troll. What say other editors? Yaf (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ease up Yaf. We are both Wikipedia editors. We need to find a way to cooperate. We both have good intentions. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

as i said before, i believe the abuses of policy and obstructionist methods being used here need to be exposed, so i'm in favor of yaf's proposal. Anastrophe (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Is "formal mediation" a disciplinary procedure or simply a way to resolve disputes? --SMP0328. (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mediation. For an example, see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hunting weapon and especially Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hunting weapon, which is where the mediation discussion was conducted. Yaf (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is #4 on the list of Mediators are not:

Mediators are not advocates. Mediators will not take sides in the dispute or promote one person's point of view or request over those of another person.

So I'm not sure if they would change anything. They won't tell SaltyBoatr, or any of us, that he's/we're wrong. I'm willing to go to mediation if it will bring about a resolution of this dispute, but not convinced that would happen with mere mediation. What we need is arbitration. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration can only be pursued after formal mediation fails. See: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. ArbCom should be the last step, not the next step. Yaf (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

With the understanding that if mediation fails we will then go to arbitration, I agree to Yaf's motion. This has to end. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been in enough mediations that I know that they can be tremendously helpful. I would welcome the help of a mediator, yes. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

How and when will mediation commence? --SMP0328. (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Interested parties should go here to sign up to participate in mediation. Yaf (talk) 06:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Small change to "Creation" section

The last part of the following sentence should be changed.

The right to keep and bear arms was not to be inserted in Article I, Section 8 that specifies Congress's power over the militia.

Congress in not given power over the militia in Section 8. The OBLIGATIONS of Congress are spelled out in that section. Those obligations are "To provide for organizing, ARMING and disciplining and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States.

organizing refers to the way an army is organized in companies, battalions, regiments, brigades etc.

arming is self evident

disciplining refers to military law and punishments for infractions of such

"governing such part of them" implies providing leadership, probably at a higher then state level if multiple state militias are called into service.

A more accurate rendition would be

The right to keep and bear arms was not to be inserted in Article I, Section 8 that specifies Congress's obligations to provide support for the militia.

Needless to say gun control laws impacting members of the militia and passed by Congress are in direct opposition to the obligation of Congress to ARM the militia. 4.156.27.68 (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What you say is interesting. When this article is released from full protection, feel free to place your clarification in the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Pro-gun bias in sourcing for Yaf's "state court" section.

Looking at Yaf's eleven footnotes for his edit. I see two (#52 and #54) that are pure editorial commentary, and likely in violation of WP:NOR. I see six that make use of primary sources, four pointing to case law which are obviously primary sources(#50, #53, #56 and #59). And two (#51 and #58) that make use of a Senate report, and/or Senate testimony. I object to the use of a political hearing because it is a primary source and because it is a political action making a political statement and obviously lacks a 'reputation for fact checking and accuracy' as required by the WP:SOURCES policy. At the very least, Yaf should provide evidence that politicians have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and I am skeptical. I don't doubt that these men are honorable, but just that their actions are de facto political. I don't see that political documents are considered as reliable sources in WP:V, so it appears on its face to be a policy violation. I also tend to view political documents as being primary sources, in violation of WP:NOR.

The remaining three footnotes use secondary sourcing, but all three come from pro-gun websites, Footnote #54 comes from the website of the Second Amendment Foundation run by Alan Gottlieb a well known pro-gun and anti- tax political activist. The footnote #57 is cryptic, but I can guess it comes from the 'GiveMeLiberty.org' website of the We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, which clearly tends towards the pro-gun POV, and is sympathetic to the tax protest movement and involves Robert L. Schulz a well known Libertarian political activist who is obviously slanted towards an extreme POV. The third [footnote #60] comes from the website of Guncite.org which is a well known pro-gun website, totally anonymous, and obviously failing to meet the standards of WP:V.

Of course I acknowledge that this is not proof that these three websites are not reliable or not neutral per WP:Policy, but I don't have the burden of proof here. The editor seeking to insert the material has the burden of proof. Though I am clearly being reasonable to ask questions about the correlation between Yaf's edit and the use cites from the pro-gun websites at the extreme fringe of the POV and of dubious reliability. Therefore, I am reasonable to question the neutrality balance, per WP:NPOV. I would welcome constructive discussion of this appearance of lack of neutral balance and questionable reliability in this edit. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It is so very curious then, that SaltyBoatr inserted the same text into another article, especially if it were so objectionable, namely here and has no problems with the same text. But, as Mark Twain once observed, it is a weak mind that can think of only one way to spell a word, or, as perhaps Sam Clemens would say in today's application, to write an encyclopedia :-) Yaf (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What is your point? That I am not perfectly consistent? This is an ad hominem diversion, trying to focus on me personally instead of defending your edit. You have a burden of proof here. For what it is worth, I have remorse about moving that text last November, as I should have criticized it then too, as it has the same WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV problems then as it does now. I did not write that text, I just relocated it to the Right to bear arms article where it is more 'on topic'. For what it is worth, you and I discussed the move of that text[23] and you liked the idea then. Why do you find it so urgent to duplicate it back here in the 2A article now? If nothing else, it is redundant. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What happened is that the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari on Parker, and conditions changed. The issue of "individual" vs. "collective" rights should now be covered in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article directly, and this background is important enough now to be included in the article. When conditions change, I change my mind. What do you do? Yaf (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So, then you have the burden of proof, please make your case[24]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Case has already been made. In summary, there is a widely recognized dichotomy in terms of whether the right protected by the 2A is a "collective" or an "individual" right. Both points of view have a long-standing history, with the "individual right" pre-dating the "collective" interpretations that only commenced with "Buzzard" in Arkansas, and grew with the additional early 20th Century dated details mentioned and cited in the insertion. The histories of both are needed in the article to provide readers with a better understanding from whence the dichotomy originated, and to what it refers. Yaf (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The case has already been made? I don't think so. Show me the diffs. SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This also begs a new question: If your reason is because this info is important due to Parker/Heller, why not put this info in the Parker/Heller section? SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The historical information is necessary to understand the terminology of "individual right" contained in the Heller/Parker question that has been framed by the Justices in granting the case certiorari, and of the discussion that is currently at play in the media regarding points of view that support either a "collective right" or an "individual right" in amicus briefs that have been filed, depending on which side of the debate the brief was filed. Without an understanding of the historical origins of both of these points of view, a typical reader has no hope of understanding what the argument and dialogue is all about. We owe it to readers of this article to provide context behind the dichotomy. The historical data, however, is not in and of itself appropriate for insertion in the section that currently covers Heller/Parker; it is more appropriate for insertion in a section on the historical foundations behind the interpretations of the 2A, to provide sufficient background to understand the historical underpinnings. Also, it is worth noting that the present insertion is but a subset of the text that was originally in the 2A article, being but a summary. There is no need to belabor the details of the various interpretations of "individual right" and "collective right", differences of which exist in many bifurcations from just the two broad top level categories into more finely-divided interpretations of "individual" and "collective". Such fine-grained detail is probably not appropriate to a top-level article such as this one. Yaf (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet, you are trying to do this in such a way that violates WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

if cited material is to be culled if it references a 'pro gun' site, then we'd best remove the cited material that references 'pro control' sites, yes? so, "Legal Community Against Gun Violence" - out. "Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence" - out. "Open Society Institute" - out. furthermore, the senate hearing testimony is not a 'primary source', you're warping the meaning of the term. the material was published in California Political Review, and is archived and available at the UCLA School of Law.Anastrophe (talk) 06:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

so once again, the page is protected. i've never run across any editor on wikipedia who is quicker to resort to this tactic, ever. yaf made what appeared to be a good faith edit to trim for length, particularly the useless list of questions, which are actually quite inappropriate to an encyclopedia. but no, no editing will be allowed on this article without saltyboatr's blessing, quite clearly. this is untenable gaming of the system. Anastrophe (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not unreasonable in asking that Yaf's unilateral large deletions of text, with significant effect on the POV balance of the article, be discussed first on the talk page. I asked for this and Yaf refused to discuss his deletions, and reverted. Page protection is appropriate and preferable over edit warring. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

let's be honest here: you reverted yaf's edits, not the other way around. as i said, you're abusing policy to hold this and other articles hostage. you will not allow any significant editing on firearms-related articles unless you vet the changes. Anastrophe (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

furthermore, what about your unilateral large deletions of the state issues that you requested protection on this article last time? your claim was that the article is just 'too long', so the material needed to be removed. if someone other than you deletes material - well, that can't possibly be allowed, as it 'changes the POV balance' - though you provided no basis for that claim. intolerable gaming of the system, as i said. Anastrophe (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Footnote Correction

{{editprotected}} (Correcting a bad reference shouldn't be considered a POV dispute, but if it is, this can wait.) Yaf (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 26, dealing with the Noah Webster quote "...force superior..." is mis-attributed to Federalist #46, which was by PUBLIUS and not by Noah Webster. The correct reference should be to Noah Webster, changing the reference from Federalist #46 to:

<ref> A Citizen of America (Noah Webster) October 10, 1787 Pamphlet: An Examination into the leading principles of the Federal Constitution; The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights 1787-1792, 2nd Ed., Editor. David E. Young, Golden Oak Books, 2001, ISBN 0-9623664-3-9, pp. 38-41.</ref>

This applies to the following, only:

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[26]"

Thanks. Yaf (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't pointing directly to a 1787 document (regardless if you point to the reprint) the same a pointing to a primary source? Unfortunately, you still persist in working on your originalist theory material in the article. Wouldn't it be better to engage in a discussion about the effect on POV balance caused by disproportionate use of originalist theory material in the article? In short, I rather request that the offending passage just be removed (or relocated to a sandbox), pending resolution of the POV discussion and dispute. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please answer.

nothing in that usage in the article violates PSTS. what is your point? Anastrophe (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A direct quote of Noah Webster in 1787 is use of a primary source. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

quite correct. what is your point? you seem to be under the mistaken impression that primary sources are prohibited. they are not. the usage in the article makes no synthesis or other OR. it merely describes the plain english text. that's entirely legitimate usage of a primary source. please stop bringing up red herring arguments to forestall progress on this article. Anastrophe (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See the prelude clause just prior to the footnote 26 quote, "One example given by Webster of a "power" that the people could resist was that of a standing army:" This is interpretive of the primary source, in violation of WP:NOR, and is using the theory of originalism contributing to the POV neutrality imbalance. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, how can I be more clear? I am questioning POV balance caused by the heavy reliance on quotes from the founding fathers, which serve to advance the POV theory that the intent of the originators of the Second Amendment should be give an extra heavy weight. Yes, you are attempting to correct a 'bad reference', but the coincidence is remarkable. Repeatedly, you are focusing on your 'originalist theory' references. Instead, lets discuss and resolve our dispute. A good faith gesture would be to relocate the excess of 'originalist theory' material from the article to achieve POV balance. With such a compromise, our dispute could be resolved today, and the protection block lifted immediately. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

saltyboatr, how can the other editors of this article be more clear? you are attempting to foist your contemporary views of the meaning of the second amendment upon the historical background of the amendment, essentially attempting to rewrite history (by insisting it not be acknowledged) in order to cram your particular POV onto the article. you are holding this article hostage, and violating - if not the letter - the spirit of consensus, by trying to WP:OWN any content changes within the article. your suggestion that the history of the second amendment be culled from this article because you consider it POV is specifically and clearly disrecommended by policy, as a "POV fork". there is no "compromise" at work in your efforts here - what you call "compromise" constitutes you making demands to which other editors must accede. Anastrophe (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Enough of the personal attacks, please, SaltyBoatr. This quote was put into the article 3 years ago. [25] And, it wasn't put there by me. Hence, this is not my "originalist theory" footnote that needs a citation correction, but rather what needs correcting are WP:OWN issues that seem to exist regarding this article. No one editor owns this article. No editor has the right to keep this article in perpetual lock down through initiating an edit war each and every time it comes out of lock down. For example, in your recent revert edit warring that caused a lock down, you reverted a punctuation change I had made per the MoS, that should have been no problem. But, it apparently didn't appear I was editing in good faith in correcting this "hallowed" punctuation. The dispute could be resolved today for sure, provided that ownership of the article was relinquished to the Wikipedia Community at large, to permit constructive edits to take place by all editors, instead of only one editor. Yaf (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I get it that you just want me to go away. Rather, can we find a compromise that solves the POV balance problem that I have identified? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have worked at length to assume good faith, even carrying on a dialogue on this issue [26] with you, while addressing another discussion into which you jumped. It was in the course of that discussion that I realized the citation was incorrect on the present article, while verifying a reference, and so I identified it for correction using {{editprotected}} procedures here. But, your "ownership" of the article precluded this. It is impossible to re-write history to solve a perceived POV balance problem, through ignoring history, ignoring references, ignoring citations, ignoring quotations, and the like. No compromise can re-write history, or delete history, through either using "newspeak" or other 1984'ish techniques. An historical topic deserves historical cites and references. It is neither fitting or proper to attempt to rewrite an article on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution starting only around, say, 1994, while ignoring the history from the 18th Century until 1994, to address perceived POV problems that do not exist outside one editor's mind. It would be equivalent to rewriting an article on Slavery over the centuries, say, while deleting any mention of the historical practice in the United States, for example, and focusing only on Somalia, which is the only country that permits slavery today, because the mentioning of slavery in the US is a POV that one editor could not tolerate, the historical facts be damned. The use of historical facts is entirely permitted and encouraged with proper citations, provided mainstream sources are used. Wikipedia is not censored. Attempting to censor history is not permitted either. All that said, it is still entirely proper for you to add additional material supporting "collective" right viewpoints that are more modern, with proper cites, of course, when the article is unlocked. If this is not possible, then seeing a disruptive editor go away would certainly be preferable to continuing to watch one editor hold an article hostage ad infinitum. Yaf (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

actually, you have not identified a POV imbalance. you have claimed a POV imbalance by saying that "most" of the article is weighted towards a pro-gun POV, but that doesn't constitute identification - merely one editor's opinion. in the most recent edit that yaf made, which was to remove a fair bit of material, most of which was material that you would probably characterize as "pro gun", you reverted him, claiming it 'altered the pov balance'. so - again, you are holding the article hostage. any change to the article by any editor other than you is claimed to be a change to the POV balance, you revert twice, then request protection. you are gaming the system, and subverting the process. Anastrophe (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's start by removing the 'state courts' section. It is already entirely duplicated verbatim elsewhere in Wikipedia. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

let's start by you ceasing to make demands of what content will or will not exist within the article. let's start by you perhaps actually adding substance to the article, rather than acting as arbiter of all other editors work. Anastrophe (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing history is not going to change history. Removing this summary content would remove the basis for a reader to understand the present dichotomy that fills the courts regarding "individual" vs. "collective" rights regarding the 2A (Heller/Parker, et. al.). We owe it to readers that come to this article to learn more about the Second Amendment to explain in a summary what the key hot-topic terms mean, at a top level. As I have mentioned before, breaking out this top-level taxonomy down further is not appropriate, both from a reader confusion standpoint, and from a total filesize standpoint. But, rewriting history to remove the "individual" right history, while leaving only the "collective" right discussion in the Judiciary section, would not be NPOV. I do not favor this change for this reason. Yaf (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I object to the 'originalist theory' that by giving weight to the words (intent) of the founders, that somehow this is to be given extra weight of importance. Not that I entirely object to a use of the reliance on originalism, but I object that disproportionate use of one constitutional interpretation method at the expense of others skews the appropriate POV balance, and therefore is in violation of WP:NPOV. The addition of Yaf's 'states court' section tipped the POV balance. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"disproportionate use of one constitutional interpretation method". if that is the case, then add counterbalancing discussion using another constitutional interpretation method. you are violating the letter and spirit of NPOV - NPOV is not an excuse to delete. whenever discussion comes back around to this point, you shift the target to "the article is too long". when an editor removes material, you claim that the POV balance has been changed (isn't that your stated intent?) and then have the article blocked to prevent other editors from making any substantive changes at all without your approval. this must stop. Anastrophe (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This obvious solution to this impasse is to discuss, understand, negotiate and compromise. Are you willing? I am. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

claiming willingness is different than showing willingness in action. you have shown no willingness to actually compromise. "remove all material i don't like, then we'll have a compromise" is the short version. the long version comprises the facts in evidence above and in the edit history, of your unwillingness to accept anything less. no other editors here have forbade you from adding material in support of your contention that there are other constitutional interpretation methods that are under-represented. you however have forbade any other editors here from making any edits to this article if they disagree with your personal opinion. that's not compromise, that's not cooperation, that's not consensus, and it's not collaboration. it is one editor gaming the system to own an article. it is unacceptably uncivil behavior. Anastrophe (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your characterization of me is wrong, personal, and offensive. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

But, I see, you do not claim it is inaccurate. Yaf (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Impasse

It appears that SaltyBoatr has a very rigid view of what should be the content of the article. Either SaltyBoatr has to be blocked (unlikely), or we have to let him own this article (unlikely). Gentlemen, welcome to the world of the impasse. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least there is one thing we agree about: We are at an impasse. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we probably can find a compromise. The origin of the dispute is this diff, and that is probably the best place to look at what can be adjusted. Presently, it seems, that three editors are solidly opposed to any easement on that diff. Is there no room to compromise with that diff? Or, are you three totally unwilling to give an inch on that? SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, that is almost 1,500 words, and you guys cannot compromise even a single word? And, you blame me for an impasse. You cannot compromise even a single word of that giant text insertion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we have a consensus, then, what with 3 editors wanting the cited content to remain, and only 1 editor wanting to remove any traces of "individual" rights from the article. Consensus does not require agreement, only that everyone can live with the outcome. SaltyBoatr, can you live with the outcome of leaving this edit, and additionally adding any necessary "collective" rights or other modern interpretations (using contextualism, or whatever) to balance the article? If so, then the impasse is over, mediation is not needed, and editing can resume to improve the article, to address the various concerns all of us as editors have. (In my case, this would immediately be correcting punctuation per MoS, and fixing the cite for footnote 26, for an edit that largely dates from April 2005 and which was made by another editor.) Yaf (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Rather, I strongly oppose the removal of "any traces of 'individual' rights from the article". Stop fighting a straw man. I just want a neutral POV balance. And, the editorial interpretation of the Noah Webster quote has a WP:NOR violation which need to be fixed. Plus, the Noah Webster passage is part of the undue weight problem where the article has too much material that relies upon the theory of Original intent. That must be brought back into balance through the removal of the excess. I am flexible as how this should be done exactly, but I insist on a better balance. I fear this won't be easy to negotiate, and a mediator could be extremely helpful. (If we are lucky enough to find one who is willing to help us.) SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

actually, it appears that saltyboatr is claiming that his objection is simply to the length of that diff, because it is "1,500 words", and asks whether 'you guys cannot compromise on even a single word?'. okay. so, if the material were condensed - made more terse, and reduced to 1,000 words, that should be a reasonable compromise, based upon this claim that you'd like the material shortened, yes? can you live with that, yaf and saltyboatr? simply make the segment more terse and to the point, and try to bring the text down in size by one-third? Anastrophe (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If SaltyBoatr's only objection is the length of the article, then a consensus can easily be reached. The problem I see is that SaltyBoatr has made many objections unrelated to the length of the article. If a consensus is reached regarding the length of the article, would SaltyBoatr agree to drop his other objections? If not, then I reiterate my belief that we are at an impasse. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Anastrophe, yes, making it more terse would definitely be progress towards resolution of the POV dispute. Consistently, my complaint has been the issue of the balance point of the POV, and reducing the amount of originalist material is what is needed to bring this back to a neutral balance point. I never have held that all of the originalist material must be excluded. (Indeed, I would object to removing all of the originalist material because that would be a POV violation in the opposite direction.) I just want POV balance. And, SMP0328, yes I can compromise on any and all issues which are up to editorial discretion. Though, none of us have the liberty to violate the non-negotiable aspects of WP:Policy. Lets start this process of compromise. I am relieved to see some movement that the entire Yaf text insertion is not set in stone, an all or nothing proposition, but rather can be negotiable. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

yaf, can you please take the existing 'states' section, and attempt to trim it for length down to 1,000 words or less, and post the abbreviated version here? if we can get all parties to agree to a more terse version of that section, perhaps the article can be unlocked and we can move forward. Anastrophe (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Let's start from the following shortened version:

In Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, KY), which evaluated the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state pursuant to Section 28 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799), the right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state was interpreted as an individual right, for the case of a concealed sword cane. As stated by the Kentucky High Court, "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." The "constitution" mentioned in this quote refers to Kentucky's Constitution. As mentioned in this quotation "as it existed at the adoption of the constitution" was the pre-existing right in force when Kentucky's First Constitution was drawn in 1799.

The case prompted outrage in the Kentucky House, all the while recognizing that Section 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799), which stated "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." did guarantee individuals the right to bear arms.

The result was that the law of the Commonwealth of Kentucky was eventually over-turned by constitutional amendment with Section 26 in Kentucky's Third Constitution (1850) banning the future carrying of concealed weapons, while still asserting that the bearing of arms in defense of themselves and the state was an individual and collective right in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This recognition, has remained to the present day in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Fourth Constitution enacted in 1891, in Section 1, Article 7, that guarantees "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." As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980’s, vol. 10, no. 1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, . . ." This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified. In contrast to this, all states currently regulate the possession and use of firearms to some extent."

In contrast, in State v. Buzzard (1842, Ark), the Arkansas high court adopted a militia-based reading of the right to bear arms under state law, and upheld the 21st section of the second article of the Arkansas Constitution that declared, "that the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense", while rejecting a challenge to a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. Buzzard had carried a concealed weapon and stood "indicted by virtue of the authority of the 13th section of an act of the Legislature prohibiting any person wearing a pistol, dirk, large knife or sword-cane concealed as a weapon, unless upon a journey, under the penalties of fine and imprisonment." The Arkansas high court further declared "That the words "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State", and the words "common defense" clearly show the true intent and meaning of these Constitutions [i.e., Ark. and U.S.] and prove that it is a political and not an individual right, and, of course, that the State, in her legislative capacity, has the right to regulate and control it: This being the case, then the people, neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms." Joel Prentiss Bishop’s influential Commentaries on the Law of Statutory Crimes (1873) took Buzzard's militia-based interpretation, a view that Bishop characterized as the “Arkansas doctrine", as the orthodox view of the right to bear arms in American law.

Modern gun rights advocates have disputed this history, claiming that the individual right was the orthodox view of the right to bear arms under state law in the 19th century, citing the previously-mentioned Bliss v. Commonwealth, and even State v. Buzzard, which recognized the right of an individual to carry a weapon concealed, when upon a journey, in an affirmative defense. Since 1873, some legal and constitutional historians have sided with Bishop and not the individual rights model. Other legal and constitutional historians have sided with the individual rights model.

In 1905, the Kansas Supreme Court in Salina v. Blaksley made the first collective right judicial interpretation. The Kansas high court declared: "That the provision in question applies only to the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law, is also apparent from the second amendment to the federal Constitution, which says: "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 modern formulation of the debate over the Second Amendment as an individual/collective rights dichotomy entered Federal law and scholarship when it was employed in a widely-cited Harvard Law Review article in 1915 by the Chief Justice of the Maine Supreme Court, Lucilius A. Emery. He noted that "the right guaranteed is not so much to the individual for his private quarrels or feuds as to the people collectively for the common defense against the common enemy, foreign or domestic."

This reduces the size, considerably, while still providing citations. Comments? -- Yaf (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

also, if condensing the section proves workable, and we get agreement, it may be worth revisiting many sections of the article and making them more terse. there's no question that the article is long, and just as 'brevity is the soul of wit' (and lingerie), it is also the soul of an accessible encyclopedia article. if what is said in a hundred words can be said in fifty, then the information can be shared with far more facility and impact by the latter. Anastrophe (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your effort to compromise. The other section needing consolidation is the "Early Commentary" section which is heavily loaded with originalism, and which contributes to the POV imbalance even more than the recent "State courts" insertion. Again, I view that we should leave in a significant amount of originalism, which is a significant POV, but presently orignialism is too heavily weighted causing a POV neutrality imbalance. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The proposed edit is acceptable to me. Dare I dream that the impasse could be ended? --SMP0328. (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I appreciate that we are discussing edits on the talk page. It would be a good faith gesture to remove the 'states court' passage from the article while we discuss this. OK? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is not to make any changes to protected articles unless they are trivial changes or unless consensus shifts to change it, even if it is the wrong version or the right version, until content disputes are resolved. The fact the article is blocked and has a {{POV}} label is considered adequate warning to readers. OK? Yaf (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You got that right, there is no consensus about good faith gestures here. <smile> SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your proposed edit breaks into four sections. 1)Bliss, 2)Buzzard, 3)Salina and 4)Emery

Can we start with Bliss and then move on to the other three?

Bliss

Checking the referencing, I see six footnotes and three paragraphs:

First paragraph: The first footnote is pointing to the primary document, which OK, but is merely a convenience link and does nothing to meet the requirements of WP:NOR. The second footnote describes that this pertains to 'Kentucky', and I agree that sentence is cited, but this does nothing to give sourcing to the thesis of the rest of the passage. The third is entirely a statement of original research, and to this I object based on WP:NOR and ask that it be removed.

End of first paragraph, except for the 'pertains to Kentucky' sentence what is the secondary sourcing for the first paragraph?

Second paragraph: The fourth footnote in the second paragraph is pointing to the primary document, and seems to violate WP:NOR, I ask that the second paragraph be cited with a secondary source, or be removed.

Third paragraph: The third Bliss paragraph is the meat of it, and has two footnotes. The second footnote, is an editorial comment, plainly in violation of WP:NOR and should be removed. The first footnote is to a journal article, reprinted by Alan Gottlieb, a well known pro-gun partisan. Is this an accurate reproduction? Please confirm.

The key quote of the third paragraph is: "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue ". I don't see that you have shown with reliable sourcing that "the right to bear arms" issue (in Kentucky) is the same as the topic of this article which is rather: the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. Your attempt to associate a Kentucky 'right to bear arms' with a federal 'right to bear arms' appears to be improper synthesis and therefore WP:OR. And more to the point. I see these two rights as obviously and totally different things. In any case, you have the burden to show that these two different rights are the same, and you have not done so yet using reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Before making changes, lets consider what constitutes an acceptable source in this article's context. The reason I ask is that E. Kruschke in his book Gun Control, that I know you have previously used many times to cite gun politics issues on Wikipedia -- claiming it was a reliable source, mentions both Bliss and Buzzard as being the first two state cases regarding the Second Amendment, and categorizes them both as promoting an "individual rights" position, by reason he does not look beyond the initial lower state courts' decisions. In Bliss this is OK, since the KY Supreme Court upheld the lower court's interpretation of the Second Amendment and upheld the decision. However, in Buzzard, the AR Supreme Court overturned the lower court's decision, going from an "individual rights" position to a "collective rights" position in so doing. Kruschke, however, doesn't address the final decision of the AR Supreme Court, and (erroneously, I would say) leaves readers the false impression that both cases were pure "individual rights" cases. I could certainly make the necessary citation changes necessary for addressing many of your stated concerns using Kruschke's book as a reference, with properly cited citations, hence, it would be verifiable, it is a reference that you haved claimed is reliable but with which I have disagreed, but citing Kruschke here would make the (erroneous) case that both cases were pure "individual rights" interpretations of the Second Amendment. Still, would this be an acceptable reference to use or not? Yaf (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Not. You are improperly blurring five things: 'Gun politics', 'the right to bear arms in Arkansas', 'the right to bear arms in Kentucky', 'a federal right to bear arms' and 'The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution'. If Kruschke reference something relative to 'gun politics' that does not automatically associate with 'The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution'.

There may be 'individual rights' or 'collective rights' in Kentucky, or in Arkansas, but that is totally irrelevant to the topic of this article. I reject your original research, that a 'right to bear arms' is a universal, fluid, interchangeable thing. Indeed, I reject your assumption that the term 'a right to bear arms' is synonymous with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear. OK. Let me try again. Kruschke clearly states that both Bliss and Buzzard are state interpretations of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. No problems here. This, properly cited, would fix some of the problems that you have mentioned. Kruschke then goes on to state that Bliss further was an "individual rights" interpretation of the 2A. Again, no problems here. Kruschke then goes on to state that Buzzard was an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. There is a slight problem here; Buzzard was an "individual rights" interpretation only at the lower court level in AR. However, upon reaching the AR Supreme Court, the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution was overturned, with the case then becoming the first state interpretation of the 2A that switched to a "militia-based", collective rights, interpretation of the 2A. The blurring occurs from Kruschke being incorrect in summarizing Buzzard as being a pure individual rights interpretation of the 2A. It was actually a mixed interpretation at the AR Supreme Court level, from virtue that it characterized the 2A as protecting a collective right, with an individual right only applying for the case of an "affirmative defense" when "upon a journey." As for the "right to bear arms" wording, this was a phrasing that you had added a few years ago over my protests, but to which we had ultimately compromised. My objection then was that the 2A protects a pre-existing right to bear arms, but does not, in and of itself, grant a "right to bear arms" or a right to "keep" arms. However, this point of view is not universally held, hence we had compromised on the "right to bear arms" wording. A slightly different wording can be worked on this phrasing upon deciding on the appropriateness of select sources for citing facts in this paragraph. Getting back to using Kruschke as a cite here; my fear is that, unless we are very, very careful, both Bliss and Buzzard will become "individual rights" interpretations of the 2A, which is a subtle POV push to the "gun rights" side. I favor correctness over pushing any POV. So, asking once again, would using Kruschke as a reliable source here be considered by you as an acceptable reference, in light of his getting Buzzard slightly incorrect? And, I agree with your assumption that the term 'a right to bear arms' is NOT synonymous with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Rather, a right to bear arms is but one of the rights protected by the 2A. If anything, the right to keep and bear arms are but two of the unenumerated rights given by God that are recognized by the 9th Amendment, but lets keep on topic, and leave the 9th Amendment out of this discussion. OK?) Yaf (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Which page(s) are you reading in the Kruschke book? And, can you please quote the exact passage you are reading? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I am not going to type all the pages that are applicable, but they are in Chapter 4, Legislation and Statistical Data, that "provides an annotated list of selected court cases" (p.125). "The courts have tended to hold that the right guaranteed in the Second Amendment and the clause stating that such a right shall not be infringed is applicable to Congress." (p.125) It then starts a subsequent section titled "Some Cases Illustrating the Individual View" on p. 140, with the first case being Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90 (1822). The 8th paragraph down the page then contains, "The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; ..." (p.140). There is a lot of other discussion, but I won't type this content here. Then, on page 141, "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." The very next case is State v. Buzzard, which commences at the bottom of p. 141. It starts with "Lacy J., dissenting. Then, it goes on, stating: "The question now to be determined is, does this provision of the statute violate the second article of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, or the 21st section of our Bill of Rights? The language in both instruments is nearly similar: the two clauses are as follows:..." (pp. 141-142). Then lots more detail. It ends with, "We derive this right from our Anglo-Saxon ancestors..." But, as I stated earlier, Kruschke doesn't go on to summarize the high court's ruling on this case, and leaves the distinct impression that the case ended with the lower courts individual rights only rulings. This is a problem in terms of absolute accuracy. There are several other areas of pertinence through the book that can also be used to clean up several of the concerns that you believe exist regarding Bliss and Buzzard. Yaf (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You are using a syllogism. You cite that Bliss pertains to a primal right to bear arms. You cite that the Second Amendment pertains to a primal right to bear arms. (No dispute from me.) You then make a illogical jump that Bliss pertains to the Second Amendment. If A => C, and B => C does not proof A => B. Keep your Bliss material in the Right to bear arms article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Second Amendment is what specifically protects, as you phrase it, the "primal right to bear arms." Actually, the 2A protects a God given right to keep and bear arms, but it certainly does protect a right to bear arms, too, as a subset of what it protects. The infringement of these "primal rights" is what the 2A protects against. (The rights are recognized by the 9th Amendment, being unenumerated rights, but I digress.) Bliss was about an attempt to infringe on this "primal" right to keep and bear arms, and this attempt was found lacking due to the 2A, in the first individual rights interpretation of the 2A in a judiciary setting. It just happened to be at a state level, but it is in a section on state level commentary on the 2A, which predated Federal court discussions and decisions. The Bliss material belongs in both this article, and in the Right to bear arms article because it was directly commenting on the 2A. No syllogism here, just an honest individual rights interpretation of the 2A, which some find offensive or distasteful, albeit true. Yaf (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You haven't satisfactorily cited your opinion. It also defies logic. You claim "the first individual rights interpretation of the 2A in a judiciary setting". On what jurisdictional grounds can a state court interpret federal law? State courts interpret state law. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

State courts can interpret federal law and the U.S. Constitution. For example, read Michigan v. Long (1983). --SMP0328. (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion looks like WP:OR. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You asked a question and I answered it. Now you claim my answer is invalid, because it's Original Research. You are truly unbelievable. State courts can interpret federal law and the U.S. Constitution. If my citing a Supreme Court decision is Original Research, and therefore invalid, then I guess a whole lot of articles need major editing. --SMP0328. (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You point to a Federal Supreme court decision. How does that 'answer' anything? At the best, I am supposed to read and interpret it to figure out an answer to the question of whether state courts have jurisdiction over federal law. The 'reading and figuring' you did, and expect me to do, is WP:OR. See also Jurisdiction. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

please stop conflating discussion on the talk page with content in article space. it is totally inappropriate to label as OR someone's comments on the talk page. if what the person wrote was a segment of copy intended for inclusion in the article space, then an OR label might be appropriate and useful. as it stands, calling a fellow editor's commentary OR is little more than the WP:SOUP behaviour that i have warned you about numerous times. it's a roadblock to discussion, and not at all helpful. please. stop. Anastrophe (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Along the same line of thought, could you ease up with WP:SOUP personal commentary? You are falsely attacking my good intentions. Over, and over, and over, starting here, and at least a dozen times since. I object and take offense. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

i'll ease up on it when the behavior stops. i realize you may not find it pleasant, but if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck....do you acknowledge the (utter) inappropriateness of slinging about claims that an editor is engaging in "OR" when discussing matters on a talk page? if not, there's not much hope that the characterization of WP:SOUP will go away any time soon. Anastrophe (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

that said, i'd be willing to refactor my commentary, and instead of asking you to stop WP:SOUP behaviour, rather request that you stop wikilawyering and being tendentious. Anastrophe (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have done very little 'behavior' which is contrary to WP:Policy. Specifically here, we are discussing whether the Bliss court state case is on topic in this federal article. SMP0328 argued that because of the court case Michigan v. Long that State courts can interpret federal law and the U.S. Constitution, therefore the Bliss passage should be allowed to be included in the article. I object that SMP0328 argument is based on WP:OR, his interpretation of the Michigan v. Long court case, (interpretation of a primary source). Somehow you take offense at this, calling it WP:SOUP. What did I do wrong? Actually, your dogged attempts to refocus the discussion away from WP:Policy and onto my personal behavior is what is counterproductive here. If you and I disagree much more about this, (both your behavior and mine), I am willing to seek the opinions of uninvolved editors over at WP:WQA. What do you say? SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't interpreting that case. You claimed that state courts couldn't rule on federal law or the U.S. Constitution. I wanted to show you that wasn't the case. So I referred to a case that dealt with state supreme courts and when they interpret federal law or the U.S. Constitution. It isn't necessary for you to interpret the case. For our purposes, that case shows that state courts do sometimes interpret federal law, including the U.S. Constitution. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK then, even granting that it may have happened, does nothing to show that it does, or did. Foremost Bliss was directly interpreting Section 23 of that Kentucky State Consitution which says: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.". The "defence of themselves" status with the Kentucky right and Bliss is not found in the US 2A right, and therefore is a syllogistic logic error in the context of this article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

knock yourself out. wikilawyering is an abuse of policy. your methods are obstructionist and tendentious - you initiated the edit war on this article, then you requested the page be locked. that's WP:gaming the system, and a violation of the spirit of wikipedia's policies. i'm fed up with it. this article has been locked for weeks, pending your willingness to compromise - which you've shown precisely zero, as offers of compromise have been tendered, but each time you move the target so that agreement cannot be reached. you are holding this article hostage, interminably. enough. Anastrophe (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Against policy? Look again at WP:WL. Your assertion of WP:GAME amounts to an accusation of bad faith, which is offensive and wrong. Anyway, can we resume work on the article instead of talking about me? Where we left off, Yaf (I think), was working on his response, and a re-write, to the WP:RS questions I have posed about his "State courts" edit. Yaf, any more progress on this? SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, when I read the Kruschke book a month ago, I don't remember it saying what you now claim it says. I have since returned it to my public library. Let me try to ask this gently, but I question if you have actually read the Kruschke book which you are citing as your source. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I own my own copy of this book, having bought a used university library copy for around $4 as I recall, having purchased it quite some time ago (including shipping!). It was a dropped holding by many college libraries, evidently around the same time, so there are lots of used, cheap copies around if you but look. I never used it to cite any WP issues until after you started insisting that it was a "reliable source" and started using it as a reference. I have read it 3 times, now, the 3rd time being just last month when we were discussing this book previously, but I should mention that I have spotted lots of small errors in the book over the 3 readings, and generally prefer not to use it to cite WP "facts". Upon a first reading, incidentally, I missed lots of the details, and only pieced together the complete threads upon a second reading several months after the first reading. The 3rd reading really helped me understand the book better. That said, I don't much like the "scholarship", as it is a bit disjointed, missing the differences in lower court case records vs. high court rulings, for example. Also, the NRA provided considerable historical evidence that seems to have only wound up in the definitions in the back of the book, and that contradicts some of the statements of fact that are contained in the first introductory parts of the book. More messy scholarship. That said, there are times it does make some good points. It just gets hard to establish fact versus verifiable citations with this book; the truth is not always what Kruschke says in the first part of the book, but that he does get right around the middle of the book, and then again, near the end of the book. The editing leaves lots to be desired. Overall, the first part of the book seems to placate anti-gun POV pushers. The middle through 3/4ths of the book then corrects the facts, for anyone with enough patience to actually wade through the book. Messy, very messy. Yaf (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You have had several chances and failed now. If you can't specifically quote a reliable source that clearly makes your claim "...that both Bliss and Buzzard are state interpretations of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution", then I object to the inclusion of those paragraphs in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No failure, just laziness on my part in my not typing all the details in a lengthy discussion first, rather than in a draft of this section of the article. The question remains which you have not answered, do you consider Kruschke a reliable source, despite the shortcomings I have identified. If so, then it will be easy to make the case. But, before I spend all the time necessary to craft the wording to make the case, I want to know if you will accept Kruschke as a reliable source, or will you force all the work be done once again that is necessary to address your evolving "concerns", by denying acceptance of this book as a reliable source. I (actually, I suspect, many editors) already know you object to the inclusion of any individual rights discussions, so your statement on this is redundant. What is at issue here is whether or not Kruschke is a reliable source in your mind? If so, then it will be easy to make a solid case. If not, then I will have to select an alternative source, (there are many), and repeat the questions whether or not you will accept an alternative source. Yaf (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:RS reliable sourcing depends in part on context. So, I cannot immediately say. If you can wait, I have sent away for that Kruschke book again to read your citation in full (I just made an interlibrary loan request, it takes about four days, they will ship the book to my local library). Also, I am willing to accept the opinion of the reliable source noticeboard, who I recall have already said that a book by a university professor, published by a mainstream publisher is generally a WP:RS. And, I do share your opinion that his writing style is disjointed at times. I believe that you, (and perhaps also Kruschke), are guilty of a syllogism logic error. Proving that (Bliss => RTKBA), and (The 2A => RTKBA) does not prove that (Bliss => The 2A).

Let me thank you again for engaging in talk discussion of this passage you seek to include in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Buzzard

I see two paragraphs and three footnotes for the State v. Buzzard section. The first footnote is a convenience links to the primary source, and while that is OK, it does nothing to meet the requirements of WP:NOR. The second footnote may or may not be a published 'secondary source' but it only says "See the symposium in Chicago Kent Law Review 76 and the Fordham Law Review vol. 73". There are no page numbers given, and no indication of who is the author or which article is being cited. Symposium? In what context? The fourth footnote seems to be 'secondary sourcing' but when you click through, it points to a cryptic claim that seems to be describing the Arkansas right to bear arms, not the Federal Right to bear arms. In short, I am asking that you provide quotations from these secondary sources which back up your claim that Buzzard pertains to the federal 2A. When I check what you provided, I don't see it verified. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The use of primary sources does not violate WP:NOR. As for "see the symposium", this is merely a "see also" link for further scholarship, on volumes that had numerous discussions regarding this topic; this is not a cited source. So, there is not a problem mentioning this here. Yaf (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Salina

I see one paragraph, and one footnote. The one footnote is a convenience link to the primary document. As such, this is plainly in violation of WP:V. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The source is valid; a convenience link does not violate WP:V. Yaf (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Emery

This one paragraph and one footnote pointing to a Harvard Law Review article solidly meets reliable source standards, and I find the second half to be acceptable. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that the claim made in the first half of the paragraph "The modern formulation of the debate over the Second Amendment as an individual/collective rights dichotomy entered Federal law and scholarship when..." is found in the source. What is the sourcing for the opening clause? If not adequately sourced, please remove it. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Every word need not be sourced. Is there some question on what is being said? If so, then a {{fact}} tag is appropriate until a cite is made. Yaf (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-write

Yaf, I am still interested in working on this. Could you please re-write your passage in compromise, taking into account my concerns? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Am planning on doing this, once we address what sources are acceptable to you. (Kruschke or ?) Yaf (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As extraordinary claims required extraordinary sources, and ordinary claims do not, my answer is: It depends. Specifically cite your claims and your sources, (include page numbers please) and I will check the claim against the source and answer. Answering a blanket question is tougher. My impression is that Kruschke is nominally reliable, again, cite specifics please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Still a work in progress, but certainly worth discussing the progress while you wait for your copy of Kruschke to arrive via inter-library loan:

In Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, KY), which evaluated the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state pursuant to Section 28 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799), the right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state was interpreted as an individual right, for the case of a concealed sword cane. This case has been described as being “a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons” that “was violative of the Second Amendment””. As stated by the Kentucky High Court, "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." The "constitution" mentioned in this quote refers to Kentucky's Constitution. As mentioned in this quotation "as it existed at the adoption of the constitution" was the pre-existing right in force when Kentucky's First Constitution was drawn in 1799.

The case prompted outrage in the Kentucky House, all the while recognizing that Section 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799), which stated "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." did guarantee individuals the right to bear arms.

The result was that the law of the Commonwealth of Kentucky was eventually over-turned by constitutional amendment with Section 26 in Kentucky's Third Constitution (1850) banning the future carrying of concealed weapons, while still asserting that the bearing of arms in defense of themselves and the state was an individual and collective right in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This recognition, has remained to the present day in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Fourth Constitution enacted in 1891, in Section 1, Article 7, that guarantees "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." As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980’s, vol. 10, no. 1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, . . ." This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified. "

In contrast, in State v. Buzzard (1842, Ark), the Arkansas high court adopted a militia-based reading of the right to bear arms under state law, and upheld the 21st section of the second article of the Arkansas Constitution that declared, "that the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense", while rejecting a challenge to a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. Buzzard had carried a concealed weapon and stood "indicted by virtue of the authority of the 13th section of an act of the Legislature prohibiting any person wearing a pistol, dirk, large knife or sword-cane concealed as a weapon, unless upon a journey, under the penalties of fine and imprisonment." The Arkansas high court further declared "That the words "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State", and the words "common defense" clearly show the true intent and meaning of these Constitutions [i.e., Ark. and U.S.] and prove that it is a political and not an individual right, and, of course, that the State, in her legislative capacity, has the right to regulate and control it: This being the case, then the people, neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms." Joel Prentiss Bishop’s influential Commentaries on the Law of Statutory Crimes (1873) took Buzzard's militia-based interpretation, a view that Bishop characterized as the “Arkansas doctrine", as the orthodox view of the right to bear arms in American law.

Modern gun rights advocates have disputed this history, claiming that the individual right was the orthodox view of the right to bear arms under state law in the 19th century, citing the previously-mentioned Bliss v. Commonwealth, and even State v. Buzzard, which recognized the right of an individual to carry a weapon concealed, when upon a journey, in an affirmative defense. Similarly, political scientist Earl Kruschke has categorized both Bliss and Buzzard as being “cases illustrating the individual view.” Since 1873, some legal and constitutional historians have sided with Bishop and not the individual rights model. Other legal and constitutional historians have sided with the individual rights model.

In 1905, the Kansas Supreme Court in Salina v. Blaksley made the first collective right judicial interpretation. The Kansas high court declared: "That the provision in question applies only to the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law, is also apparent from the second amendment to the federal Constitution, which says: "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 modern formulation of the debate over the Second Amendment as an individual/collective rights dichotomy entered Federal law and scholarship when it was employed in a widely-cited Harvard Law Review article in 1915 by the Chief Justice of the Maine Supreme Court, Lucilius A. Emery. He noted that "the right guaranteed is not so much to the individual for his private quarrels or feuds as to the people collectively for the common defense against the common enemy, foreign or domestic."

Comments? Yaf (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Bliss

And how does Bliss pertain to the 2A? I don't see that you are making that claim. Then, why put your passage in this article? (As an aside, if Bliss was really important to an 'individual' rights theory, I would have expected it to be prominent in the dozens of amicus briefs for Heller, and it is not.) Why is this passage so important that we should expend scarce space in this article? It already is covered throughly elsewhere in Wikipedia, can't we just link to it? SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been described as being a case about “a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons” that “was violative of the Second Amendment””. The text and citation is listed. Because this was a critical interpretation of the meaning of the Second Amendment, and was the first such interpretation, it belongs here. This is the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article; hence, interpretations of it belong here. As for why this case is not mentioned in the amicus brief in Heller Case, that is because this early case was concerned only with concealed weapons; no such CCW issue is before the SCOTUS in Heller, hence there is no reason for it to be mentioned. Yaf (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Previously, you argued[27] that coverage of Bliss was vital here because the SCOTUS had granted cert for Heller case. Now you say that Bliss isn't important to the Heller case. Which is it? And, you spliced two quotes together from the 1967 Congressional hearing to make your point. Can I read that full quote in context? Is it available online, or can you give me an ISBN so I can seek out a printed copy? Also, in the process of searching for your 1967 reference, I ran across this discussion of Bliss from the Drake Law Review: "This decision (Bliss) has subsequently been severely criticized by other courts and its declaration that the right to bear arms is absolute has never been accepted by another court." The Bliss decision is far out on the fringe, yet you want to feature it prominently. This appears to violate WP:UNDUE. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The concealed carry issues and perspectives associated with CCW raised with Bliss are not important for Heller, as Heller is not about CCW issues. No contradiction here. The individual right interpretation of Bliss, however, is important for the historical perspective it provides in that individual right interpretations pre-existed the later "collective right" interpretation of the 2A and this historical fact is important for understanding Heller, as Heller is about the meaning of what is meant by an "individual right". As for Bliss being criticized by some courts, yes it has been. However, two states retain to this day the original Bliss interpretation of the 2A, permitting concealed carry without any permit being required, as a fundamental God-given right that is protected by the Second Amendment. Calling the position of these two states "far out on the fringe" is a gross oversimplification, to the extent that you advocate the removal of the original 2A interpretation to give WP:UNDUE weight to 48 states while additionally suppressing the interpretation remaining in two states that happens to agree with the original 2A interpretation. Yaf (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the 90th Congress reference Hearings, reports and prints of the Anti-Crime Program First Session Ser. 1-3 are available at most any regional US library that holds US Government records in hardcopy form, which is most suitable for seeing the full context. That said, this statement is also available online in a snippet from a scan, but without the text in context, and is virtually impossible to find on Google Books without actually having access to the hardcopy, requiring a double-ended, complicated, specific phrase, search to find it. If you don't know the specific and exact phrase, you can't find it on Google Books. Yaf (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And, of course, no ISBN applies, as 1967 pre-dates the issuance of ISBN numbers. Yaf (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I see that the snippet includes the clause "that point of view is virtually extinct". As, this boils down to a POV neutral balance dispute, might you be willing to include that neutralizing clause in your passage? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if consensus is that we should go into this much detail. But, if we include "virtually extinct", then we probably should also mention and cite the two states that have retained this "virtually extinct" view regarding what they consider to be the "proper" interpretation of the Second Amendment. States are sovereign, so differences among states do matter. Fundamentally, though, it appears we are largely re-hashing Federalist versus Anti-Federalist dogma. The souls of Madison, Adams, Webster, Jefferson, et al, must surely be stirring :-) Yaf (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The differences among the states do not matter, (to this article), which is about the federal 2A. SaltyBoatr (talk)

Perhaps this is something we may have common ground about. You mention that the issue of 'individual rights' needs new attention resulting now with Heller in the news. I can agree to that. I would prefer that the 'individual' issue be more directly addressed though. For instance, after reading the Heller amicus briefs I see that both sides agree to various degrees of the issue of 'individual rights'. The distinction rather is what type of 'individual rights'. With your Bliss passage you are focusing far too much on a very outlying type of individual right, the absolute individual right. All the pro-Heller briefs stop short of 'absolute' and advocate simply for an expansive individual right. And the remand-Heller briefs tend towards the 'limited individual right'. I think all the amicus briefs, pro and con, agree that reasonable federal regulations are allowed by the 2A. Therefore, I think a better approach (which might be a workable compromise between us), would be to refocus your 'states court' passage off of the state courts, and onto the differences within the 'individual rights' 2A definitions, giving accurate weight balance to the POVs. Basically, I object to the undue weight you are trying to bring to the 'absolute' version of individual right. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Bliss, second footnote

The second footnote to the Bliss section is making a somewhat extraordinary claim. Could you help please by identifying the person, or agency giving that testimony at that hearing? I have located a copy but it is not available by interlibrary transfer, and it would take several hours by car for me to go read it. Also, could you provide a bit more of the context of the quote you are citing? Who is speaking, and what was the question asked of the speaker. Also, who asked the question? Thank you in advance for your response. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Shortening article

Rather than hammering out a small edit first, amounting to a possible savings of at most a few hundred bytes, lets start with the large things, and perhaps shorten the article by 6,559 bytes. What are the comments that editors have regarding removing/shortening the lists that are presently uncited, and probably represent considerably OR content, that was attempted in this edit, which was reverted. What are the problems with implementing a variation on this edit first. It was reverted for reason of "shifting the POV balance", but I'm not sure if this edit actually moved any POV balance point all that much, removing "Lautenberg Amendment" content as well as "militia" content about equally. It is a larger impact by a factor of 12 or 13 on article size, relative to addressing the state interpretations of the 2A, for which a reduction of a few hundred bytes may ultimately be possible. Lets focus on getting the big edits done first, to fix the size issue sooner, rather than focus on smaller sized edits amounting to a potential savings of a few hundred bytes, and that may take longer to hammer out. Comments? Suggestions for reducing the lists? -- "Wikipedia is not a list." is a fundamental maxim to keep in mind, here. Yaf (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry your rather large edit of March 4th was more than an simple trimming of lists, it also included several 'pro-gun' shifts of POV obscured behind a trimming of lists. While I don't oppose the principle of trying to avoid lists. That is a relatively minor guideline which shouldn't jump to in front of the major policy violation. The major policy issue here here is WP:NPOV. Can we not move off the larger topic, and can we address the issue of the heavy use of originalist theory having an imbalancing effect on POV balance? SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The larger area of agreement was the size of the article, being that was a key part of the attempt at reaching a consensus as discussed above, and which would additionally help to trim the article size and fix perceived POV problems. Once more, when we get close to reaching a consensus, and actually start trying to implement edits of any kind, you once more change the target, thereby preventing reaching a consensus. The ad hominem "pro-gun" attacks have not stopped, either, I see. Every edit to the article is tagged by you as "pro-gun" this and "pro-gun" that. It doesn't matter whether the edit attempts to remove "Lautenberg Amendment" content which many consider to be "pro-gun-rights" labeling, and then you label the entire edit as being "pro-gun" and hence YOU will not permit the edit, any edit. This is getting old. (But not unpredictable.) Yaf (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Something is not adding up here, you added about 1,500 words here[28], and then leaving those 1,500 words in, you then deleted about 1,000 other words here[29]. Yet, you claim this net increase of 500 words is in the interest of article shortening. Anastrophe, above, suggested that you trim down your 1,500 word edit[30], to about 1,000 words, but you didn't respond to him. (And, the sum effect of your edits incidentally also skew the POV balance towards the 'gun-rights' direction, making the POV neutrality imbalance policy violation even worse.) Both of your large edits were made without any prior discussion on the talk page.

My suggestion is that we agree to:

1) To go back to this stable version of the page[31].

2) To be patient.

3) To work slow.

4) To be civil.

5) To not make anything but the smallest of change

without first discussing, negotiating, and working

out differences on the talk page.

6) Agree to a moratorium on unilateral edits,

except the simplest of grammar and punctuation corrections.

7) Agree to lift the article edit block, but to reinstate the

edit block if any of the above 6 agreements are broken.

Working together, in much smaller chunks, lets discuss on the talk page first, before putting agreed revisions into the article. I am sorry that in discussing the issue of bias, that I have no choice but use the terms 'pro-gun' versus 'gun-control', I have little choice. Try not to take offense and these terms are not ad hominem but rather descriptions of the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You do not WP:OWN this article! It is inappropriate for any editor to demand all other editors "to not make anything but the smallest of change" without your permission! As for the edit sizes not adding up, get a calculator! The proposed edit involved going from 115,603 bytes to 109,044 bytes, while additionally attempting to address perceived POV issues that you had previously identified. It appears that you have a practice in calling all edits by editors other than you make personnally or approve personally to be labeled "pro-gun" and that they must be removed by your royal decree. No one made you King of Wikipedia! I do take offense in having all edits to this article, other than ones you make, be falsely labeled "pro-gun" edits, and POV-bombed or reverted immediately by YOU. You even reverted my single period move punctuation edit, moving a single period made per the MoS guidelines relative to references, in your latest edit warring. These unilateral demands that you be crowned King of Wikipedia and that all edits must be approved by YOU on this article must stop! Yaf (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I make a suggestion, and you call it a demand. Anastrophe made a suggestion[32], and you ignored it. I plead for cooperation and you accuse me of violating WP:OWN. You rephrase my suggestion into a straw man, calling it a 'royal decree' and then labeling me King of Wikipedia. Can't we at least agree to be civil? I did use a calculator, and the size of the article prior to this POV dispute was 107,289 bytes (not 109,044 bytes). SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

lets back up here. first, yaf, do you think you can trim the 'states' section by 500 words? if so, please give it a try and post it here. second, saltyboatr, you did not make "a suggestion", you provided what essentially amounted to seven demands in an escalating list. how about we stay on point and stick to just this ONE possible place for agreement, that is, reducing the size of the 'states' section, per your statement that you'd be agreeable to that as a means of us all moving beyond this impasse. once that section has been reduced in size, the article can be unlocked. we can then move on to other discussion as needed. Anastrophe (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that Anastrophe's suggestion would be movement in the right direction. I object that my suggestion 'essentially amounted to seven demands', (one of which was let us agree to be civil). By the way, I did not lock the article. It was locked twice by two different administrators, with the reasons given: edit dispute and more edit warring. That is the core problem. Your suggestion might fix the edit warring problem, we will see. My suggestion (which you call a demand) was crafted to fix an edit warring problem. I still believe that working first on the talk page, and avoiding large unilateral edits, is the surest way to resolve edit disputes and to avoid edit warring. I welcome the trimming of Yaf's 1,500 word 'state court' section as movement in the right direction, and we will see if can fix the POV imbalance problem. Though it would be better if we were just go back to a version of the page prior to the POV dispute, as that would certainly fix the POV imbalance problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

please don't equivocate. no, you did not lock the article, but you did request that admins lock the article. there is precious little difference. arguably, you were the person who initiated the edit warring in the first place. by engaging in carefully crafted edit warring followed by requesting page protection, you are essentially holding this article hostage, and have done so on other articles. it's an abuse of process. now, let us return again to what we in principle attempted agreement upon: i suggested that yaf try condensing the 'states' portion by 500 words. it should be possible to do so without significantly affecting the material of importance. once that's done, the length will have been reduced in compromise, then we can agree to have the article unlocked. yes, ideally, there won't be more edit warring. i'd like to see the article shortened, but more importantly it needs to be reorganized, as right now it's a very long, meandering cluster of sections without a good overriding structure. historical material will likely continue to have an 'individualist' leaning, as that's what the history clearly shows, and hopefully we won't have to put up with arguments that this is "POV" when in fact WP:NPOV doesn't make any claim that the history has to reflect a particular POV - that would constitute revisionism. furthermore, also under NPOV, 'The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV"'. so, along with ideally having edit warring stop, we can also have POV-bombing stop. Anastrophe (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Not true, rather I pleaded for discussion on the talk page. "...discuss this on talk first please. ", and "please discuss these major changes on talk page first". Discussion, understanding, civility and compromise is the remedy for edit warring. I am still asking: Can we discuss the heavy reliance on the theory of Original intent? Are you open for discussion? SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

that's still not a valid reason for reverting properly cited and sourced material. your edit summaries simply state your desire to "talk about it first", but editors are not constrained by your desire to negotiate every change to the article. however, by gaming the system in order to keep articles locked, you are in practice preventing other editors from editing. once again, let's stay on point: 'we' will try to reduce the length of the 'states' section by 500 words. our agreement in principle is that this is our compromise, upon which the article will be unlocked. ideally, we won't have "POV" slapped at the top of the article immediately, and then have it locked by crafted edit warring again. we are aware that you don't like the fact that the history of the second amendment leans towards an individual right. but the history cannot be revise to reflect your point of view without doing damage to the facts. again: 'states' section reduced by 500 words, article unlocked. this was our agreed upon compromise. Anastrophe (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

1) Not if that material causes the article to violate wikipedia policy. Editors are also allowed, and duty bound, to question material pending talk and also have discretion to revert. 2) Yaf's 'state court' section is not properly cited, or at the least has many unanswered questions, see my questions above (questions presently ignored). 3) Simple citing does not make the state court material 'on topic' for this federal article. 4) Have the respect to read above for what 'my agreement' is, no need to twist my words. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

so, if i'm reading the above correctly, you are now reneging on the compromise that was agreed upon in principle above, is that correct? Anastrophe (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Which? Show me the specific diff. SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

no need for diffs old boy. here, do you agree to the following compromise, stated multiple times, and which you described as "progress towards resolving this impasse":

'we' will try to reduce the length of the 'states' section by 500 words. our agreement in principle is that this is our compromise, upon which the article will be unlocked.

agree or disagree? Anastrophe (talk) 06:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

i ask again, agree or disagree? Anastrophe (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

See above, it depends on which 500 words. Give Yaf and I a chance to discuss and work our our differences, see above[33]. So, presently, I disagree. At some point in the future when we know which 500 words, I may agree then. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What is interesting is that you, SaltyBoatr, and I, were the two original editors who originally crafted this entire disputed section several years ago in this very article, including the now disputed cites. We went back and forth over many weeks, going into months, adding these cites and this content, until all the POV issues were addressed to both our mutual concerns for achieving NPOV. The article then remained stable for several years before you felt that the POV balance was no longer neutral. OK. If the material was crafted to be NPOV and stable then, and the NPOV quality lasted for so many years, a fair question to ask is "what changed" to tip the POV balance point? Understanding the large shift in your opinion regarding NPOV concerns perhaps could help us all work towards achieving a new NPOV balance. We once were WP friends with diverse viewpoints who shared in achieving NPOV balance in this and related articles. I, for one, miss those simpler, early days of Wikipedia, when user names were Real Life names. WP:TEA Yaf (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You keep dancing around my main point, which is that the article when viewed as whole must be neutral. And, that the undue weight given to the 'originialist therory' tips the neutrality balance. The addition of 1,500 words tipped that balance. Removing 500 words is movement in the right direction (depending on which 500). Until anybody sees the proposed 500 word removal, how can anybody know if the neutrality balance will be fixed and the POV tag removed? (I am waiting to see a the proposal for removal of even the first word.)

The page protection is not in place due the neutrality imbalance or the POV tag. The page is protected due to our edit disputes and our edit warring. Viewing our pathetic failure to communicate, understand, cooperate, and compromise with each other (see above), we certainly have some room to improve so we can someday coexist as co-editors. Our progress and success at that task is key to avoid future edit wars. What do we need to do next to heal our rift as co-editors? Whether or not we can avoid edit disputes and edit wars is the key issue as to whether the page needs protection, or not. I am willing, are you?

I made a proposal[34] which would avoid future disputes, and was rejected vigorously[35] by Yaf. So Yaf, do you have a counter proposal of how you and I can avoid future disputes? Please answer. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose we both start by reading the talk page containing our proposals and comments. The proposed shorter version has already been posted here, and is on the talk page above. Comments? Yaf (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. Thank you for beginning a talk page discussion on specifics. I have asked you some questions above[36], please answer there. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Have responded there. Yaf (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Several days have passed, with a small amount of real progress. It looks like there may not be a quick resolution in sight. Considering the large number of WP:V questions[37][38][39][40], still pending answers, can we agree to temporarily move the 'State courts'sectionout of the main space of the article while we are working on it? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This should serve as an incentive for us to reach a consensus sooner. Whether the wrong version or the right version is protected, the goal is to reach a consensus such that protection may be lifted. A quick resolution is entirely possible provided that all editors agree on the current consensus. Consensus appears to be that all editors agree but you; meanwhile, all editors appear to be working towards addressing the perceived "problems" that you believe exist. Progress is real, but slow. Meanwhile, have you received the Kruschke book through inter-library loan yet? Yaf (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I ordered the book, it is coming, in a few days. None of these WP:V questions about your passage have to do with Kruschke[41][42][43][44], so why wait? SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually they do, as noted in the new version of the proposed wording to address your "perceived" POV issues listed above, that uses Kruschke as a reference. As noted in other discussions underway relative to this article, meta-topics should, in general, be avoided for fostering cooperative work with other editors and to avoid getting bogged down. Yaf (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to Parker v DC

The link at 7 has 'Parker v DC' but the third paragraph has 'DC v Heller'. The Parker v DC article has been renamed DC v Heller, but the sidebar in the other article has info on Shelly Parker, et al. v. District of Columbia and Adrian M. Fenty, which was decided March 9, 2007. This makes it confusing. Perhaps everything could be made to match.

The appropriate part of the other article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Supreme_Court_review

--Sln3412 (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Text portion of article

There must be some question as to why the House and Senate passed a seemingly more open to interpretation version with commas, but what appears to be a plainer (more direct) version without commas is what the states actually ratified. Might have there been a reason behind it? In any case, perhaps the commas section could be referenced.

--Sln3412 (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue of the meaning of the sentence structure is well covered here: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution#Grammar. Recently, there is interesting commentary about this topic written here[45](see bottom of pg 5). SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but certainly separating phrases with commas make it less clear, well, at least to us. It seems back then it just didn't matter which way perhaps, or sloppiness, as it seems with the transcriber changing the semicolon to a comma on Auguest 25th.

But see the Creation: Confilct and Compromise section in this article, it has only one comma in both the House and Senate versions, with different wording. It says the version that came from the Senate was "A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." and the one from the House ending up "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." ^ Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, Volume 1: pp. 305 has it with one comma. I don't see one with multiple commas in there, so perhaps the references are a bit off. It certainly looks like "Article the fourth" has 2 more commas in it. But shouldn't we refer to what was ratified and in the journal? Anyway, just mentioning it. --Sln3412 (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well-Regulated

I am told that in the language of the day, "well-regulated" simply meant "well-armed", perhaps with some linguistic relationship to military meanings of the word "regular". I can't find any mentions of this, which leads me to suspect it's just a myth. Can anyone confirm or deny? --Malimar (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia isn't the best place to ask general questions of this nature. this article is locked to prevent editing, so nobody can add information relevant to your question, not that it would even be 'allowed' into the article without a horrendous fight. that said, yes, there's a fair bit of historical linguistic info that suggests that 'well regulated' simply meant 'well armed'. Anastrophe (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

well regulated can also mean "smoothly operating" or "well trained". The meaning as in the phrase "a well regulated engine runs smoothly".

4.156.252.148 (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

discussion of Yaf's March 12th re-write

I now have the Kruschke's Gun Control book in hand. After a re-reading, and looking at the big picture, I ask what article are we writing? A broad article about the issues of 'gun control'? An article about the interpretations of types of rights to bear arms in each of the states versus the federal? No and no.

You make one cite from his book, from Chapter 4, which declares in the opening sentence "This chapter provides an annotated list of selected court cases relevant to the subject of the right to keep and bear arms...". (pg 125) I believe we all agree that "the right to keep and bear arms" is a much broader topic, and is not synonymous with the Second Amendment. So, the Kruschke book seems to meet WP:RS standards, but it does not answer the question as to why discussion of state court indictment and rulings about acts of state a legislature is relevant to the federal Second Amendment.

You place a very high focus on the Bliss case, which Kruschke describes (pg 140) as "(Bliss v. Commonwealth) was an indictment founded on the act of the legislature of this state (Kentucky)". Yet, the right to bear arms protected in Kentucky at that time was different than the federal. Kentucky: "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State". The federal 2A does not say "...defense of themselves...".

I object that this article about the 2A needs such a detailed and confusing coverage of protection of the Kentucky "in defense of themselves" type of right. That is obviously different than the federal right and is easily misleading and confusing. (And, I argue, causes a skew of the POV away from the neutral point.)

That is not to say that there are things here we cannot agree upon. I do agree, for instance, that the article could use a better coverage of the topic of types of 'individual rights', especially in the context of widely disparate uses of that term in the run-up to the Heller SCOTUS ruling. But long winded discussion of the history of concealed weapon law in various state courts is not the best way to approach this task. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

bot assisted archive?

Is anyone tech savvy enough, and willing to volunteer, to set up a bot assisted archiver, such as User:MiszaBot II, to help with the archiving task on this talk page? Also, does anybody that it is time to do an archive? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

the couple of times i've proposed employing miszabot on talk pages i got a surprising amount of resistance - main claim being that none of the bots are very good at the archiving. i dunno. i don't know how to set it up, but i also have no objection to its use.Anastrophe (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have User:MiszaBot III on my user talk page. I have no objection to setting User:MiszaBot II up, provided there's a consensus it should be used. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to User:MiszaBot II to archive, as long as it would function correctly. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Added Mitzy. Archives anything older than 2 weeks. --2ndAmendment (talk) 04:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)