Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 16
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
POV problems
This is growing tiresome, when I try to enter dialog about the POV problem I get stonewalled. Then Yaf, for the sixth time, simply removes the POV tag instead. Let me try to summarize the POV problems I see as needing fixing.
1) Excessive reliance of the theory of originalism and textualism. This is throughout the article and especially true for the introduction and the top part of the article. The repetition of the quote of the text echos the pro-gun belief that gun rights are not to be infringed. Yet, a neutral reality is that courts have allowed widespread regulation of firearms, federally with a few limits, and that the 2A imparts no limit what-so-ever on state law. This is the mainstream point of view, yet is it suppressed in favor of the gun-right advocacy.
2) Excessive original research concerning "concealed carry" theory. The "early commentary in state courts" section is a non-relevant section, that echos the advocacy for concealed carry rights. This concealed carry issue is entirely a state court matter, and is 99.9% irrelevant to the topic of the article.
3) The neutrality tone is in violation of WP:NPOV policy. In simple terms, it seeks to achieve balance by including both advocacy positions, rather than by using neutral tone and allowing the reader to make up their own mind.
4) Deletion of the militia history. A clear POV of the Second Amendment history is that it serves to provide for a militia, but repeatedly the congressional legislation pursuant to the Second Amendment has been deleted from the article. (See books by Joyce Lee Malcom and and Uviller and Merkel for reliable sourcing. This deletion of the militia viewpoint is consistent with POV that 2A is relevant to firearms.
5) The handling of Cruikshank, Miller and Heller all are written with a pro-gun bias.
6) Intent of the Founders given excess emphasis. The thrust of a pro-gun theory about the Second Amendment involves the heritage of the "founders" including a right of personal firearms for "self defense" and implicitly resistance to tyranny. This is a valid point of view given undue weight. Another significant point of view is that the rights protected by the Second Amendment have evolved over time and changed due to changes in customs and legislative changes, especially the Militia Act of 1903. See Uviller and Merkel and other reliable sources. Also, that the duty of government of provide regulation in the interests of safely and public protection trumps the absolute right to firearms. This point of view actually has been the operative point of view of the courts and of legislation, with some recent changes, never-the-less presently the rights described in the Second Amendment is subject to widespread legislation at present. (And the article neglects to mention this reality.)
7) The "common sense gun law" point of view about the 2A is a major view in reliable sourcing, but it is entirely missing from the article. See for instance the point of view expressed recently by the Brady Campaign[1], this significant viewpoint is entirely missing from the article and should be given equal weight.
- 8) Another problem is that the modern political history of the Second Amendment during especially the later half of the Twentieth Century has been scrubbed from the article. Also, mention of the the modern militia movement has been scrubbed. Sourcing: Spitzer, Bodenhamer, Uviller/Merkel, David C. Williams, D.J. Mulloy and other. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Restoring the POV tag to alert readers that this issue is being discussed here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is getting tiresome. When asked for specifics, all that gets mentioned in return are claims of systemic "pro-gun" bias, with repeated claims of "pro-gun" this and "pro-gun" that, again and again and again and again and again. This after the earlier identified "problems" with "ablative absolute" and prefatory clause discussions were all fixed. I find it hard to believe that the section of the article in the intro and in the next section regarding the statement of the two versions of the Amendment are together somehow permeated with "systemic pro-gun bias". Yet, as long as the article remains with a claim of systemic bias by just one editor, with no indications of specifics to fix, and with the one dissenting editor claiming every edit made other than by him is somehow "pro-gun", it is impossible to fix the non-existent "problems". Hoplophobia is what is apparently preventing the improvement of this article. I think the earlier comment that this article can never achieve NPOV, without a POV tagline, due to one editor, only, is likely accurately "on-the-mark". Attempts at 3rd Opinion have failed. Informal and formal mediation have failed. All because of one editor. Perhaps it is time to go back to ArbCom, what with the ArbCom members having changed. (The mediator of the formal mediation, who previously recommended the old ArbCom members take this case to resolve the problem with the one editor, is now himself on the ArbCom. Likewise for another mediator, who herself is now on the ArbCom.) Perhaps it is now time for seeing if the newly elected ArbCom will grant "cert" and take this case. Yaf (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Based on SB's comments above, have tagged individual paragraphs. Lets focus on identifying specific problems, not claiming "systemic pro-gun bias" for everything. Yaf (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Have self reverted, now that SB has tagged the whole article again. Guess we are not to try to fix specific problems, then, but just claim the article has systemic bias and leaved it tagged POV forever? Yaf (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- You misinterpreted my comments. You also have not responded to my comments and questions. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Read the talk page above, and the talk page archives. The way to bring this dispute to an end is to discuss our disagreement and come to agreement. Instead I am repeatedly stonewalled. Asking again one of these questions: Yaf, could you please point to an example of a reliable source which you view as being written with a neutral point of view? I would like to know your thoughts on this so I (we) may better understand your position. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- There are numerous such sources (Halbrook, Cramer, Suprynowicz, the SCOTUS, Kopel, et al.) But, the relevance to writing Wikipedia articles implicit with your question is non-existent. The goal of Wikipedia is to include multiple cited sources, not a single source, for writing articles, such that all major points of view are included. Your proposal is therefore a red herring, that will accomplish nothing, as you consider all edits other than those reflecting your own POV as "pro-gun", and bitterly disagree with all edits other than your own edits (which are relatively few, I might add). Such editor behavior is borderline disruptive, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. (WP:DFTT?) Yet, the historical record is clear; the individual right interpretations of the Second Amendment came before the collective right interpretations, which both came before the civic duty interpretations. And, the first interpretations of the Second Amendment occurred in state jurisprudence, for both the individual and collective right interpretations. Yet, you insist on censorship of all such cited historical facts, cited with reliable and verifiable sources, that present other than the modified collective right interpretations consistent with service in a select militia, that didn't become formalized until the early 20th Century. This approach ignores nearly 150 years of the earlier history of the Second Amendment, or perhaps 175 years of the history, if one considers the history for the first 150 years coupled with the recent history for the last 25 years. And, you continually conflate the history of militia and militia laws with the Second Amendment, despite being that such topics are about entirely different subjects than the Second Amendment. It would be much the same if I insisted that all your edits to the article were "anti-rights", and claimed that the article was full of systemic bias that is "anti-rights", and if I also tried to conflate the First through the Tenth Amendments to being equivalent with the Second Amendment. This would be no different than what you have done over the last 3.5 years, under all your "handles" on Wikipedia. You have also committed a POV fork with the creation of the Right to keep and bear arms article, which you began as a POV fork of this very article, while trying to scrub individual right content and state jurisprudence content regarding interpretations of the Second Amendment out of the Second Amendment article. Meanwhile, we have gone through Third Opinion. (Unsuccessful.) We have gone through informal mediation. (Unsuccessful.) We have gone through formal mediation twice. (Both unsuccessful.) We have gone before ArbCom once. (They ducked the issue.) And we have expended megabytes of discussion on the talk pages, all to no avail. The dispute could end today, if you would but accept article content based on cited, reliable, and verifiable sources presenting other than a collective right interpretation for a select militia. (By the way, who is the "I (we)" to which you refer?) Yaf (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer. (I am ignoring the portions of your reply which are a personal attack.) You see as neutral the writings of Vin Suprynowicz, a libertarian opinion columnist and author of the book _Send in the Waco Killers_ [2], a book with an illustration of the Statue of Liberty holding an assault rifle on the cover. I respect that point of view, but please explain how that is a neutral point of view. Neutral point of view must fairly understand and describe the point of view of the opposition. For instance, can you give an example of the Suprynowicz style of wording which is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. For instance, the subject of common sense gun law in relation to the Second Amendment. Give an example of neutral wording, please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- It depends on the topic. Suprynowicz is useful primarily for documenting popular opinions that currently exist regarding the Second Amendment, for ob-relevance to the current discussion. I fail to see where his collection of old essays on the Waco siege are relevant to writing this article on the Second Amendment. Suprynowicz was also a Vice Presidential candidate of the Libertarian party. Should any politician or author, regardless of political party, be used as the sole source for writing an article on Wikipedia? Of course not. But, the opinions of such folk are certainly useful for documenting opinions that exist, which are often entirely appropriate for inclusion in an article for arriving at a balanced treatment of an article topic. (Incidentally, Suprynowicz's use of irony, ridicule, and satire are not new concepts; they have been used for millennia, see, for example ancient Greek playwright Aristophanes). As stated previously, no single source is appropriate for writing an article on Wikipedia, contrary to what you propose. Your proposed use of a "sole source" for citation in writing this article remains a red herring, intended for drawing the dogs of opinion off into irrelevant byways. Lets focus on the topic at hand. Namely, using a wide range of citations, from reliable and verifiable sources for writing this article. This approach would produce the best article on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Yaf (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- You miss my point. The issue is the neutrality balance point. Your excess focus on WP:RS is selective and evades the POV problem. Neutrality and verifiability: it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias. Verifiability is only one content criterion. . See the 8 items I listed above, there remains an unaddressed neutrality problem with this article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- And so we return once again to the same old complaint, namely, all edits must pass your sole approval, else they reflect "systemic pro-gun bias", because this article attracts editors other than yourself who do not have your keen sense of the proper balance point for the article, especially made difficult since your viewpoint is removed from the actual balance point of the sum total of all neutral, reliable, and verifiable sources. This article shouldn't read like a Brady Campaign poster, with Paul Helmke talking points or Saul Cornell comments, exclusively. (They represent only 2 of the 3 major viewpoints regarding interpretations of the Second Amendment.) The Supreme Court view of the Second Amendment, too, is considered by you to be an extreme POV, which should be excised from the article, except for the minority opinion in the Heller decision, because they just got it wrong according to SaltyBoatr. All major viewpoints should be contained in the article. But, I along with other editors have stated this over and over, including through formal MedCom arbitration, and you have always refused to compromise. This is a clear violation of WP:OWN. I see no path to resolving this non-existant "POV issue" between one editor versus a large number of editors, who see no POV problems, and that you therefore insist on calling names (namely, "pro-gun"), for their clear lack of sensitivity that you, solely, possess. This is not The SaltyBoatr's Encyclopedia. This is Wikipedia. But, of course, you don't believe this. Too bad. Yaf (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Stop the character attacks please. I asked you for an example of neutral wording found in reliable sourcing and you pointed to well known advocacy authors David Kopel, Stephen P. Halbrook, Clayton Cramer, Vin Suprynowicz. Can we agree that neutrality is not advocacy? That seems to be the root of our disagreement. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- You asked for an example of a reliable source who writes with a neutral point of view. In return, I mentioned several: Halbrook, Cramer, Suprynowicz, the SCOTUS, Kopel, et al.. All of these are neutral sources. Yes, I know you disagree with the SCOTUS, but it is a neutral source, nonetheless. Likewise, Halbrook, Cramer, and Kopel are well-respected historians, who have no clouds of academic malfeasance or misconduct hanging over them like Michael A. Bellesiles. Bellisiles is not an appropriate source, having been forced out of Emory University over academic malfeasance regarding his book and published papers, having made up results from records that were destroyed in the Great San Francisco Earthquake. Bellesiles' Bancroft Prize award from Columbia University was rescinded, too, for his book. Yet, if I recall correctly, you used quotes from his book under your other Wikipedia handle to slant this article based upon his now discredited and retracted formerly prize winning book, only backing down when held to task for pushing a proven discredited and non-reliable source. Suprynowicz is a well-respected syndicated columnist and sometimes politician, who again has no malfeasance hanging over him. All of these sources I mentioned are suitable as neutral, reliable, and verifiable sources. If you would prefer Wayne LaPierre, Chris Cox, and Paul Helmke, who are generally associated with being strong advocates of the NRA and the Brady Campaign, respectively, that is fine, too, provided we include a balance of sources to represent all major points of view and don't list just, say, Paul Helmke's talking points, to which you continually point to with the Brady Campaign quotes and cites. But calling the Supreme Court of the United States, and well-respected historians, writers, and politicians "well known advocacy authors" is entirely inappropriate just because they don't agree with "The SaltyBoatr's View of the World". Yaf (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Notice that I raised eight specific POV issues[3][4], and Yaf since has written several thousand words, none addressing my eight specific concerns. Mostly Yaf is attacking my personal character and straw men. Instead of addressing my eight specific issues, Yaf responds with delay tactics and diversion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- No delays, no diversions. The 8 "points" are totally without merit, reducing instead to the single issue of non-conformance with The SaltyBoatr View of the World, which has been discussed at length. It is senseless to play the same old SB game played previously in Formal Mediation, in which the goal posts were moved each and every time in response to attempts to address SB's lengthy lists of points/"questions". Each attempt at answering a point/"question" only leads to additional lists of points/"questions". They multiply geometrically. Ad nauseum. I refuse to play, but choose instead to address the real issues. Yaf (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Yaf, you referred to SaltyBoatr's "other Wikipedia handle". Does he still use that "handle"? What's the history regarding that "handle"? SMP0328. (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I changed my username a long time ago. Can we please discuss the article instead of me? I was asked to explain the POV tag. I explained myself by itemizing eight specific concerns. Since, all I see are several thousand words questioning my personal character and attacking straw men. Zero words written about the eight specific issues. Can we get to work here? Focus on the article, thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Although SaltyBoatr added the SaltyBoatr name "a long time ago" (March 2007), checking logs shows SaltyBoatr does still use the other handle. In all fairness, he has not violated any 3RR edit warring sanctions using his old name simultaneous to the new name. It is a non-issue, and I respect SaltyBoatr's right to privacy. What is important about this is that the current POV dispute dates to several years earlier than the "SaltyBoatr" name, and nothing has changed regarding his claims of "systemic pro-gun bias" in this and other articles. Relative to the 8 current points:
- 1) Excessive reliance of the theory of originalism and textualism. This is throughout the article and especially true for the introduction and the top part of the article. The repetition of the quote of the text echos the pro-gun belief that gun rights are not to be infringed. Yet, a neutral reality is that courts have allowed widespread regulation of firearms, federally with a few limits, and that the 2A imparts no limit what-so-ever on state law. This is the mainstream point of view, yet is it suppressed in favor of the gun-right advocacy.
- 2) Excessive original research concerning "concealed carry" theory. The "early commentary in state courts" section is a non-relevant section, that echos the advocacy for concealed carry rights. This concealed carry issue is entirely a state court matter, and is 99.9% irrelevant to the topic of the article.
- 3) The neutrality tone is in violation of WP:NPOV policy. In simple terms, it seeks to achieve balance by including both advocacy positions, rather than by using neutral tone and allowing the reader to make up their own mind.
- 4) Deletion of the militia history. A clear POV of the Second Amendment history is that it serves to provide for a militia, but repeatedly the congressional legislation pursuant to the Second Amendment has been deleted from the article. (See books by Joyce Lee Malcom and and Uviller and Merkel for reliable sourcing. This deletion of the militia viewpoint is consistent with POV that 2A is relevant to firearms.
- 5) The handling of Cruikshank, Miller and Heller all are written with a pro-gun bias.
- 6) Intent of the Founders given excess emphasis. The thrust of a pro-gun theory about the Second Amendment involves the heritage of the "founders" including a right of personal firearms for "self defense" and implicitly resistance to tyranny. This is a valid point of view given undue weight. Another significant point of view is that the rights protected by the Second Amendment have evolved over time and changed due to changes in customs and legislative changes, especially the Militia Act of 1903. See Uviller and Merkel and other reliable sources. Also, that the duty of government of provide regulation in the interests of safely and public protection trumps the absolute right to firearms. This point of view actually has been the operative point of view of the courts and of legislation, with some recent changes, never-the-less presently the rights described in the Second Amendment is subject to widespread legislation at present. (And the article neglects to mention this reality.)
- 7) The "common sense gun law" point of view about the 2A is a major view in reliable sourcing, but it is entirely missing from the article. See for instance the point of view expressed recently by the Brady Campaign[5], this significant viewpoint is entirely missing from the article and should be given equal weight.
- 8) Another problem is that the modern political history of the Second Amendment during especially the later half of the Twentieth Century has been scrubbed from the article. Also, mention of the the modern militia movement has been scrubbed. Sourcing: Spitzer, Bodenhamer, Uviller/Merkel, David C. Williams, D.J. Mulloy and other.
- Not being an expert in the second amendment, I have kept quiet around many of the issues around this discussion page. One of the points made in the ongoing discussion, however, seems biased enough to warrant comment: the comparison of the Brady Campaign to the Gun Owners of America. To compare an extreme gun rights organization with a mainstream gun control organization is clearly biased - The Brady campaign is clearly not a "fringe" group in the same way the GOA is. A more valid comparison would be the Brady Campaign with the NRA - These two organizations both have clearly shown more willingness to compromise on gun control issues than the GOA (The GOA's F rating of John McCain should be clear evidence of this). The implications here for sourcing should be obvious. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- To call a gun control organization such as the Brady Campaign as "mainstream" is also a form of bias. And, the NRA is itself considered an extreme organization by members of JPFO and GOA, for example. And, many NRA members consider the GOA to be an extreme organization, formed from the more radical former members of the NRA, who left the NRA over a dispute. Even the League of Women Voters, and several churches, for example, are likewise advocacy groups on this topic. "Mainstream", like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Use of such wording should be avoided in writing articles. Similarly, use of talking points from any of these such advocacy groups should likewise be largely deprecated. For this reason, I have proposed we stay away from talking points of the Brady Campaign, the NRA, the JPFO, and the GOA alike, along with other advocacy organizations, to achieve the best balance. (If you note, I also do compare the NRA to the Brady Campaign above; the comparisons chosen depend on the context of the comparison.) Yes, both the Brady Campaign and the NRA have been more prone to compromise, but this also makes them more suspect in the eyes of many, who do not see any advantage to surrendering any inalienable rights.) Sources should be mostly selected from peer reviewed works of non-tainted academics, respected books such as chosen by the courts in documenting court cases, and from court case transcripts themselves, along with other neutral, reliable, and verifiable sources, in citing this article. To do otherwise is to fall into the pit of opinion and advocacy arguments, ad infinitum, which only throws "more petrol onto the fyre." Yaf (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- That is why I favor sticking to middle ground book sources, published and fact checked by well respected publishing houses. I do not advocate for extremist advocacy from either side of the debate. There is plenty of objective published neutral scholarship. I favor Macmillan/McGraw-Hill over Shotgun News. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Point 7 Neutrality Tone balance
- then why did you reference an advocacy group in point seven, rather than a reliable source? Anastrophe (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- I will assume your question is asked in good faith. The point I was trying to make is that the neutrality balance of the article should fall at a neutral balance point located in the middle, between the various credible points of views. On one side is the point of view of Paul Helmke as seen on HuffingtonPost.com in the link I provided and on the other side are the points of views of Vin Suprynowicz and Clayton Cramer editorial columnists for ShotgunNews.com. Yaf has said that he views Suprynowicz and Cramer as good examples of "neutral wording". This article skews unduly towards being sympathetic of the views of Suprynowicz and Cramer. This article skews away from the point of view of Helmke. This indicates a POV WP:UNDUE balance problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, there is precisely one cite to Cramer, footnote no. 84. There is precisely one lengthy quote and a cite to Helmke, footnote no. 40. By your reasoning, we should expand Cramer's content to include a quote, too, to achieve balance. There are no cites to Suprynowicz. Collectively, this indicates no POV WP:UNDUE balance problem, statistically speaking. Cramer and Suprynowicz have also written for the Wall Street Journal. But, you chose a weekly trade newspaper to attach their syndicated work to. OK. That is just an example of POV pushing. I get it. Meanwhile, Helmke has also written for the Huffington Post, and for the Wall Street Journal. I don't see a significant difference here, among the publishing outlets for any of these authors. The ad hominem attacks on Cramer and Suprynowicz, meanwhile, are not conducive to judging the appropriateness of their work for use in citing information in this article. The more serious allegation of "POV WP:UNDUE balance problem" seems unfounded, statistically speaking. Rather, it seems to be just a case of more POV pushing. This is not appropriate. Yaf (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- You twist my words. I was talking of neutrality balance point and tone[6]. The point of view of Paul Helmke about Heller and the 2A being consistent with "common sense gun laws", as he expressed in the editorial in the link I provided, is an example of the point of view missing in the article. That point of view is entirely missing. And, the overall tone of the article skews sympathetic to Cramer and Suprynowicz. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- This article is about the Second Amendment, not about Heller. For commentary on Heller, see the Heller article content (in District of Columbia v. Heller) cited by footnote 50 in the Heller article. Such detailed discussion of the meaning of Heller from advocacy groups belongs there, not here. There is also no information from the NRA regarding the meaning of Heller here. There is content in the Heller article, however, from the NRA, commenting on Heller. The only thing that is twisted here is your sense of POV balance, wanting to always insert one-sided rhetoric pushing the Brady Campaign talking points into this article to the exclusion of presenting neutral content. Extremist positions from both sides of the debate (Brady Campaign or the opposite) related to other topics than the Second Amendment do not deserve any great prominence in this article, being fringe points of view, and certainly do not warrant presentation in a one-sided POV commentary as you propose. As for claims that the views of the article are skewed sympathetic to the views of Cramer and Suprynowicz, this is just Original Research on your part. The article content is certainly not cited to them, save for one footnote attributed to Cramer, i.e., footnote 84. The view that this whole article is somehow biased "systemically pro-gun" simply because it doesn't reflect the sole point of view of the Brady Campaign is without merit. Yaf (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The Heller decision didn't advocate gun possession it simply upheld the original intent of the 2A. Supreme Court decisions on the meaning of the 2A aren't based upon a neutral point of view. They're based upon what the Founding Fathers intended by adding the Bill of Rights. The Heller decision wasn't pro-gun or anti-gun. It simply recognized that the 2A's "shall not be infringed" applies exclusively to the federal government and thus also to citizens of the US who are under federal jurisdiction such as the District of Columbia. The confusion arises from pro-gun groups like the NRA, SAF, etc. who habitually add 'right' to 2A (Second Amendment right) and commensurately ignore all state constitutions. The 2A does not secure, grant or guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, it simply prohibits the federal government from infringing on it. All High Court decisions that have considered the meaning of the 2A have unequivocally stated that. The 2A article should inform readers of the 2A's lawful purpose, not what some people say about it. An article on constitutional law should not be neutral it should be truthful. (Truwik (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC))
I feel that the Second Amendment means what the Supreme Court says it means. Here is what the Justices concurring and dissenting concluded:
[June 26, 2008] JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER, JUSTICE GINSBURG, and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting. “The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.”
[June 26, 2008] JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS, JUSTICE SOUTER, and JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting. “... I take as a starting point the following ... to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting).”
[June 26, 2008] JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. The two sides in this case have set out very different interpretations of the Amendment. Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. See Brief for Respondent 2–4.
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Had the [Miller] Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen.
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.
I believe there is no neutral scholar on this subject. You can personally disagree with the judges but their decision is final. The "common sense" view is not what the Court determined is the law. Dissenting opinions are only that. The individual right position is no longer a point of view. It's binding law. There are topics that remain to be decided but balancing successful and unsuccessful arguments on settled matters is a useless point of view. 69.36.252.34 (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, but the supposition "that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms" is incorrect. The "collective right" vs. "Individual right" controversy was not over which group possessed the right, it was over which group's right could be constitutionally infringed upon. Prior to Heller, the understanding of Congress was that the 2A's prefatory militia clause, limited the 'shall not be infringed' restriction clause to militia-type weapons. This was later dubbed the 'collective right' concept, and in subsequent legislation (e.g.,National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968) Congress limited their infringing to weapons that they deemed were not suitable for militia or army use. Heller then decided that the 2A's restriction clause applied to non-militia type weapons as well (the 'individual right') and held the D.C. handgun ban ordinance as violative of the 2A, and thus unconstitutional. In Justice Stevens' dissent, he first stated: "The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a 'collective right' or an 'individual right.' Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of the right." Stevens then went far afield with "The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank." Justice Stevens' conjecture: "'Surely it [the 2A] protects a right that can be enforced by individuals" is both incomplete and incorrect. It 'protects' the right only from federal infringement; and nowhere did Heller, or any other High Court decision, hold that individuals can 'enforce' their own right. His concern about the 'scope of the right' not being addressed, demonstrates his 'collective right' activist nature. For example, the Heller majority said: "The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government - even the Third Branch of Government - the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon" (pp. 62-3, opinion, court's italics). Mr. Justice Stevens' dissenting response to this: "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian use of weapons..." (p. 46, dissent). Which is precisely what the Framers did, however, Justice Stevens' "elected officials" should have read "Congress." The 2A's restriction applies only to the federal government. (Truwik (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC))
- ^ No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008
- I see several problems here. WP:NPOV policy doesn't require finding a neutral scholar, it requires that representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Since when are judges decisions final? Rather, the current holding, in principle, is respected as the current precedence. Anon above mentions "individual rights position is no longer a point of view", which grants that prior to the present time is was a point of view. In other words things change over time, and this article should describe not just the present condition, but also historical conditions as they change over time, agreed?
- And, perhaps most important, the meaning of "Individual Rights Position" hasn't been agreed. Different people and advocacy groups hold wildly different beliefs as to the meaning of the concept. Looking around I see so many credible points of view, the "I'll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands!" understandings and the "After Heller, The Gun Lobby's Slippery Slope Is Gone; Reasonable Regulations Ahead" understandings and the icing on the cake, penned by Justice Scalia: "Nothing in our opinion, should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
- Exactly how can something so fuzzy be effective "binding law"? It is precedent, and we will see many court cases sorting out what that precedent means. Time will tell. This topic is in flux[7]. In the mean time, this article needs to fairly, without bias, represent all significant viewpoints. Presently it does not. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- U.S. Supreme Court decisions are binding on all courts in the United States, even if the decision is "fuzzy," unless overruled by the Court (e.g., Agostini v. Felton) or by amending the law interpreted in that case (e.g., Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act). As for Wikipedia, Supreme Court decisions are a powerful source for what a Constitutional provision mean, but aren't to be considered definitive. SMP0328. (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- How so? Without incorporation Heller has limited effect on state laws in the courts of the 50 states. Also, nowhere is there a handgun licensing and lock ordinance identical to what DC had, so "binding" has what specific meaning? The reality is that Heller provides a new precedence, yet to be interpreted in forthcoming court cases which will reveal more. Further, it has zero effect on Wikipedia policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- So you think Heller only applies if the challenged law is "identical" to the DC law struck down in that case? Court decisions are not read so narrowly. When Brown v. Board of Education was decided, nobody thought it only applied to Topeka, Kansas or the law at issue in that case; it was the end of "separate but equal." SMP0328. (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- No, of course not. Yet, if the law is not identical to the DC law, the court must interpret. That process of interpretation sometimes takes a very long time, and a very many court cases. Have you read the criticism?[8][9][10][11]. Therefore, the article must be very careful using the term "individual rights" when that term, a political slogan, is so ill defined and ambiguous. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Per Adam Winkler, Professor at UCLA School of Law, Since Heller, its Gun Control: 60, Individual Right: 0.. We should be very careful writing in the article that Heller means that individual gun rights are the law of the land, when in fact this is a very fuzzy concept. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The 'individual' vs. 'collective' right debate is offpoint. The Heller Court decided that the 2A's 'right of the people' meant individual as well as collective. Thus 'individual' would include all people whether or not associated with militias. What has been missed here is that Heller then applied that holding to people who were not in militias, and in the federal District of Columbia. Congress followed up with a law which voided the D.C. ordinance that had outlawed possession of handguns in the District. The Heller decision has no other effect than that. When the Court stated the 2A protected individuals, it meant it only protected them from federal infringement. Prior to that, Congress had held that only weapons suitable for militias were exempt from their infringement. Now, after Heller, any federal legislation that infringes on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms, would be unconstitutional. The point to remember here is that the 2A does not grant or guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. It only protects the right from federal infringement. (Truwik (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC))
- One correction to the above comment: the Council of the District of Columbia, not the Congress, amended DC law post-Heller. Also, to clarify, Heller ruled that an individual had a right to keep and bear arms without having to be a member of any State's militia. It did not speak to any right of any State regarding its militia (i.e., the "collective right"). SMP0328. (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Point of law: The 2A does not say 'people have a right to keep and bear arms', it says: 'the right...shall not be infringed.' Heller held that the 2A's restriction applied to federal laws that infringed on individual arms as well as collective militia-type weapons. That ruling applied the 2A's restriction to the District of Columbia ordinance, it has no effect within the states. Again, the 2A does not guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, it only restricts the federal government from infringing on it, and now after Heller, it restricts citizens in D.C. and other federal territories from infringing on each other's right. (Truwik (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC))
- The operative clause of the Second Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Where in the Heller decision did a majority of the Supreme Court say the Second Amendment protected State militias? I believe it only referenced militias in its discussion of individual right the Court said the Second Amendment protects. SMP0328. (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Prohibiting infringement of the right to keep and bear arms does not confer it. In U.S. v. Cruikshank, at p. 553, the Court said: "the right is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment...means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." Art. I, Sec. 15 of the Connecticut Constitution reads:"Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." (Truwik (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC))
- Point of law: The 2A does not say 'people have a right to keep and bear arms', it says: 'the right...shall not be infringed.' Heller held that the 2A's restriction applied to federal laws that infringed on individual arms as well as collective militia-type weapons. That ruling applied the 2A's restriction to the District of Columbia ordinance, it has no effect within the states. Again, the 2A does not guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, it only restricts the federal government from infringing on it, and now after Heller, it restricts citizens in D.C. and other federal territories from infringing on each other's right. (Truwik (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC))
Composite response: SaltyBoatR quoted the Court: "Nothing in our opinion, should be taken to cast doubt on long standing prohibition on the possession of firearms by the mentally ill...etc." then asked: "Exactly how can something so fuzzy be effective 'binding law'"? It isn't, nor was it intended to be. The Court just made a general comment, that the right was not absolute and that reasonable exceptions to it have been longstanding - such as denying the right to the mentally ill, convicted felons, etc., which all states have done, and denying carrying firearms in government buildings, which both state and federal laws have banned. This was not a definition of the right, nor is it precedent. The Court was justifying such state and federal laws that exist.
SMP0328's "U.S. Supreme Court decisions are binding on all courts in the United States..." is not true. Its decisions on the 2A are binding only on the federal government. The 2A is a restriction the states placed upon congress, not on themselves. In Cruikshank, at 553, the Court held: "The second amendment...means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress." The Presser Court affirmed that, at 265, with: "the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state." As for the statement "Supreme Court decisions are...but aren't to be considered definitive", that's nonsense. The Court, here, was not defining the right it was defining the extent of the amendment's restriction. When the Heller Court used 'protects with the Bill of Rights amendments, it meant protects the right from federal infringement. (See Justice Stevens' dissent, p. 2: "The view of the Amendment we took...history of its adoption." He said the amendment "does not curtail the Legislative power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons..." which was the Court's, and Congress' position prior to Heller. Now, it does curtail "the Legislative power to regulate" such weapons, the Court was very definitive.
SaltyBoatR's "Heller has limited effect on state law" is not true, it has no effect on state law. The 2A can only be violated by Congress.
SMP0328's comparing Heller with Brown v. Board is incongruous. Brown held Kansas' separate but equal school practice was unacceptable - with no constitutional authority to even hear the case - but Kansas obeyed and all states followed suit. Heller was based on a constitutional restriction placed upon Congress, by the states. Heller held that restriction applied to all weapons, not just militia-type, and re-affirmed that the 2A applies only to the federal government.
SaltyBoatR's "if the [state] law is not identical to the DC law, Bill the court must interpret, is likewise not true. From the Bill of Rights' inception to Heller, the 2A's "shall not be infringed" has always been held to apply exclusively to Congress. Applying that to the D.C. law - a territory under federal jurisdiction - did not affect state law. And his "Heller means that individual gun rights are the law of the land" possibility is also without merit. The case was about the extent of federal infringement, not the right. The 2A does not say "the people have the right...", it says " the right of the people [which existed before the federal government was created by the states] shall not be infringed", and that means "it shall not be infringed by Congress"(Cruikshank,Presser, etc.)
SMP0328's "Heller ruled that an individual had a right...without having to be a member of any State's militia." Heller held that the 2A's restriction "shall not be infringed" applies also to individual type weapons as well as militia type. That is, the 2A's restriction on the federal government now applies to all types of weapons. The Court didn't discover a new right - the right pre-existed - they expanded the restriction to include all weapons. SMP0328 then asked: "Where in the Heller decision did...the...Court say the 2A protected State militias?" It didn't. The Court and Congress have always agreed that the 2A forbids infringement on militia-type weapons. Nothing in the decision changed that. All these what-ifs and conjectures have no place in the Second Amendment Article. The proper forum for such would be in Wikipedia Article: Right to keep and bear arms. (Truwik (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
- I described 7 points of POV problems at the top of this section, and those problems all remain. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with truwik. The right to keep and bear arms was a pre-existing right prior to the Constitution and Second Amendment. The Second Amendment protects the right and does not create it. In fact the militiamen at Concord and Lexington elected their own leaders, and Washington first job when getting new militia units, was to try to get the elected officers of those units to behave more like officers. So prior to the Constitution not only did the right to keep and bear arms exist, but also the right to forms companies of armed men under the elected leaders of the men in those companies. This companies not only bore personal arms but also kept artillery. The British went after Concord and Lexington in order to get the artillery and other equipment of the militia companies of those towns.
http://www.geocities.com/mwinthrop/majpit5.html
You will seize and destroy all the artillery, ammunition, provisions, tents, small arms, and all military stores whatever.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Minutemen-(militia)
The Minutemen were usually 25 years of age or younger, and they were chosen for their enthusiasm, reliability, and strength. They were the first armed militia to arrive or await a battle. Officers were elected by popular vote, and each unit drafted a formal written covenant to be signed upon enlistment.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=50913
Just as the British had, he saw "stupidity" among the enlisted men, who were used to the easy familiarity of being commanded by neighbors in local militias with elected officers. Washington promptly insisted that the officers behave with decorum and the enlisted men with deference. Although he enjoyed some success with this original army, the New Englanders went home to their farms at the end of 1775, and Washington had to start fresh with new recruits in 1776.
and what the second amendment is REALLY about - at end of clip. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675
If I knew where she lived I'd propose! Assuming some lucky guy hasn't already snagged her.4.154.252.183 (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
This addresses SaltyBoatR's eight POV problems from the law POV.
1) Not sure what is meant by 'theory of originalism' but the 'gun rights are not to be infringed' is the essence of the 2A article. And, yes state laws have infringed, but as pointed out, that has nothing to do with the 2A. This POV doesn't favor gun-rights, it reflects the purpose of the amendment.
2) Agreed. No state-court case-law has any relevance to the 2A article - UNLESS it makes a definitive statement about the 2A's purpose (e.g. Nunn v. Georgia).
3) There is no neutral tone concerning the 2A. It is fixed binding law. 'Positions' on gun advocacy are not relevant, the 2A's purpose is not determined by a public survey.
4) The 2A does not provide for a militia. It merely prohibits federal infringement on their weapons. Federal legislation which affects the 'right' must be included here because it bears on the 2A's subject matter.
5) Federal case-law that defines the purpose of the 2A is certainly appropriate - it is not 'pro-gun' - it is anti-infringement. (They are not the same thing, the right existed before the amendment.)
6) The Founders' intent is crucial to the meaning of the Bill of Rights. The right to bear arms is inalienable. Whether it should be or not, is not the subject of this article.
7) 'Common sense gun law' is not law. The 2A article is about a constitutional law which has a precise purpose. Viewpoints concerning the 'right' have no affect on the 2A's purpose, and thus should be removed from this article. Advocating federal infringement is asking Congress to violate their oath of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. (The proper forum for that would be within one's own state.)
8) The 20th Century political history should be a part of this article - but only 'federal' history which pertains to the 2A. The 'modern militia movement' is irrelevant, unless a spokesman has stated something publicly concerning the 2A. (The 2A is not about the 'right' or 'militias', it's about infringement.)
The U.S. Supreme Court has the duty and sole power to declare what the U.S. Constitution means. The High Court stated that the right to bear arms was not granted by the U.S. Constitution; nor is the right dependent on that instrument for its existence; that the Second Amendment means no more than that the right shall not be infringed by Congress; and that the amendment is a limitation only upon the national government, and not upon that of the state. Therefore, the Second Amendment Article must be about to whom 'shall not be infringed' applies, and thus whether federal legislation has protected or infringed on the right - all else is irrelevant. (Truwik (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC))
- I agree with just about everything above. I would however allow "collective" arguments to be included and if those points of view were examined in Heller, to include within the article what the Supreme Court has to say on those points of view.68.160.176.7 (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Justice Stevens, in his dissent, had argued that the right to keep and bear arms was a collective right, only exercisable by people who were in militia groups. The Heller majority refuted that (at p. 5 & p. 6 footnote) by noting that the expression "right of the people" occurs in the 1st & 4th Amendments (as well as the 2A) and "by the people" in the 9th Amendment, then stated: "All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not 'collective' rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body." Prior to Heller, and since the NFA of 1934, Congress had regulated weapons which it deemed were not suitable for militias (short-barrelled rifles & shotguns, e.g.). Thus from the NFA of 1934 to Heller, the 'collective right' view held sway. That is, then, the 2A's "shall not be infringed" only applied to militia-type weapons. Now, post Heller, it applies to militia-type and individual-type weapons. (Truwik (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC))
- The courts publish dissentng opinions to show that all arguments had been heard and examined. I am in favor of including the "collective" viewpoint with any Heller commentary on the various arguments of that camp, for the same reason. 68.160.176.7 (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- There seems to be misunderstanding about the meaning of 'collective' and 'individual.' And this misunderstanding appears to be based on the notion that the right is somehow inextricably bound to the amendment. That is, without the amendment, there would be no right. If that be the case, how do we explain the right's existence before the amendment's? From at least 1776 to 1791, all Americans were exercising the right, whether they were associated with a militia or not. So both the individual right and the collective right existed before the amendment. And both groups continued to exercise the right for the rest of that century, through the 19th Century and into the 20th Century, after the amendment. In historical fact, both groups have had the right (whether they exercised it or not) from our beginnings to the present. Thus the right is not dependent on the amendment for its existence. The right is inalienable, which means "incapable of being alienated, surrendered or transferred." The Second Amendment is not a 'right' it is a 'restriction' on the federal government. Stated otherwise: If the U.S. Constitution were repealed and the federal government disbanded, Americans would still have the right to bear arms. (Truwik (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC))
- Some peple think that collective rights can only be exercised by a group. That is wrong. The collective exercise of a right is just a whole bunch of people exercising their individual rights at the same time. It has for instance been found that the right to "assemble" is an individual right and not a collective right. The whole "collective" right thing is a result of growing governmenal power and those in government finding any excuse that sounds even remotely logical to reduce the common mans resistance to that encroachment. Since people defending their rghts with guns in their hands are more effective at resisting encroachment, those in power attempt to dimish that ability to resist by doing everything they can to reduce gun ownership.
- Actually I should take back that part about government power, it is more like a group of people whose aim is to grow their power at everyone elses expnse, and who currently control large parts of the government, including the Justice Department and the Courts, banking, the news indutry, the entertainment industry and quite a few more industries. They control large chunks of the econmy, and they have paid agents everywhere who help push their agenda. Some of those agents are paid and know what they are doing and some are "usefull idiots".
Some quotes from Kissinger
“"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government." - Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberger meeting at Evian, France, May 21, 1992.
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."
Feel free to call me paranoid.141.154.12.116 (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Presidential administrations
Anastrophe removed the Presidential administrations section, claiming it added nothing to the article; I restored it. I believe it is relevant to the article to have what past Presidential administrations have said regarding the Second Amendment. There are sections regarding the Congress and the federal courts; there should also be one about the executive branch. SMP0328. (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- okay. we need to add significant material to it however. it excludes 52 of the 56 presidential administrations this country has had. some have strongly supported the second amendment, some have been strongly against it, most have had little to say about it, and since the executive has scant powers to affect the second amendment directly, it seems to be giving undue weight to a relatively trivial aspect of the 2A. Anastrophe (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- For new material! I vote that we add the fact that Obama has already backpedaled on is campaign promise to leave guns alone.68.160.141.242 (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- see the problem? it just becomes a magnet for POV pushing, which this article doesn't need. Anastrophe (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Everything on Wikipedia is "a magnet for POV pushing" (see Talk:Barack Obama). That isn't a reason to remove reliably sourced material. I have no objection to having material added to that section. SMP0328. (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- How is this a POV push? If we are going to add material on additional administrations we need to start SOMEWHERE. Starting with the current administrations seems logical to me. I think readers would be more interested in learning about Obama's stint at the Joyce Foundation pushing gun control, then the thoughts of say Grant or Cleveland on the issue. Although thinking about it Jefferson's views that a gun should be your constant companion ranks up there.68.160.141.242 (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- i still maintain it gives undue weight to a couple of relatively trivial references to the second amendment. Anastrophe (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- because, as others have noted, the article is large (though not "too large" ;^). adding counterpoising trivial information won't satisfy the weight issue. presidential memoranda have no actual legal weight or clout at all, they're merely something issued from the bully pulpit of a sitting administration. wonderful as president grant's comments were, they were merely comments, and his later service as president of the NRA is interesting, but that's grist for Ulysses S. Grant, not this article, which isn't about the NRA. Anastrophe (talk) 03:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Article length
At almost 9,000 words, this is one of the longest articles on Wikipedia, almost double the length of the First Amendment article, for instance. Does anyone else see sections to be pruned, or have reasons that I shouldn't prune the article that aren't based in petty name calling? Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- you're mistaken. the readable prose of the article is currently 5384 words. i'd be interested to know where you derived the opinion that it is "one of the longest articles on wikipedia". it is a hotly contested amendment, thus leading to greater material focused on the subject matter. the article for the third amendment is only 558 words. why is that not your benchmark? there is no need to 'prune' the article. i see no objective measure that justifies doing so. Anastrophe (talk) 07:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- and for the record, the readable prose of the first amendment article is 5027 words. your claim is hyperbole. (to easily find page size info, see User_talk:Dr_pda/prosesize.js Anastrophe (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- The references section contains large amounts of readable prose, quotes and editorial commentary, and does indeed contribute to the length of the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- that may be. but the prosesize tool displays article size based upon the formal WP guidelines, and on that basis, the article does not even approach being 'one of the longest articles on wikipedia', and no objective basis has been provided to justify shortening it. again, if the articles on other amendments are ostensibly some sort of measure, then why isn't the third amendment the benchmark? the answer should be obvious. Anastrophe (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Here is the guideline then: WP:SIZE. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- correct. and it supports what i just wrote, in all respects. note also that Special:LongPages (linked to in the size guideline), which lists the top 1000 longest articles on wikipedia, does not include the second amendment article. so, at this point, we have a lot of sound and fury claiming that this is one of the largest articles on wikipedia, and the quiet fact that it is not, nor does it even need trimming to meet the guidelines. there is no objective basis for shortening this article. there is reasonable reason to refine the article and make it more readable; that is not license to remove material from the article merely for the sake of shortening it. this matter is effectively closed. Anastrophe (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Personally I think it needs to get bigger. Among other things, the current article is missing any mention of the fact that the militia is a legal body defined both by US and state laws, and that the Amendment was in fact designed to forbid "ANY" exercise of federal power designed to disarm the militia or any member thereof. A definition of the word "infringe" and how it is used in patent law would also be nice. BTW: The wiki article on the TV show Heroes is about 20 pages (results may vary due to font and screen size), which is about the same size as this article. Does a TV show deserve more space then a Constitutional Amendment? I'd have to say only a boob tube addict would say so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.72.56 (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Whether an article about a television program is too long has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. At 97kb, the article is over double the length of any other constitutional amendment article. It's not just that the article is long; it's that it is rambling and unfocused. Adding a long section on patent law would be ridiculously off topic. I will suggest areas to this cut in this section where it can be discussed. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- This article is also about the most disputed Amendment. Including all the various points in dispute takes space. Rambling and unfocused is what you get when a bunch of people with different opinions on what is important keep adding things and disputing items which they disagree with. Add in the occasional drop in that does a major or minor edit and you what do you expect to get?
- Perhaps another way to say it is that the article is bloated with editors making the points. The article consists of dueling points of view, with the balance point set by a systemic bias reflecting editors advocacy agendas. I believe that it the article were rewritten in balanced tone it would be much shorter. I doubt there is a good reason that the word "individual" needs to be mentioned forty-seven times. Obviously, there is a political agenda among some editors to make sure that everybody believes that the Second Amendment is synonymous with the gun rights slogan termed "individual rights". SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- If the article was rewritten to a much smaller size then a multitude of editors, me included, would descend on it to flesh out points that they considered important and in short order the article would be back to its large messy self. I suggest you learn to live with it.141.154.110.178 (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
At the risk of making many editors upset, I have removed the entire argument about 'keep and bear arms' from the article. This section embodies everything in this article that is inappropriate to an encyclopedia article. Different editors essentially writing short term papers on what they think 'keep and bear arms' means to further their own POVs is not what one finds in an encyclopedia.
Something about this disagreement could be in the article if someone briefly and objectively summarized the different schools of thought in this debate without going too far afield (Cicero!)
It might even be worth having a section titled 'Controversies and Interpreting the Amendment' where all the debates about how the Second Amendment should be interpreted can be succinctly summarized without turning the whole article into a giant messy war. I hate to make a huge drastic edit like this without consensus, but something huge and drastic needs to be done. This article isn't getting any better. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Your drastic deletion of material goes much too far. Would you try it again, a piece at at time? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
i'm going to repeat comments i made above, since nwlaw63 apparently missed them. "correct (re WP:SIZE). and it supports what i just wrote, in all respects. note also that Special:LongPages (linked to in the size guideline), which lists the top 1000 longest articles on wikipedia, does not include the second amendment article. so, at this point, we have a lot of sound and fury claiming that this is one of the largest articles on wikipedia, and the quiet fact that it is not, nor does it even need trimming to meet the guidelines. there is no objective basis for shortening this article. there is reasonable reason to refine the article and make it more readable; that is not license to remove material from the article merely for the sake of shortening it. this matter is effectively closed." you have no consensual rationale for taking a meat-axe to this article nwlaw63. your edits could be construed as disruptive and sanctionable considering the above. Anastrophe (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- I should take the opportunity to make a point about length. Yes, the article is too long. But this is a symptom of the problem - the problem itself is not about word count. The problem is the huge abundance of irrelevant, confusing material that uses extensive inappropriate historical quotation, veers wildly into original research and exists only to support the various POVs of this article's editors. I understand that there are editors on this page who passionately believe in the individual rights version of to keep and bear arms. There are then people who believe in the military, militia-based view of the right. Let's summarize these views succinctly, the way an encyclopedia is meant to do. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Responding with threats rather than reasoned argument seems to be sadly typical of editors on this article. No one, it seems, wishes to defend the existence of this section. It seems that editors take the view that consensus is need to remove inappropriate pieces of the article, but that none is needed to throw in more more POV, off-topic material. This explains the sad state of this article to a great degree. I have invited editors to discuss the relevance of this section and how it can be included in an appropriate form. In the meantime, I will continue to edit in an effort to better the article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Frankly, having each "camp" make a long argument about what to keep and bear arms means while referencing Aristotle and Cicero to support the philosophical underpinnings of their argument, turns this article into a bad joke. What would work is to state something along the lines of "There are two schools of thought as to the meaning of 'to keep and bear arms'. Some see this as an individual and private rights to bear arms for self defense. Other see this right only in a military context...' I'm not saying that is the perfect wording, but the long historical quotes to buttress competing points of view have to go. Is anyone here going to try to pretend that an actual encyclopedia would contain a section that looks like this? Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- you seem to have some fundamental misunderstandings about how wikipedia works. like it or not, a single editor deciding to meataxing large chunks of sourced material, unilaterally, is not how wikipedia works. if you don't like it, perhaps you should find some other encyclopedia to edit, but in the here and now, yes, your edits were disruptive, possibly designed to make a WP:POINT, and could result in sanctions if you were to continue doing them. sorry you don't like that, but it's how it is. try working collaboratively with your fellow editors. take a chunk of the article that you think needs to go (and "I don't like it" isn't a good starting point), reproduce it here, and explain your rationale for removing it (though offering suggested new/simplified/better text might be the better approach). explain why you believe reference to Aristotle and Cicero in an encyclopedia article is outside the realm of what a 'real' encyclopedia would have in it. Anastrophe (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- and lets not forget: your original claim was indeed that the word count was too large. you claimed it was one of the largest articles on wikipedia. you've shifted your argument to something entirely different now. your original rationale was simply 'too long based on word count'. you can hardly fault fellow editors for taking issue with you making changes based on one rationale, then ex post facto changing the rationale. Anastrophe (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- The length of the article and the irrelevant nature of much of material included therein are separate but interrelated issues which together represent a serious problem for the article. I am not seeking to remove material "because I don't like it", but because it represents a clear violation of the Wikipedia: no original research policy (analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position). I notice that you devote a fair amount of space to criticizing me and questioning my motives, and none to actually defending the relevance of this section. I proposed above a starting place in summarizing the competing views of 'to keep and bear arms'. Do you agree or have an argument for a different approach? Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- it's not my obligation to 'defend the relevance of this section', it's your obligation to detail, precisely, what original research and synthesis is taking place. a complaint of OR or SYN without actual specifics about them, as a basis for mass deletion of material, won't stand. specifically detailed explanations are necesary, as well as allowing other editors to collaborate on the changes, rather than unilateral meat-axing. if there is OR and SYN, i'll be delighted to see it edited appropriately. meat-axing is not appropriate. specific details are. Anastrophe (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have been quite specific - You don't seem to want to actually respond to the point that I am making. The entire section is an argument; it doesn't even approach NPOV. Read the first paragraph:
- "The people's right to have their own arms for their defense is described in the philosophical and political writings of Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, Machiavelli, the English Whigs and others.[23] Though possessing arms appears to be distinct from "bearing" them, the possession of arms is recognized as necessary for and a logical precursor to the bearing of arms.[24] Particularly in the event of oppression or slaughter of people by governments or racial majorities, researchers have noted that exercise of the right to bear arms internationally is intrinsically linked to a people's ability to possess them,[25] and that the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.[26]"
- This paragraph reads like an essay designed to promote a particular POV about the meaning of to keep and bear arms. There is not even a pretense to objectivity here. In its most embarassing aspect, it calls on philosophers thousands of years past to support its argument. What's needed is for the article to recognize that this isn't "the objective truth", but merely a point of view. Phrasing it as such will allow it to be included in an NPOV way. The same goes for the military view of keep and bear arms as well. Furthermore, these views could be summarized in such a way that doesn't call for interminable quotations that would never find their way into a real encyclopedia. Thoughts? Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion that could decrease the article's size. The 2A isn't about militias, it's about the right not being infringed upon. Rights, including the right to bear arms, are inalienable. In the United States, every citizen, by virtue of his birth here, has these rights. Arguing the pros and cons of the arms' right, has unnecessarily turned this article in a moot court for personal agendas. It is pointless to debate a subject matter over which neither side has any power. Regardless of what consensus might be reached by these dueling editors, the right would still be intact. It's inherent. For my suggestion to reflect this in the article's lead-in statement, see NPOV problems at end. (Truwik (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC))
- I've pointed out a number of areas where the article could be reduced in size. Most of the section on "to bear" arms can be disposed of since the subject is the right "to keep and bear" arms, not just the right to "bear arms". The WARD material does not belong in case law since nothing there is about case law. Additional misc. but plainly BOGUS material from paid Joyce Foundation mouthpiece Cornell should also be gotten rid of. How can anyone take him seriously when he opines that the collective right viewpoint predated the individual right viewpoint when all evidence points otherwise.68.160.176.7 (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. There is an abundance of extraneous material here, that then generates comments and ever-more excursions into pre-American history - even word studies. For example, does 'bear' mean "a large heavy mammal having long shaggy hair"; or "carry"? If the former, would that include Pandas, and if not, why not? Do some editors hate Tibet? And just because the polar icecaps are melting is no reason to exclude Polar Bears from this study into origin of the species! How will we ever know which came first - the chicken or the egg - not to mention, why 'know' is spelled with a 'k'? You get the picture - I agree that Prof. Cornell's dissertations (and similar writings by others of his ilk) should be removed from this article. (Citing books as authorities, without quoting from them, only serves to disguise motives and mislead.) Again, this article is not about the right, per se, it's about the "shall not be infringed" restriction, which applies exclusively to the federal government. (Truwik (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC))
- It is not extraneous. It needs to be refined to indicate that since the right protected is the "right to keep and bear arms" it includes BOTH the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms. The way that section is written, the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms have been separated and seem almost opposed to each other as if it is one it can't be the other. The Second Amendment protects BOTH.68.160.141.242 (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Saul Cornell paid mouthpiece of the Joyce Foundation - POV bias issue
Per the wiki article on the Joyce Foundation, it engages in substantial gun control activies.
Per the following, Joyce Foundations activites include buying up whole issues of Law Journals and filling them with articles supporting gun control.
In 1999, midway through Obama’s tenure, the Joyce board voted to grant the Chicago-Kent Law Review $84,000, a staggering sum by law review standards. The Review promptly published an issue in which all articles attacked the individual right view of the Second Amendment.
In a breach of law review custom, Chicago-Kent let an “outsider” serve as editor; he was Carl Bogus, a faculty member of a different law school. Bogus had a unique distinction: he had been a director of Handgun Control Inc. (today’s Brady Campaign), and was on the advisory board of the Joyce-funded Violence Policy Center. Bogus solicited only articles hostile to the individual right view of the Second Amendment, offering authors $5,000 each. But word leaked out, and Prof. Randy Barnett of Boston University volunteered to write in defense of the individual right to arms. Bogus refused to allow him to write for the review, later explaining that “sometimes a more balanced debate is best served by an unbalanced symposium.” Prof. James Lindgren, a former Chicago-Kent faculty member, remembers that when Barnett sought an explanation he “was given conflicting reasons, but the opposition of the Joyce Foundation was one that surfaced at some time.” Joyce had bought a veto power over the review’s content.
Joyce Foundation apparently believed it held this power over the entire university. Glenn Reynolds later recalled that when he and two other professors were scheduled to discuss the Second Amendment on campus, Joyce’s staffers “objected strenuously” to their being allowed to speak, protesting that Joyce Foundation was being cheated by an “‘agenda of balance’ that was inconsistent with the Symposium’s purpose.” Joyce next bought up an issue of Fordham Law Review.
The plan worked smoothly. One court, in the course of ruling that there was no individual right to arms, cited the Chicago-Kent articles eight times. Then, in 2001, a federal Court of Appeals in Texas determined that the Second Amendment was an individual right.
The Joyce Foundation board (which still included Obama) responded by expanding its attack on the Second Amendment. Its next move came when Ohio State University announced it was establishing the “Second Amendment Research Center” as a think tank headed by anti-individual-right historian Saul Cornell. Joyce put up no less than $400,000 to bankroll its creation. The grant was awarded at the board’s December 2002 meeting, Obama’s last function as a Joyce director. In reporting the grant, the OSU magazine Making History made clear that the purpose was to influence a future Supreme Court case:
Since the activities of the Joye Foundation includes providing funds to other parties to be "paid mouthpieces" and push the Joyce Foundation party line and since Saul Cornell received such funds to buy the opinion of the "Second Amendment Research Center" he does no merit consideration as an unbiased source. The following article adds more detail to the Second Amendment Research Center.
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/JoyceCornellHeller.pdf
Per the article "Ohio State understood that the money, and the Center, were meant to influence future Supreme Court rulings"
the following quote is also indicative of his being a "paid mouthpiece"
When I asked its director, Saul Cornell, in an email exchange if any participants in its acedemic programs could advocate the individual rights position, he responded that he would obtain sepeate funding to permit this to happen
Since the opinions of Mr. Cornell can obviously be bought I have no confidence that his opinions as cited in the Second Amendment article have not been bought and paid for, and skewed to reflect the wishes of his buyer.
Until such time as all references attributed to him are removed, I have a POV dispute with the article similar to pevious POV disputes with the NRA and Brady Campaign.141.154.110.178 (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
On the bright side, removing all material where Mr Cornell is cited will reduce the size of the article and should make Salty Boatr and nwlaw63 a bit happier. I am confident of their support to remove this material. ;-) 141.154.110.178 (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Are we talking about the same thing? I am referring to the book published by Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5, page 7. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
All material means all material and includes all books and articles authored by him. 141.154.110.178 (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Please be aware that I am taking this position due to what I see as a Zero tolerance policy for biased material within this article. As an example of this Zero tolerane policy I cite the following fact. When researching the past history of this article I noticed that a link, not material within the article, but a simple LINK to NRA material was removed from the page due to what I believe to be POV bias issues. To confirm this removal was a bias issue would involve going through discussions on this page some two years old. I do not have the time nor inclinaton to do so but you must agree that removing LINK to NRA material SEEMS to have been some sort of bias issue. Again I am not talking about a link to material cited in the article, but a link similar to the current link on the side of the article to the various amendments and assorted Firearm legal topics. I believe that you will agree that any POV bias standard which prohibits a mere link to a biased organization includes the banning of any and all authors identified as having taken money to deliver a bought and paid for opinion. From the available evidence Saul Cornell is in fact just such an author.141.154.110.178 (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Have you read the Wikipedia policy on sourcing? And, bias? See WP:V and WP:NPOV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Please advise me on the difference between a biased opinion originating with the NRA and a biased opinion arising from a "bought and paid for mouthpiece" of the Joyce Foundation. I fail to see any.
- BTW: Was I wrong to assume your support in deleting obviously biased material from the article?
- BTW2: If you wish to use another book for source material Amazon ranks The Founders Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms by Halbrook as the #1 seller in its genre. It currently ranks as Book 2,243 in Amazon sales compared to Cornell book which comes in at 143,833. That's the paperback version from last year. Cornells hardcover from 2 years back ranks 517,331. Low numbers good, high numbers bad. As for reader ranking, Halbrook gets all 5's except for 1 4 while Cornell gets 5 5's a 4 and 4 1's. One of Cornells 5's was from the publisher so it doesn't count. The sales difference is even worse when you consider the fact that Holbrooks book is a hardcover and sells for almost twice the price of Cornells paperback. Makes me wonder if Cornell had a loss on the book and if the Joyce Foundation is picking up the tab.141.154.110.178 (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Halbrook is the NRA's outside counsel and his book's ranking was a part of a book bomb created by the gun rights community to raise its rankings. The scholarly reviews of Cornell's book have been excellent, but obviously not everyone agrees with the interpretation.
WP:V reqires the us of RELIABLE published source. Does anyone dispute that a "bought and paid for" opinion is not RELIABLE? If no one disputes I will take action sometime next week and delete UNRELIABLE material based on Saul Cornell and the Law Review articles bought and paid for by the Joyce Fondation. 141.154.14.50 (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Did you see in the WP:V policy that we are to favor third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Do you have an opinion whether or not the Oxford University Press meets this standard? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oxforn Press is a PUBLISHER! It is not a PUBLISHED SOURCE. Fact checking and accuracy is the authors job not the pblishers. Again, the issue here is RELIABLE! Please advise if you believe that a "bought and paid for" opinion crafted to the agenda of the purchaser, is RELIABLE.68.163.104.5 (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Your opinion of policy doesn't seem to match Wikipedia policy. Could you please read WP:SOURCES and square up the differences? The question at hand is whether Oxford University Press is a reliable source in accordance with Wikipedia policy standards. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Again: A publisher is not a PUBLISHED SOURCE and last I checked Oxford Press was a publisher. If it's not even a SOURCE it can hardly be a RELIABLE source. Also again: Please advise if you believe that a "bought and paid for" opinion crafted to the agenda of the purchaser, is RELIABLE68.163.104.5 (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Third opinion. This is more a WEIGHT and NPOV issue than an RS issue. SaltyBoatr's edit fails to note that Cornell's view is controversial. Phrase it as Cornell's POV, fairly note that it's disputed and that more reputable scholars like Amar disagree with him, and there shouldn't be a problem. THF (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually if one being intellectually honest one would note that Cornell and Amar are largely in agreement about the original meaning of the Second Amendment and disagree over the incorporation issue.
There is no such thing as a non-controversial claim in this contested field. Much of this is simply gun rights troll work. If this is to be serious it will need to recognize that many of the gun rights sources are tainted by their funding as well. I suggest we focus on the arguments, not the funding. Alternatively we can get rid of virtually everyone who has written about this topic since they can't pass the funding test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philo-Centinel (talk • contribs)
- I agree that the funding is irrelevant. Joyce funds these scholars because they oppose gun rights, not the other way around. THF (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- You said the magic word. FUNDS!!!!!!!!!!! There is no difference beween hiring an in house author to push your agenda, and funding an outside author. Remember that Mr. Cornell got $400,000 in INITIAL funds. Who knows how much more followed. Frankly I don't know that many people who would NOT toe the party line for $400,000.
- And ditto, but on the other side of the coin, when the NRA hires council like Stephen Halbrook. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- THF - I for one would like to see the POV dispute label come off the article. Your solution would keep it there.
- Philo - Please lay off the name calling unless you want me to start calling you a gun control freak or a domestic enemey of the US Constitution. As for reliable source, I believe that many many such sources exist. I just don't believe that Saul Cornell or issue 76 of the Chicago Kent Law Review are reliable. From the evidence available Saul Cornell is nothing but a glorified handpuppet of the Joyce Foundation. Whatever comes out of his mouth is what Joyce wants to come out.
- Salty Boatr - I believe if I got a copy of Halbrooks book and started including material from it you would start screamin POV bias. Am I wrong?
- RE: WEIGHT issue, There does seem to an excesive number of references to Cornells book. Thank you for pointing out that we have a WEIGHT problem as well.68.163.104.5 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
This is rather astonishing. The Cornell book was peer reviewed by Oxford and widely reviewed in scholarly journals. Halbrook's book was not properly peer reviewed and was subsidized by a conservative think tank. The notion that Cornell is a front for Joyce is delusional. Anyone who has read the book would realize it argues for a strong individual rights tradition, but dates that tradition to the Jacksonian era. It does not claim there was no individual rights tradition in the 18th century, but argues that it was relatively weak. Amar argues that there is no individual rights tradition until Reconstruction and that is held up as scholarly. Anyone who claims otherwise is really just mouthing gun rights propaganda. Just read the Levinson review of the book in Reviews in American History. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philo-Centinel (talk • contribs) 21:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
This may be premaure but I'd like to welcome you to the world of Conspiracy nuts, where governent offials only care about getting more money and power and big money has bought up the government. ;-)
Please check the links and text at the top of the page. Per those links Cornell got $400,000 in startup fund for his Second Amendment Research Center from Joyce. That was just the start up money. There are indiction more followed to keep the center going. In my world $400,000 buys a lot. What does it buy in yours?
Here's a additional link to what looks like a publication from Ohio State itself which states that Saul Cornell received a two year grant from the Joyce Foundation to set up his Center. No amount is mentioned. Can't get much close to the horses mouth then that
http://humanities.osu.edu/news/humex/humex2003.pdf
Here's a link to someone who disputes Cornells accuracy. Suposedly Cornell states that a certain stature applies to guns. According to this author it only applied to knives.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/08/historian_revie.php
From this it looks like he's not up for a debate on the Secon Amendment issues and instead ties to muzzle those advocting the individual rights position. Not waht I consider the attitude of a tre scholar.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/more_on_joyce_f.php
Can't say that further research into him has made me any more confidebt of his RELIABILITY! I therefore contnue to have issues where he is used as a reference. 68.163.104.5 (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Arms and the law is funded by the NRA-- this is precisely the sort of biased treatment of information that suggests that we ought not to trust the person making the complaints about Cornell. Why trust Hardy-- who has no serious academic credentials and is funded by the NRA?
As far as the issue of knives goes-- it is a mistake to treat the Second Amendment as if it protects a right to own guns. The actual language is guns. If one actually looks at militia weapons one might argue that certain knives ought to have more protection than handguns. One can argue the point--but the notion that this discredits Cornell is silly. I suspect we are dealing with someone without any legal education or any other academic credentials. Clearly the argument is typical of what one sees with high school students--
Then notion that a 400,000 grant disqualifies scholarship would mean that everything produced by scholars at George Mason Law school needs to be discredited. The NRA gave more than a million for Nelson Lund's chair. Robert Levy the money behind Heller is also a big donnor to Mason-- in fact the recent symposium on Heller held at GMU was in space named after Levy-- so do we simply toss out everything from GMU-- by the logic used here we ought to-- I think it is better to note the role of money in this debate and move on to facts and serious scholarly argument.
At the end of the day Cornell was cited by SCOTUS in Heller and has published in top law reviews and history journals. You can disagree with him, but this sort of smear tactic only suggests an effort to silence those who don't accept the gun rights view of things. In my posts I have tried to be balanced and weed out tedious discussions that would never survive any serious editorial process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philo-Centinel (talk • contribs)
Re:Hardy- I can't seem to find any reference to any Hardy in the article. Seems he's not trusted. Re:Levy - no material from any Levy is referenced. Again not trusted. re:Lund - One quote not subject to dispute and double reference to boot. See current referenced 99 and 100. Therefore not trusted, only reference has a backup.
Your complaints regarding the trust given to gun rigt advocates seem to be a bit thin. More like nonexistent!
Speaking of smears the "gun rights troll" remark was yours! You are the one with the smears. Ever heard of "Don't bitch about the mote in your neighbors eye, when you have a freaking beam in yours" or something like that? How about "War is Hell"?
Of course it is the gun right activists that would bitch about Cornells bias. You'd hardly think that his fellow gun control advocates would call Cornell biased now would you? Sticking a knife in the back of one of your leading spokesman is just NOT DONE!
Yet Again: The wiki issue here is whether a "bought and paid for" opinion is RELIABLE. I say it is not. Granted not wiki policy, but the rules of evidence are on my side. Compelled evidence is suspect and inadmissabe in court. What you may not know is that compelled evidence includes BOUGHT evidence.
One of the defintions for compel is To exert a strong, irresistible force on; sway
There is no doubt in my mind that $400,000 can SWAY a person! Is there in yours?
Lastly, if you believe that someone has received enough money from the NRA or any other gun rights group or organization to SWAY him, then simply provide proof (with the amount) and I will support the deletion of all references to material printed AFTER the money changed hands. If you insist I will even go back a year or two from the date of the transaction.
In the case of Cornell the money changed hands in 2003 and the book in question was printed afterwards.68.163.104.5 (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Hardy's web site is arms and the law which is cited for some of the critiques of Cornell in the discussion above. It is the basis for much of this Anti-Joyce nonsense. The charge that money influenced the scholarship has no foundation. You would need to show intent. If anything the fact that his book and several of the articles acknowledge an individual rights tradition and actually critique the traditional collective rights argument cuts against your case. Halbrook was cited as good authority by someone in this thread yet he is professional gun rights lawyer and the NRA got his Amazon numbers up by a book bomb. You might thinkg $400,000 is a lot but in the sciences grants run into the millions. Even in the social sciences grants run over a million. Actually $400,000 is not very much money for an academic grant at all. You make it seem like the money was given in small bills in a parking lot in a brown paper bag. University's take over head, release time is charged at the highest possible rate-- if you hire graduate students you have to pay their tuition and health insurance. I would say that if you actually had ever attended a serious university you would realize how silly your charges sound to an educated person. If you add up the fact that some of the money was used for conferences that is at least another 50-75 grand. The amount is really modest for serious academic grants and is a fraction of the money spent by the gun lobby on the many law review articles produced by David Kopel and others. The whole thing is guilt by smear-- the Joyce issue is a way to not deal with evidence and argument. Are you going to get serious or not. Either talk about evidence and argument, or find another hobby Philo-Centinel (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Yet again: Hardy is NOT trusted. He has no voice in this article. Do not use him as an example.
Also again: You are free to look over the citations on the article. If you find anyone that you suspect of having received enough NRA money to be biased, I will support any move you make to delete content from that person, but only AFTER you provide a link to sufficient proof.
FYI: I pumped Halbrooks book to the extend of stating that per Amazon it is WILDLY outselling Cornells book despite being twice the price and that those commenting there rated it higher then Cornells book.
Regarding whether $400,000 is lot. I'd say it would keep a professor in a Univerity employed for a number of years. That's a lot to a professor.
I was puzzled by your comment above that he Second Amendment refers to guns - your comment follows
it is a mistake to treat the Second Amendment as if it protects a right to own guns. The actual language is guns.
Checking the text I confirmed that the actual language is "arms" and not guns. You should remember this in order not to appear ignorant in the future. Wondering what else you may have gotten wrong I checked to see whether Cornell had actually been referenced in the Heller case. Turns out he had,
in the dissent
about Negro millitias after the Civil War!
In other words, he was a bit player for the losing side! 68.163.104.5 (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Due to your alteration of my Complaint below with the intent to hide Cornell worked for Joyce in 2006, the same year his Second Amendment book was printed, as editor of their bought and paid for issue of the Stanford Law and Policy Review I am no longer accepting complaints from you to be in good faith. You are dead to me! Get lost.
Other editors are asked to check the changes made to this discussion page in history at 19:06 for confirmation of intent to hide evidence.68.163.104.5 (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Since no valid obections have been made to deleteting biased, bought and paid for, opinion from Saul Cornells book I will now start to remove all references to him and his book as he is a paid "mouthpiece" of a gun control advoacy group. Again Mr. Cornell received $400,000 fom the Joyce Foundation prior to the printing of this book in support of their gun control agenda and the relationship continues.
- The only objection so far is that his printing house is a valid source. This objection is BOGUS as a printing house is neither a book, a jounal, a paper, an article, a court case or associated legal document such as a brief, also is not a letter, or a transcript of a hearing, speech and whatnot. In short a printing house is NOT a source.
Portion of Verifiabiliy policy for Salty Boatr.
In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.141.154.110.173 (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- You and I may disagree about what constitutes a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources for a description of my belief. This is Wikipedia policy and is not subject to compromise. I am willing to seek a third opinion to resolve our disagreement about whether the books published by the Oxford University Press qualify as reliable sources or not. Are you willing? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Paying a cutout (a sockpuppet in wikispeak) to push your point of view is equivalent to self-publishing
Self-published sources (online and paper)
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.[5]
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.141.154.110.173 (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Cornell is an ongoing issue - please do not archive this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.12.116 (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- This dispute indeed has gone on a long time, I agree. I suggest that if you continue to not be satisfied that you pursue satisfaction using the procedures outlined in WP:Dispute Resolution. I would be willing to participate in this process with you. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Fine! Explain to me why this article should use a known mouthpiece of a gun control group as its most prevalent source.141.154.12.116 (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
New Robertson v. Baldwin belongs under Reconstruction not Antebellum
By Yaf's placing of Robertson v. Baldwin within the Antebellum section, the article runs a severe risk of misinforming readers as to what was the current judicial interpretation of that period. Since he does not seem to trust my judgment and I do not wish to get into an edit war I think I will let him confirm that 1897 was not part of the Antebellum period and upon confirmation he can then fix his own mistake.68.160.176.7 (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- 1897 isn't considered part of the Reconstruction era of the United States? Robertson v. Baldwin is referenced in that part of the Antebellum subsubsection to show that the U.S. Supreme Court would later confirm that reading of the Second Amendment. That's why it's in that part of the article. SMP0328. (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Re: 1897 isn't part of reconstruction era. If it's not then why is there a case referenced there from 1905? As for the rest of your attempted clarification, why don't we put Heller in there as well as it, since per your own words it "later confirms that reading of the Second Amendment"68.160.176.7 (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Again, Robertson rears its ugly 'dicta' head. Mr. Justice Brown said (at p. 282): "to keep and bear arms (article 2) [sic] is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons." This dicta comment had nothing to do with the issue before the Court, thus it is not citable as a Second Amendment precedent. However, he could just as easily have said: "No state law that infringes on the right has ever violated the Second Amendment" and it would have been equally as true. He could have said: "If Washington State law required the death penalty for every resident who even touched a weapon" that would not violate the Second Amendment either. Don't believe that? Show me. Show me one state or federal court-case which held that a state law had violated the Second Amendment. If one can't be found then all state-court case-law must be removed from this article. (Truwik (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC))
- Checked the archives and found that Robertson was determined to be "opinion" and not "case law" by this board and that as such it has no place in the article. At least not under the case law section. I again agree to its removal from the article on those grounds.141.154.12.116 (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- The only plausible reason for the Robertson dicta being here is its inference that if "laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons" don't violate the 2A, then no federal law that infringes on the right would violate it - which is diametric to what the amendment states. Robertson belongs in the trash heap. (Truwik (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC))
- As I said I support the deletion of Robertson material from "case law". However I am keeping to a strict limit of 2 reverts a day as some people (know a Salty Boatr and Yaf) have already banned me twice for what I believed to be "good faith effort" on my part to improve this article. As I have more important fish to fry, I will not be using them on Robertson. Sorry for being able to give only limited support.141.154.12.116 (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Yaf - undue weight
regarding itsy bitsy insy winsy teeny tiny minority opinion
I believe "does not belong in Wikipedia" covers this situation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.141.154.12.116 (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there some part of "DOES NOT BELONG IN WIKIPEDIA" that some people around here don't understand?141.154.12.116 (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- You're forgetting that the complaint was on this board for about two weeks and that I had repeatedly asked for objections. Where were yours?141.154.12.116 (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm just telling you that your removal was going to be reverted. Maybe Yaf, SaltyBoatr and Anastrophe aren't currently on-line, but as soon as one of them would have seen your removal, it would have been reverted. When it comes to this article, being bold is not a good idea for anything other than minor edits. SMP0328. (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- This was a minor edit! If you disagree and believe te disputed material should stay then all you have to do is find a second source for the term "civic right". That's right! Just one other source for a total of TWO and I will stop trying to get rid of the quote. Just make sure you post a link and that Cornell's name doesn't show up anywhere. Sources are books, scholarly articles, historical documents, court cases, court briefs, records of debates and other such things. Th home page of the Joyce Foundation doesn't count. Good luck! You will need it!141.154.12.116 (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I think if you consult the influential Harvard Law Professor Zechariah Chafee's entry in the Encylopedia of the Social Sciences (1930) you will discover that he wrote "unlike neighboring amendments, this clause safeguards individual liberty very little and relates mainly to our federal scheme of government." I think it is quite clear that this is how mainstream legal thought construed the Amendment from Cruikshank until Heller. Certainly there were dissents from this point of view, but the evidence that this was the dominant view is hard to dispute.Conlawgeek (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Let me try again. This a simple concept. The word militia was never used in Cruikshank and therefore Cruikshank could not have pushed a militia based view. Comprende?141.154.12.116 (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)