Talk:Right to keep and bear arms/Archive 8

Gun violence and the politics of the right to bear arms
One of the principle debates about placing restrictions on the right to bear arms is the alleged effect that it will have on gun related accidents and deaths. Accident statistics are hard to obtain, but much data is available on the issue of gun ownership and gun related deaths.

The United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) has made comparisons beween countries with different levels of gun ownership and investigated the correlation between gun ownership levels and gun homicides, and also gun ownership levels and gun suicides. A strong correlation is seen in both. UNICRI also investigated the relationship between gun ownership levels and other forms of homicide or suicide to determine whether high gun ownership added to or merely displaced other forms of homicide or suicide. They reported that "widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potentially lethal instruments less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of suicide and homicide." Speculating on possible causes the researchers concluded that "all we know is that guns do not reduce fatal events due to other means, but that they go along with more shootings. Although we do not know why exactly this is so, we have a good reason to suspect guns to play a - fatal - role in this".

The research reporter found that guns were the major cause of homicides only in 3 of the 14 countries it studied; Nothern Ireland, Italy, and the USA. Although on the face of it the data would indicate that reducing the availabilty of one significant type of arms - firearms - would seem to indicate a fall in both gun crime and gun suicide and overall crimes and suicides, the author did issue a caution, citing the American example, that "reducing the number of guns in the hands of the private citizen may become a hopeless task beyond a certain point".

begin discussion
In my opinion, the whole portion after the first sentence should be moved to a subparagrah describing the public safety theory of the gun control hypothesis. Additionally, there needs to be mention of the hypothesis that the RTKBA guarantees unfettered access to firearms, and inclusion of the middle ground hypothesis that rights to firearms are protected by the RTKBA with the provision and limit of governmental regulation is allowed ISBN 9780765606792 pg 258. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "the RTKBA guarantees unfettered access to firearms". according to whom? as with all rights, there are excluded classes; this cuts across virtually all cultures and societies, and goes far back in history. small children, those who have been convicted of violent crimes, and the insane, have never had the right to keep and bear arms in any society, to my knowledge. the hypothesis of the gun rights POV tends to be that those who are not small children, who have not been convicted of violent felonies, and who are not insane, should not have "prior restraint" applied to their right. your premise is faulty. Anastrophe (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * furthermore, there's a broad spectrum between 'no restriction', 'some restriction', and 'total restriction' in the public debate. there are those who want all laws limiting access to firearms by those who are not in excluded classes, to be eliminated. and there are those who seek to completely eliminate the right. and a large middle ground, who want some restrictions. if we're to even have this section in this article, it needs to cover the full spectrum of public debate appropriately. Anastrophe (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see this going nowhere. You consistently only have shifting, never ending objections.  You agreed to collaborate, start now.  Make your proposal.   SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * i have only shifting, never ending objections?? pot, meet kettle. kettle, pot. now, for a first starting point: the second and third paragraphs need to be removed, as they're the basis of the synthesis problem. Anastrophe (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the pot at least is declaring the reliable sourcing of his opinion. The kettle refuses to do that.
 * I see your point that the second and third paragraph need to be improved to fix any WP:SYN problems, but deleted? They pretty closely reflect the line of thought of the "public safety" vs. RTKBA hypothesis, expressed elsewhere in reliable sources see Windlesham, Bodenhamer, Cottrol etc..  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Before getting into the details, there seems to be a problem with the title, "Gun violence and the politics of the right to bear arms". Why not "Public safety and the politics of the right to bear arms".  Predisposing the section with a highly biased title is not conducive to achieving NPOV. Why not address the real issue, rather than start with scare tactics?  Yaf (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. We should probably go with the terms used in reliable sourcing, George Latkoff published by the University of Chicago Press frames the dichotomy as "gun control" versus "right to bear arms", see pg 198 ISBN 9780226467702.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * since it is not strictly a question of firearms, however (see hauskalainens addition of details of the UK laws pertaining to knives), the title should be descriptive of what the section is intended to cover. for example "arguments in favor of and against restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms". but that's unwieldy. so perhaps breaking it down into separate sections, e.g.
 * "Arguments" or "Public Debate"
 * (introductory text framing the arguments/debate)
 * "For increased restrictions on the right"
 * (content for the section)
 * "Against increased restrictions on the right"
 * (content for the section)
 * something along those lines. Anastrophe (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, based on prior experience the presenting of tit for tat arguments like that suffers from editor advocacy and tends to degenerate into an un-encyclopedic mess. I would prefer to give coverage that the RTKBA topic has a political and 'values' dichotomy, breaking down essentially on the grounds described in Latkoff. In the US it pits a 'gun control' side versus 'bear arms' side. Include a brief summary of the arguments of the sides, given fair neutral framing. (The amount of detail in paragraphs two and three above seems excessive.) We shouldn't say, "these are the facts", but rather it should say "this is the rational of this faction, and this is the rational of the other faction". Outside the US, the dichotomy is likely different, lets check the sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * latkoff doesn't break it down in the dichotomy you describe, he breaks it down as "nurturant parents" vs "strict father". that's far too abstruse a reference to use as a basis. furthermore, it's not a "liberal" vs "conservative" dichotomy, as he also frames it. we should avoid references that attempt to reframe the arguments in terms that are removed from the topic at hand. perhaps The social science of gun politics would be a good article for this reference. this is not that article.
 * as it stands, the current proposed text presents a one-sided POV. as long as the text is duly modified to acknowledge that this is not the only POV, that there are people and groups who argue that the right to bear arms should not be restricted, then we're on the right track.
 * going back to a previous claim you made: "Well, the pot at least is declaring the reliable sourcing of his opinion. The kettle refuses to do that." this is an unreasonable burden on other editors. some editors don't have endless time to work on finding sources. as someone who works for a living, and is in the middle of an intensive project, i have only brief time primarily in the morning and evening to devote to wikipedia during the week. i'm not refusing to declare reliable sources, i haven't begun to look. hopefully, we can work this out here on the talk page before the article is unlocked, and hopefully the existing material won't be jammed into the article again before consensus has been reached. give your fellow editors some time to work on the issues. thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Astonishing that you can read the section where George Lakoff describes the cognitive linguistics of this topic and come away with the personal opinion just opposite. Your personal opinion doesn't hold much weight.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * uh huh. neither does this single source you seem enamored of. considering that lakoff argues that the liberal POV is superior to the conservative POV, this is perhaps unsurprising? we should avoid partisan sources. as reference, lakoff's DVD entitled "How Democrats and Progressives Can Win: Solutions From George Lakoff". uh huh. Anastrophe (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting you hold such a strong vocal opinion, yet you say you "haven't begun to look" at reliable sourcing. Stop wasting talk page space with your personal opinion.  Come back with constructive information based on reliable sourcing.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * please cease with the personal attacks ("stop wasting talk page space"). i looked into the source that you are pushing. forgive me for doing so. i apologize. i'm so sorry that your source is a highly partisan advocate that liberalism is superior to conservativism, and founder of a (now defunct) "progressive" think tank. if he was the founder of a conservative think tank, you'd dismiss him outright too. Anastrophe (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Such irony. You start your paragraph "cease the personal attacks" and end your paragraph with a personal attack based on a false hypothetical presumption.  The truth is, the book I cited was published by University of Chicago Press which is not a progressive think tank.  Can we discuss the article and the article sourcing and stop discussing your straw men?  And, I would view non-academic source books published by any think tank, or any advocacy group, with appropriate skepticism.  Generally, books published by academic sources like university presses are considered as "most reliable sources" see RS. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

To: SaltyBoatr, Anastrophe and Yaf. Can I suggest that we save energy here and allow hot tempers to cool. I am happy to await the independent opinion on the matters of NPOV, SYN, etc regarding this section that I have raised under WP:EA. The argument is getting nowhere very fast right now.--Hauskalainen (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is appears impossible to discuss productively with Anastrophe, when we have no foundation. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * nonsense. we should avoid highly partisan sources. the book you cite from makes the argument that liberalism is superior to conservatism. doesn't matter what publishing house produced the book, you're attempting to use an extremely POV source to frame the argument. i absolutely reject a source that defines the argument as one between liberal "nurturing parent" and conservative "strict father", while later arguing that the former is empirically superior to the latter. we don't need psychobabble injected into this article. perhaps it would be appropriate to the article The psychobabble of the gun control movement. this is not that article.
 * so, in the simplest terms, i reject your use of this one source. i thought we were to go by the balance of sources in the published material available. lakoff makes one set of claims about the matter that don't appear anywhere else, except in reference circularly back to his book.Anastrophe (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How do you know "don't appear anywhere else"? Have you looked?  Looking, I see many scholarly references to cognitive linguistics and "bear arms".  You may be familiar with the Stanford Levinson paper "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" published by Yale Law Journal in 1989?  In that paper he discusses "cognitive maps" and public policy perception of the RTKBA, "the politics of interpreting the Second Amendment".   SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * i said that lakoff makes a set of claims that don't appear elsewhere. i did not say that cognitive linguistics (which are separate from cognitive maps, it should not require pointing out) has never been juxtaposed with 'bear arms'. these simplistic, synthetic google searches are not helpful to the discussion. lakoff's claims that liberals think in 'nurturant parent' mode, and that conservatives think in 'strict father mode' - and that the former is superior to the latter - do not appear elsewhere, except in other sources that are referencing lakoff's selfsame claims. that's hardly a broadly reliable source, it's a unique position, and it's inappropriate to use to frame the debate. Anastrophe (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You are wrong that Lakoff says that one is superior to the other. Have you read his book?  pg 63 "The use of metaphorical thought and language in moral reasoning and discourse in no way impugns the metaphorical moral schemes involved."
 * We disagree that a book published by University of Chicago Press is a reliable source, astonishing.
 * And, you refuse to identify any of your sources, reliable or otherwise, how do we move forward then?   Also, have you read the Yale Law Review Levinson paper?   Would you consider that a reliable source?   SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * that's it? "you are wrong"? i guess i have to ask: have you read the book? how did you miss chapter 20, "Nonideological reasons for being a liberal", where he details why he believes liberalism is superior to conservativism?
 * as has been discussed further below, the proposed section should be scrubbed. it's silly to take an overtly POV pushing section of material that was dumped into the article by one POV pushing editor, the follow a tortuous path to balancing the one-sided material that never belonged in the article in the first place. we can happily close this pointless chapter of discussion. Anastrophe (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Got it. You don't like my source.  Without regard to the fact that it is solidly a reliable source per WP:V standards.  As to  keeping a neutral balance, I 100% agree.  It is interesting to note that somehow you have reach a conclusion that there is not a neutral balance, magically, without actually reading anything. Or at least anything that you are willing to disclose.  That is what I meant by lack of foundation.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * keep souping. i've explained why it's not an acceptable source for framing the arguments. once more, we should avoid extremely POV sources for framing the arguments. the old 'fox in the henhouse' problem. speaking of magic, it's simply magical that you find the most extreme of partisans to be the best source to frame the debate. a boat missing an oar would ply truer.Anastrophe (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nearly every paragraph you write includes a personal attack. Please consider not doing that so much, it gets in the way of productive work on the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * it's quite obvious that the personal attacks are mutual. it's been an escalating war of words between you and i. so, i'm fine with stopping the personal attacks, and hope that you'll do so as well.
 * back to the issue at hand. lakoff is a highly partisan source. his theory that liberals think in a 'nurturant parent' mode, that conservatives think in a 'strict father' mode, and that the former is superior to the latter, is not an acceptable source to frame the debate. it would be better to find a source that doesn't advocate that one position is superior to the other, wouldn't you agree? Anastrophe (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Does Lakoff say one position is superior to another? Be specific in your complaint.  Have you read the book?  I don't see it.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * yes, he does. have you read the book? "and in each case, there are good reasons to choose liberalism"..."These and other real-world reasons make conservatism dangerous"...while i happen to agree with his conclusion that the 'nurturant parent' model is clearly and obviously the best model for child rearing, his gross reapplication of the competing models of 'nurturant parent' and 'strict father' simplistically to political ideology is partisan and condescending. i hold both liberal and conservative viewpoints, so reading his aggrandizement of liberals and condescension towards conservatives makes for some pretty good laughs. Anastrophe (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being specific about your complaint of Lakoff. It seems the POV skew could be easily be addressed in other ways than by denying use of the book, true?   Do you at least agree that the Lakoff book published by University of Chicago Press meets WP:V policy standards?  Also, you didn't answer whether you accept the Levinson Yale Law Review article as a WP:V reliable source. Please answer.

It is a distraction to have moved off the subject of national criminal statistics and the interpretation of these by a criminologist and others. The statistics are not POV (gathered from police data) and the sources of interpretive analysis (e.g. UNICRIT/an academic criminologist) are impeccable. --Hauskalainen (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * this article is not about national criminal statistics, nor the interpretation of those statistics by criminologists or others. the statistics themselves are not POV, but their synthetic connection to this article is POV. perhaps your contributions would be more appropriate to Gun Politics, or Gun politics in the United Kingdom, or Gun politics in the United States, or Homicide, or Murder, or Violence, or Gun Violence, or Million Mom March, or Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, or National Coalition to Ban Handguns, or quite a few other articles where these statistics may be of interest? Anastrophe (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

..ZZZ this is so repetitious. It is connected because others have already made the connection. I am not synthesizing. Read the report! And others like the Cuckier study I pointed out earlier and that of the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice - 6th session  Vienna 1997 (at http://www.uncjin.org/Documents/6comm/4e.pdf). These reports all look atthe connection between gun ownership and gun deaths. I only know one reason why the rights to guns and knives and deady gas agents are controlled and that is their potential for harmful use. If there are others then you must let us know what they are. If there was no gun control then there would be an unfettered right to carry and own a gun. Gun control is the very antithesis of the right to keep and bear arms. If the matter is relevant to gun control then it must be relevant to this article also.--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Trust me, Hauskalainen, beating this dead horse is just as tiresome and repetitive to the rest of the editors here, too. I offered a compromise below which would link to the relevant articles (gun violence, gun politics, etc.) with  or  templates, but you apparently don't favor that compromise.  That is fine, but since you want the content included, then you have the burden of proving its relevance to the right to keep and bear arms as found in reliable sources.  Your repeated assertions that that it is connected and relevant are not convincing. --Hamitr (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The report cited above by Hauskalainen (of the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice - 6th session  Vienna 1997 (at http://www.uncjin.org/Documents/6comm/4e.pdf)), has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms.  This paper is about gun regulations by country, and efforts aimed at preventing international trafficking in illegal arms among member states.  This article is not about either of these topics.   As for Hauskalainen's statement that  "I only know one reason why the rights to guns and knives and deady gas agents are controlled and that is their potential for harmful use.", this is extreme POV pushing, in that guns are often regulated not for their potential for harmful use, but rather because they are defective, posing risks to legitimate users.  Who wants merchandise that is defective?  Not me!  But, none of these issues (international trafficking in illegal arms and selling defective merchandise) are germane to the right to keep and bear arms. It is a problem with WP:SYN, to conflate non-related topics with the right to keep and bear arms and simply to push anti-right and anti-gun POV content in violation of WP:SYN, unverified by cites, by attaching cites that do not verify proposed Wikipedia article text.  This activity is disruptive to Wikipedia and needs to stop. Yaf (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The split by "judicial origin" is a meaningless one in the context of this article. It should be removed.
I have no idea why there is a split of countries by judicial origin. There seems to be nothing specific about the English Law tradition that would seem to make it sensible to separate it from the other legal systems. The law is the law however it develops and is exercised. Also I am not convinced that the U.S. is different in terms of its legal system from other English Law countries as the article seems to imply. There are overriding constitutional laws in India, Australia and Canada for example which take precendence over laws passed by their legislatures.

The fact that the U.S. constitution (as amended) mentions a right to bear arms is something that is relevent to that country's section of the article rather than the section as a whole. If someone wishes to claim that the US and the UK are unique for having the right to bear arms in a document forming part of the national constituion then let us have a reference for that. I have no idea if the countries other than the UK and the UK have constitutions that mention a right to keep and bear arms as a right.

The English Bill of Rights is an important part of the English Constitution. It does mention a right of some to bear arms but those words do not have overriding force in law because unlike the U.S. or India, the constitution can be changed by a simple majority in parliament. That makes England's English Law something different to certain other countries having a basis in English Common Law. Which re-inforces my feeling that we should save country specific information to the country section and scrap this artifical distinction because it is confusing. The law is the law, however it is derived. --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hauskalainen: The ignorance expressed in this message goes beyond any deficiency that could inhere with one's writing style. Simply, you cannot describe the Bill of Rights, or any part thereof, as a "mere amendment." They are integral part of the Constitution, without which there would be no ratificaiton. If you do not realize that, you really should not be commenting on the intricacies of U.S. Law. There are places you can learn about our ways. The way you are doing it - striking content from articles and replacing it with your own flights of fancy, and then getting corrected, and verbally smacked on the talkpage, is NOT the proper way. Simply put, your fellow editors (and that's we all are, your fellow editors) do not have time to hold your hand through this education. Take a class. Read a book. Read wikipedia. STOP experimenting on this article (and the other articles you've probed, e.g. Fundamental rights. It is disrespectful and disruptive to your fellow editors who are in this together, with you. Non Curat Lex (talk) 09:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Non Curat Lex: You illustrate my point beautifully. You talk about what I have said as if I were talking about the US constitution. I was talking (quite clearly) about the British constitution. It is confusing to have these things sitting together (as they were under the subsection lead for "Jurisdictions with English judicial origin " because they are no longer connected and have no importance as far as English or Indian law on the right to bear arms.  That the legal systems have in the past connected to each other (and in some areas they still are) is a fact of legal history but not a very illuminating one in the case of the RKBA except in how it has caused the history in specific countries to develop.  The discussion of the RKBA in the U.S. is best left in the section on the U.S. and that for England and Wales is best left to that section. Trying to mix them up in the same section as if they are connected is not very helpful. In fact, it is downright misleading.  Which is why I opened this discussion and later modified the article along these lines. --Hauskalainen (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So, you didn't just write, "The fact that the U.S. constitution (as amended) mentions a right to bear arms is something that is relevent to that country's section of the article rather than the section as a whole"? Non Curat Lex (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So you were referring to that earlier reference. I don't see anything wrong in what I said. I meant the constitution "as amended" and not the constitution "as originally drafted". That is relevant to the section on the U.S. and has no relevance to all countries with an English law tradition. The diatribe from you following THAT reference is remarkable for its attribution of meaning to me which is not actually conveyed in what I said.  I sense that there is a lot of character assassination going on here.--Hauskalainen (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I was, because the meaning of your sentence, good or bad, cannot be parsed without considering the reaosnable implications of what you've said. Also, I fail to see how there's any character assassination in my garden-variety critical reading. Non Curat Lex (talk) 10:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * English based law only applies in a subset of the world. See Civil_law_(legal_system).  This is a global article in a global encyclopedia.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The split by judicial origin is extremely important in that only those jurisdictions deriving from English Common Law have a longstanding tradition where individuals can possess arms. To throw out this distinction, and to remove nearly all content based on discussions of rights, borders on vandalism, prior to developing a consensus for changing the article amongst active editors.  Have reverted back to the last version by SaltyBoatr to permit a discussion to develop consensus.  Yaf (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, Islamic law also has an equally longstanding tradition and right to bear arms. The difference is that the English language editors here focus nearly exclusively on the English tradition.  The Islamic right to bear arms traces back to the Jahilyyah tribal period where the right to bear arms was tied to the right of spoils of tribal raiding, and is found in the Koran including some controversy about the association of the right to bear arms and the right of inheritance for women, see pg 132 ISBN 9780201632217..  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, the assumption of how India's Constitution works is rather simplistic and foolish, in that this constitution has become one of the largest constitutions in the world and is readily and easily amended by simple majority for many cases. The number of Amendments surpassed 100 a few years ago.  The presumption of such simplistic assumptions regarding Governments and how they work is not conducive to covering this material in a manner commensurate with the topic.  I suggest that some research be done before making simplistic and incorrect changes to the entire article. Yaf (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all I threw nothing away. It is all there. And I had opened a discussion here before noticing no reaction and then restructured the article. There was a lot of stuff in the intro that actually has no significance in English Law at all!  I even kept in the nonsense about the Assize if Arms. It belongs in the US section as it had no effect on the RKBA in England before or after it was declared. It was not a grant of right. Many Americans, it seems, wish to cling to it as if it were some cherished right instead of the imposition of an obligation (which no doubt many would have objected to!) and could not apply to them because America, at the time of its establishment, was not a feudal society. The English Bill of Rights contains nothing constitutionally significant in respect of arms even though the document itself is considered part of the UK constitition. It was badly drafted because in some senses it is unconstitutional in itself. The bit about arming protestants would, as the parliamentary reference says, have been put aside by judges even in Victorian times. It was referring to a threat long since passed. It has no significance on the amendment of the law in the UK or in Canada or Australia. It deserves (and got) only a passing mention in the sections on England and Wales and Scotland. The material in the section has only been discussed in the context of US law. Thus there is where that discussion belongs. It was actually misleading to imply that the material in section heading up English jurisidictions affects all those countries with a founding in English law. It does not. It would therefore POV, OR and SYN to imply that it does.


 * There is nothing special about the historical right to carry arms. It was something that people used to be able to do without hinderance just like they used to be able smoke cannabis or drink alcohol or travel across national borders. or marry at age 12 unfettered by law. Stop trying to pretend that it is something special. It just isn't. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf: On what basis are you claiming that "only those jurisdictions deriving from English Common Law have a longstanding tradition where individuals can possess arms"? Are you saying that Frenchmen have never had a longstanding right to bear arms before the law codified a restriction? Where is your evidence for your claim? It seems nonsense to me. I live in Finland which does not have a common law tradition, but that does not mean that people had no rights to do certain activities in the past that are now restricted. You seem to be badly misunderstanding the term "common law".  --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, by my count, your sanitized version was 1,753 bytes shorter, or roughly a page of text less. Hardly an edit of the same content.  And, a discussion had opened prior to your stripping out all the content, with introductory comments by SaltyBoatr, to which you had not responded.  So, it is hardly fair to claim that consensus had been developed for such a massive change in the structure and content of the article.  As for your claim of no relevance to English law, that is an extremely POV statement.  Rather, English law has changed immensely over the centuries.  There was once an English Common Law right for every white male citizen (not slaves, nor women) to have arms with which to protect himself, in England, the Colonies in America, South Africa, India, Canada, and all of the other lands where the English had settled. Yet, in nearly all these countries that derive their laws from English Common Law, there has largely been an extinguishment of that right except for the United States, primarily because of Parliamentary supremacy.  Although the historical basis started in all these countries with a common basis, it has mutated over the years, with the exception of the United States, in which the right of Englishmen circa the time of the American Revolution until 1789, was frozen in the codified US Constitution.  The historical right to keep and bear arms is extremely special, being interpreted as one of the God given rights in the US Constitution, the US Declaration of Independence, and similar US historical documents, and being intended to protect one's self, family, and property, as well as one's country.  To compare it to smoking pot is not a fair comparison, at least in the US, where the right of smoking pot was not specifically protected within an enumerated right.  (However, a right was extinguished as an unenumerated right, the Ninth Amendment be damned, but that is irrelevant for the discussion at hand.)  Civil law tradition countries, on the other hand, are vastly different, largely restricting the right to have arms to noblemen.  France, as well as many other countries, are based on civil law traditions, and there is no history stretching back 300 or 900 years (depending on one's point of view) that have permitted private citizens to keep and bear arms. Neither has there been such in, say, Japan, where prior to the Meiji transition circa 1868, only samurai had the right to keep and bear arms. That said, there are parts of the US where civil law has remained the local law, such as in Louisiana, where the French had first settled. There are other parts of the US, too, where civil law is the basis of local law.  On the other hand, Sharia is different yet, restricting the right to keep and bear arms to Islamic men, while banning women, Jews, and Christians from a right to bear arms.  It thus makes a very large difference as to the judicial origin where the right to keep and bear arms is discussed, to keep the proper historical perspectives.  Yet, you have insisted on calling the Congress of the United States a "Parliament", and confused the Constitution of India with the Constitution of the United States.  The Constitution of India was based in large part on the US Constitution.  However, there are at least 3 ways in India to modify the constitution, including a simple majority, for modifying the constitution, unlike in the United States, where a rather involved set of steps are required.  The difference is important, as the number of Amendments to the Constitution of India surpassed 100 Amendments a few years ago, and numerous amendments are added yearly.  The same cannot be said for the US.  It is entirely improper to reduce the level of the content in this article to an elementary school level, while confusing the intricacies of the differences among the various judicial origins.  It is likewise improper to compare God given rights with the right to pick one's nose in public, marry at 12, and similar juvenile comments, showing a complete lack of understanding of the content of the article.  Rather than strike the content, it would be better to approach this from the WP:BRD cycle.  OK, we have established the bold and revert parts of the cycle.  Now, lets discuss this.  But, lets not denegrate the beliefs of other editors, nor denegrate national historical documents and practices and laws in the discussions.  OK?  (As for the English Assize of Arms, I am not clear on why that is important either, but that is a different matter.) It rather appears that you do not understand the historical foundations of English Common Law, nor the fact that the US Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution) actually codified English Common Law and specifically prevent the Congress from infringing on those English Common Law Rights. Some of these rights have further been incorporated, meaning that they now apply not only to preventing the US Congress from infringing, but also prevent state and local governmental jurisdictionss as well from infringing. (The Second Amendment, incidentally, has not been incorporated, but, I would presume you don't understand the intricacies of the US Constitution to this level of detail.) Nonetheless, there is no "right to keep and bear arms" granted by the US Constitution, being that the right is a pre-existing English Common Law right that is granted by God; rather, there is instead a total of two protections of this right provided by the US Constitution, residing in both the Second Amendment and the Ninth Amendment. Other countries, where this is not the case, have differing points of view, even if founded on an English Common Law basis.  Civil law jurisdictions have a different point of view as well.  All of these points of view belong in this article.  Your edit specifically stripped out much of the US point of view, while focusing on a modern UK point of view only.  This is not a viable approach to structuring this article. Lets continue the discussion part of WP:BRD.  Yaf (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you'll find that the majority of the article content was preserved and what got deleted was mostly already stated in another part (as in the misleading header section on jurisdictions based on English Law. Many of those arguments do not apply to England and Wales but did apply to the U.S. and were repeated in that section. Hence the revised article was a bit shorter. As for Salty's comment on the user page, it seemed to me more like an observation. He did not say he disagreed with the points I had made. The points you make about the US constitution are all fair points but they belong in the section on the United States (which is where I left it). Issues relating to the US constitution have no bearing on what happens in England and Wales! I did delete the reference to Sharia because I can see no reliable source for this other than the claim of one author who does not support his claim with a valid reference. I am not the only editor to this page that has deleted that section.  I think we need to get a better reference for that claim (even though it has now gone back into the article with its rather poor reference). You say "your edit specifically stripped out much of the US point of view".  How so?  I was very careful to preserve the US point of view and made sure it was in the section on the US.  The US point of view has meaning in the US for US law. It has no meaning in England and Wales for the laws there.--Hauskalainen (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hauskalainen: You've completely lost me. Can you sum up your point in one sentence?


 * Sorry Yaf. Its a general rule in English that several shorter sentences are easier to understand than one long one.--Hauskalainen (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from interleaving such as this. It makes the TP impossible to read. Also, I'm not Yaf. Non Curat Lex (talk) 10:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf: I have to clarify a few things here: The Bill of Rights did far more than "codify the Common law" or "some Common law." It created a novel political structure, which provided for the preservation of certain common law rights, and the creation of other new ones, necessary to preserve a lasting government - "a more perfect union." Incidentally, what you've just done, above, is basically giving a "Natural law" interpretation of the Constitution, and really, it couldn't be more passé. That kind of thing was common in 19th Century jurisprudence. (See Pennoyer v. Neff (Field, J., employing natural law rhetoric while retroactively applying the 14th Amendment...)  Very few scholars still take it seriously -- it's viewed as superstitious hocus pocus that crafts a shaky and pathetic jurisprudence, and widely accepted as such, so it's basically a fringe position today almost never employed by any judge. See Ely, Democracy and Distrust (The real deal on what the Constitution did and didn't do, and why Natural Law b.s. doesn't do it justice); But See Staples v. United States (Thomas, J., employing natural law rhetoric to buttress the right to own firearms)). The 2nd Amendment, like all of the enforceable laws in this country, are Man-made law, not divine. Regardless of whether it was, or was not, a common law right, or a right with common law antecedents, the Constitution superceded any such antecedents. Those antecedents are relevant only insofar as they provide a context of what rights existed at the time of its creation. Need pin-cites? Take it to my talk page.


 * Yaf, while I find some of what you write here to be disturbing, those issues are minor. At least you seem to have some basic awareness of the jurisdictions about which you write. Hauskalainen, on the other hand, seems to be making radical changes to the article - and several other articles about jsutice systems, worldwide, particularly with regard to jurisdictions and locales whose rules of law he has conclusively shown he does not understand, namely that of the U.S. That is not cool. I have no problem with Yaf's edits. However, Hauskalainen's edits are very worrisome and show a bad pattern. I strongly recommend that Hauskalainen take a break from rewriting content about U.S. law, or the relationship between U.S. Law and law (writ globally), until he understands it better. If it doesn't stop, I will open an RFC/U. Non Curat Lex (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I attempted to word my response to Hauskalainen (above) to be understandable to a non-attorney. In general, though, I concur with your summary, in terms of the modern interpretations by many of those trained in the law. A Natural Law approach is entirely appropriate for describing historical interpretations of a right to keep and bear arms, being it was an important point of view, with plenty of reliable sources, but I chose not to describe it as such, to keep discussions more understandable.  As to whether or not this viewpoint is passé, it really doesn't matter.  It was the historical interpretation.  I likewise agree that "The 2nd Amendment, like all of the enforceable laws in this country, are Man-made law, not divine.", but differ on the issue of whether or not the US Constitution was divinely inspired.  It rather appears likely that it was. But, these details are nuances, not dichotomies, and don't significantly affect proposed wordings of article text.  I do differ slightly on one point, though.  The Constitution superceded only those antecedents for which it was given purview; it specifically does not grant rights to the Government, but, rather, preserves rights for citizens while granting limited powers to the Government.  But, these are details regarding interpretations of the Constitution, and are subjects for generating many words in other Wikipedia articles, not here.  Being a Ph.D., rather than a J.D., I naturally take a different approach than you have advocated.  But, that is a minor point.  It appears we are largely in agreement, differing only in some of the fine points. Yaf (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

So far, the only reasons that I have read so far that tries to defend the split of the article into jursdiction types is that are these

1. The first, from User:Yaf, who said that "The split by judicial origin is extremely important in that only those jurisdictions deriving from English Common Law have a longstanding tradition where individuals can possess arms." I actually think that this is fundamentally wrong because people in countries not getting their law from a common law tradition would also have had the RKBA until their legislators codified a law about such matters. I would ask Yaf (or others) to justify this claim if at all possible with a WP:RS, otherwise I will see it WP:OR or worse.

2. The second is very similar and also comes from User:Yaf, who said that "France, as well as many other countries, are based on civil law traditions, and there is no history stretching back 300 or 900 years (depending on one's point of view) that have permitted private citizens to keep and bear arms." I would ask Non Curat Lex (or others) to justify this claim if at all possible with a WP:RS. Otherwise it too is just WP:OR or worse.

If anyone has any other reason for keeping the split into jurisdiction type rather than national order please speak up. Or else we shall have to focus on these two relatively simple claims.

In summary we need some evidence that there has never been a right to carry a weapon or dress to defend oneself in all countries that do not have an English Law tradition. Otherwise these claims are simply not sustainable. --Hauskalainen (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, this is more evidence of a failure to understand the intricacies of what is even being discussed. Being that the purpose of the talk page is for article improvement discussions, and not remedial tutorials intended to enhance any one editor's lack of understanding, I question the necessity for delving into yet another basic tutorial.  But, in the spirit of good faith, I will address the French tradition specifically, addressing the question posed regarding my comment that "France, as well as many other countries, are based on civil law traditions, and there is no history stretching back 300 or 900 years (depending on one's point of view) that have permitted private citizens to keep and bear arms." On arms regulation by the French monarchy to prevent democracy, specifically, see L. Kennett & J. Anderson, The Gun in America 5-16 (1975).  The details therein, regarding a right to keep and bear arms, are specifically different between France and England, in that private arms were largely prohibited by France, arms being reserved for noblemen and others acting directly on behalf of the King. On the other hand, the English Common Law tradition is considerably different. The American Revolution was largely about ideas, such as the necessity for a right to keep and bear arms, coupled with the English Common Law tradition. The French Revolution, on the other hand, was largely about class envy, and the perceived differences between noblemen and commoners. Stating "laws are laws", while failing to understand the import of those laws, and the historical reasons for their existence and their evolved shifts over time, robs readers of a valuable amount of content from Wikipedia articles.  Wikipedia is not intended to be a grammar school encyclopedia, full of oversimplified content.  Rather, it is intended to be a general purpose encyclopedia, with typical encyclopedic content. Claiming problems with WP:OR, when the real problem is a lack of understanding of a topic, is not a reason to scrap content.  Likewise, claiming issues with only "two relatively simple claims" continues to show a complete lack of understanding of the topic.  I rather concur with Non Curat Lex that an RFC/U may be necessary.  Yaf (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf - there seems to be a consensus that Hauskalainen is a making disruptive, NNPOV edits. We are certainly in agreement on that.


 * As far as the role played by natural law: I concede that many of the framers may have believed that they were instrumentalities of natural law, not originators, and yet many others would have used it as a justification for what they wrote. In fact, Natural Law can be, and has been, used to justify nearly any legal proposition, to the point of absurdity. That's one of the biggest problems with it, going forward. Obviously, I am attorney, not a historian or political scientist, but I am not ignorant of the scope and methods of those two fields, based on extensive coursework. I can confidently tell you that from either such perspective, Natural law is an inferior explanation - Natural law, inasmuch as it had been developed prior to the drafting on the Constitution, did not contain a fraction of the concepts which made their way into the U.S. Constitution. Not only is law manmade, on the metaphysical level, individual creativity - particularly that of Thomas Jefferson, chiefly, but among others, is responsible for the structure and content of our Constitution, to such dominant extent as to dwarf any pre-existing body of legal precepts. And of course, I'm not saying the Common law didn't matter. Of course, the Framers drafted the Constitution with the expectation that substantive Common law would continue to govern all other transactions (and certainly it is not inconsistent with this that Ecclesiastical laws would continue to bind those who wished to be bound by them); the U.S. Constutition replaced only what it said it replaced, not anything else, but what the Constitution replaced, it did so in a way that was special, completely displacing whatever rules of decision preceded it. Non Curat Lex (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Non Curat Lex, it appears that we are nearly totally in agreement. I have no issue with these points of view. And thanks to SaltyBoatr for pointing out the Islamic differences in the right to bear arms.  I stand corrected regarding these, although there is some evidence that points to the Crusades (pardon the use of a politically incorrect term) as when and where some of the English Common Law details may have first found significant inputs from.  I admittedly am less knowledgeable of Islamic than of English and European histories, save for the happenings in Spain, and Spanish idiomatic expressions deriving from this period of time (e.g., Moros y Cristos, for black beans and rice):-)  Now, to address the points of contention.  Hauskalainen, what is the specific issue you have with breaking out the structure of this article along historic lines, with the differences clearly delineated? It appears to address the concerns of all active editors other than yourself. Yaf (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Evidence that the Islamic right to bear arms came from the Crusades!?!? Cite please.   Crusades, years 1095-1272, and the proto-Islamic period predates 622.   What I read indicates that the proto-Islamic culture included a male, non-Jewish, right to bear arms in inter tribal raiding, with the resultant right of wealth from the spoils.  Really different than the English common law right dating far back to the fyrd and the similar Leidang which I am guessing is culturally interrelated across the North Sea.    SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You misinterpreted what I wrote. I was saying the English Common Law right may have come in part from the Crusades, brought back by Crusaders from their interaction with Islamic cultural influences, not the other way around.  There is also an Icelandic saga tradition regarding rights to keep and bear arms, from which the English Common Law may also have pulled ideas  from . See  Njal's Saga, especially, which dates from around 960 to 1020, and that predates the nine Crusades that stretched from 1095 to 1272.  Yaf (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Forgive the WP:OR, but thinking about this more there sure does seem to be similarities between the Viking Leidang and proto-Islamic intertribal raiding. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hauskalainen: You've attributed certain contentions to me which I have not made. Please correct yourself, or find diffs to support it. Non Curat Lex (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right and I apologise. I have corrected the text. It was Yaf that made that comment.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

revert of good faith edit
I am calling attention to this revert. What is the policy basis for the revert? Please be specific, citing policy, thanks. If possible, omit personal opinion and ad hominem arguments please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The text you added:

One of the principle debates about placing restrictions on the right to bear arms is the alleged effect that it will have on gun related accidents and deaths.
 * is not supported by the references given. Gun Violence by by Cook and Ludwig does not even mention the "right to keep and bear arms" on page 32.  Nor is it mentioned anywhere else, for that matter, in support of the statement in question.


 * The msnbc article mentions gun deaths in the title and the first two paragraphs. It also mentions the right to keep and bear arms in four paragraphs near the end.  No where does the article support the statement you added.


 * The text in question is an exceptional statement, and it requires high-quality sources that directly support it.


 * By the way, thanks for assuming that I would respond with personal opinion and ad hominem arguments. That's classy. --Hamitr (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Would you accept page 3 of the Bruce and Wilcox book, ISBN 9780847686148, as citation for that sentence? SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Page 3 of The Changing Politics of Gun Control does not support that sentence, either. This is precisely the reason that I made the proposal in the  section.  While reliable sources support the statement that, "The right to keep and bear arms is sometimes referenced in discussions of gun politics and gun violence," those sources do not support the sentence you want to add. --Hamitr (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You have read all these now, can you suggest an alternative? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

modified lede consensus?
user saltyboatr modified the lede sentence from "The right to keep and bear arms, RKBA,[1] or right to bear arms is the concept that people, individually or collectively, have a right to weapons."

to "The right to keep and bear arms, RKBA,[1] or right to bear arms is the concept that people, individually or collectively, have a right to weapons and is often referenced in discussions of gun politics and gun violence."

can you point me to where this change was discussed - let alone consensus reached to change it? i can find no discussion on the talk page here of changing the lede to this wording. i'd appreciate a direct pointer to this discussion, because i'm surprised i'm unable to find it - has it been archived by the miszabot? if so, why has the change been made now, weeks later? i've reverted the edit pending some clarification. Anastrophe (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Look at the discussion of March 6th. especially 18:06, and the discussions of March 7th.    If you don't like it, suggest wording that you find acceptable, and lets work out a compromise. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * that's not discussing the lede of the article. the wording is unacceptable because it's POV. the right to keep and bear arms is also often referenced in discussion of gun rights, rights in the united states, usurpation of rights by 'camel's nose under the tent' methods, etc.. limiting it to suggest that it's only referenced in discussing gun politics and gun violence is needlessly POV. i don't see any value in adding it to the lede sentence. Anastrophe (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What is your proposed compromise? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * as i said, i see no value in adding it to the lede. NPOV is not negotiable, as you frequently mention, and i agree. Anastrophe (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Does that mean you can accept the compromise of placing it down in the article? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * yes, as i said in my comments in section 8 above, at 19:03, 6 March 2009. it's certainly appropriate to cite opinion from reliable sources on the matter, covering it neutrally (so the section must include counter-opinions from reliable sources as well). i would caution however that if you wish to add mr justice burger's commentary, that you include those balancing opinions yourself contemporaneously - either that, or propose your text here on the talk page where we can all build it out consensually. adding burger's opinion to article space, then expecting other editors to balance it, just won't fly on this article. Anastrophe (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Section title, at the bottom of the article: The politics of the right to bear arms. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * is that the most accurate title? if it'll cover commentary and opinion, it seems that 'commentary on the right to bear arms' would be more appropriate. Anastrophe (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * as i said, let's work it out on the talk page first. adding a blank section doesn't make sense. Anastrophe (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * so much for working out the content here on the talk page. we now have an essentially one-sided presentment of the commentary/opinion, focusing only on the NRA and gun rights groups. i thought we were going to try for an NPOV section before it went up in article space? this rather defeats the purpose of keeping POV content out of article space until it's NPOV. i don't get it. Anastrophe (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Added tag to reflect that on editor thinks there is a POV problem with that section. I am willing to discuss specifics, but I disagree that the whole section needs to be deleted until after everything gets worked out.  If that is the standard there is a likely chance that the section may never get inserted.  I presume that is not the intent.  Better to make incremental improvements.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

why does the UK section need a litany of laws?
the introduction pointedly notes that there is no right to keep and bear arms in the UK. so why is a lengthy, repetitive, and frankly boring litany of minor and major laws controlling arms even necessary? how does this contribute to an understanding of the right to keep and bear arms, if the right no longer exists there? many other countries have no right to keep and bear arms, should we list all their laws too? it's nonsensical.Anastrophe (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A 'main article' link to Gun politics in the United Kingdom would probably be more appropriate, assuming all the information is there, and a far briefer overview could be provided here. --Breadandcheese (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur. --Hamitr (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * yes, the material is largely covered in the UK gun politics article, where it's relevant content. i'll clean up the section. Anastrophe (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Yaf (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do Not support If anything the article is way too long and it ís mostly all the about the United States. The article is way way too one sided. The material on knives is highly perinent and not represented in the other article. By the way, if anyone feels like deleting this again, I will remind them that Wikipedia is not a democracy.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * correct, it is not a democracy, but it is also not an autocracy. consensus is a core value of wikipedia. relevance of content is also a core value. this article is not Gun politics in the United Kingdom. a litany of codes and laws in the UK is not appropriate to this article. the article is certainly not "one-sided". the right to keep and bear arms is obviously more greatly disputed in the united states than in the UK, where the right has been extinguished. since the right no longer applies there, there's really not much content relevant to the UK that is relevant to this article, thus, the section is shorter than where the right is codified and disputed, n'est ce pas? Anastrophe (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe you guys should just retitle the article "The right to keep and bear arms in the United States of America" then you can delete all this tedious foreign stuff and rid yourselves of outside interference from foreign editors (who don't really have a right to edit the American Wikipedia anyway). --Hauskalainen (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * please try to be civil. thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hauskalainen has a point here, there is far too much information on the United States for a page which is supposedly international. There are already links to other pages, so why is all that reproduced here? If the information doesn't fit into one of these distinctly US pages on gun politics, then it should be largely moved to a new page and merely a linked overview provided. --Breadandcheese (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This article has huge US centric bias.  Including the article title.  Globally "right to bear arms" is more appropriate.  And the "keep and" term drawn from the US Constitution plainly reflects the US bias.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * the proper solution is to keep this article "right to keep and bear arms", and move the global material that covers "right to bear arms" into its own article.Anastrophe (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I support this, and have suggested similar before. I also find this to be ironic considering that this article used to be titled Right to bear arms before USA centric editors insisted on renaming the article.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it was named so due to the fact that keeping arms is more or less an unwritten implication of "right to bear arms". For example, what does it mean to have the right to bear arms but not to keep them?Prussian725 (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is one way to read the word "keep", disjunctively, the reading favored by one point of view on this subject. Another way is to read the words "keep and bear" together, which in military context makes perfect sense as to "keep up a militia".  The fact that there are two legitimate points of view about the meaning of "keep" in this context should be dealt with neutrally in the article, and presently it is not.  See Cornell, ISBN 9780312240608, pg.77 for more on this distinction.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

editor hauskalainen is again dumping this mass of laws into the article, stating that the reason given as consensus is "not valid". i ask now that this editor explain what is not valid about removing material from the article that is not directly relevant to the topic. consensus was that this material added little to no value, and is already covered substantially in more appropriate articles. Anastrophe (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not dumping anything. The section built up slowly over a period of months and then suddenly, in the space measured in hours, you deleted it. The proper interpretation is that YOU dumped it OUT! You claim consensus for thé delete but that is simply not true. The little cabal you have going with others editing on this page do not overrule the views of others. I see three editors who basically support the retention of this text and four who do not. WP is not a democracy and it is not appropriate to claim numerical superiority for a proposal. You have to work for concensus and you have not really done that. You certainly did not achieve it.  The right to bear arms is not an absolute right ANYWHERE. It is modified by custom or by law or even (as has been suggested) by religion. The weight of discussion about petty level nuances in US interpretations of a snippet of text in the US constitutional law is tedious and dominates the article. At least the UK section merely tells it as it is there and how it got there and does not go in for all the navel gazing elsewhere in this article. It also talks about knives and other arms which is also pretty much fogotten elsewhere in the article, where the emphasis is wrongly focussed exclusively on guns.  --Hauskalainen (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * much sound and fury, and outright misrepresentations (the UK section as you are restoring it was not built up slowly over a period of months - you merely cobbled together a bunch of laws you found, and dumped them in the article, over a period of days). most of the above is unrelated to the issue at hand. this mass litany of laws you dumped into this article provide essentially zero information that is helpful to an understanding of the right to bear arms. it has already been stipulated that the right to bear arms no longer exists in the UK - it is a privilege there, not a right. in earlier times, it was a right. how does it help an understanding of the topic of this article to know that it is illegal in the UK to use ammonia as a weapon? why are you excluding information on the use of scones as weapons - is that allowed? seriously though, all this material completely ignores the principles that are relevant to this article, which are what we are supposed to be explaining (this is, after all, supposed to be an encyclopedia article). the multiple paragraphs can be easily distilled into a sentence or two, noting that there is no right to bear arms in the UK, that it is considered a privilege granted to very few, and that more information on the assorted weapon laws in the UK can be found at Gun politics in the UK. no mention of knives? no problem. are knives banned in the UK? no? then it really is no real loss. Anastrophe (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your arguments reveal your own prejudices. To understand the right to bear arms in the UK you have to understand the law. There IS a right to bear arms (and not, as you seem to believe, that there is no right). The right is laid down in law and restricted in certain cases (just as it is in the United States). To dismiss the UK by saying that there was a right to bear arms and now there is no right is factually incorrect and would be misleading to the reader. To also claim that the information I added "is not useful" is nonsense. How can one understand the right without knowing what the law says? --Hauskalainen (talk) 11:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This mass section has nothing to do with this article. O Fenian (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps more incremental changes might work? The wholesale revert war method doesn't seem to be accomplishing much.  Would people around here be willing to follow WP:DR procedures instead of edit war?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * it would be helpful if you would weigh in, specifically, on the consensus issue. do you support this lengthy inclusion of laws? do you see value in their inclusion? i disagree with hauskalainen's assertion that a list of laws helps in any way to understand the topic of this article. we can perhaps reach consensus with more editors weighing in on the actual issue to hand. Anastrophe (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that coverage of British gun laws in context the British interpretation of the right to bear arms is 100% on topic. I don't see any policy based reason it cannot be lengthy.  The edit war here has been "no coverage" and 100% reverts.  As analogy, if there is room in the article for detailed coverage of obscure 19th Century court cases in the US State courts by what logic is there no room for coverage of 20th Century British law?  What I see is that several editors who seem to share USA centric world view happen also to share a 100% revert war against this global coverage.  I favor working towards some policy based middle ground compromise.  I suggest using WP:DR procedures to do this.  Do you agree to WP:DR procedures?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * the material actually - per policy - shows no relevance to the right to bear arms, which is the topic of this article. it is merely bare reproduction of laws related to guns, with no reliable sourcing showing their relevance to an understanding of what this article is about. 'coverage' is a misnomer in your discussion. where, in any of this litany of gun laws, is the right to bear arms discussed? contrarily, where, in the 'obscure' 19th century court cases is the right not discussed? no, this material - as tends to be this case with most of editor hauskalainen's additions - suffers from synthesis. merely reciting a law that restricts guns (or ammonia) does not give any information, illumination, or interpretation of the right to (keep and) bear arms in reliable sourcing. it's junk, based purely upon policy. Anastrophe (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If laws that define the right to keep and bear arms have no relevance to this article then someone had best start deleting all the references to the US constitution, court decisions and the related opinions of historians because this too is all about law which in part defines the right in the United States. I wonder what will be left? It is beyond belief that you think that the material in the deleted UK section you deleted had no relevance. Why do you think the US material is relevant but the UK material is not? If we are not allowed to describe the development of law in the UK regarding the right to bear arms, then why is the US material relevant and the UK material not?  --Hauskalainen (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * this can be answered easily, because you are misrepresenting the material. nowhere in the material does it "describe the development of law in the UK regarding the right to bear arms". not a single word is devoted to analysis of the development of the law, it is merely a bare litany of gun laws, with no analysis or interpretation whatsoever. your comparison to the US section in fact demonstrates this fact quite nicely - the US section contains material on court decisions (judicial decisions which bear relevance to the meaning of the RKBA), and opinions of historians, material that is about the law, not a bare recitation of the law itself. your material contains no analysis or opinion, it is merely a listing of laws - derived from primary sources - which one editor in particular would be keen to challenge if it supported the RKBA - which is quite simply inappropriate to this article. nowhere does it provide citation to reliable third parties who show the relevance of the material to this article; we are merely to assume it is relevant to this article because editor hauskalainen says so.
 * pure junk, as i said. policy does not support inclusion of this material in this article. you might consider Gun politics in the UK, or Violence in the UK, or Hoplophobia in the UK as possible better articles for this material. just saying. Anastrophe (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yaf's revert
Yaf's revert doesn't appear to be make per any policy. Please explain the policy basis for this revert. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus. See talk above.  The insertion of clearly POV content, labelled as such, is not acceptable.  Work it out on talk, first.  Yaf (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is frustrating, as both of you object and both of you refuse to offer any proposal of an acceptable edit (other than wholesale deletion of the section). It has the effect of a stonewall.  Please suggest an edit which would fix the POV problem you see.     SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the current text with POV balance for discussion,

Interest groups, primarily in the United States, have exerted political forces regarding legislation of the right to bear arms. This political debate in America is organized between those who seek stricter regulations and those that believe all gun regulations violate the Second Amendment protection of a right to bear arms[69]. The largest political advocacy group in this regard is the National Rifle Association, and its political wing, the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. The NRA has been described as one of the largest and most powerful political special interest group in the United States[70]. Additionally, several smaller groups including the Gun Owners of America and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, while smaller in size, are also well financed and politically active[71]. The main gun control group in opposition is the Brady Campaign which has been described as considerably less effective, with less congressional access due to a budget about 1/30th of the NRA[72].

SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * have attempted to refine some of the content. fact tagged claim that brady campaign is the 'main' gun control organization. are they? mention of other gun control groups would be warranted. culled the claim of brady having 1/30th the budget - this article is about the RKBA, the section is about the politics. details about organization budgets can be appropriately found in their respective articles, that's what wikilinks are for.
 * the current text is at least not completely one-sided as the previous text was. the relevance to this article is still questionable - the reason there are other articles such as Gun politics et al is to cover such indirectly related material. a 'see also' section would be more appropriate than trying to shoehorn this information into this article. Anastrophe (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Questionable relevance? I don't understand your question.  Literally every scholarly work I have read about the RTKBA is written with the political context, usually quite overtly, of right to bear arms.  I cannot think of a single scholarly source that does not touch on the political context.  Can you mention some reliable sources which are devoid of political context?  Our article should reflect the sourcing, and literally all of it deals with the political context of the right.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * this is why Gun politics exists, for precisely that discussion. Anastrophe (talk)


 * I notice that you did not answer my second question, that is likely because there is little or no RS coverage of the right to bear arms that does not discuss the right in context of the politics. I am not talking about gun politics.  I am talking about the right to bear arms.  In virtually all the reliable source coverage of the topic of the right to bear arms, the right to bear arms is always discussed in context of the politics.  Therefore this article should mirror the reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * it seems odd that you're arguing the matter from this perspective. the existing paragraph says little more than that there are advocacy groups in favor of the RKBA and advocacy groups opposed to it. that's hardly a scholarly observation. there's considerable scholarly examination of the right in the body of the article. you may say that you're not talking about gun politics, but that's precisely what this paragraph currently covers, and nothing more. Anastrophe (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I notice that you still didn't answer my second question. Also, I agree that the article suffers deeply from a lack of scholarly viewpoint and reads more like an advocacy piece.   Fixing that problem is exceedingly difficult in this hostile editing environment.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * i agree, editors who badger other editors do indeed make for a hostile environment - to wit the repeated 'you didn't answer my second question'. i didn't answer it because i thought it too silly to dignify. the article in fact is filled with scholarly discussion of the right to keep and bear arms. there is scholarly discussion of the civilian usage interpretation, the military service interpretation, early commentary in state courts, etc etc - yet you claim it lacks scholarly discussion?? that's an amazing claim.  you seem to be conflating "politics" with "advocacy". the section you added discusses advocacy groups themselves, it does not discuss the politics of the right itself to keep and bear arms. in fact, as it stands now the section title grossly misrepresents the material you added. it should be entitled "advocacy groups" to accurately represent the material. then, you'll need to explain how a section about advocacy groups is relevant to this article. it isn't. it is probably relevant to 'gun politics'. it's not relevant to an article about the right itself. Anastrophe (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that you feel badgered by me. I apologize.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * thank you, although apologies are not necessary. the section as currently presented adds nothing of value to this article. mention of the NRA and Brady Campaign is relevant to Gun politics. as presented in this article, in a section properly entitled "advocacy groups", it has no meaningful relevance. we could add a section entitled "Handgun Ammunition" and list manufacturers of same, and it would have identical lack of meaningful relevance. Anastrophe (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither do I need an apology for you calling my question silly, as your lack of remorse tells enough about your character to never expect such from you.


 * Your analogy is far off base. The preponderance of reliable sourcing about the right to bear arms does not discuss "handgun ammunition".  But, essentially all the reliable sourcing discusses the right to bear arms in context of the politics.  This article should mirror the reliable sourcing and do the same.  Indeed presenting the right to bear arms as simple 'fact' is in itself a POV push.  The reliable sourcing shows the right to bear arms as being politically subjective, and the article should mirror that.   SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * please take a visit to WP:NPA. your comment in the first paragraph above is an unbridled personal attack. attack my arguments, not me.
 * my analogy is dead-on. please reread what i wrote. the section as you have written it is nothing but a description of advocacy groups. it is not about the 'politics' of the right to keep and bear arms. we are talking about the section you added to the bottom of this article. i stand by what i wrote. a description of a handful of gun rights and gun control advocacy groups provides no meaningful content about the politics of the right. the body of the article discusses the politics of the right at length and in great detail. the artificially concocted section you added - an outgrowth and reworking of hauskalainens synthesis push to add homicide statistics to the article, adds no such scholarly material of any value at all. Anastrophe (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Did I say lack of remorse was a bad thing? I don't expect apologies from you nor do I expect you to care one way or another that someone might take offense at your comments.  Statement of fact based on knowing you for perhaps a year now. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "as your lack of remorse tells enough about your character to never expect such from you." emphasis added. that is an overt, unadorned, unbridled person characterization, phrased as a personal attack. please refrain from personal attacks. attack my arguments, not my character. Anastrophe (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * also, since you seem to be somewhat unclear on this: "your question is silly" is a comment about your question, and is not a personal attack (again, see WP:NPA). "you are silly" would be a clear personal attack. i said the former, not the latter.Anastrophe (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Your 'silly' comment is still offensive.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * how you choose to respond to minor slights is your business. you may wish to spend less time being offended, more time concentrating on writing an encyclopedia. or maybe you don't. it's your life. i'd recommend keeping discussion of your personal feelings off the talk page. Anastrophe (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The "Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms" has nothing to do with the topic of this this article? And, "Etched in the dark stone lintel above the (NRA) entrance was the pivotal phrase from the Second Amendment: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" (pg 31 Feldman ISBN 9780471679288).  The advocacy groups are plainly topical in reliable sourcing.  You also keep evading my point that virtually all the reliable sourcing discussed the right to bear arms in context of the politics.  This article should do so also.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) you are conflating "advocacy" with "politics". they are not equivalent. the article contains massive amounts of scholarly material pertaining to the politics of this right. you are evading that point. the section title misrepresents what it contains. the section title should properly and accurately be "Advocacy groups", because that's the entire extent of what it discusses. can you tell me where the brady campaign discusses the right to keep and bear arms - aside from their desire that it did not exist? Anastrophe (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok to strike the Brady sentence entirely? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The NRA-ILA is not engaged in political advocacy? Really?  "When the situation demands, NRA-ILA goes beyond legislative and political advocacy to defend the Second Amendment in court.".  Plainly on topic in this article.   SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * rename the section "Political advocacy" or "Political advocacy for and against the right to keep and bear arms". that characterizes the material correctly. then there's no overt need to scrub the section. Anastrophe (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Except that I don't see reliable sourcing that says the Brady Campaign is "against" the right to keep and bear arms. What sourcing are you reading that says this?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * perhaps they are not (at least overtly), however there are other organizations and people (dianne feinstein, e.g.) who openly state that they'd like to have the right eliminated. further, the brady campaign may not formally be against the right to keep and bear arms, but that does not mean that their political advocacy is not directed at the right. Anastrophe (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you reading? Is it reliable?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * for one, transcript, CBS news "60 Minutes", Feb 5, 1995 - certainly a reliable source - U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here.". a statement for outright ban on all firearms is clearly a suggestion to legislate away the right in question. certainly relevant both to a discussion of the politics of RKBA and advocacy. as for the brady campaign, []:"The Brady Campaign traces its roots to 1974, and it has undergone superficial, and to some extent, substantive changes. Its transformation, in contrast to the NRA, was to morph into a more mainstream organization, and it abandoned its overt calls for banning firearms to lobby for less strong restrictions on both guns and gun owners"(emphasis mine). restrictions on guns and gun owners is advocacy directed at the right to keep and bear arms.Anastrophe (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is helpful, finally learning your sources, except you omit that this is found verbatim on an NRA-ILA press release, and you insert the word "all". Isn't it a big presumption that legislated firearm regulations and bans are "against" the right to bear arms?  That seems to mirror the NRA-ILA advocacy argument that any regulation or any ban is against the right to bear arms.  Another more moderate belief is that "banning firearms" in many circumstances can be entirely consistent with the US Constitution. Considering that it is constitutional for the the right to bear arms to be circumscribed I am not convinced yet by your argument that the Brady Campaign is in opposition.  Unless you expect the article to take the partisan presumption that any ban is against the right.  While that is found on the gun rights advocacy blogs and the NRA-ILA press releases, it is not founded in the mainstream sourcing.  Longstanding and reasonable bans are not necessarily against the right (see Doherty, ISBN 9781933995250, pg 110[]).  SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) your ceaseless attempts to characterize editors at every turn are reprehensible. i've never seen the NRA press release - until just now, since you provided a link. feinstein's quote has appeared in numerous sources; that it appears on one you appear to 'favor' for the purpose of impugning an editors motives doesn't mean that that is where this editor read it. it's like sitting for the mccarthy hearings at times - 'no, saltyboatr, i have never been nor am i now a member of the NRA'. i don't read the NRA website - not if i can help it - nor the NRA-ILA website, nor any other gun rights or gun control websites. i'll note here, since it's been a peculiar bone of contention - i am not fishing for an apology. what i want is for you simply to stop this uncivil behavior.

the reason the quote is "found verbatim", i would presume, is because it is a quote. i most certainly did not insert "all" into the quote. your claim that i did is without foundation.

are you seriously arguing that the brady campaign, coalition to stop gun violence, million mom march, etc, are not engaged in political advocacy with a bearing upon the right to keep and bear arms? it's interesting, you now seem to be backtracking on your former stance, that if it had any relationship to RKBA, no matter how tenuous - such as adding unadorned homicide rates into the article - that it was perfectly valid, because it was "related", albeit synthetically. which is it? Anastrophe (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The point I am making is that the Brady Campaign, et al, appears to merely have a different definition of the right to bear arms than the NRA-ILA does. In reliable sourcing, the definition is subjective, and the neutral framing of the definition is important to maintain neutral POV in this article.    You, and perhaps coincidentally, people that hold a pro-gun point of view, like to prop up the Brady Campaign as enemies of a right, a politically expedient boogie man.  The article should avoid doing that too, while at the same time describing neutrally the reality that the topic of "right to bear arms" has been politically framed.  The Brady Campaign hasn't been reliably shown to oppose a right to bear arms, instead, they support reasonable and constitutional firearm regulations to reduce gun violence.  Framing this as "defending the right to bear arms versus enemies of right to bear arms" improperly mirrors the polemics.


 * Where did you happen to find your 1995 transcript? Do tell.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * why do you ask? you seem to be intent on finding some reason to impugn me, rather than the quote in question. are you disputing that ms. feinstein said this? if so, what is your basis for disputing it? do you have some evidence that the quote is not reliable?
 * your statement previously that i inserted the word "all" was framed to suggest that i had modified the quote - one does not 'insert a word' into their own commentary.
 * you continue to focus only on the brady campaign. they are not the only "gun control" organisation, nor, based upon what the section is ostensibly about, are organisations the only 'allowed' source of opinion on the matter.
 * i am not alone in the opinion that organizations that attempt to disarm law-abiding citizens are in conflict with the right to keep and bear arms. the section is on the politics of that conflict. your desire to scrub any mention of gun control on the claim that gun control is not at odds with the right, is, itself, questionable. you are now apparently arguing that in the politics of the right to keep and bear arms, all advocacy for gun control is not at odds with the right - even advocacy for confiscation. this is not supported in reliable sourcing. Anastrophe (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Simply, I am trying to distinguish your argument based on the reliability of the sourcing of your ideas.   Your evasiveness makes this hard, but the most reasonable conclusion I can reach is that your sourcing comes from partisan gun-rights blogs.  Correct?  Or, are you using reliable sources for your opinion?  If so, I ask again: Which?  If not, please quit using the talk page as a forum for your unsourced ideas.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * like i said, you're more interested in characterizing your fellow editors, and impugning their motives. relentlessly. just like the mccarthy hearings. the source i used is the source found in Dianne Feinstein. it's an editorial by chris cox, who i've learned (from you) is associated with the NRA. i'm certain you'll discard that as a reliable source, ignoring my question as to whether you are disputing that feinstein said this (i watched that edition of 60 minutes, and remember her saying it - but of course, that's OR - oh well). Anastrophe (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So, let me get this straight, for your claim that Senator Feinstein is against the right to bear arms you are citing an editorial by Chris Cox? OK.  Which editorial?  Can I read it?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * seriously? you considered that even worth the time to type out? wow. i suspect you were merely being tendentious and badgering, but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume good faith, so herewith, instructions on how to find the source: in my post immediately above yours, you'll see some blue hypertext spelling out "Dianne Feinstein". if you place your mouse over that text, then click the right mouse button (usually - some people have the buttons switched depending upon handedness), it will take you to the english wikipedia article for "Dianne Feinstein". if you scroll through the article - often, if your mouse has a scroll wheel, you can merely roll the wheel to scroll, otherwise you'll need to click and drag on the vertical scroll bar on the page to scroll - you'll see a section on "gun politics". in the second paragraph, feinstein's quote is reproduced, with a citation link to the source (the little tiny number in brackets. if you click on that citation link, it'll jump down to the "references" section of the article, helpfully highlighting the source. that source then contains a hypertext link to the online newspaper editorial in question. if you click on that, it will open either a new browser window, or a browser tab, or will merely replace the current contents of your browser window, with the editorial that was in the san franscisco chronicle.
 * i hope these instructions will help you past this roadblock.
 * since i suspect some wikilawyering will ensue, i'll state my rationale for believing the quote is an example of political advocacy against the right to keep and bear arms: feinstein states that she wants the american people to turn in their weapons. if the people are ordered to turn in their weapons, clearly that precludes their keeping and bearing arms, thus, feinstein is advocating politically against the right to bear arms.
 * i look forward to your inclusion of this into the article. there's countless other instances of persons, organizations, and politicians advocating against the right to keep and bear arms, i'm sure with just a little effort you could find some to contribute. have a nice day. Anastrophe (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Your outrage and sarcasm seems out of place. You mentioned "an editorial by Chris Cox". I am asking you to tell me which editorial you read. Instead of answering me, you give me a sarcastic instruction of how to click my mouse. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * there's no outrage in the above that i can see, nor was any intended. sarcasm - yes, definitely. am i to understand - by your statement "i am asking you to tell me which editorial you read" - that you still cannot find it? seriously? is the link missing on the feinstein article? is your browser blocking the destination site? i am truly baffled at this point. Anastrophe (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please avoid the sarcasm in the future, it poisons the discussion.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * have you found the citation or not? Anastrophe (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

How do you know Chris Cox is fairly quoting the Senator? It appears more likely that she was talking of assault weapons. Do you have any other source for the 60 Minutes transcript with more context? Neither does the Cox editorial say she opposes the "right to bear arms", unless of course you share the point of view that assault weapons are protected by this right. That is but one point of view. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * actually, i believe the error here is mine. upon a rereading of the editorial, it does seem clear that feinstein's quote is directive to the assault weapons ban in particular, not all firearms. i'm happy to admit my error.
 * whether i share a particular point of view is irrelevant - or so i thought based on your comments below. as has been pointed out in reliable sourcing, assault weapons are a canonical type of weapon that would be suitable to a militia, so based on the 'collective rights' interpretation of the right to bear arms, it would be in opposition to that right to seek a ban on a weapon uniquely suitable to use under the collective interpretation. Anastrophe (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, we lack reliable sourcing to say that the Brady Campaign is "in opposition" to the right to bear arms. So, I removed those two words. Can you help find some reliable sourcing that shows that the Brady Campaign is in opposition to the right to bear arms? (Also, spare me your original research and personal opinion. Opinion which I respect, but it is irrelevant here.)  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * perhaps then you can find some other organizations or individuals who are against the right to keep and bear arms, for inclusion? the reality (opinion time, sorry you have to sit through it) - the political reality - is that most gun control organizations know that the public advocacy of gun bans is generally toxic, as the majority of american people have spoken numerous times - in polls, in votes, etc - that they reject outright bans. the incrementalist movement that many gun control organizations have adopted - the classic camel's nose under the tent - is a means of working towards the goal of eliminating the right in a 'more palatable' way.
 * yes, all opinion. i'll look for some sources. hopefully you will too. Anastrophe (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)