Talk:Right to keep and bear arms in the United States

Creation
This article was created by porting over the majority of the section for the United States from the original article of nearly the same name, Right to keep and bear arms. Given the original section's size and detailed nature, it was unduly large for that article and justified the creation of a separate article. Appropriate templates and redirects have been put in place so that readers will not lose access to the information nor have to search for it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Ian Overton on Pakistan report
Recently, Ian Overton mentioned that a study on Pakistan showed that the number of homicides with firearms increased as people began attaining weapons for personal defense. He mentioned that "give people guns and they'll use it, it's that simple". It should be in his book somewhere (gun baby gun; see http://www.gunbabygun.com/global-numbers-killed-gun-examined/ ) but I didn't find an exact reference. It might be the 2014 global study homicide (https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/GSH2013/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf ) but I'm not sure. Can someone reread, confirm and add this ? Seems quite important to note in article. Xovady (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

"Keep arms"
The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right protected in the United States by the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States of America and in the state constitutions of 44 states.[1]—

That's wrong. A check of the source reveals that a number of states omit the right to keep arms. For example: And so on. I count thirteen listed entries that omit "keep", so the total would be 31, not 44. For the lead, it'd be too much to get into "bear" vs "keep and bear", so I'm going to change it to "many". Felsic2 (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.  A
 * Arizona: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, ...
 * Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
 * That is called extreme nitpicking. There is no distinction between RKBA and RBA, even the RKBA says as such and there is no real or legal or practical distinction. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If we say something specific then we need to be specifically correct. You seem to be saying here and below that we can just include vague or incorrect assertions because, well, why not? Felsic2 (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not at all, but the RKBA and RBA is the same. It is used interchangeably by everyone. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If so, we should delete this sentence from the article:
 * Though possessing arms appears to be distinct from "bearing" them, the possession of arms is recognized as necessary for and a logical precursor to the bearing of arms.[10]
 * Have you actually read this article, or ther main article? Felsic2 (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That kind of proves my point. You can't bear arms without keeping them, so if a Constitution says BEAR, then it must by default also allow KEEP. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine, then find a source which says that ghe two terms are exactly identical. Until then, it's wrong to say that 44 states include that precise language when in fact several of them use a variation. Or otherwise rewrite the text to say that 44 states include some variation on the formula. Just don't say that 44 states constitions say "xyz" if they only say "xy". I don't see why you're manking such a big deal about this - the edit I made is perfectly appropriate. Felsic2 (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

could you provide a diff of your proposed change? At first glance I agree with Joseph, that you are nitpicking, but its possible that your edit could provide some reasonable precision. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously, making things more accurate isn't anything anyone should object to. Felsic2 (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Philosophers
The people's right to have their own arms for their defense is described in the philosophical and political writings of Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, Machiavelli, the English Whigs and others.— Aristotle has nothing to do with the U.S. 2nd Amendment RTKBA. This is just loading on. Felsic2 (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And I put it back in, they most certainly do have what to do with the RTKBA and the source shows that. The framers of the Constitution utilized many of these philosophers when dealing with the RTKBA and other rights enumerated in the Constitution. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, then add text which connects Aristotle to the RTKBA in the US. Generic RTKBA materuial should go in the general article. Felsic2 (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? There is a source and this is just a mention. You don't need additional citations and text on the section. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? Because this isn't the article on the generic issue of RTKBA. It's about the RTKBA in the US. So all text has to be about that topic. If Madison or someone quoted Aristolte then say so. Otherwise it's in the wrong article. Felsic2 (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're letting your bias show. The RKBA in the US is based on the writings of Locke, et al, so of course it has a place here. It's not a huge mention, just once sentence, not sure why the big deal. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My bias? What about your bias? If you want to keep Artistotle using that source, please quote the text you're summarizing. Felsic2 (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What part of the cite don't you get? The sentence is properly referenced to page 8. The quotes are there, I just checked. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

really significant to the issue let's say why and how, not just list their names. Felsic2 (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You can view it inside at: https://www.amazon.com/That-Every-Man-Armed-Constitutional/dp/0945999380#reader_0945999380 If you read the into, there is a whole section on Aristotle as well, and the page 8 reference includes a few quotes about Locke and how the framers loved to use Locke.Sir Joseph (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please quote the text you're summarizing. The text I see relates to the the English, not the Americans. At best Aristotle belongs in the previous section, with a connection to English Republicans. Even then, I don't see anything more than a passing mention of Aristtotle without any claim to what he said about RTKBA. This is just sloppy writing to buttress a particular viewpoint. If you want to focus on Locke and the Americans, then that's a separate matter. Felsic2 (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't follow you. The only sentence is "The people's right to have their own arms for their defense is described in the philosophical and political writings of..." That is what is cited and refed. It has nothing to do with the US or to England. That sentence describes the evolution of the RKBA and how even back then it was discussed. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I'm not being clear. First, this is a sub article of Right to keep and bear arms. That article should contain the generic concepts of RTBKA which apply across nations. If it's not direcly related to the right to keep and bear arms in the United States then it's in the wrong article. In fact, it's already in thet article so it's useless repetition here. Second, the material seems to be making an article about 'the people' versus 'the militia' or 'the army' or 'the state'. It's not clear what the point is. Third, how does this article relate to Second Amendment to the United States Constitution? Are we making the same arguments across multiple articles? Fourth, are we correctly summarizing the source? Is Halbrook's point that Aristotle described a right? I don't see it. Rather, Aristotle seems to be saying it would be good for farmers to carry weaspons, just like rich people do. Finally, is this a common view or should we attribute it to Halbrook? Who else says that Aristotle and Machiavelli described a right of the people to keep and bear arms? Felsic2 (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding Aristotle, in addition to Halbrook : Kopel Liddy, Keyt , Sommers , Simpson , Wilson  and literally dozens others. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those. I read the first one and do not see Where Kopel says that Aristotle described a right to keep and bear arms. Rather he seems to be saying that farmers should bear arms. Sorry if I didn't make that issue clear above. Since you're more familiar with these than I am, can you point to one which makes that specific assertion? Felsic2 (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you are splitting hairs on Kopel. Somners and Liddy are very explicit in their assertion though. "Aristotle was hardly alone among those in the pre-Christian world in understanding that man has an inalienable right to keep and bear arms..." "The right of the individual to own weapons...". With the amount of sources available, I fear you are wasting everyones' time here. I hope this does not need to go to another pointless RFC to prove that the sky is blue. A few more. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're posting the raw results of Google searches without actually answering the issues. A) the sources don't say that these philosophers "describe" the "people's right to have their own arms for their defense". B) There's no connection in the text between these philosphers and the U.S. history of RTKBA, the topic of this article. A third issue is that I hope we're not seriously gonna use notorious G. Gordon Liddy on an academic issue. I don't think that making Wikipedia articles accurate is a waste of time. I'm sure you can understand that I don't assume something is correct just because there's a footnote. Felsic2 (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You assert there are issues. Two editors disagree with you. The content is sourced. You think the sourcing is insufficient, but two editors disagree with you. The content in question is long standing. It is up to you to show that there is consensus for a change. There is not such a consensus at this time. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The sentence has a footnote, which isn't the same as being 'sourced'. I wish I could rely on your good judgment in these matters, but you know why I can't. Neither of you have given a clear reason why this sentence shouldn't be rewritten to somehow connect its assertion to the the United States. Felsic2 (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to making that linkage more clear. But as your own edit summary indicated, your edit was absurd. While clearly Aristotle did not right about American rights, he (and many other writers) did discuss the people's rights, and those peoples rights were part of the foundation that the founders were building on. That you think there is not a clear relation is your own WP:GAME to play. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll go ahead and fix it when I have time. Felsic2 (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If we are going to invoke Aristotle, we will need sources far better than Holbrook and his publisher. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I listed quite a few. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

if we're going to nitpick and include writings from thousands of years ago, can we also cite Star Trek while we're at it? come on. if they intended for every random idiot to have rocket launchers in the 1700s, they would've written it to say that. what they intended was for military-aged males to be able to keep weapons because we were in times of struggle against foreign powers aiming to take us over, and the most powerful handheld weapons were less lethal than sling shots. all of the NRA jockeys posting here are cluttering up what should be nothing more than a historical reference of the amendment itself. 67.161.127.203 (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 April 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 01:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Right to keep and bear arms in the United States → Gun rights in the United States – Per WP:COMMON NAME and WP:NPOV. The proposed name is also shorter and more intuitive. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - "gun rights" is informal and inaccurate (as the topic covers all arms, which can include more than just guns), and this article treats the subject from a legal precedent and historical perspective, speaking to the specific phrase as given in the Bill of Rights. I also note that gun rights redirects to Right to keep and bear arms, so this proposed move would be inconsistent. There is absolutely no NPOV issue here. -- Netoholic @  02:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as a contradiction. The Right to keep and bear arms article opens with:
 * The right to keep and bear arms (often referred to as the right to bear arms) is the people's right to possess weapons (arms) for their own defense, as described in the philosophical and political writings of Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, Machiavelli, the English Whigs and others (emphasis mine).
 * This article - "...in the United States" - is not about the concept "as described in the philosophical and political writings of Aristotle..." etc, because the United States did not exist then. This article is about gun rights in the United States. It's straightforward, and it's the common name. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * arms (weapons) means guns, rifles, tazers, pepper spray, knives, swords, etc. so to limit the scope to "gun rights" is inappropriate. -- Netoholic @ 09:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - It's about a gun RIGHT (note the singular tense). The name change suggests a change in scope, but that is already covered by Gun laws in the United States. This article is about a specific right that has been controversial. There is no NPOV issue, as the article title does not suggest that the right to keep and bear arms encompasses all types of guns, or is correct/incorrect.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per the above opposers and I wonder if this is not a redundant article as per WP:CONTENTFORK this article seems to duplicate content already found in Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Affordability
There does not seem any reference to government financial help for individuals to purchase guns.

Given that the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", how does the USA federal government provide for it's citizens who wish to exercise that right but don't have sufficient financial means?

Is this achieved by means tested grants to individuals who wish to purchase guns from private gun shops. Is it achieved by issuing vouchers? Or does the government simply distribute surplus ex-military equipment to the poor. (Or even quite wealthy people who cannot afford the very latest most powerful gun).

Or is there a loan/rental scheme, (it appears there is no right to own a gun, just a right to bear and keep one).

Anyone with expertise in how the American Social Security systems and gun owning/ keeping system interact.

I can't see sources on the topic, but there must be something somewhere? 91.84.189.190 (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The Constitutional provision is for the Militia. By definition they are not disabled, nor old enough to otherwise be part of the Social Security system.


 * The founders expected the individual people, specifically the Milita, to arm themselves. During the original debate Mr. Fitzsimond's proposal to change from individual provision to a governmental provision was "lost by a great majority", including James Madison.


 * However, that is not to say that the Federal or State government's respectively, can not provide arms for the citizens. The federal government has done so, as well as the states. The first federal enactment to sell arms to the States for public use was on April 2, 1808 . Additionally on April 23rd of that same year, the Federal Government first used our taxation for arms and military equipment's for the whole militia .  Either by purchase or manufacture.


 * The requirement that individual persons, that are Militia, "provide themselves", was repealed in Section 25 of the Militia Act of 1903.


 * We have decided to only Federally provide for the "Organized Militia" aka the National Guard.
 * If one wants to keep and bear a federally funded firearm, they must be part of the aforementioned system. Abet we do offer older firearms created through federal taxation to the public for sale or auction.
 * State funding is now largely through the Army National Guard, and to a lesser degree State Defence Forces.
 * The enumerated clauses carve out powers, however, they are not requirements.


 * The operative clause of the Second Amendment affirms where "ownership" lies. One can build an arm, buy an arm, be given/gifted an arm. The states received the English Statutory Right to do so.  Buying and giving find restrictions in the Taxation for the Common Defense Clause, Commerce Clause, Federal Property Clause, Patent Clause, and Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.  Philfromwaterbury (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)