Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 12

Militia Act of 1903
An anonymous IP editor has twice removed the passage about the Militia Act of 1903. Discussing this earlier, I pointed to many books that identify the Militia Act of 1903 as Second Amendment Legislation. One which summarized the POV issue well is Barak ISBN:9780313340406 which states(pg330):

"Supporters of gun rights believe that the Second Amendment applies to individual-level possession of firearms, whereas supporters of gun control argue that the intent was to provide for the formation and readiness of peacekeeping forces such as the Army and state militias(1). Since the federal Militia Act of 1903, individual state militias have been organized into the National Guard and have been tasked with supplementing Army units overseas and providing domestic support in relief of natural disasters."

Barak describes the two major points of view. It appears the anonymous IP editor holds just the pro-gun view, and is choosing to edit out the disagreeable point of view. To have a neutral point of view, both these views should be represented in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So add the citation. Problem solved. --tc2011 (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You threatened to get me banned from editing yesterday for similar. Hostile environment. Is editing today safe?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I made no threat. Please assume good faith. --tc2011 (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering the history of false/exaggerated 3RR accusations, from you, and from Yaf, it is hard to assume good faith. It would be easier to assume good faith if you were to actually show good faith and make this edit yourself. An edit if I were to make, which could be misconstrued as a "revert" (as you misconstrued yesterday). You also called my revert of profane vandalism to be a 3RR violation. In light of your false/exaggerated 3RR accusation for which you show no remorse, now you invite me to assume your good faith? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Another false accusation: I did not identify that revert as a possible violation of 3RR. Please get the facts straight. --tc2011 (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Any mention of the Act must mention that it creates a SELECT militia known as the National Guard. US law and state laws continue to define the militia as all males of military age.4.156.78.208 (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

POV bias on quotes
Looks like we are down to one quote from the Founding Fathers and that is from the most pro-big government of the bunch (Hamilton). That is a POV violation as there are NOW no quotes from anti-Federalists, whose concerns the Second Amendment was designed to satisfy. I ask that the quotes from anti-Federalist Patrick Henry and George Mason and the quotes of the more "centrist" Federalists be reinstated.

Hearing the points of view of the players, in their own words, is a plus to the article and not a minus. I believe that the article has now been lessened by the removal of their words.4.156.78.92 (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I further find it grotesque that the only quote appearing is from the only one of the major Revolutionary Era figures shot to death in a duel over his HONOR.

Make that his LACK of honor. See Hamilton Burr Duel4.156.78.51 (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am uncertain how Hamilton's duel with Burr is germane to a discussion of what quotations are included in this article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I know about the duel, but why do you feel Hamilton was without honor? To me, the lose of the duel doesn't mean Hamilton was without honor. SMP0328. (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A sitting vice president of the US thought that the death of Hamilton was better then enjoying his high office. I'd say that is pretty indicative.


 * More on track, and back to quotes cited in the article, what is you opinion of retaining the most extreme position of the loosing side of the Bill of Rights/Second Amendment debate and the removal of quotes from more "centrist" Federalists and anti-Federalists?4.156.78.30 (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A man so despised by his fellow man that he is killed due to his lack of honor, is NOT someone I would want on my side of an argument. Do you admire him for some reason?

I notice EVERYBODY else's quotes got short shift at your hands. Funny how the most extreme viewpoint on the LOOSING side of the Second Amendment (and the Bill of Rights) was retained. Looks like blatant POV favoritism to me. Couldn't you have even found something by the more mainstream Madison? Did you HAVE to keep Hamilton? Are you really THAT ignorant of the positions of the Founding Fathers?4.156.78.122 (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Infringed
The meaning of "infringed" from a REALIABLE source, Marriam-Webster DICTIONARY!

For Salty Boatr, who seems to thing that meanings can be changed.

transitive verb

1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

2 obsolete : defeat, frustrate

I would like to point out that 2 hundred years ago, the meanings that are now listed as "obsolete" were not.

The second amendment was designed to STOP those who would "defeat" and frustrate" the exercise of a right.4.156.78.149 (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Congressional legislation
There are a whole host of legislations mentioned under this section of the article (i.e., National Firearms Act, Federal Firearms Act, Post-assassination, Gun Control Act, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act), that all appear to have nothing to do with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Only the McClure-Volkmer Act has any content pertinent to the Second Amendment. I propose removing the non-pertinent sections, as including these nonpertinent acts of Congress, just because they deal with firearms legislation, is bordering on OR (conflating firearm legislation somehow with the 2A). Any objections? Yaf (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Who said "firearm legislation"? I agree that conflating just firearm legislation with this topic is POV push. The Congressional legislation is integral to this topic. Indeed, the first legislative act of Congress on this topic occurred September 21, 1789. Checking several of the major books on this topic, Gottlieb, Levensen, Kruschke, Utter, Uviller/Merkle, they all devote large passages to the history of Congressional legislation on this topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Have removed non-relevant "firearm legislation" to remove "POV push." Yaf (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as that section consists of only one piece of legislation, it should be named after that legislation ( McClure-Volkmer Act Firearm Owners Protection Act). SMP0328. (talk) 04:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable to me. Of course, if other Congressional legislation content should be added, then the title would likely need to be changed again. But, for now, the current title is good. Yaf (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * To be clear. Yaf 'finds reasonable' to delete all reference to legislation which placed limits on firearms. And then to include only one reference to legislation, the Firearm Owners Protection Act aka the McClure-Volkmer Act.  Objectively, this is a improper POV balance. The most important legislation and court case of the 20th Century was the National Firearms Act which was litigated to the Supreme Court with the case United States v. Miller. Per the vast majority of reliable sources, including Spitzer pg 35: "The most important Supreme Court case in this sequence is United States v Miller"..."The Miller case was founded on a challenge to the National Firearms Act"..."claiming that it was a violation of the Second Amendment". Emphasis on the legislation protecting firearm rights and suppression on legislation limiting firearms rights is an undue neutrality balance relative to the neutrality balance found in reliable sourcing.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussion of the National Firearms Act (with a wiki link to its article) properly appears under the United States v. Miller heading in the case law section. To say that the National Firearms Act is relevant to the second amendment in the same manner as McClure-Volkmer (which specifically and explicitly addresses the amendment) requires sourcing. However, the National Firearms Act's relevance to the amendment is that it was challenged in Miller... and so it is most properly discussed under Miller's heading... where it is, in fact, discussed... --tc2011 (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It still is silly to devote a whole section to the discussion of the McClure-Volkmer Act which is an amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968 while deleting the mention of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Even sillier, the obscure McClure-Volkmer Act is given higher emphasis above the National Firearms Act which is the most major piece of 20th Century 2A legislation. This is extreme POV imbalance. Yaf has a very long history of dogged pro-gun POV push and this is but one example. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act explicitly address the subject of this article. McClure-Volkmer does. If your citation identifies the National Firearms Act as the most major/important piece of second amendment legislation in the 20th century, please feel free to add that information with relevant quotations. --tc2011 (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You ignore my Spitzer reference provided above. I cannot edit the article in this hostile editing environment. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ...your reference identifies Miller as the most important court case, not the National Firearms Act as the most major/important legislation. Perhaps you have another quotation from Spitzer that identifies the National Firearms Act as the most major/important piece of second amendment legislation in the 20th century? --tc2011 (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

POV drift
The recent flurry of edits by Yaf are making the article drift yet further towards a pro-gun point of view. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The recent flurry of edits by yourself and nwlaw, due to your anti-gun POV, have resulted in a distorted intro and lessened the neutrality of the article.4.156.78.30 (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

McClure-Volkmer Act one-sided wording
The wording in the McClure-Volkmer Act section seems cut and pasted from NRA talking points. Checking reliable sourcing on this topic, there was highly notable controversy about the McClure-Volkmer Act omitted by Yaf. For instance, the Law Enforcement Steering Committee organized opposition to this bill? See pages 176-177 of the Bruce/Wilcox book. If the article is to cover McClure-Volkmer, it should do so in a neutral way, and presently is worded with heavy pro-gun bias. Indeed, it is notable in that it marked a milestone in 20th Century 2A politics where for the first time there was a widespread support for gun-control from police groups in opposition to McClure-Volkmer. This event is significant as a turning point for the radicalization of the NRA and pro-gun lobby. This important factor is totally omitted from Yaf's biased wording. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Pardon me, but your paranoia hoplophobia is showing, again. The wording for the McClure-Volkmer Act section content is the same as it has been for weeks if not months.  I didn't edit it during the recent set of edits I made over the last couple of days.  Please stop the personal attacks.  The hostile editing environment, to which you object so strongly, appears largely to be self-generated in your own mind, perhaps as a result of the personal attacks you continue to flame other editors with and the rampant hoplophobia. Lets focus on discussing the content of the article, and how to make it better, instead of spending so much time ascribing motives to other editors, and instead of labeling all edits made other than yourself as "pro-gun", OK?  -- Yaf (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your use of the term hoplophobia is pejorative, wrong and offensive. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Two versions of the text
This requires more explanation. How can there be more than one original version? You can read the correct version in the image of the Bill of Rights. If another one was written then the article should say so. Richard75 (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Have attempted to address this confusion. If there is need for additional explanation, it can certainly be added. --  Yaf (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Heller's footnote 23
Footnote 23 of the Heller decision said:"With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government."

The Supreme Court was saying the issue of incorporation was not before the Court (D.C. is not a State or part of a State). It was also noting that Cruikshank's holding "that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government" was "reaffirmed" in two later 19th Century Supreme Court decisions. The Court was not saying that its Heller decision was reaffirming Cruikshank. SMP0328. (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The court said "Our later decisions ... reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government." That is pretty blunt. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * SMP0238, Please self-revert your revert. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * SMP0238 is correctly quoting from the ruling in his quotation. No revert is needed. On the other hand, the bullying of other editors here, and on their talk page, needs to stop.  Bullying does not help in creating an environment for editors to engage in constructive discussions necessary for improving the article.


 * By putting in an ellipsis into the quote, one reads more into the quotation than what is there if the quotation is read in its entirety. The SCOTUS is just giving a history of what the interpretations were at the time of Cruikshank and Presser. Nothing more. It is OR to assume that the SCOTUS is saying more than just this, with implications for what an interpretation would be for today. Yet, that is just what happens when one reads the passage without the historical perspective of the fact that what is being discussed within the ellipsis is simply an historical footnote of what the decisions were at the time of Cruikshank and Presser. Lets focus on reading what is there, not on reading more into the words through omitting words, OK? This is POV pushing at its worst, and it needs to stop. Yaf (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What is disputed here? The SCOTUS has boldly stated that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government. Explain why that fact was reverted? SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * More clearly, the SCOTUS was stating what it had done in the 19th Century regarding the Second Amendment and incorporation. It was not, and could not (issue not before the Court), rule on incorporation in Heller. SMP0328. (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. And, the topic here is the history of the 2A not Heller. It is exactly correct and on topic what the SCOTUS wrote in footnote 23. They wrote about the fact that their multiple prior rulings reaffirm that the 2A only applies to the Federal Government. So, why did you revert this? Please undo your revert. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The part of the article describing Heller now includes the full text of footnote 23. Let each reader decide what footnote 23 means. That avoids any POV or OR problems. SMP0328. (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)'


 * The intro needs to describe the issue of incorporation fairly. Presently in the second paragraph it describes this issue as a "controversy". Considering that Heller footnote 23 stated flat out that the SCOTUS has reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government, it is plainly a gun rights POV push to diminish this issue as merely a controversy in the introduction. It is a settled matter in the opinion of the SCOTUS, not a controversy. Can you help propose some new wording to the second introductory sentence to phrase the issue as settled? SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There are ongoing federal lawsuits trying to get the Second Amendment incorporated. Also, as noted in footnote 23, Cruikshank "did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by ... later [Supreme Court] cases." This strongly suggests the Court will revisit this issue in a later case. So this issue should not be considered to be "settled". SMP0328. (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly suggests? Which crystal ball? Read the second sentence of footnote 23 which starts with the words "Our later decisions...reaffirmed". What part of "reaffirmed" is ambiguous? What indication what-so-ever (beyond wishful thinking) is there that the SCOTUS will take any "pending" case about this in the future? Footnote 23 the SCOTUS declared they have ruled, and reaffirmed twice on this already. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Cruikshank and Presser did not deal with incorporation as it was ruled on in the 20th Century and so federal lawsuits calling for their overruling have been made. That's why there's still a controversy. SMP0328. (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You evade. The SCOTUS in 2008 stated plainly, "reaffirmed". These lawsuits you speak of have been denied, over and over and over, for more than a century. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Heller did not deal with incorporation (no State or local government was a party to the case). It's use of the word "reaffirmed" was regarding Presser. SMP0328. (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

So what? You evade with double talk. Footnote 23 of Heller declares without any ambiguity that the SCOTUS has reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government, past tense, already done. There is nothing vague about the status of the SCOTUS here. Please undo your revert. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You either don't understand, or are refusing to acknowledge, what footnote 23 said. The Supreme Court was simply saying (1) that Cruikshank and Presser had ruled against incorporating the Second Amendment, (2) those cases were decided before the formulation of the modern incorporation doctrine (e.g., Palko v. Connecticut) and (3) those cases had been overruled to the extent they dealt with the First Amendment. If the Court had said anything regarding the Second Amendment and incorporation, that part of Heller decision would have been obiter dictum and so wouldn't have been binding of any court (including the Supreme Court). So there was no way for the Court to rule on incorporation in Heller. Please don't add material to the article claiming the Supreme Court did so in Heller. SMP0328. (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why believe your WP:SYN far reaching extrapolation of what they meant? Better to believe what they wrote literally, without reading in your hopeful POV. They wrote: "Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government." SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Heller explicitly stated that the Supreme Court was not addressing the issue of incorporation (i.e., a question not presented by this case). To say that Heller reaffirmed non-incorporation when it explicitly said it wasn't even addressing the issue is a gross misrepresentation of the source. Stop the OR. --tc2011 (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So what? Of course Heller was not addressing this, because as they said clearly, it has already been reaffirmed. No need to address it, they simply restated the reaffirmation. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The Court was stating that Cruikshank had been reaffirmed twice, even though Heller was not reaffirming or overruling that decision. The article already says this. SMP0328. (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This revert warring, yet again by SMP0238 is extreme POV pushing and must stop. This extremist position is that the 2A might apply some day (hopefully) in the future to the States. 1) It is a fringe idea. 2) It involves a crystal ball wishful prediction. The present day mainstream point of view, as reaffirmed recently by the SCOTUS is that "...the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government". Please stop the egregious POV push. The statement by the SCOTUS is important and should not be suppressed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This is embarrassing. SMP0328's recent edit revises the second paragraph to a single summary sentence, based on a citation pointing to the extremist Second Amendment Foundation website, with SMP0328 claiming his edit "Made reference to incorporation neutral". Shameless POV pushing. The Second Amendment Foundation is the "research arm" of a well known extreme pro-gun advocacy group. Appearances matter, and this important high profile introduction pointing to a pro-gun advocacy website looks like plain pro-gun POV push. And plainly, POV balance has been taken out of the second intro paragraph. The mainstream opinion is that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government. Why has that been edited out? Answers please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What's embarrassing is that you never assume good faith. That sentence now notes there's dispute over whether the Second Amendment should be incorporated, without saying it's "likely" or that anti-incorporation decisions have been "reaffirmed". That's neutral! As for the source, it's from the Yale Law Journal, not the Second Amendment Foundation. SAF is only the source for the link to the SAF's copy of the YLF article. Is that YLF article now have a "pro-gun" bias because it is on the SAF website? I will assume good faith and so will assume you simply misread that footnote. SMP0328. (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What should I make of your acceptance of pointing to the URL of an extremist POV group website from the introduction? How does your repeated edit war deletion of the mainstream POV, that the 2A applies only to the federal government show good faith? At some point assumption fails and observation takes precedence. Actually show good faith by self reverting your edit war. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion of POV pushing aside. How does that 1992 Yale Law Review article describe the sentence it is citing? Which passage in that 1992 article are you referring? The current state of affairs is that the Second Amendment continues to limit only the federal government, and that presently post-Heller there is a lot of speculation that this may be reconsidered by the SCOTUS at some point in the future. In short, the second paragraph is an outdated POV pushing mess. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have now reworded that part of the Introduction so that it refers to the fact that the SCOTUS has ruled three times in the 19th Century that the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government. It also notes that there are federal lawsuits trying to get it incorporated. There is no longer a footnote for this part of the Introduction; sourcing isn't necessary for the Introduction. SMP0328. (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks SMP0328 that is an improvement. I think the fact that the SCOTUS recently reaffirmed their position about this is as important as the mention of the 19th Century.  Your emphasis on the 19th Century is undue weight on the prop-gun POV.    Also, I don't see why pending court cases are important enough to rate for inclusion in the introduction.  All we have is wishful crystal ball reading that these cases might be granted certoriari.  The could be like countless others and be denied cert too.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

An opinion that a right can be taken away by those that specifically called for its protection seems to be somewhat clouded!

Somewhat!4.156.78.115 (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro Continues to reflect extensive anti-gun POV
an intro is supposed to cover the main points of the article. The current hijacking of the intro by those with an anti-gun POV has totally destroyed the impartiality of that intro.

The latest addition only reaffirms my point. The paragraph quoted from Cruikshank belongs under that case and not in the intro.4.154.235.197 (talk) 15:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Have attempted to address these concerns, moving the detailed Cruikshank and Heller minutia into their appropriate detailed discussion sections. Yaf (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro now even more biased to the in favor of gun control.

It seems that with every new edit, neutral or pro gun ownership language gets deleted and pro gun control language becomes more and more predominant. This REEKS of POV bias.

In order to counter this blatant POV bias, I ask that the following from Heller be added to the intro

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

I repeat my previous position that such blatant POV bias is uncalled for and I will delete all anti gun rhetoric in the into once this article becomes unprotected.

I feel it is safe to say that no other wiki article on a Amendment is so ANTI the protections of that amendment.

Again: this article REEKS of POV bias.4.156.78.115 (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Firearm Owners Protection Act section
The inclusion a whole section on this obscure piece of pro-gun legislation, while not mentioning the National Firearms Act, or the Gun Control Act of 1968, or the Militia Act of 1903 or the Militia Act of 1792 is very much a NPOV undue weight problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * with the exception of the characterization "obscure", i agree with this assessment. there are articles for each of the above, as well as the Firearm Owners Protection Act. the extended discussion of the FOPA as its own section in this article doesn't seem to add anything substantive to the article that isn't covered in its own article. Anastrophe (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Scope of lede
Suggestions: general article guideline is that the intro should be as brief as possible, and generally, the intro is not cited (cites to the specifics in the intro to be found in the body of the article where the specifics are discussed). i would recommend removing paragraphs two and three - yes, leave it at just paragraph one - and remove the cites (as they must certainly be covered in detail in the body). none of these additional issues merit inclusion in the intro. short. to the point. the second amendment is XYZ. it remains one of the most hotly contested of the amendments. the rest goes in the body. Anastrophe (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Have attempted to address these concerns through moving details contained in intro into text of article. This also fixed the cite issue in the intro.  It also looks like this edit addresses the POV concerns.  Have removed the POV tagline at the beginning of the article, as it doesn't appear that the whole article should be tagged, although there may still be perceived issues with a section near the end of the article.  Yaf (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The bare mention the text leans too heavily on the pro-gun originalist hypothesis. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I still have an issue with quotes. Hamilton by no means shares the general opinion of the times concerning the militia. As pointed out, many, many times already, his was the most extreme position of the LOOSING side of the Second Amendment/Bill of Rights battle.

I ask that the quotes from Madison, Webster, Henry and Mason be reinstated in full, as they were showing about a month ago.

I also noticed that the link to Elliot's Debates was screwed up (likely by newlaw) and no longer points to Elliot's Debates. I would HOPE that this was a simple error, but it is also possible that it is an underhanded move to later remove references to Patrick Henry and George Mason whose cited opinions and quotes are recorded in that document.

I can quite easily picture newlaw or Salty Boatr deleting the opinions of Patrick Henry and George Mason due to a lack of citation. If changing the link to make it nonworking was intentional I would say it falls WAY SHORT of any code of conduct for wiki editors.

To correct the link someone needs to copy a working version from a month or two ago. I would do it myself, but the article is protected.4.154.235.13 (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The Broken link is currently in footnote #43. I believe the links in 44 and 45 always pointed nowhere and never worked. They should point to the same place as link 43.4.154.235.13 (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

i've removed the citations and example from the lede. the exact sentences, and exact refs, and the exact example, all exist within the BODY of the article. MOS recommends not citing the lede. the actual content of the lede has not been modified, with the exception of removing 'has' from 'has ruled' as it's an anachronism. i'll look at refs 43/44/45. Anastrophe (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure if you are responding to me, but the link to Elliot's Debates for Patrick Henry and George Mason is still broke. And Hamilton is still the only one being quoted!4.154.237.200 (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I object to Anastrophe's revert requesting discussion. I believe I did discuss this here, elaborating, the push-pull of the POV involves striking a balance between the pro-gun emphasis on outdated SCOTUS rulings (hence the 19th century emphasis) and the crystal ball problem of hopefully maybe someday the SCOTUS will overturn. I was trying to achieve balance by de-emphasizing the first, while keeping in emphasis of the second. The bottom line here is that now without any qualifications, the Second Amendment only applies to the Federal Government. The present wording of the second paragraph has too much emphasis on qualifications of that fact to be considered neutrally balanced in point of view. Anastrophe, please self revert, thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * a better compromise would be removal of the paragraph. i'm unclear what an "outdated SCOTUS ruling" is - you mean old rulings are invalid? that's a new one on me. eliminating the mention of the "outdated" scotus rulings, and the pending lawsuits attempting to get incorporation, would be more balanced, since neither requires mention in the lede. i still maintain that the first paragraph is more than adequate. the second amendment is xyz, and it is highly contested and debated. Anastrophe (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * let me amend that. the current paragraph three merits inclusion in the lede, with minor grammatical modification. paragraph two essentially dovetails into what is stated by para 3. Anastrophe (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * By outdated, I am referring to the pro-gun hypothesis that somehow these 19th Century rulings are deprecated because they preexist other incorporation rulings. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A huge misconception is that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to guns. In fact, per current SCOTUS rulings (and described concisely with footnote 23 in the Heller ruling), for the most part, it does not. Unless you live in the District of Columbia and remain inside your house with a handgun which you already own or have built from scratch: the Second Amendment does not presently do so. This is such an important fundamental point in the article that it merits attention in the intro. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion is now moot. As suggested by Anastrophe, I have pruned the Introduction down to only what was its first paragraph. Any reference to footnote 23 can now only be found in the U.S. Supreme Court section. In that section, each decision refers to when it was decided and its location in the United States Reports. SMP0328. (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Attacks & counterattacks

 * The recent SMP0238 intro edit, deleting mention of allowed regulation and mention of 'Federal only' drastically shifts the POV balance towards the pro-gun hypothesis. This is a major POV balance shift, seriously objectionable. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * your personal opinion that it is "A huge misconception" is interesting but not relevant to the discussion. you're attempting to frame the article in terms of your own personal opinion. its nice that you place all your personal weight upon footnote 23 of the ruling. your personal weight is immaterial - it suggests a desire to impart your own POV imbalance upon the facts. the court held in its ruling: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home". are you suggesting that the courts actual holding in the case is moot? you are of course entitled to that opinion. you are not entitled to attempt to warp this article to conform to your (incorrect) opinion. Anastrophe (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Every edit that isn't exactly as SaltyBoatr would want is accused by him of being a "pro-gun" edit. SaltyBoatr wants to own this article and refuses to respect the good faith of fellow editors. SMP0328. (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your ad hominem logic is incorrect. The neutral balance of points of view I argue for is that found in reliable sourcing, not mine personally. The effect of systemic bias of pro-gun editors being attracted to this article in correspondence to their personal POV interest causes the tendency of my edits to appear in opposition. In reality, my edits are neutral per the balance of reliable sourcing. For instance, the point of view that the current interpretation of the Second Amendment being federal only, and being that gun regulations are allowed is a mainstream reliable point of view.  Yet, your pro-gun tendency chooses to edit that POV out. It is your POV that is unfounded in the balance of reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I stand by what I said. Any edit that doesn't perfectly fit your desires is labeled by you as "pro-gun". You don't assume good faith and you don't work toward consensus. Instead, you make demands and complain when other editors don't acquiesce to those demands. SMP0328. (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * saltyboatr, enough. your relentless, and reckless, accusations that all other editors who do not edit in conformance with your opinion are therefore "pro-gun" must stop. you toss that out at virtually every juncture; it is patently devoid of good faith - you are essentially stating in the open nearly every time you add a comment here that you will not assume good faith, not even for appearances! stop. cease and desist referring to any and all other editors who make edits you disagree with as being "pro gun". we are not. we are no more than fellow editors, and are to be referred to as same. you are making assumptions and stating them as fact - that's bad faith, pure and simple. what is pathetically amusing is that in the edit you refer to above as being due to 'pro-gun tendency' SMP0328 removed the entire section about the Firearms Owners Protection Act. Removal of that is not a "pro-gun" edit, it is merely an edit you didn't notice because your prejudice and assumption of bad faith regarding your fellow editors precludes you from even seeing it. again, i ask you to never more refer to your fellow editors as "pro-gun editors". it is offensive, just as offensive as if editors were to always refer to you as an "anti-gun editor", which by my recollection happens only rarely. stop. follow wikipedia policy and assume good faith. Anastrophe (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Anastrophe writes: "your prejudice...precludes you from even seeing it". In truth, I neglected to hit the "page down" key. Anastrope sees bad faith instead. Please set this ad hominem aside. Can someone respond why the paragraphs about "allowable regulation" and "federal only" needed to be scrubbed from the intro? Why does the intro need to heavily rely on the originalist hypothesis? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * i again ask that you agree to cease referring to your fellow editors as being "pro-gun". will you do so? you overtly show bad faith at every turn - why are you allowed carte blanche to ascribe motive to your fellow editors by labeling them as "pro-gun", without sanction? regardless of whether or not you forgot to hit 'page down', you ascribed motive to the edit by characterizing it as "pro-gun". this page is littered with your claims that edits are "pro-gun".
 * the intro does not rely on any hypothesis. it states what the second amendment says. your desire to read meaning into the plain, clear words there is interesting but not an editorial matter. 'federal only' is your personal opinion. the lack of a formal holding of incorporation does not mean that rights codified in the constitution are not held by the people. your words suggest that you would be against incorporation of the second amendment. are you desirous that incorporation be revoked for the other amendments? Anastrophe (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, setting your ad hominem attack aside. The fact remains that the issue of "reasonable regulation" and "federal only" has been buried. My personal opinion has nothing to do with this. The textural meaning of the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" (mentioned twice in the intro, why?) key to the originalist 2A hypothesis and also has been taken up as a popular political slogan. The article should deal with this in a neutral way, presently it does not. I have no problem with coverage of the originalist hypothesis, and of the modern politics, I just have problems when the originalist hypothesis is presented as "truth" and when there is a lack of balance of the various points of view. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * similar to your carelessness and recklessness in mischaracterizing SMP0328's edit as "pro-gun", while simultaneously being careless and reckless while taking the time to directly cite the edit, perhaps the same is at work here, so i'll repeat my request: will you agree to cease referring to yoiur fellow editors as being "pro-gun"?
 * i have reworded the intro to remove the double-use of 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms', which i agree is essentially silly, and have boiled it down to the pure essence. the intro now states what the amendment states, and acknowledges that the meaning and scope are hotly contested, which is clearly codified in the body of the article. Anastrophe (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you stop attacking my character please? It is a distraction. Your present pared down Intro, separating the "militia" phrase from the "bear arms" phrase, matches exactly just one point of view. And separating these phrases is a common modern political tactic "framing" the meaning of the Second Amendment. We should avoid giving this tactic undue weight to one point of view by featuring it in the introduction. (Though I support discussion of the issue in the article.) Another major and significant point of view is that the purpose of the "militia" phrase modifies the "bear arms" phrase like an adjective modifies a noun. This whole discussion of the 'ablative absolute' hypothesis was long ago scrubbed from the article, and the collective right hypothesis has been buried and improperly weighted causing WP:UNDUE problems. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * will you agree to cease referring to your fellow editors as being "pro-gun"? Anastrophe (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you stop attacking my character please? Your hypocrisy is astounding. You call multiple editors "pro-gun" (an attack on our characters) and then accuse Anastrophe of attacking your character when he calls you on it. SMP0328. (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I personally don't mind being called pro-gun. After all I am pro-gun! However, being called a pro-gun NUT when that right to own a gun is constitutionally protected rubs me the wrong way.4.154.234.114 (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * When Salty Boatr refers to an edit as "pro-gun" he means that edit is illegitimate. That's showing bad faith on his part, because he calls all edits, to which he does not agree, as "pro-gun". SMP0328. (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I realize that, but I have no objection to being called pro-gun, it is the NUT part afterwards that bothers me. Whether spoken or implied. And speaking of nuts, what kind of squired food attempts to deny that the second amendment protects SOMETHING and tries to remove all references to what it protects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.234.114 (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you say we take the meaning of footnote 23 to dispute resolution? Surely we don't want to make gross misrepresentations of a source, or conduct original research by making assertions not present in the source? And as for editor conduct, could we solicit comments or mediation of some sort? I know a certain editor has made several demonstrably false accusations against me, and I have to say one editor in particular does make this feel like a hostile editing environment...it really does make this quite a discouraging and unpleasant place for me. Anyone know what the procedures are? --tc2011 (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've gone to dispute resolution (mediation and arbitration) with SaltyBoatr regarding this article. He no more seeks consensus or assumes good faith there than he does here. In this case, dispute resolution would be a waste of time. SMP0328. (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The goal of the amendment is to make sure the states have an armed militia should the need arise to resist a federal takeover.

The method to that goal was to forbid the feds from taking action to disarm militia members by making the right to "keep and bear" arms constitutionally protected.

What other views is there?

and do the Founding Fathers share that "other views" as to why the Second Amendment was incorporated into the Constitution? or were those "other views" created by someone looking for his ass with both hands, a map, a GPS, and explicit direction, and then FAILING to find it?4.154.234.114 (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Lots of name calling, but no answer to my substantive question about the WP:UNDUE problems with the current version of article and the intro. Based the balance of reliable sourcing, it is apparent that one significant point of view would phrase the intro:  "...and prohibits infringement..." and another significant POV would say "...therefore prohibits infringement...".  The distinction is critical, as in the first case both conditions exist independently.  In the second case the first condition is necessary before the second condition becomes necessary.  This is also the crux of the difference between "collective right hypothesis"  versus "independent rights hypothesis" dichotomy.  The intro should neutrally accommodate both of these significant POV's.  Presently it favors one and downplays the other.  Subjective personal opinions has nothing to do with this problem.  It is an objective issue of WP:NPOV policy, all major opinions should be represented. Can we at least agree that all major opinions found in reliable sources should be represented?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * i have addressed your concerns with my most recent edit. will you agree to cease characterizing your fellow editors as being "pro-gun"? absent an affirmative response, it's time to register a formal complaint, as the characterization - as found numerous times here on this page, is an in-your-face overt expression of bad faith. Anastrophe (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Being pro-gun is not a bad thing.   Editing with undue balance is a bad thing.   Discussion about editor bias is a valid topic as all editors have bias, and  bias effects are a real problem in Wikipedia.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * nobody has suggested that being pro-gun is a bad thing. what is a violation of policy is you claiming you know other editors motives by describing the editors themselves and their edits as being pro-gun; doing so is overtly and explicitly an expression of bad faith, since you are ascribing motive by that characterization. you are not "discussing" editor bias when you call an editor "pro-gun", you are ascribing motive. you frequently claim that there is systemic bias with this article, yet you are unable to quantify it with objective metrics - only your subjective characterization that other editors are "pro-gun", which is no more a metric than if i were to suggest that your interest in this article is due to systemic bias by those who are attracted to this article because they are "anti-gun". will you agree to cease characterizing your fellow editors as being "pro-gun"? Anastrophe (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Will you agree that the neutrality balance point should be determined by the balance seen in the reliable sourcing, not by the balance of personal opinions of the editors? Systemic bias is a real problem in this article, and I cannot agree to ignore the problem of systemic bias until after it is fixed.  I look forward to the day we can stop being concerned about the effects of the personal opinions of editors contributing to this problem.  You and I have made significant progress already fixing this problem and you and I continuing to work together can finish this task.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * as per usual, direct requests are ignored, or worse, "answered" with new questions and diversions. nobody has asked you to "agree to ignore the problem of systemic bias". that 'request' has been conjured from thin air by you. your disproportionate attraction to this article and other firearm-related articles could just as easily be ascribed to systemic bias, since no objective metric obtains - it's a rhetorical ploy, and nothing more.
 * i of course agree that the neutrality balance point should be determined by the balance as seen in the reliable sourcing, not by the balance of personal opinions of the editors. will you agree to cease characterizing your fellow editors as being "pro-gun"? Anastrophe (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What question did I ignore? Editor bias is central to the problem of systemic bias.  So, no, I will not ignore fellow editors who edit with bias.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:SOUP. what question did you ignore? this question: "Will you agree to cease characterizing your fellow editors as being 'pro-gun'?" you've ignored it nearing a dozen times now. you were not asked to ignore fellow editors who edit with bias, you were asked if you will agree to cease characterizing your fellow editors as being "pro-gun". will you? a simple yes or no to that question would be desireable. Anastrophe (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree to focus on the edits not the editors. Do you?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * yes. see how easy it is? Anastrophe (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You have attacked me personally repeatedly over the last few days, so I look forward to the change in your behavior. Thanks.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * likewise. i'm pleased that you won't be referring to editors as "pro-gun" based upon your personal interpretation of their edits. 02:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Better said, I will continue to focus on edits, not editors. You have never really pointed to a specific diff of mine that you view as "referring to editors" as opposed to referring to their edits.  In contrast, you have falsely accused me personally of bad faith, and you owe me an apology for that false accusation.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)soup. characterizing an edit by use of the sweeping term "pro-gun" is implicitly characterizing the editor as same. you cannot divorce the edit from the editor, not when you are making a characterization that goes beyond the text of the edit itself. you claim relentlessly that there is systemic bias in the article, yet that claim is devoid of any and all objective fact - it's merely a claim you employ to suggest there is bias without having to quantify it. "saltyboatr's inordinate attraction to this and other firearm-related articles clearly shows systemic bias by those intending to inject that POV into the article". that has no more validity than when you say that people with a pro-gun POV are attracted to the article. when you accused yaf and SMP0328 of conspiring to push a "pro-gun POV", you were most certainly focusing on editors (never mind that the claim of conspiracy and collusion is about as bad-faith a claim as i've seen in a long while, particularly considering the evidence you proferred was of public comments by one editor asking another editor to participate in public discussion. hell of a way to conduct a conspiracy!). i expect no apology from you to yaf and SMP0328, nor should you expect an apology from me. let's move beyond the faux hurt feelings, and discuss the freaking article. Anastrophe (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I notice you again attack me and my character with generalities. You have never really pointed to a specific specific diff of mine where I attacks. Great, you smear me again with implicit generalities and outrage at a straw man of "I expect no apology from you", (without giving me a chance). Then you admonish me to discuss the freaking article? Wow.


 * OK, an open issue is whether there is reliable sourcing that says that the Federal Second Amendment applies to the states. Do you have an opinion on this? The inclusion of a large amount of material based on State law about state rights to bear arms seem off topic unless it can be reliably sourced that the Federal 2A applies to the states. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * this is being discussed in another section. rather than changing the subject of this discussion, i'll make my comments in the appropriate section. Anastrophe (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You still owe me an apology for falsely accusing me of bad faith. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * no false accusation obtains. further, please cite the wikipedia policy that requires me tender an apology. thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible new item for the article
With the US Supreme Court declaring that the right to own a gun for self defense is constitutionally protected, a mention that it is not the job of the police to protect you, it it YOUR job to protect you, may now have a place in the article.

I can look up cases if others see the need. One extreme example happened in Washington DC (of all places). An apartment was invaded, neighbors hearing a commotion called the police, who then failed to respond. The invaders then for the next 14 HOURS beat up and raped the inhabitants of that apartment. In a lawsuit against the police, the court found that the police have no OBLIGATION or DUTY to defend those beaten up and rapped.

Is anyone surprised that after DC made it practically impossible to own a gun for self defense, that it became the murder and crime capital of the US?4.154.234.114 (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of states rights.
Considering that State rights to bear arms is a totally different topic than the federal right to bear arms. And considering that the Federal Second Amendment gives zero protection of state based rights to bear arms. Why are the state based rights discussed so heavily? There are a few people that get confused that it does (or hopeful that it will) but that belief appears totally unfounded in reliable sources. Rather, it seems to be a political statement. The coverage of State based rights to bear arms appear 100% off topic in this article. And worse, it appears to be a political statement advocating for one political cause. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * State courts can and do interpret the Federal Constitution. For interpreting the Second Amendment, states were the first to establish the two major schools of thought that exist to this day regarding the interpretations of the Second Amendment.  It is entirely proper to include this historical interpretation in this article, especially since it was the first detailed look at the Second Amendment that occurred in the courts in the US.  The individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment grew out of the first attempts at gun control in the US, and was first litigated in the state courts around the mid-19th Century.  The collective rights interpretation came later, and really only took off in the early 20th Century.  A third interpretation, namely of the civic duty, came later.  All three are discussed appropriately in the article, in 100% adherence to being on-topic with discussing the history of the Second Amendment, and in accordance with reliable and verifiable sources.  There is no "pro-gun" bent here, only cited history.  (It would help if you stopped calling all contents to which you oppose, "pro-gun".  It is a serious violation of Assume Good Faith.)  Also, calling this content by the POV-pushing "State rights to bear arms" moniker is an extreme push at the collective interpretation, only, which is but one of the three major forms of interpretation, all three of which are included in the article, commensurate with the cited reliable sources.  Your POV pushing and bullying of other editors (see talk above and talk history) needs to stop.  Yaf (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You have had a very hard time showing reliable sources for this opinion of yours. As confirmed by the SCOTUS with Heller footnote 23, this federal law (the 2A) has no bearing on the States.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Citations have been added. --tc2011 (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorporation

 * Where? Please cite reliable sourcing that the federal Second Amendment applies to the states. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Tc2011, please answer this question specifically. Thanks.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not assert that the second amendment has been incorporated against the states. Take your bait and switch to the relevant talk page. --tc2011 (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You wrote: Citations have been added. Where?  Which ones?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * They're there. I'm not going to read the article for you. Do your own leg work. --tc2011 (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You know, if you had looked at the passage you deleted, you would have seen it contains a citation demonstrating its relevance to the Second Amendment and this article. --tc2011 (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Now, the topic has been changed. I did not say the Second Amendment has been ruled by the SCOTUS to be incorporated against the states.  I said that "State courts can and do interpret the Federal Constitution.  For interpreting the Second Amendment, states were the first to establish the two major schools of thought that exist to this day regarding the interpretation of the Second Amendment."  The article presently has cites for this, as well as for the third line of interpretation relative to an interpretation involving a civic duty.  Changing the topic like this is an old debating trick; it needs to stop.  It is equivalent to asking "Have you stopped beating your daughter?" Citations are presently in the article for early state judicial interpretations regarding the Second Amendment. Yaf (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The closest thing to a citation is your 1967 snippet, which is extremely obscure. Tell us, who is being quoted in that snippet?  Answer please.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf, please answer this question about your footnote 67. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf, please answer this question about your footnote 67. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The "obscurity" is only because you refused to verify the quotation during 30 and formal mediation and also demanded that the courtesy link be removed from the article, to censor content from Wikipedia readers that was different than what you felt was appropriate due to your extreme POV pushing; the courtesy link which is/was online here.  Personally, I have always thought it would be best to include this online link in the article, as a courtesy link to readers, similar to how you have subsequently inserted numerous google.com/books links repeatedly.  Yaf (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The nearest public library with this volume is 450 miles from my house. The Google books link is "snippet view" and truncates the quote, not even giving a complete sentence.  Who is speaking?  What question are they answering?  Your refusal to answer this question about context raises another question:  Have you read the source beyond what you can view in Google Books?  If not, this seems a clear case of improper WP:SYN.   This seems a dubious source because it seems to be the only case of incorporation of the Second Amendment in the history of the country.  If true, this is noteworthy, and should be easy to confirm in multiple independent reliable sources.   SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh my, you even refuse to click on a courtesy link? If you did, you would see that your claim ("not even giving a complete sentence") is patently false. --tc2011 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * TC2011 has reinserted this next now. TS2001 please answer this question about your footnote 67. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean you didn't look at the source? You really should look at the sources if you're going to say they're no good. I suggest you look at the source. --tc2011 (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the editor putting the material in the article (you) has the burden of proof. WP:Burden  That being the case, please explain your sourcing.  It is extremely obscure, and unclear.  Who is speaking?  What question were they answering?  Lacking a coherent answer, WP:RS policy says that any editor may remove it.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, WP:Burden is met: the passage is attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation, the source cited clearly supports the information as it is presented in the article, and the source is cited fully. If you have an interest in the source beyond WP:Burden, you are free to examine the source yourself. In any case, SB:Burden is not applicable to Wikipedia articles. --tc2011 (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You haven't read it in context either? How do you know whether your edit is accurate?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why are you accusing me of not reading the citation in context, when you refuse to even click on the courtesy link and see that a complete thought (i.e., sentence) from the source is provided? --tc2011 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I asked two questions which you evaded. Did you read it in context?  How do you know whether your edit is accurate?  The courtesy link does not give more than "snippet view".  Judging context is impossible with the truncated version found in the courtesy link.  What is truncated by the ellipses?  Who is speaking?  What question are they answering?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * the material in question makes no claim that the second amendment applies to the states, thus the suggestion that it's off-topic is specious. it is very clearly entitled 'early commentary in state courts', not "the federal second amendment as it applies to the states". state courts have discussed the scope of the federal second amendment in deciding cases before them. this early commentary is on-topic, relevant to a historical understanding, and sourced. i have no objection to its inclusion. Anastrophe (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We are talking about footnotes 66 through 80. Which exactly of these citations are you talking about when you say "state courts have discussed the scope of the federal second amendment in deciding cases before them"? Thanks.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * there seems to be some misunderstanding of process here. if an editor disputes a citation/source, it's his privilege to dispute it, upon which discussion may ensue of the reliability of the source. it is not, however, an editors privilege to make a blanket, generalized dispute claim against fifteen citations, then insist (vis "Which exactly of these citations are you talking about") that other editors "de-dispute" the blanket claim.
 * that said, the court's opinion in state v buzzard clearly discusses the scope of the right, and of the federal second amendment. have you read it? Anastrophe (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Reading primary court documents, especially 180 year old ones, requires expertise which normal people lack. I have read it and it seems to say that the appellee is wrong to assert the Second Amendment has bearing on Arkansas law.  That being the case, why discuss this reversal case from 1839?  Much better to just simply say:  The Second Amendment does not apply to the states.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * your opinion regarding the limited abilities of "normal people" is noted, but is not germane. it's a curious approach to take, however, as in characterizing it in this way - then proceeding directly to provide your interpretation of the material - it seems to beg that your interpretation be dismissed prima facie. res ispa loquitur, and all that.
 * i answered your question, which was "which exactly of these citations are you talking about[...]". i disagree that your oversimplification either accurate or "better". i stand by my previous comments. Anastrophe (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have problems interpreting primary sourcing like that. It appears in violation of WP:PSTS.  Also, please answer my question "(W)hy discuss this reversal case from 1839? SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, it is not appropriate for editors to conduct original research and say a verifiable source is wrong. Much better to just present the information and allow readers to decide for themselves. Don't you agree we shouldn't be doing original research to push a POV? --tc2011 (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Reread WP:PSTS for the answer to your question. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, WP:PSTS says that primary sources can be used for descriptive purposes. So far, it seems the only misuse of this primary source is above, where you impose your interpretation on this source (I have read it and it seems to say that the appellee is wrong to assert the Second Amendment has bearing on Arkansas law.). If you see interpretations like yours in the article, by all means, identify them specifically here on the talk page so we can discuss them before anyone makes controversial edits? Here's a new section, and I'll get started: --tc2011 (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Potential instances of original research

 * As mentioned in this quotation "as it existed at the adoption of the constitution" was the pre-existing right in force when Kentucky's First Constitution was drawn in 1799. --tc2011 (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unpublished source
This recent citation points to an unpublished 'forthcoming' source, and violates WP:RS policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * i've added another citation for this well-known fact. Anastrophe (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

William Weir sourcing 'dubious'.
An editor has recently noted the citation to William Weir as "dubious" but gave not indication of what was dubious other than the cryptic edit summary "refimprove to satisfy SaltyBoatr". It is tempting to guess that this is an attempt at sarcasm? Perhaps not. What does this mean? I am welcome to discuss this, what is dubious? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamilton quote still only quote showing - Continuing POV bias
Why does the proponent of the MOST EXTREME position of the loosing side of the Second Amendment/Bill of Rights debate continue to be the only one quoted?

His opinions are most certainly NOT the mainstream opinion of the time. If it was then there would be no Bill of Rights and no Second Amendment. Those two items CLEARLY exist and they exist because the majority of the time THOUGHT THEY WERE NEEDED. Again: Hamilton's was clearly a MINORITY opinion.

This quote from Federalist 25 shown Hamilton to be ANTI-Militia and anti-NUMEROUS state constitutions of the time, as well as Anti-Virginia Bill of Rights. This is NOT a mainstream opinion of the time.

Here I expect we shall be told that the militia of the country is its natural bulwark, and would be at all times equal to the national defense. This doctrine, in substance, had like to have lost us our independence.

On another point: Hamilton's usage of the term "well regulated" conforms to the usage of the time. Well regulated being used to mean "well trained". From Federalist 29

To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia,4.156.78.9 (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Link to Elliot's Debates for Patrick Henry and George Mason still not fixed after being screwed up by nwlaw. Is it too much too ask that someone go back a month or so in the article to cut and paste a working link to Elliot's Debates at the Library of Congress as it existed a month or so ago?4.156.78.7 (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

To make it even simple and less time consuming to fix the error, here is the link to be cut and pasted. LOC.gov is Library Of Congress.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(ed0038))

I also take back any comments on my part that nwlaw broke the link. It looks like it went bad before the current (month or two) of edits.4.156.78.19 (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 4.156.78.19 (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Footnote 67 request full quote
Footnote 67 presently reads "67. ^ United States. Anti-Crime Program. Hearings Before Ninetieth Congress, First Session. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off, 1967, p. 246. quote: "...all citizens had the unabridgable right to bear arms for self-protection as well as for militia purposes and that a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons was violative of the Second Amendment (see Bliss v. Commonwealth, 2 Litt. (Ky) 90, 13 Am. December 251 (1822))..."

Please see Wikipedia policy about burden of evidence. I have questions about the context of this source. What is truncated by the ellipsis? Who is speaking? What question is he/she or are they answering? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As has been provided above (and which you apparently refuse to check, falsely claiming it doesn't provide "even a complete sentence"): . --tc2011 (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have looked at that link. It shows only a snippet view.  Who is speaking?  What is the context?  What question were they asked?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Seeing no answer, I will remove that passage shortly. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, WP:Burden is met:
 * It is attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.
 * The source cited clearly supports the information as presented in the article.
 * The source provides a complete thought that is faithfully represented in the text of this article. You have been provided with this source's complete thought. Your abject refusal to acknowledge the information presented to you is astonishing.

The burden is now on anyone who would remove the citation. --tc2011 (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The source is cited fully, enabling anyone so interested to find the text.


 * It doesn't appear that anyone here has actually bothered to travel to a library to read that text in context. "Google research", viewing just a short snipped lacking context doesn't cut it.  And no, it is not fully cited.  That is a transcript of testimony.  Though, we don't know who was speaking so we cannot judge their reliability.  Neither do we know what question they were answering.  Also, we only see a short passage, what is the context of the discussion?  Please answer, you inserted the passage.  No joke, the nearest public library with that volume is 450 miles from my house.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, this is interesting. You assume no Wikipedia editor has reviewed the publication and you realize that some people might have to travel 450 miles in order to review the publication, yet you insist upon promptly removing the citation, without affording editors the opportunity to access or obtain the publication to supply your demands not present in WP:Burden? We are not your personal research service. The demands of WP:Burden are met. If you wish to challenge the citation further, I suggest that you request the publication through inter-library loan, or file a request for comment seeking Wikipedia users willing to scan or transcribe the publication for you. Failing that, you might at least feign good faith by allowing sufficient time, for those whose lives are not lived around Wikipedia, to request the publication through inter-library loan, or make the trip to a holding library.
 * The demands of WP:Burden are met. If you wish to disprove the citation, I encourage you--expending your own resources--to do so. --tc2011 (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You made the edit inserting the material. You have the burden of evidence, not me.    SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:Burden has been satisfied, even if you have not. --tc2011 (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"extremist" sources
the use of material from websites such as the NRA, The Second Amendment Foundation, GunCite, etc, have at various times been challenged as being from extremist POV sources, thus not appropriate as references - and in virtually all cases, have been struck from the article. In what way does material from these single-issue advocacy websites differ from material sourced from a single issue advocacy website such as www.gunlawsuits.org, recently used in this edit? what objective basis is used to determine that the SAF is extremist, but the brady center is not? Anastrophe (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll give you one guess. Hint: the answer includes a capital S and a capital B. SMP0328. (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop the personal attacks. This is harassment.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that advocacy sources should be disfavored, and most reliable sources should be favored. Especially those with good reputation for fact checking, like well known publishing houses.  (Especially those associated with universities.) The diff you question is mistaken, the www.gunlawsuits.org citation was made by SMP0328 with this diff.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Many university source are "extremist" in that they borrow heavily from communist and socialist (communism light) sources and are not based on the idea of "individual rights" that form the foundation of the American system of government.4.156.78.19 (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * thanks for the correction on the diff sb, and i apologize for misattributing it to you with my diff. while i also favor use of the most reliable sources, web sources are also acceptable per policy if they meet the criteria (and depending upon the material they are sourcing). Anastrophe (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Pruning the Article
This article is clearly overlong, with lots of redundant and overlong historical storytelling that borders on original research. I am going to engage in some judicious pruning. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Also, the section on early state court law is duplicated nearly verbatim in the Right to keep and bear arms article where it is more 'on topic'. I see that entire section as a wordy contentious passage, full of synthesis and original research, not really on topic, and which is redundant in this article. Feel free to prune that entire section out, and optionally, include a link reference to the text in the other article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I just trimmed out that redundant section. SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Any deletions of quotes from anti-Federalists would result in a blatant POV bias for the article. The Second Amendment was passed to satisfy their concerns and those concerns need to be represented in the article. As it is, the Federalist, who in general opposed a Bill of Rights, still have more quotes in the article then the anti-Federalists. While the article is currently acceptable, any deletions of anti-Federalist quotes would NOT be acceptable. I do not object to deletion of Federalist quotes as they are in my opinion currently over-represented. 4.154.232.10 (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest we delete both of these types of quotes, as they amount to improper synthesis, and violate WP:NOR. SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The context in which the second Amendment was written is much more relevant to the article then say a dispute on ablative absolute.

In order to properly understand the thinking of the players of the era, both for and against, you need their actual words, not the thinking of some ivory tower egghead who wasn't around at the time. Quotes do that quite nicely. 4.156.78.2 (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that "ivory tower egghead" is another term for reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Using snippets of quotes from the "founding fathers" selectively chosen to advance a point of view amounts to synthesis and original research in many cases including here.  4.156.78.2 must explain why we should not follow Policy.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would rather get my opinions directly from those who had them, in their own words, instead of regurgitated 200 years after the fact. "Ivory tower egghead" is a term used for people with more brains then common sense. Any reading of the Second Amendment in combination with the concerns of those who forced its enactment, shows that it was designed to make sure that the various state militias were not disarmed by federal fiat. The way this was done was to FORBID the feds from disarming ANYONE. That is plainly the intent of the phrase "The right to beep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Again I invite you to loom up the meaning of the word "infringed". This time use a RELIABLE reference like a DICTIONARY, not someones OPINION. As you continue to point out OPINION is NOT a reliable source.


 * I agree with you on using selective quotes to further an agenda is unacceptable. THAT is why I added the quotes from Patrick Henry and George Mason. Both are major anti-Federalist figures. Prior to this NO quotes had been included in the article from ANY anti-Federalist. While the anti-Federalists are still under-represented, I feel no need to "hog" the show and add more quotes. If I did they would most likely be from Patrick Henry and his views should not predominate over the views of other figures of the time.


 * The following Patrick Henry quotes would certainly be acceptable for the article, but would result in the over-representation of the opinions of one man


 * Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? -- 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836


 * The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun. -- 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.


 * The quotes currently referenced do not further ANY agenda, as the are in fact from major players on both sides of the Bill of Rights argument. If you feel that they are biased in some manner then feel free to add quotes that you believe are relevant and further a point of view not shown. Any deletion of anti-Federalist quotes however would be a POV and neutrality issue. Any deletion of ALL quotes would be negative to the article.


 * As stated previously I find the current article quite acceptable4.154.237.121 (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 4.154.234.121 Before I am willing to engage on a discussion of your quotes, we need to discuss No original research policy.  Would you please click that link, read it and then come back to discuss how your proposed edits comply with that policy?  Thanks.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Already been there and done that! Quotes from a reputable source such as Elliot's Debates is considered acceptable for a wiki article. Find another tree to bark at please. Better yet, find some quotes that fill any lack you see in the article. If you can't, then don't blame me for your lack of effort. 4.156.78.222 (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have restored the Early commentary in state courts section. Pruning, with the addition of a See also or main link, is fine, but complete removal is improper. Just because that material is relevant in another article does not make it irrelevant to this article. SMP0328. (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why does that passage need to appear in two articles? Also, the issue of why state law discussion of various rights to bear arms is 'on topic' in a federal law article has never been addressed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A fair compromise has been reached. Who would have thought it possible? You get to "prune" the article, but that material is still available to reader and is linked to by this article. SMP0328. (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have continued to prune the article, focusing on the historical exposition and overlong quotations which lead the article perilously close to original research. I assure all parties that I am not removing text to promote any particular point of view, and that I will axe unnecessary verbiage without regard to what view it supports. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Corrected typo in "State ratification Conventions"

from The Right to Bears arms

to The Right to Bear arms4.156.78.222 (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

further corrected to the Right to Bear Arms.4.156.78.222 (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have the right to bear arms with a bear's arms, as long as the bear consents. :) SMP0328. (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have once again removed historical fluff around the Tucker mention. I have no wish to engage in a battle over the content of the article, but tidbits about a legal expert's nickname or redundant sentences about his expertise don't add anything - Describing Tucker as a major constitutional theorist or leading legal expert gets the point across just fine. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I am about to take my axe to the state ratification section - The inclusion of a quote from five different states, each of which essentially says the state approves the right to bear arms, is highly repetitive and unnecessary - A simple comprehensive statement to this effect is more than sufficient. I am posting this comment here for a day or so before I make the cuts in case someone has a compelling argument about why one or more of these quotes should remain. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * For the sake of brevity, I have removed these long and unnecessary quotes. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

In the next section, conflict and compromise, I feel that the quotations are necessary since the involve the crafting of the amendment itself. However, the first couple of paragraphs appear to give an awkward and partly unnecessary background on the politics of 1789. I propose to edit this beginning to make it both clearer and shorter. I will wait a day for comments before proceeding. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks SMP for saving me the work :) Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

While the opening of the article looks much clearer now, the "Origins" section still seems overlong and strained, in my view. "In the centuries and decades" is a particularly awkward phrase. All the material about 12th century England seems to border on original research - Perhaps this information could be summarized in a way that creates more of a flowing narrative and less of an appearance of wandering off for an English history lesson. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

All of the historical records of gun possession are off-point. And treating the 2A separately from the Bill of Rights just adds to the confusion. The Bill of Rights is a set of restrictions the Founders placed upon their just created federal government. It begins with "Congress shall make no law..." then the 2A's "shall not be infringed." It means only what it says, and that restriction applies exclusively to the federal government. Every Supreme Court decision from our beginnings through 'Heller' has stated that. The 2A does not create, secure, protect or guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. It simply forbids the federal government from infringing on it. Truwik (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * your comments are interesting, but unclear. what do you mean by "and treating the 2A separately from the Bill of Rights just adds to the confusion"? there are separate articles for each of the amendments to the bill of rights. this is a separate article for one of them. so, i'm unclear how you would suggest it be treated - wikipedia having only one article on the bill of rights, eliminating the separate ones? very confusing. your juxtaposition of the words of one amendment against the words of another is also interesting, but appears to be little more than original research. The ninth amendment nicely quashes the notion that the enumeration of rights in the BoR somehow means that the (or any) government's restricted power to limit rights somehow limits the rights themselves.
 * in any event, you've made a number of sweeping claims above but demonstrated no sourcing for those claims. we can certainly discuss the merits of those claims with regard to the current construction of the article. Anastrophe (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Anastrophe for the most part. The general drift of your suggestion seems promising, but proceeding without having reliable sourcing is a can of worms. Are your reading a book or something reliable which outline these ideas? Two strong scholarly and topical books, (one leaning pro-individual right and the other leaning pro-collective right) are the Joyce Lee Malcolm (ISBN 0674893077) and the Uviller & Merkel (ISBN 0822330172) books. I suspect that melding these two together could give us a WP:RS and WP:NPOV roadmap. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Historical Sources
While the "Historical Sources" section is interesting to those of us interested in research, it does not seem to meet Wikipedia standards of relevance - It is hard to imagine a print encyclopedia discussing its sources in this way. I would like to hear the opinions of other editors on whether this section is actually needed. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Seeing no objections on this particular point, I am going to proceed and remove the Historical Sources section as irrelevant for a Wikipedia article. If anyone objects, please post here and we'll talk it through. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added one of the links which was in that subsection into the External links section. That link is germane even if that subsection wasn't. SMP0328. (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Balance missing from the Miller subsection
There are various points of view about the Miller case. Presently the short section gives an imbalanced treatment to the opposing points of view.

"In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court heard arguments from only the government[94][95] and rejected a Second Amendment challenge to the National Firearms Act prohibiting the interstate transportation of unregistered Title II weapons, ruling:

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

Miller is often cited by gun-rights advocates, because the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep arms that are part of "ordinary military equipment".

Both of the highlighted passages read as if from an advocacy talking point memo for just one of the points of view. The opposing point of view is missing entirely. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As for the first highlight, it is a fact that Miller did not file any briefs before the Supreme Court and so that material clarifies that Miller's side of the story was not heard by the Court. As for the second highlight, I will add material shortly. SMP0328. (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you misunderstand. I don't question the WP:V of the two statements. I just question the WP:Undue. To comply with WP:NPOV, the passage should cover the various points of view with balance, presently it does not. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added a sourced sentence describing the gun control view of Miller and added a source for the gun rights sentence preceding it. SMP0328. (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The politically charged term 'prefatory clause' is not a term used by the Brady Campaign, and rather reflects the opposing point of view 'framing' and depreciation of the purpose of the militia clause. The opposing point of view is better found, I think, in Solicitor General Robert H. Jackson's arguments with emphasis 1) that pre-existing common law rights are always subject to governmental regulation for public health and safety 2) that the Second Amendment protects only the collective right of weapons for use in state militias and 3) the national government has the right to restrict weapons peculiarly adapted for criminal uses. See the Bruce & Wilcox book, pages 79-80. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Prefatory clause" is a standard grammatical term, and its application to the Second Amendment can be verified by reviewing any decent style book. "Prefatory clause" is no more politically charged than "sentence," or "verb." --tc2011 (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have replaced "prefatory clause" with "militia reference". SMP0328. (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are misleading and patently incorrect in your claim that the gun control POV is missing, as the passage clearly says "the Supreme Court...rejected a Second Amendment challenge..." In any event, SMP0328 has augmented the opposing POV and has helpfully added citations for both. --tc2011 (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Startling shift
An editor's recent action exponentially increased the weight (well beyond the point of WP:Undue) given to the pro gun-control POV (by spelling out in detail the pro gun control argument), and all but eliminated the opposing viewpoint by relegating it to the very last sentence of the section, while at the same time arbitrarily emphasizing a pro gun-control POV by sentence placement. Let us attempt to arrive at a balanced text for this section. --tc2011 (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It could help if you were to identify the reliable sourcing you use to determine correct POV weight. What sourcing are you reading? SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The number of sources available for each POV are roughly equal, so the section should give approximately equal weight to each viewpoint. The edit in question gave but a single sentence (and deliberately moved that sentence to de-emphasize it) to the gun rights POV, while at the same time devoting the rest of the section to the gun control POV. The WP:Undue weight of the edit in question should be obvious to any impartial observer. --tc2011 (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Tc2011. Please answer the question. What sourcing are you reading?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The sources available, as I have already indicated. --tc2011 (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * SaltyBoatr, you were right when you pointed out that the description of Miller did not include the viewpoint of Miller held by those who support gun control. So I added material about that POV in order to balance the Miller description. Your recent edit (now reverted by Tc2011) made that description unbalanced in favor of the gun control POV. SMP0328. (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * SMP0328. What sourcing are you reading?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm referring to how you added alot more material about the gun control POV, while the gun rights POV remained only a single sentence. That was clearly unbalanced. The Miller description currently provides equal weight to both POVs. SMP0328. (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I notice that both SMP0328 and Tc2011 gave non-specific answers. The question is what neutrality balance point is appropriate.  Wikipedia policy says that we should match the neutrality balance point found in the reliable sourcing.  Without specific discussion of what is "the reliable sourcing" we cannot discuss neutral POV balance point.  Please answer:  What sourcing are you reading?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm reading the New York Times, Washington Times, Washington Post, NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, Penguin Group USA, The Yale Law Journal, Law and Contemporary Problems, The Journal of American History, The William and Mary Quarterly, Duke Law Journal, Michigan Law Review, Harvard Law Review, Law and History Review, and others. The imbalance you propose is not supported by any reputable source. --tc2011 (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that list is helpful. Where in those publications were you reading about United States vs. Miller?  You say that the POV balance is off, compared with what specific sourcing?  How is it off?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You haven't reviewed these sources in looking for information on Miller? If you did, you would know which articles I have read. What sources are you reading? --tc2011 (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't read your mind. It is you who claimed POV imbalance.  Prove your claim using specifics.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "[W]hen all is said and done, the only certainty about Miller is that it failed to give either side a clear-cut victory. Most modern scholars recognize this fact." As I have previously indicated, the current (i.e., approximately equal) balance reflects this scholarly consensus. Your edit dramatically in favor of a gun-control reading of Miller POV did not. And you persistently refuse to offer up evidence for the POV shift you pushed with that edit. Do you have any evidence supporting your dramatic edit giving WP:Undue weight to the gun-control POV? I'm beginning to wonder if your constant demands on other editors, and concomitant refusal to provide any credible evidence of your own, isn't intended to game the system. --tc2011 (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It must be noted that first you cited 13 sources, then when pressed, you pointed to a 14th. With that being an opinion piece by an outspoken gun rights advocate in a well known conservative online magazine.  In short, you have shown citation for one of the points of view.  What about the other?  The duty of editors, (See NPOV tutorial) is to:  "The first element in negotiating issues of bias with others is to recognize you have a point of view, and to pin-point where it comes from. "It's what everybody I know believes," is a start. But in co-writing an article with someone who believes differently, it's often important to have some evidence at hand. This includes not only evidence for your view but evidence for how many others hold it and who they are. Information like this enables writers and participants in discussion to come to practical decisions. These include whether one view deserves to go first, whether two deserve equal billing, whether views belong in different articles and, if so, what titles the articles should have."  I accept that David Kopel validly expresses the pro gun point of view.  Missing here is respect for the opposing point of view.  Which sourcing do you read to learn the opposing point of view and the weight to apply to it?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I noted "and others." This source is one of those others, I guess. And yet again, you have utterly failed to examine the evidence presented to you. If you had bothered to examine the link and quotation I gave you, you would have quickly and easily seen that those words do not belong to subject matter expert David Kopel, whose column you deride as an "opinion piece," but were fully and verifiably cited to an "opposing point of view" law professor writing in the Journal of Firearms & Public Policy.
 * You clearly have no serious regard for the quality of this Wikipedia article, or for the efforts of your fellow editors. Your incessant and insatiable cries for editors other than yourself to supply proof after proof, while you yourself provide virtually nothing, cannot reasonably be construed as efforts made in good faith. You must cease your disruption of this talk page and article. --tc2011 (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Journal of Firearms & Public Policy is part of the "research arm" of the gun rights advocacy group known as "Second Amendment Foundation", which has been described as a splinter group not satisfied that the National Rifle Association was being "tough enough" on gun issues (per Spitzer pg74). Again, please read NPOV tutorial to learn what "neutral point of view" means in context of Wikipedia.  Instead of attacking my personal character yet again, you should answer my question:  Which sourcing do you read to learn the opposing point of view and the weight to apply to it? SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your guilt by association characterization of Andrew McClurg is laughable. McClurg is an established pro gun-control and pro collectivist interpretation academic. --tc2011 (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I did no such thing. Stop your personal attacks on my character please. Also, for the second time, you evaded my question: Which sourcing do you read to learn the opposing point of view and the weight to apply to it? I ask this question because in order to follow WP:NPOV policy, (which is non-negotiable), you need to understand opposing points of view. Not agree with opposing points of view, just fairly understand. Also, the credibility of the publisher is the gauge used at Wikipedia to measure reliability. Not the credibility of the author.  The publisher of the journal you mentioned is the Second Amendment Foundation which is a pro-gun advocacy group. We need to read elsewhere to find the opposing point of view. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not correct
The following sentence is first: not correct, and second: incorrectly cites the source.

A widespread fear during the debates on the ratification of the Constitution, was the possibility of a military takeover of the states by the federal government, which could happen if congress passed laws prohibiting states from arming citizens.

The reason that the above is bad is because the constitution ALREADY prohibits the states from arming the populace by transferring the power and obligation to arm the militia to the federal government. This is NOT a concurrent power and with the ratification of the Constitution it can only be lawfully exercised by the feds.

To make it clear, under the Constitution the states CANNOT legally set aside funds to ARM the militia. I would even go so far as to say that a court of law would find that even DONATING impounded/confiscated arms to members of the general militia is illegal, since this would be considered the ARMING of such.

Please correct to

A widespread fear during the debates on the ratification of the Constitution, was the possibility of a military takeover of the states by the federal government, which could not be effectively resisted if congress passed laws disarming the militia.

which more closely follows the cited source and is also historically accurate.4.156.78.19 (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * or, you could open an account and make the correction yourself. i've never understood why anon-IP users don't do this. you become even more anon after you create an account! Anastrophe (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry! while I can spend SOME time here I have other more important commitments. I wouldn't even be posting if the recent edits haven't been so generally BAD! (and detrimental to a couple of "my" additions which were thought so important by the Supreme Court that they were given prime space in the Heller summary.) The article was in much better shape a few months ago.4.156.78.33 (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a fad
The following sentence makes the Constitution and the Second Amendment sound like a passing fad instead instead of the highest law of the land

The Second Amendment was adopted in an environment permeated by an emergent republican ideology

and should be replace by something like

The Second Amendment was passed in order to limit federal power and protect the individuals right to possess arms, and thus furthering the states ability to call up an armed militia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.78.20 (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If a reliable and verifiable source can be found making this claim, there would be no problem including this point of view as well. (The "emergent re-pubic-can" commentary is an unbalanced point of view at present.) Yaf (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

From Heller Summary at http://supreme.justia.com/us/554/07-290/

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

4.154.239.28 (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Quotation request
In the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Early commentary in state courts subsection of the Case law section, a "quotation needed" has been added by Yaf. Interestingly, this tag comes after a quote. What specifically is being requested by that tag? SMP0328. (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is with the prefatory statement, "However, others[who?] have seen no conflict with the Second Amendment by the Commonwealth of Kentucky's statute under consideration in Bliss since ... ". Namely, we need a quote to determine who the "others" were, or we need to re-word the statement to reflect what the reference actually said. Yaf (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed those weaselly worded sentences, which say:"However, others have seen no conflict with the Second Amendment by the Commonwealth of Kentucky's statute under consideration in Bliss since "The Kentucky law was aimed at concealed weapons. No one saw any conflict with the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, most of the few people who considered the question at all believed amendments to the U.S. Constitution did not apply to state laws.""


 * Who are the "others"? How do we know "No one" saw a conflict? The last sentence is horribly worded. How many is "most of the few"? If this wording can be fixed, then it can be restored to the article. For now, it's simply using many words to say nothing. SMP0328. (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of William Weir passage is POV scrubbing
This deletion of cited and reliably sourced William Weir passage contains a misleading edit summary, and serves to imbalance the point of view of that passage. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again you fail to assume good faith. Read my reason for my removal of that material before commenting again on that removal. SMP0328. (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Notice that SMP0328 does not address my comment, and again attacks me personally. The answer to SMP0328 question about the William Weir book is found in the book (pgs 35-36). The passage deleted is properly cited and sourced in the book. The book is a reliable source. The SMP0328 deletion caused a POV balance skew. The deletion was not justified in WP:Policy but rather was given a misleading "edit summary". SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You once again accuse me of POV pushing, in violation of AGF, and when I point that out, you accuse me of personally attacking you. What do you think you did? My edit summary for my removal of the Weir material said "Removed weaselly worded sentences". What is misleading about that summary? SMP0328. (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not accuse you. The edit you did effected a POV skew. I spoke of the edit not the editor. Answering your question: The edit summary is misleading because it focused on an incidental issue and evaded the thrust of the edit which was deletion of properly cited well sourced material skewing POV balance. Did you read the book? If yes, why did you ask the question? If no, why did you delete the passage? Please explain your action. The fact also remains, (and yet unaddressed) that the edit served to scrub out POV balancing material causing POV skew. (I answered your question, will you answer mine?) SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You believe my edit caused a "POV balance skew"; it's an opinion, not a fact. As for why I made that edit, read here. If the wording is fixed, the wording can be restored. SMP0328. (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Notice. SMP0328 did not answer my questions. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to answer your question, because it's moot. I removed that material because of its wording, not its sourcing. SMP0328. (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The wording was true to the book. A book, I must guess, you did not read. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The wording is vague. All I want is for that wording to be clarified. SMP0328. (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Refactoring talk page comments
I object that my comments on this talk page have been repeatedly deleted. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)