Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 14

Anon IP edit war
This edit war needs to be resolved on the talk page. Deletion of well sourced material by Professor Cornell and insertion of personal opinion and original research, not per policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The article currently references the possession of guns as an individual right during the trial for the Boston Massacre. Cornell states that this "indvidual right" theory was first used in court sometime after the Revolutionary War. Therefore Cornell is historically inaccurate and blows monkey balls! Plainly inaccurate opinion does not have a place in the article.

The fact that the "collective right" theory originated a century after the Revolutionatry War and coincided with the expansion of the feds into law enforcement is historically accurate.

From a letter by the Montana Secratery of State to the Supreme Court re: Heller

''A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly an individual right.''

There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of "any person" to bear arms.

and since you like to bitch about people deleting your posts, why did you delete my recent post to you pointing out that I had asked for any objections, waited a week for them and that you had not objected?

I believe that makes this is the second time you deleted a post of mine. Are you somehow "Special" and therefore allowed to delete other peoples posts on the discussion page?141.154.72.56 (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you are confusing article space with talk space? Different standards apply.  In the case of your edit to the article space  which appears to be entirely based on your personal opinion, I am asking you to point to reliable secondary sourcing for your idea.  Also, I am objecting to your removal of the passage based on the book by Saul Cornell.  While you may personally disagree with the book by Saul Cornell, it meets the standards at Wikipedia for inclusion in the article, and your deletion is unfounded in Wikipedia policy.  Regarding talk page comments, it is generally considered bad etiquette among Wikipedia editors to delete or modify other editors comments on the talk pages.  These two standards, article space versus talk page space, are entirely different.


 * That said, I am waiting for your WP:V justification of your edit. Without your adequate response, I will be editing article shortly.  Thanks.   SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried to respond on my "new" computer/internet connection and found out it had been blocked. Pretty sneaky (biggest understatement so far this year) of you to get me banned and THEN ask for an answer, knowing I couldn't respond. Only thing is, my old internet connection and computer still work, so here it is


 * 1)In response to your WP:V please check the John Adams quote under the "English Common Law " section. It seems to be well referenced. My addition that the "individual rights" viewpoint was current as of the Revolutionary War follows from that quote. Do you wish to deny that the Boston Massacre was prior to the Revolutionary War and do I need to find a reference for that for you?


 * 2)Previously I pointed out a number of issues with Saul Cornell's book that indicated it is NOT well referenced and likely contains many errors, not least of which is the authors pushing of an "civic right" viewpoint. A viewpoint which has never existed outside the authors mind, and which has never been examined in court. And considering the ruling on Heller this viewpoint will NEVER be examined in a court of law. His views are therefore at least PARTLY unsupported and NOT well referenced.


 * 3)Regarding the timing of the emergence of the collective rights viewpoint, it did in fact emerge in concert with the feds going into the law enforcement business during the late 1800's. I believe that even Saul Cornell agrees with that. If it makes you feel better I can insert a quote from the above letter from the Montana Secretary of State as an indication that the collective right viewpoint did not exist as of 1889. I personally don't see the need, but if you do I will certainly endeavor to please you.


 * 4)Lastly, the following quote "In 1886, the Supreme Court, in Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railroad Company v. Illinois, found that the states had no power to regulate interstate commerce. The resulting Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 created a Federal responsibility for interstate law enforcement." appears on the wiki article for the FBI and is quoted almost verbatum in my change. If you have an issue with it please confront the editors for the FBI article. Should they agree to make a change in response to your complaints I have no objections to making a corresponding change in this article.

and try no to get me banned under this computer. It will reflect REALLY REALLY badly on your character if I have to borrow a friends computer in order to make a response.4.154.232.6 (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey! Now I can post with the new computer/internet conection. Nice job covering your tracks!68.160.131.97 (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This entire discussion is just gun rights propaganda and conspiracy theory. The charges come from gun rights advocate David Hardy who is funded by the NRA. Cornell did not have editorial control over either the Fordham Law Review or Stanford Law and Policy journals. Student editors would have never ceded such authority. This article is filled with references to Don Kates and Halbrook, both of whom are full time gun rights advocates. Nelson Lund has an NRA funded chair. Joyce Lee Malcolm has taken money from conservative think tanks. Heller's appeal was funded by Robert Levy at CATO. The simple fact is that gun control and gun rights supporters both fund research. If anything gun control is out spent by about 100 to 1. Anyway, this is all silly. Either the arguments in print are historically sound or not. This is not a place to conduct a gun rights propaganda campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philo-Centinel (talk • contribs) 19:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The dispute in this section is whether a small change I made to the article can be esily verified. Do I need to provide a link to convince you that the Boston Masacre happened prior to the Revolutionary War and therefore prior to the debates on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? As for the rest of the change I certainly have no objection to you disputing the wording of the FBI article, just do it there and not here. Once the wording there is changed I have no objection to changing the wording here to match.

On authors

Kates is referenced once

Halbrook twice

Lund once

Malcolm is not referenced at all

For comparrison, there is an L. Levy showing as having been mentionen in Heller within one of the Footnotes but no matterial in the article is cited to him. Don't see any reference ar all to a Robert Levy.

There are 7 references to Cornell in the footnotes. Looks like 1 gun control advocate can claim more space then 3 gun right advocates. Looks fishy! Do you agree?

It's a sad day for gun control when all you can muster for references is a guy that got paid $400,000 to write up the party line.68.163.104.5 (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In Heller the historians brief was signed by a dozen of the top experts in early American constitutional history. You seem to be unaware of the scholarship of Jack Rakove, Paul Finkelman, and David Konig. If you want additional evidence look at Uviller and Merkel's book. Robert Levy was the money behind the Heller case.Philo-Centinel (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional POV bias issue - Chicago-Kent Law Review Issue 76

 * Immediatelly following is a hacked version of my complaint with Issue 76. The hack was performed by Philo-Centinel. The orginal complaint follows the hacked version and can also be viewed in the following link.141.154.110.173 (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=270500175&oldid=270499853

Per above POV bias issue regarding the Joyce Foundation, that Foundation bought up an issue of the Chicago-Kent Law Review and filled it with paid for and therefore biased articles that supported the Joyce Foundation gun control party line.

The current article cites 3 different articles from Ken Law Review #76 with all 3 being anti "individual rights"

per the following link it looks like that is the issue bought and paid for by the Foundation

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Joyce-Foundation

Law review symposia

Joyce funded a symposium at Chicago Kent in which Carl Bogus served at editor.

Chicago-Kent Law Review (Vol. 76 No. 1, 2000, edited by Carl T. Bogus)

Two other issues were funded by Joyce but all editorial decisions were made by student editors as is the standard in most law reviews. Cornell did not edit or even write an introduction for either issue.

Fordham Law Review (Vol. 73 No. 2, November 2004) Stanford Law and Policy Review (Vol. 17:3, Spring 2006,

Since bought and paid for opinions are by definition biased I will have a POV issue with the article as long as material from issue 76 of the Chicago Kent Law Review is cited in the article. This POV bias issue is similar to the NRA and Brady Campaign bias issues.

With their strong opinions regarding bias and article size I again believe that I have the complete support of Salty Boatr and nwlaw63 to delete this biased and unreliable material. ;-) 141.154.110.178 (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The above material (the previous section and not the above altered complaint) has been altered by Philo-Centinel to hide the JOYCE FOUNDATION AND SAUL CORNELL relationship. The edit happened at 19:06 and anyone looking at history can see the before and after change.

Again the above has been altered - My original complaint follows for those that do not want to check page history - readers will notice that Saul Cornel did in fact work hand in glove with Joyce in 2006 as editor of their bought and paid for issue of the Standard Law and Policy Review. That is the year his Second Amendment book was published. I believe that book has a RELIABILITY issue as described in the previous section.

Unaltered version of my complaint now follows

Per above POV bias issue regarding the Joyce Foundation, that Foundation bought up an issue of the Chicago-Kent Law Review and filled it with paid for and therefore biased articles that supported the Joyce Foundation gun control party line.

The current article cites 3 different articles from Ken Law Review #76 wih all 3 being anti "individual rights"

per the following link it looks like that is the issue bought and paid for by the Foundation

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Joyce-Foundation

Law review symposia

The Joyce Foundation has sponsored symposium issues of some law reviews, generally offering to pay for the symposium if an external editor is selected. The editor carefully solicits and chooses the articles to appear in the symposium. The Joyce Foundation then pays for the cost of copies to be distributed to judges and legislators. Law reviews that have cooperated in this manner include:

Chicago-Kent Law Review (Vol. 76 No. 1, 2000, edited by Carl T. Bogus) Fordham Law Review (Vol. 73 No. 2, November 2004) Stanford Law and Policy Review (Vol. 17:3, Spring 2006, editorial contributions by Saul Cornell)

Since bought and paid for opinions are by definition biased I will have a POV issue with the article as long as material from issue 76 of the Chicago Kent Law Review is cited in the article. This POV bias issue is similar to the NRA and Brady Campaign bias issues.

With their strong opinions regarding bias and article size I again believe that I have the complete support of Salty Boatr and nwlaw63 to delete this biased and unreliable material. ;-) 68.163.104.5 (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

IS this a serious effort or merely an outlet for propaganda and conspiracy theories? If this gun rights propaganda is to be believed Joyce paid Bogus to prop up the collective rights view and then turned around and paid Cornell to debunk it. This simply makes no sense. Cornell's book attacks the collective rights theory as much as the individual rights theory. Have people not read it? Joyce like any foundation funds research that it thinks will be of high quality and then it has to live with the results. Joyce also funded research by Phil Cook and Jens Ludwig that questioned the impact of the Brady Law. Does this suggest that they are really engaged in buying research? All of this logic is circular. It assumes facts about Joyce that are not borne out by the record, imputes motives without evidence, and relies on gun rights web sites for its conspiracy theory. There is a reason why schools do not allow wikipedia as a valid source for research reports and this discussion is a prime example.

AS far as edits go. The discussion about presidential views is out of place and adds little to the discussion. I deleted it because my high school history teacher would have seen that it does not belong at the end of an article. In general this article is wordy, poorly organized, and ideologically biased. Volokh's claims about no evidence for a non-militia right are contradicted by Bishop. Adding Volokh is purely an ideological move with no place in this essay. Tushnet is right. Anyone on either side of this debate who claims that the other side has no evidence to support their view is blowing smokePhilo-Centinel (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I remind you that due to your deliberate alteration to this complaint yesterday to hide evidence of Cornells ties to Joyce in 2006 that I do not accept complaints from you to be in good faith. Your are dead to me! Get lost!

BTW: The only use for your posts is the names of authors who I will be checking for ties to Joyce, The Brady Camaign and other gun control groups. Have a nice day!68.163.104.5 (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Saul Cornell book was vetted and published by Oxford University Press, a most reliable source. According to Wikipedia "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."   This attempt at distraction by association with the Joyce Foundation is a red herring and a smear.  It is reasonable to suspect this incessant AnonIP to be talk page trolling.  Can we focus on the article instead?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This section is for responses to Issue 76 of the Chicago Kent Law Review. For continuity purposes please use the previous section when arguing in favor of Cornells book. Your complaint has already been responded to in the previous section. Oxford press in not a SOURCE. It is a printing company. Cornell is the SOURCE. Please try to keep this in mind.

Correction to the above complaint. There are 4 citations to material from the questionable issue. I missed one due to it being abreviated. 68.163.104.5 (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No good faith objections to deleting "bought and paid for" opinion from the suspect law review issue have been made and I believe sufficient time has now passed to give regular editors time to respond with objections. The only objections in this section are ones made in bad faith from Philo-Centinel who actually hacked (substantially) the complaint, and one fom Salty Boatr that should have been made above, in the Saul Cornell section. I will now be deleting material in the article backed by the suspect issue. I will hold off for a few more days on Saul Cornell in order to give Salty Boatr more time to muster a better objection for that complaint.141.154.110.173 (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I object to the deletion of the cited reliable material, restoring. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What is your objection? The material is plainly biased and suspect.141.154.110.173 (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My objection is that you have provided no evidence, other than your personal opinion and your original research, that the material is biased and suspect. Please review WP:NPOV policy and WP:V policy, and comply.  Thanks.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry! but while I agree with it, the opinion that the issue is suspect did not originate with me as it needs to for it to be MY original research. The multiple sources cited were not mine. Lastly while MY original research is barred from the article, original research per se is not. As the following link show the story made it into at least one major paper. Notice that the author of the following is listed as "columnist and the Washington Bureau Chief for the Chicago Sun-Times." Your objecion that it is MY original opinion therefore holds no water.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/06/supreme_court_shooting_down_dc.html


 * I have waited a number of days for objections and do not consider you waiting till after I take action to object as a sign of good faith. Please be aware that I have been checking this board constantly for valid complaints and do not in the least appreciate you making up bogus objections at the last minute. I will now again attempt to delete BIASED material from the article. Please call in a referee if you wish to continue the dispute based on the above objection.141.154.110.173 (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Salty Boatr - Please keep your objections here where other editors can see and comment on them

On my talk page you stated


 * Several of your edits show the tendency to edit based on personal bias, versus editing based on reliable sourcing. The Chigago Kent Law Review and the Oxford University Press are both reliable sources. Your objection and deletion of the sourced material from these publishing houses violates Wikipedia policy.

You are warned, your WP:3RR violations and the WP:NPOV violations may subject you to be banned


 * Your previous objection have been answered. Your current accusations that I have engaged in W3RR and WP:NPOV violation are baseless. If you beieve they are not feel free to report me. I will counter with harassment and ask that you be barred as an editor. If you have new objection please state them. If you wish to rehash the objections already respondd to, then call in a referee.141.154.110.173 (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Portion of Verifiabiliy policy for Salty Boatr.

''In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.''

The term "peer review" does not include commissioned and accepted by a Foundation

Leaving citation 9 alone for now. Cites two sources,and both citations are lacking in detail. One is for a Chicage Kent issue but doesn't list the issue bnumber. The other is for a Senate hearing and doesn't not show day, month, year or committe.141.154.110.173 (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits/revert
I recently reverted a series of edits by Philo-Centinel, the following is an explanation of some of the reasons why I reverted it. I do not believe these edits were constructive to the article so I reverted them. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The edits introduced weasel worded entries such as: "Some scholars believe this"
 * 2) The edits removed reliably sourced material that is pertinent to the discussion of the second amendment with an edit summary of "this is really not necessary".
 * 3) Replaced other sourced information with unsourced commentary such as "As is true for nearly every aspect of this debate scholarship is divided over how to interpret this case law."


 * Removed some additional comments by Philo-Centinel. These comments appear to be either original research or just some personal comments.  A new name 2008 (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Based upon his unethical behavior, I support the removal of any and all changes to the article made by Philo-Centinel.68.163.104.5 (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * These are not reasons to revert all edits by Philo-Centinel. Only banned editor's edits are reverted without a reason other than who placed them in the article.  Philo-Centinel is not banned and has done nothing to get banned.  Philo-Centinel's edits should be reviewed with the same criteria as any other editor's edits to determine if they belong.  A new name 2008 (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I go by the old addage, Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me! Philo-Centinel tried to fool this board once by deleting incriminating evidence against Cornell in my Law Review complaint above. I was paying attention and caught his changes, so this board was not fooled even the once. Please review the changes in the before and after complaint to see if his changes are unethical enough to get him banned. I do not have knowledge of this proceedure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=270500175&oldid=270499853


 * I do have a temper and as SMP's reverts of a vulgarity on my part showed, this temper came out in full force when I discovered his changes to my Law Review complaint. I now apologize to anyone offended by that vulagrity. Recognizing that my temper could cause me to do something else improper I refrained from taking any action on any of the multitude of changes made by Philo-Centinel and let other editors deal with them. Please notice that one of those changes was the deletion of the Nunn v Georgia case which I recently ran across and added. I was quite unhappy with that deletion but took no action even then. The other editors, yourself included, as far as I can see chose to revert all changes made by him, including restoring Nunn. I am quite happy with those reverts and feel no shame in stating that I support the actions taken by other editors, yourself included, to maintain the integrity of the article, against the actions of someone I KNOW to be unethical.68.163.104.5 (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Low quality material in the article
While researching authors appearing in the dispued Law Review issue above I ran across the resume of William Merkel, who with his mentor Uviller is curretly cited 3 times in the article.

http://www.washburnlaw.edu/faculty/merkel-william-resume.pdf

There seems to be a 3 year gap in Merkel resume ending in 2000. He does not state whether he was a student, or was employed, anywhere in that resume. My guess is that he worked outside the legal field for a number of years and considered that to be irrelevant to his legal/teaching/publishing carreer and so chose to not include that period. Starting in 2001 he lists himself as a "Research Assistant" to Uviller, while his teaching experience up through 2003 consisted of being a "tutor". Per his rsume he is currently on the "tenure track".

Indications are that Uviller, who is well regarded, provided only modest editorial help for Merkels papers and books and basically loaned his name to help get Merkell started.

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/22.1/comment_uviller.html

This review was written by Mr. Merkel with modest editorial assistance and the full accord of Professor Uviller.

I am not disputing the inclusion of material currently referenced to Merkel, none of which is from the disputed Law Review issue, but point out that if allowed to stay by other editors, the standard for material to be included in the article would be quite low as 2 of his 3 current cites happened for material published in the time frame where he was a "tutor". It is a big step down quoting a "tutor" compare to quoting a former President, a Supreme Court Justice, a noted historical figure and even a judge.

I ask that editors wishing to improve the quality of the article either use Merkel's later material or find more a more notable person who shares his views and use him as a reference instead of Merkel.

Again I only ask.141.154.110.173 (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The Uviller and Merkel book meets and exceeds WP:V standards. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Please advise how he got it so wrong then? Are you aware if "Research Assistants" get peer review when publishing? and whether those peers are other "Research Assistants"?

Merkel sez

"The linguistically correct reading of this unique construction is as though it said: Congress shall not limit the right of the people (that is, the potential members of the state militia) to acquire and keep the sort of arms appropriate to their military duty, so long as the following statement remains true: "an armed, trained, and controlled militia is the best - if not the only - way to protect the state government and the liberties of its people against uprisings from within and incursions or oppression from without." "

The US Supreme Court sez

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.141.154.110.173 (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiki uses Mad Hatter as a reference - Seriously ;-)
I had previously run across the following when reading Heller

Justice Stevens points to a study by amici supposedly showing that the phrase “bear arms” was most frequently used in the military context. See post, at 12–13, n. 9; Linguists’ Brief 24. Of course, as we have said, the fact that the phrase was commonly used in a particular context does not show that it is limited to that context, and, in any event, we have given many sources where the phrase was used in nonmilitary contexts. Moreover, the study’s collection appears to include (who knows how many times) the idiomatic phrase “bear arms against,” which is irrelevant. The amici also dismiss examples such as “ ‘bear arms … for the purpose of killing game’ ” because those uses are “expressly qualified.” Linguists’ Brief 24. (Justice Stevens uses the same excuse for dismissing the state constitutional provisions analogous to the Second Amendment that identify private-use purposes for which the individual right can be asserted. See post, at 12.) That analysis is faulty. A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter.

In gun control circles the Mad Hatter goes by the name of David H. Williams and he is currenly used in cite #36

Williams, David H. (2003). The mythic meanings of the Second Amendment: taming political violence in a constitutional republic. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. pp. 5. ISBN 0-300-09562-7. "The amendment thus guarantees a right to arms only within the context of a militia, not an individual right to arms for self-defense or hunting."141.154.110.173 (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Robertson v. Baldwin
In Robertson v. Baldwin, Mr. Robertson and three other seamen claimed that federal maritime laws violated the fifth and thirteenth amendments (at p. 276), their petition did not mention the Second Amendment. They had been arrested for jumping ship and defaulting on their contract. The Court's comments about rights, as not being absolute, were dicta. These analogous comments were intended to illustrate that the prohibition of "involuntary servitude" in the 13th Amendment was not a defense when one defaults on a voluntarily signed contract. Such Court side-comments are defined as "dicta" when: "Opinions of a judge are not a central part of the judge's decision even if the judge argues them strongly and even if they look like conclusions. One way to decide whether a particular part of a judge's opinion is dicta is to examine whether it was necessary to reach the result. If it could be removed without changing the legal result, it is probably dicta. If it is dicta, it is not bindingprecedent (see that word) on later court decisions, but it is probably still worth quoting if it helps your case" (Law Dictionary, by Daniel Oran, J.D. (1975)). The Robertson Court's Second Amendment comment, unsupported by any case-law precedent, and unrelated to the issue before the Court, was thus dicta and not binding on any subsequent court's decision. Stating that Robertson "held" is thus incorrect. (Truwik (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Read the case and agree that there is an issue on how this case is represented in the article. The language on concealed weapons was not part of the decision and looks like it is part of the judges "opinion" and not his "judgement". As an opinion it has no place under the case law section as it is not part of a case ruling. The judge does not even quote prior case law to support this opinion. That is standard when part of a "judgement". While this language can certainly be included in another portion of the article, I don't believe that it belongs under "case law".141.154.72.56 (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Have cleaned up the text, to make it clear that it is dicta and not ratio, and restored same. Yaf (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Was going to suggest: If we agree that the Robertson Court's "concealed weapons" comment was dicta, then it should be removed from the Second Amendment Article, but it has been removed? (Truwik (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC))

Disputing 3rr violation ban likely done by Salty Boatr
I am posting the following complaint made to Deacon of Pndapetzim disputing a 3rr violation likely made by Salty Boatr. For now I do have two computers and two separate internet services. One is banned the other not banned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim#Oh_happy_day.21

I have another computer which was recently (less then an hour) blocked for a 3 revision violation. It's IP address is 141.154.110.173 and it posts under that ID. The address gets changed at various times by the internet company

There is no 3 revision violation. It is my understanding that for a 3 revision violation I need to revert the same thing 3 times. I did not do so and have never done so. While I was engaged is a undo war earlier today I stopped at 2 reverts while the other person went to 3. I did not report this person as we came to an amicable conclusion of the argument once he relied he had stepped over the line and he reverted his last revert bringing the total reverts for both of us to 2. I do not wish you to in any way shape or form harass that individual. We came to an amicable conclusion and the matter was settled to both our satisfaction. I wish it to remain closed.

The fake violation notification likely came from an individual posting under the handle of Salty Boatr. He is is quite unhappy that he does not control all aspects of the Second Amendment article and has been quite obstructionist with other editors, not least myself. Earlier today he threatened to report me for a number of violations for which I am not guilty off due to his unhappiness over a dispute of source material.

Again I did not at any time exceed the 3 revert rule for the same material. I have reverted different material in dispute but never the same material 3 times. Please check the history of the Second Amendment edits to confirm. Upon confirmation please remove the block from the above ID.

As part of this post I want to report this incident as it is obviously harassment well beyond what wiki policy allows. I ask that whoever did this be banned for the longest period wiki allows for harassment of another editor. 4.154.237.88 (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

4.154.237.88 (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You say the notification "likely" was from SaltyBoatr. Can't you check the history log for that IP to find out who added that notification? SMP0328. (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry! but don't know all the ins and outs. All I got under the IP was a "you are banned message". See the bottom of Law Review dispute section above to see his threat to report me. Your hint sent me Salty Boatr's page and there I find a warning to him which led me to this page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WQA#User:SaltyBoatr_tag-bombing_users_talk_pages_with_3RR_warnings_for_single_edits

which had a section showing he had done the same thing to Anastrophe.

I will now go add my complaint there.4.154.237.88 (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * no, that's the wrong place for your complaint. if your account/IP was blocked, then you can dispute the block on your talk page, right where the warning is. saltyboatr reported you here []Anastrophe (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy
Here is the Wikipedia policy regarding NPOV:"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight'' or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is'' a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides."

Hopefully this helps. SMP0328. (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is helpful. I also think this advice given in WP:NPOVT is helpful:

''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.''


 * This is the reason that I am asking for dialogue about "evidence for your view but evidence for how many others hold it and who they are". Discussion please. I suggest that the history professor Saul Cornell has fairly described both sides of the points of view, and point to that as an example of fair 'balance point'. Is there agreement that Professor Cornell gives a fair neutrality balance? If not, suggest some other expert who does? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Bodenhamer writes of the topic neutrally. Also, Nelson Lund. Comments? SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Claims of systemic POV problems are no longer valid, as the neutral point of view now permeates the article with the many edits that editors have made. It is therefore not proper to identify the whole article as having a POV problem when it does not. Only individual sections, at most, should be tagged at this point, should any perceptions of POV problems remain. Otherwise, it is impossible to fix the parts of the whole where "problems" may remain. Have removed the POV tag on the entire article. Yaf (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My point of view is that the Second Amendment is a restriction the Founders placed upon their just-created federal government, to refrain from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms; and that that's the entirety of its purpose. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights reads:

"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:.."

Thus the Bill of Rights are "restrictive clauses" that were intended "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers" to affect rights. As the amendment implies, the 'right' pre-existed. The Heller Court (p. 28, opinion) listed 4 state declarations which attested to that: "Pennsylvania's (1776): That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the state"; "Vermont (1777) adopted the identical provision, except for inconsequential differences in punctuation and capitalization"; "North Carolina (1776): That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the state"; and "The 1780 Massachusetts Constitution presented another variation on the theme: The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence." Of this, the Court said (at p. 29): "We therefore believe that the most likely reading of all four of these pre-Second Amendment state constitutional provisions is that they secured an individual right to bear arms for defensive purposes." Then 84 years after the Bill of Rights (of 1791), the Cruikshank Court, the first Supreme Court case to address the meaning of the Second Amendment, stated (at p. 553):

"This is not a right granted by the Constitution, neither is it in any manner dependant upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress."

Thus my point of view is based on historical fact verified by High Court decisions. The subject matter here isn't about some unsettled theory, it's about a constitutional law that affects what people believe and do. The encyclopedic Second Amendment article should begin with the above background as to its origin and purpose, lest readers be misled. Whether people like that or not, with their reasons why could then follow, but however many argue against what the Founders and courts have said and held, will have no affect on the law. The article should be about the restriction the amendment placed upon the federal government, not of what the right consists. The proper forum for the pros and cons of arms possession would be the "Right to keep and bears arms" article. (Truwik (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

Origin of the right section has NPOV problem
Very high up in the article is footnote 3 which points to a prominent gun rights article. I am not questioning that this is a valid POV, but I am objecting that presentation of the dominant gun rights POV as "fact". This violates WP:NPOV policy. In fairness, the "origin of the right" also includes the British history and Colonial history of a citizens duty of militia service, see for instance the Joyce Lee Malcolm book for more on this. And, to be accurate, the article should speak of the ongoing debate about the 'origin of the right' because the origin is subject to debate as opposed to being a settled fact, as the article erroneously suggests. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Per you link, the article was not original to that site but only referenced by it. By the same reasoning, if Heller was referenced by that site, then Heller could not be used in the article. Your objection seems to be without any substance! Personally I think the origin of the right occured when some long ago ancestor figured out he could carry a stick around to beat up on things. Of course, it may have been a rock instead.141.154.72.56 (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, not. Gun rights concepts and articles found on guncite.org are disproportionately represented in this 2A article, like with footnote 3.  This is an indicatation the systemic bias problem with the article, which disproportionately reflects and echos the point of view found on anonymous gun rights blogs and websites. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So what! Gun right concepst are the ones proteced by the Second Amendment. If you want equal time, get you Congressman and the various states to pass an Anti-Second Amendment. But that would be another article, so even then you'd be out of luck.141.154.72.56 (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

All gun-rights articles are points of view, they are factual only if what is stated has been upheld by a court of law. However, the ongoing debate about the 'origin of the right' - even if it were settled law - is irrelevant to this article. The Second Amendment is not the source of the right it only forbids infringement of the right. Whether sticks or stones were the first weapons (probably preceded by spanking or a good tongue lashing) is interesting but an extraneous topic to the subject at hand. Anyone born in the United States has inalienable rights of life, liberty and property, and unless deprived of life by due process of law, he has the right to self-defense by whatever means available. If faced by an intruder, one may dispatch him with a sawed-off double-barreled shotgun or a long sharp stick. Arms rights are inherited from our American ancestors, and they are protected by the "shall not be infringed" of the amendment. Where facts of law are relevant, there is no neutral ground - gun rights exist - the article should rather be about to whom "shall not" applies. (Truwik (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

section break
There seems to be disagreement over what the subject matter is. My POV is just below this in: Wikipedia policy. It would be helpful if editors would add their POVs here also. What is your POV on the 2A? What does it mean to you? Thank you. (Truwik (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Actually, discussion of editors' personal POV does not belong on this article talk page. Editors have a duty to set aside their personal points of view.  This article should reflect the POV balance of reliable sourcing on this topic.  A better way to phrase the question would be to ask which reliable source(s) best reflects the neutral balance point, that is: which fairly and neutrally describes both extremes of the points of view?  Answering that question I point to the books published by university presses, because of their vetting, peer review and fact checking, they tend to be more objective and less full of POV advocacy.  For instance the average of these three books: ISBN 9780195147865, ISBN 9780822330318 and ISBN 9780674893061 represents close to a neutral balance point.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First, my point of view is simply my position on the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment, which is in agreement with the Founders' intent and High Court holdings about it. By my questions I was seeking other editors' positions on the Second Amendment's meaning, to better know how to respond. If we can't agree on its meaning, which I assume is the 'topic' here, how would we know where the 'neutral balance point' is, or what 'both extremes of the points of view' are? With the Second Amendment topic, what are the two extremes for or against? Amendments? Infringements? People? Without knowing what the bone of contention is, it's impossible to pick a side, and make a meaningful contribution. (Truwik (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC))


 * the neutral balance point for the article is found in reliable sources. editor's opinion's are indeed irrelevant to finding that balance point, as saltyboatr notes. Anastrophe (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How reliable is a source that doesn't know what "well regulated" meant in Colonial times and/or what "infringed" meant then and still does now?

Saul Cornell paid mouthpiece of the Joyce Foundation - POV bias issue
Per the wiki article on the Joyce Foundation, it engages in substantial gun control activies.

Per the following, Joyce Foundations activites include buying up whole issues of Law Journals and filling them with articles supporting gun control.

http://wasteofmyoxygen.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/the-joyce-foundations-attempt-to-abolish-the-second-amendment-with-the-help-of-barack-obama/

''In 1999, midway through Obama’s tenure, the Joyce board voted to grant the Chicago-Kent Law Review $84,000, a staggering sum by law review standards. The Review promptly published an issue in which all articles attacked the individual right view of the Second Amendment.''

''In a breach of law review custom, Chicago-Kent let an “outsider” serve as editor; he was Carl Bogus, a faculty member of a different law school. Bogus had a unique distinction: he had been a director of Handgun Control Inc. (today’s Brady Campaign), and was on the advisory board of the Joyce-funded Violence Policy Center.'' Bogus solicited only articles hostile to the individual right view of the Second Amendment, offering authors $5,000 each. But word leaked out, and Prof. Randy Barnett of Boston University volunteered to write in defense of the individual right to arms. Bogus refused to allow him to write for the review, later explaining that “sometimes a more balanced debate is best served by an unbalanced symposium.” Prof. James Lindgren, a former Chicago-Kent faculty member, remembers that when Barnett sought an explanation he “was given conflicting reasons, but the opposition of the Joyce Foundation was one that surfaced at some time.” Joyce had bought a veto power over the review’s content.

''Joyce Foundation apparently believed it held this power over the entire university. Glenn Reynolds later recalled that when he and two other professors were scheduled to discuss the Second Amendment on campus, Joyce’s staffers “objected strenuously” to their being allowed to speak, protesting that Joyce Foundation was being cheated by an “‘agenda of balance’ that was inconsistent with the Symposium’s purpose.” Joyce next bought up an issue of Fordham Law Review.''

''The plan worked smoothly. One court, in the course of ruling that there was no individual right to arms, cited the Chicago-Kent articles eight times. Then, in 2001, a federal Court of Appeals in Texas determined that the Second Amendment was an individual right.''

''The Joyce Foundation board (which still included Obama) responded by expanding its attack on the Second Amendment. Its next move came when Ohio State University announced it was establishing the “Second Amendment Research Center” as a think tank headed by anti-individual-right historian Saul Cornell. Joyce put up no less than $400,000 to bankroll its creation. The grant was awarded at the board’s December 2002 meeting, Obama’s last function as a Joyce director. In reporting the grant, the OSU magazine Making History made clear that the purpose was to influence a future Supreme Court case:''

Since the activities of the Joye Foundation includes providing funds to other parties to be "paid mouthpieces" and push the Joyce Foundation party line and since Saul Cornell received such funds to buy the opinion of the "Second Amendment Research Center" he does no merit consideration as an unbiased source. The following article adds more detail to the Second Amendment Research Center.

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/JoyceCornellHeller.pdf

Per the article "Ohio State understood that the money, and the Center, were meant to influence future Supreme Court rulings"

the following quote is also indicative of his being a "paid mouthpiece"

When I asked its director, Saul Cornell, in an email exchange if any participants in its acedemic programs could advocate the individual rights position, he responded that he would obtain sepeate funding to permit this to happen

Since the opinions of Mr. Cornell can obviously be bought I have no confidence that his opinions as cited in the Second Amendment article have not been bought and paid for, and skewed to reflect the wishes of his buyer.

Until such time as all references attributed to him are removed, I have a POV dispute with the article similar to pevious POV disputes with the NRA and Brady Campaign.141.154.110.178 (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

On the bright side, removing all material where Mr Cornell is cited will reduce the size of the article and should make Salty Boatr and nwlaw63 a bit happier. I am confident of their support to remove this material. ;-) 141.154.110.178 (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Are we talking about the same thing? I am referring to the book published by Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5, page 7.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

All material means all material and includes all books and articles authored by him. 141.154.110.178 (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that I am taking this position due to what I see as a Zero tolerance policy for biased material within this article. As an example of this Zero tolerane policy I cite the following fact. When researching the past history of this article I noticed that a link, not material within the article, but a simple LINK to NRA material was removed from the page due to what I believe to be POV bias issues. To confirm this removal was a bias issue would involve going through discussions on this page some two years old. I do not have the time nor inclinaton to do so but you must agree that removing LINK to NRA material SEEMS to have been some sort of bias issue. Again I am not talking about a link to material cited in the article, but a link similar to the current link on the side of the article to the various amendments and assorted Firearm legal topics. I believe that you will agree that any POV bias standard which prohibits a mere link to a biased organization includes the banning of any and all authors identified as having taken money to deliver a bought and paid for opinion. From the available evidence Saul Cornell is in fact just such an author.141.154.110.178 (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you read the Wikipedia policy on sourcing? And, bias?  See WP:V and WP:NPOV.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please advise me on the difference between a biased opinion originating with the NRA and a biased opinion arising from a "bought and paid for mouthpiece" of the Joyce Foundation. I fail to see any.


 * BTW: Was I wrong to assume your support in deleting obviously biased material from the article?


 * BTW2: If you wish to use another book for source material Amazon ranks The Founders Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms by Halbrook as the #1 seller in its genre. It currently ranks as Book 2,243 in Amazon sales compared to Cornell book which comes in at 143,833. That's the paperback version from last year. Cornells hardcover from 2 years back ranks 517,331. Low numbers good, high numbers bad. As for reader ranking, Halbrook gets all 5's except for 1 4 while Cornell gets 5 5's a 4 and 4 1's. One of Cornells 5's was from the publisher so it doesn't count. The sales difference is even worse when you consider the fact that Holbrooks book is a hardcover and sells for almost twice the price of Cornells paperback. Makes me wonder if Cornell had a loss on the book and if the Joyce Foundation is picking up the tab.141.154.110.178 (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Halbrook is the NRA's outside counsel and his book's ranking was a part of a book bomb created by the gun rights community to raise its rankings. The scholarly reviews of Cornell's book have been excellent, but obviously not everyone agrees with the interpretation.

WP:V reqires the us of RELIABLE published source. Does anyone dispute that a "bought and paid for" opinion is not RELIABLE? If no one disputes I will take action sometime next week and delete UNRELIABLE material based on Saul Cornell and the Law Review articles bought and paid for by the Joyce Fondation. 141.154.14.50 (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you see in the WP:V policy that we are to favor third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Do you have an opinion whether or not the Oxford University Press meets this standard? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oxforn Press is a PUBLISHER! It is not a PUBLISHED SOURCE. Fact checking and accuracy is the authors job not the pblishers. Again, the issue here is RELIABLE! Please advise if you believe that a "bought and paid for" opinion crafted to the agenda of the purchaser, is RELIABLE.68.163.104.5 (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your opinion of policy doesn't seem to match Wikipedia policy. Could you please read WP:SOURCES and square up the differences?  The question at hand is whether Oxford University Press is a reliable source in accordance with Wikipedia policy standards.  Thanks.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Again: A publisher is not a PUBLISHED SOURCE and last I checked Oxford Press was a publisher. If it's not even a SOURCE it can hardly be a RELIABLE source. Also again: Please advise if you believe that a "bought and paid for" opinion crafted to the agenda of the purchaser, is RELIABLE68.163.104.5 (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Third opinion. This is more a WEIGHT and NPOV issue than an RS issue.  SaltyBoatr's edit fails to note that Cornell's view is controversial.  Phrase it as Cornell's POV, fairly note that it's disputed and that more reputable scholars like Amar disagree with him, and there shouldn't be a problem.  THF (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually if one being intellectually honest one would note that Cornell and Amar are largely in agreement about the original meaning of the Second Amendment and disagree over the incorporation issue.

There is no such thing as a non-controversial claim in this contested field. Much of this is simply gun rights troll work. If this is to be serious it will need to recognize that many of the gun rights sources are tainted by their funding as well. I suggest we focus on the arguments, not the funding. Alternatively we can get rid of virtually everyone who has written about this topic since they can't pass the funding test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philo-Centinel (talk • contribs)


 * I agree that the funding is irrelevant. Joyce funds these scholars because they oppose gun rights, not the other way around. THF (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You said the magic word. FUNDS!!!!!!!!!!! There is no difference beween hiring an in house author to push your agenda, and funding an outside author. Remember that Mr. Cornell got $400,000 in INITIAL funds. Who knows how much more followed. Frankly I don't know that many people who would NOT toe the party line for $400,000.


 * And ditto, but on the other side of the coin, when the NRA hires council like Stephen Halbrook. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * THF - I for one would like to see the POV dispute label come off the article. Your solution would keep it there.


 * Philo - Please lay off the name calling unless you want me to start calling you a gun control freak or a domestic enemey of the US Constitution. As for reliable source, I believe that many many such sources exist. I just don't believe that Saul Cornell or issue 76 of the Chicago Kent Law Review are reliable. From the evidence available Saul Cornell is nothing but a glorified handpuppet of the Joyce Foundation. Whatever comes out of his mouth is what Joyce wants to come out.


 * Salty Boatr - I believe if I got a copy of Halbrooks book and started including material from it you would start screamin POV bias. Am I wrong?


 * RE: WEIGHT issue, There does seem to an excesive number of references to Cornells book. Thank you for pointing out that we have a WEIGHT problem as well.68.163.104.5 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This is rather astonishing. The Cornell book was peer reviewed by Oxford and widely reviewed in scholarly journals. Halbrook's book was not properly peer reviewed and was subsidized by a conservative think tank. The notion that Cornell is a front for Joyce is delusional. Anyone who has read the book would realize it argues for a strong individual rights tradition, but dates that tradition to the Jacksonian era. It does not claim there was no individual rights tradition in the 18th century, but argues that it was relatively weak. Amar argues that there is no individual rights tradition until Reconstruction and that is held up as scholarly. Anyone who claims otherwise is really just mouthing gun rights propaganda. Just read the Levinson review of the book in Reviews in American History. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philo-Centinel (talk • contribs) 21:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This may be premaure but I'd like to welcome you to the world of Conspiracy nuts, where governent offials only care about getting more money and power and big money has bought up the government. ;-) Please check the links and text at the top of the page. Per those links Cornell got $400,000 in startup fund for his Second Amendment Research Center from Joyce. That was just the start up money. There are indiction more followed to keep the center going. In my world $400,000 buys a lot. What does it buy in yours?

Here's a additional link to what looks like a publication from Ohio State itself which states that Saul Cornell received a two year grant from the Joyce Foundation to set up his Center. No amount is mentioned. Can't get much close to the horses mouth then that

http://humanities.osu.edu/news/humex/humex2003.pdf

Here's a link to someone who disputes Cornells accuracy. Suposedly Cornell states that a certain stature applies to guns. According to this author it only applied to knives.

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/08/historian_revie.php

From this it looks like he's not up for a debate on the Secon Amendment issues and instead ties to muzzle those advocting the individual rights position. Not waht I consider the attitude of a tre scholar.

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/more_on_joyce_f.php

Can't say that further research into him has made me any more confidebt of his RELIABILITY! I therefore contnue to have issues where he is used as a reference. 68.163.104.5 (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Arms and the law is funded by the NRA-- this is precisely the sort of biased treatment of information that suggests that we ought not to trust the person making the complaints about Cornell. Why trust Hardy-- who has no serious academic credentials and is funded by the NRA?

As far as the issue of knives goes-- it is a mistake to treat the Second Amendment as if it protects a right to own guns. The actual language is guns. If one actually looks at militia weapons one might argue that certain knives ought to have more protection than handguns. One can argue the point--but the notion that this discredits Cornell is silly. I suspect we are dealing with someone without any legal education or any other academic credentials. Clearly the argument is typical of what one sees with high school students--

Then notion that a 400,000 grant disqualifies scholarship would mean that everything produced by scholars at George Mason Law school needs to be discredited. The NRA gave more than a million for Nelson Lund's chair. Robert Levy the money behind Heller is also a big donnor to Mason-- in fact the recent symposium on Heller held at GMU was in space named after Levy-- so do we simply toss out everything from GMU-- by the logic used here we ought to-- I think it is better to note the role of money in this debate and move on to facts and serious scholarly argument.

At the end of the day Cornell was cited by SCOTUS in Heller and has published in top law reviews and history journals. You can disagree with him, but this sort of smear tactic only suggests an effort to silence those who don't accept the gun rights view of things. In my posts I have tried to be balanced and weed out tedious discussions that would never survive any serious editorial process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philo-Centinel (talk • contribs)

Re:Hardy- I can't seem to find any reference to any Hardy in the article. Seems he's not trusted. Re:Levy - no material from any Levy is referenced. Again not trusted. re:Lund - One quote not subject to dispute and double reference to boot. See current referenced 99 and 100. Therefore not trusted, only reference has a backup.

Your complaints regarding the trust given to gun rigt advocates seem to be a bit thin. More like nonexistent!

Speaking of smears the "gun rights troll" remark was yours! You are the one with the smears. Ever heard of "Don't bitch about the mote in your neighbors eye, when you have a freaking beam in yours" or something like that? How about "War is Hell"?

Of course it is the gun right activists that would bitch about Cornells bias. You'd hardly think that his fellow gun control advocates would call Cornell biased now would you? Sticking a knife in the back of one of your leading spokesman is just NOT DONE!

Yet Again: The wiki issue here is whether a "bought and paid for" opinion is RELIABLE. I say it is not. Granted not wiki policy, but the rules of evidence are on my side. Compelled evidence is suspect and inadmissabe in court. What you may not know is that compelled evidence includes BOUGHT evidence.

One of the defintions for compel is To exert a strong, irresistible force on; sway

There is no doubt in my mind that $400,000 can SWAY a person! Is there in yours?

Lastly, if you believe that someone has received enough money from the NRA or any other gun rights group or organization to SWAY him, then simply provide proof (with the amount) and I will support the deletion of all references to material printed AFTER the money changed hands. If you insist I will even go back a year or two from the date of the transaction.

In the case of Cornell the money changed hands in 2003 and the book in question was printed afterwards.68.163.104.5 (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hardy's web site is arms and the law which is cited for some of the critiques of Cornell in the discussion above. It is the basis for much of this Anti-Joyce nonsense. The charge that money influenced the scholarship has no foundation. You would need to show intent. If anything the fact that his book and several of the articles acknowledge an individual rights tradition and actually critique the traditional collective rights argument cuts against your case. Halbrook was cited as good authority by someone in this thread yet he is professional gun rights lawyer and  the NRA got his Amazon numbers up by a book bomb. You might thinkg $400,000 is a lot but in the sciences grants run into the millions. Even in the social sciences grants run over a million. Actually $400,000 is not very much money for an academic grant at all. You make it seem like the money was given in small bills in a parking lot in a brown paper bag. University's take over head, release time is charged at the highest possible rate-- if you hire graduate students you have to pay their tuition and health insurance. I would say that if you actually had ever attended a serious university you would realize how silly your charges sound to an educated person. If you add up the fact that some of the money was used for conferences that is at least another 50-75 grand. The amount is really modest for serious academic grants and is a fraction of the money spent by the gun lobby on the many law review articles produced by David Kopel and others. The whole thing is guilt by smear-- the Joyce issue is a way to not deal with evidence and argument. Are you going to get serious or not. Either talk about evidence and argument, or find another hobby Philo-Centinel (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet again: Hardy is NOT trusted. He has no voice in this article. Do not use him as an example.

Also again: You are free to look over the citations on the article. If you find anyone that you suspect of having received enough NRA money to be biased, I will support any move you make to delete content from that person, but only AFTER you provide a link to sufficient proof.

FYI: I pumped Halbrooks book to the extend of stating that per Amazon it is WILDLY outselling Cornells book despite being twice the price and that those commenting there rated it higher then Cornells book.

Regarding whether $400,000 is lot. I'd say it would keep a professor in a Univerity employed for a number of years. That's a lot to a professor.

I was puzzled by your comment above that he Second Amendment refers to guns - your comment follows

it is a mistake to treat the Second Amendment as if it protects a right to own guns. The actual language is guns.

Checking the text I confirmed that the actual language is "arms" and not guns. You should remember this in order not to appear ignorant in the future. Wondering what else you may have gotten wrong I checked to see whether Cornell had actually been referenced in the Heller case. Turns out he had,

in the dissent

about Negro millitias after the Civil War!

In other words, he was a bit player for the losing side! 68.163.104.5 (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Due to your alteration of my Complaint below with the intent to hide Cornell worked for Joyce in 2006, the same year his Second Amendment book was printed, as editor of their bought and paid for issue of the Stanford Law and Policy Review I am no longer accepting complaints from you to be in good faith. You are dead to me! Get lost.

Other editors are asked to check the changes made to this discussion page in history at 19:06 for confirmation of intent to hide evidence.68.163.104.5 (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Since no valid obections have been made to deleteting biased, bought and paid for, opinion from Saul Cornells book I will now start to remove all references to him and his book as he is a paid "mouthpiece" of a gun control advoacy group. Again Mr. Cornell received $400,000 fom the Joyce Foundation prior to the printing of this book in support of their gun control agenda and the relationship continues.


 * The only objection so far is that his printing house is a valid source. This objection is BOGUS as a printing house is neither a book, a jounal, a paper, an article, a court case or associated legal document such as a brief, also is not a letter, or a transcript of a hearing, speech and whatnot. In short a printing house is NOT a source.

Portion of Verifiabiliy policy for Salty Boatr.

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.141.154.110.173 (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You and I may disagree about what constitutes a reliable source. See Verifiability for a description of my belief.   This is Wikipedia policy and is not subject to compromise.   I am willing to seek a third opinion to resolve our disagreement about whether the books published by the Oxford University Press qualify as reliable sources or not.  Are you willing?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Paying a cutout (a sockpuppet in wikispeak) to push your point of view is equivalent to self-publishing

Self-published sources (online and paper)

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.[5]

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.141.154.110.173 (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

section break
There seems to be disagreement over what the subject matter is. My POV is just below this in: Wikipedia policy. It would be helpful if editors would add their POVs here also. What is your POV on the 2A? What does it mean to you? Thank you. (Truwik (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Actually, discussion of editors' personal POV does not belong on this article talk page. Editors have a duty to set aside their personal points of view.  This article should reflect the POV balance of reliable sourcing on this topic.  A better way to phrase the question would be to ask which reliable source(s) best reflects the neutral balance point, that is: which fairly and neutrally describes both extremes of the points of view?  Answering that question I point to the books published by university presses, because of their vetting, peer review and fact checking, they tend to be more objective and less full of POV advocacy.  For instance the average of these three books: ISBN 9780195147865, ISBN 9780822330318 and ISBN 9780674893061 represents close to a neutral balance point.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First, my point of view is simply my position on the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment, which is in agreement with the Founders' intent and High Court holdings about it. By my questions I was seeking other editors' positions on the Second Amendment's meaning, to better know how to respond. If we can't agree on its meaning, which I assume is the 'topic' here, how would we know where the 'neutral balance point' is, or what 'both extremes of the points of view' are? With the Second Amendment topic, what are the two extremes for or against? Amendments? Infringements? People? Without knowing what the bone of contention is, it's impossible to pick a side, and make a meaningful contribution. (Truwik (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC))


 * the neutral balance point for the article is found in reliable sources. editor's opinion's are indeed irrelevant to finding that balance point, as saltyboatr notes. Anastrophe (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How reliable is a source that doesn't know what "well regulated" meant in Colonial times and/or what "infringed" meant then and still does now?

Re US v Walters
I was under the impression that the 1,000 foot gun ban around schools was struck down in US v Lopez. 141.154.72.56 (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The alleged crime in Walters took place in the Virgin Islands, which is not a state and therefore under the management of the feds. Per the Constitution, the fed have the power to manage nonstate US possessions, but Lopez probably still applies. The defense doesn't quote Lopez in the document referenced and may not even be aware of the case. Don't know if the current version of 922(q) is the same as the one used in Lopez, but the Supreme Court nullified the totality of that section of law per "§ 922(q) is invalid" when they made their ruling.

From Lopez

After respondent, then a 12th-grade student, carried a concealed handgun into his high school, he was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows ... is a school zone," 18 U. S. C. § 922(q)(I)(A). The District Court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment, concluding that § 922(q) is a constitutional exercise of Congress' power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that, in light of what it characterized as insufficient congressional findings and legislative history, § 922(q) is invalid as beyond Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.

Held: The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined. Nor is it an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under the Court's cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which, viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce. Second, § 922(q) contains no jurisdictional element that would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearms possession in question has the requisite nexus with interstate commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce. To uphold the Government's contention that § 922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause141.154.72.56 (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Congress repassed the Gun Free School Zones Act in 1996, but added a provision stating that it would only be in effect to the extent permissible by the Commerce Clause. Source SMP0328. (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * From what I have read of Lopez, the extent permissible is zero.141.154.72.56 (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be permissible (1) if the crossing of State borders is involved, (2) the action occurs within an area under federal authority, but no State authority or (3) whenever the action "substantially affects" interstate commerce (quoting Lopez). SMP0328. (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The following still sounds like zero to me. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined.. I will however agree that there may be some substance to item 2 above, as the feds do have the power to manage nonstate US territories. However, there is still the issue of the Second Amendment ban on infringing the right to keep and bear arms, which applies to all US residents, whether they are inhabitants of one of the states or not.141.154.72.56 (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * An example of item 1 is the Mann Act. A recent example of item 3 is Gonzales v. Raich. As for the Second Amendment, that would be a very interesting case. SMP0328. (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Iffy examples a best and in at least one respect contradictory. Neither of your examples has to do with guns and a gun free school zone. Prostitution is at least a commercial activity, but rarely involves crossing state borders. It is also legal in Nevada. Gonzales and the harassment of those smoking pot under a medical prescription within States that allow it is garbage. Using the same reasoning for Gonzales the feds could harass prostitutes in Nevada.141.154.72.56 (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Those are not my opinion. I'm giving examples based on Supreme Court case law. SMP0328. (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I just can't see how those examples apply to a gun free school zone. A purchaser and/or owner of a gun already in state has no interstate commerce issues, since he is not engaged in commerce. This is pretty much what the Supreme Court said on Lopez.141.154.72.56 (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Rights only apply to US "citizens" (not residents)(14A,Sec. 1). As to the issue of the 2A, Lopez simply held congress had misused its interstate commerce power, but without saying such law violated the 2A's restriction on them. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights, says its "restrictive clauses" were intended to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers" to affect rights, the very thing section 922(q) attempted. The 2A's ban on infringing the right to keep and bear arms, applies exclusively to the federal government. (See Cruikshank, Presser, Miller, and now Heller.) (Truwik (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC))


 * "Some" rights (such as the right to vote) apply only to US Citizens. If you look at the later part of 14A Section 1 you will notice that the basic rights to life, liberty, property and equal protection under the law apply to ALL. By our reasoning if the Pope visited the US, you could go and kill him since he has no right to life, not being a US citizen. Still don't understand the basis for violating a 1,000 foot gun free zone around a school in this case, unless Walters was trying to sell one or more guns that he personally shipped in from another state in order to sell, with the transactions happening within 1,000 feet of a school. In Lopez the Supreme Court ruled that the a gun free zone was in excess of granted powers and did not fall under the Commerce Act. I will grant that since this case happened in the Virgin Islands that the feds, who were granted the authority to manage non-state territories have more power to regulate, but the Second Amendment prohibition still applies. If it applies to DC then it applies to the Virgin Islands.141.154.110.173 (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Constitutional rights apply to all people within any controlled by the federal government or any State or local government. As for the United States Virgin Islands, it is a non-State area that is, at least in the Constitutional sense, under the exclusive legislative authority of the Congress. Hence, Heller fully applies to it just as Heller applies to DC. SMP0328. (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Some rights, such as the right to vote or the right to keep arms for self defense, have been taken from many convicted felons currently in prison. Are they part of "all"? yes, you can be deprived of your rights, but ONLY though court action. Any law depriving you of your constitutionally protected rights is automatically illegal and therefore null and void. Anyone who votes to pass such a law is guilty of perjury of his oath of office. Perjury is a felony.141.154.110.173 (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Saul Cornell paid mouthpiece of the Joyce Foundation - POV bias issue
Per the wiki article on the Joyce Foundation, it engages in substantial gun control activies.

Per the following, Joyce Foundations activites include buying up whole issues of Law Journals and filling them with articles supporting gun control.

http://wasteofmyoxygen.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/the-joyce-foundations-attempt-to-abolish-the-second-amendment-with-the-help-of-barack-obama/

''In 1999, midway through Obama’s tenure, the Joyce board voted to grant the Chicago-Kent Law Review $84,000, a staggering sum by law review standards. The Review promptly published an issue in which all articles attacked the individual right view of the Second Amendment.''

''In a breach of law review custom, Chicago-Kent let an “outsider” serve as editor; he was Carl Bogus, a faculty member of a different law school. Bogus had a unique distinction: he had been a director of Handgun Control Inc. (today’s Brady Campaign), and was on the advisory board of the Joyce-funded Violence Policy Center.'' Bogus solicited only articles hostile to the individual right view of the Second Amendment, offering authors $5,000 each. But word leaked out, and Prof. Randy Barnett of Boston University volunteered to write in defense of the individual right to arms. Bogus refused to allow him to write for the review, later explaining that “sometimes a more balanced debate is best served by an unbalanced symposium.” Prof. James Lindgren, a former Chicago-Kent faculty member, remembers that when Barnett sought an explanation he “was given conflicting reasons, but the opposition of the Joyce Foundation was one that surfaced at some time.” Joyce had bought a veto power over the review’s content.

''Joyce Foundation apparently believed it held this power over the entire university. Glenn Reynolds later recalled that when he and two other professors were scheduled to discuss the Second Amendment on campus, Joyce’s staffers “objected strenuously” to their being allowed to speak, protesting that Joyce Foundation was being cheated by an “‘agenda of balance’ that was inconsistent with the Symposium’s purpose.” Joyce next bought up an issue of Fordham Law Review.''

''The plan worked smoothly. One court, in the course of ruling that there was no individual right to arms, cited the Chicago-Kent articles eight times. Then, in 2001, a federal Court of Appeals in Texas determined that the Second Amendment was an individual right.''

''The Joyce Foundation board (which still included Obama) responded by expanding its attack on the Second Amendment. Its next move came when Ohio State University announced it was establishing the “Second Amendment Research Center” as a think tank headed by anti-individual-right historian Saul Cornell. Joyce put up no less than $400,000 to bankroll its creation. The grant was awarded at the board’s December 2002 meeting, Obama’s last function as a Joyce director. In reporting the grant, the OSU magazine Making History made clear that the purpose was to influence a future Supreme Court case:''

Since the activities of the Joye Foundation includes providing funds to other parties to be "paid mouthpieces" and push the Joyce Foundation party line and since Saul Cornell received such funds to buy the opinion of the "Second Amendment Research Center" he does no merit consideration as an unbiased source. The following article adds more detail to the Second Amendment Research Center.

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/JoyceCornellHeller.pdf

Per the article "Ohio State understood that the money, and the Center, were meant to influence future Supreme Court rulings"

the following quote is also indicative of his being a "paid mouthpiece"

When I asked its director, Saul Cornell, in an email exchange if any participants in its acedemic programs could advocate the individual rights position, he responded that he would obtain sepeate funding to permit this to happen

Since the opinions of Mr. Cornell can obviously be bought I have no confidence that his opinions as cited in the Second Amendment article have not been bought and paid for, and skewed to reflect the wishes of his buyer.

Until such time as all references attributed to him are removed, I have a POV dispute with the article similar to pevious POV disputes with the NRA and Brady Campaign.141.154.110.178 (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

On the bright side, removing all material where Mr Cornell is cited will reduce the size of the article and should make Salty Boatr and nwlaw63 a bit happier. I am confident of their support to remove this material. ;-) 141.154.110.178 (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Are we talking about the same thing? I am referring to the book published by Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5, page 7.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

All material means all material and includes all books and articles authored by him. 141.154.110.178 (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that I am taking this position due to what I see as a Zero tolerance policy for biased material within this article. As an example of this Zero tolerane policy I cite the following fact. When researching the past history of this article I noticed that a link, not material within the article, but a simple LINK to NRA material was removed from the page due to what I believe to be POV bias issues. To confirm this removal was a bias issue would involve going through discussions on this page some two years old. I do not have the time nor inclinaton to do so but you must agree that removing LINK to NRA material SEEMS to have been some sort of bias issue. Again I am not talking about a link to material cited in the article, but a link similar to the current link on the side of the article to the various amendments and assorted Firearm legal topics. I believe that you will agree that any POV bias standard which prohibits a mere link to a biased organization includes the banning of any and all authors identified as having taken money to deliver a bought and paid for opinion. From the available evidence Saul Cornell is in fact just such an author.141.154.110.178 (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you read the Wikipedia policy on sourcing? And, bias?  See WP:V and WP:NPOV.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please advise me on the difference between a biased opinion originating with the NRA and a biased opinion arising from a "bought and paid for mouthpiece" of the Joyce Foundation. I fail to see any.


 * BTW: Was I wrong to assume your support in deleting obviously biased material from the article?


 * BTW2: If you wish to use another book for source material Amazon ranks The Founders Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms by Halbrook as the #1 seller in its genre. It currently ranks as Book 2,243 in Amazon sales compared to Cornell book which comes in at 143,833. That's the paperback version from last year. Cornells hardcover from 2 years back ranks 517,331. Low numbers good, high numbers bad. As for reader ranking, Halbrook gets all 5's except for 1 4 while Cornell gets 5 5's a 4 and 4 1's. One of Cornells 5's was from the publisher so it doesn't count. The sales difference is even worse when you consider the fact that Holbrooks book is a hardcover and sells for almost twice the price of Cornells paperback. Makes me wonder if Cornell had a loss on the book and if the Joyce Foundation is picking up the tab.141.154.110.178 (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Halbrook is the NRA's outside counsel and his book's ranking was a part of a book bomb created by the gun rights community to raise its rankings. The scholarly reviews of Cornell's book have been excellent, but obviously not everyone agrees with the interpretation.

WP:V reqires the us of RELIABLE published source. Does anyone dispute that a "bought and paid for" opinion is not RELIABLE? If no one disputes I will take action sometime next week and delete UNRELIABLE material based on Saul Cornell and the Law Review articles bought and paid for by the Joyce Fondation. 141.154.14.50 (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you see in the WP:V policy that we are to favor third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Do you have an opinion whether or not the Oxford University Press meets this standard? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oxforn Press is a PUBLISHER! It is not a PUBLISHED SOURCE. Fact checking and accuracy is the authors job not the pblishers. Again, the issue here is RELIABLE! Please advise if you believe that a "bought and paid for" opinion crafted to the agenda of the purchaser, is RELIABLE.68.163.104.5 (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your opinion of policy doesn't seem to match Wikipedia policy. Could you please read WP:SOURCES and square up the differences?  The question at hand is whether Oxford University Press is a reliable source in accordance with Wikipedia policy standards.  Thanks.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Again: A publisher is not a PUBLISHED SOURCE and last I checked Oxford Press was a publisher. If it's not even a SOURCE it can hardly be a RELIABLE source. Also again: Please advise if you believe that a "bought and paid for" opinion crafted to the agenda of the purchaser, is RELIABLE68.163.104.5 (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Third opinion. This is more a WEIGHT and NPOV issue than an RS issue.  SaltyBoatr's edit fails to note that Cornell's view is controversial.  Phrase it as Cornell's POV, fairly note that it's disputed and that more reputable scholars like Amar disagree with him, and there shouldn't be a problem.  THF (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually if one being intellectually honest one would note that Cornell and Amar are largely in agreement about the original meaning of the Second Amendment and disagree over the incorporation issue.

There is no such thing as a non-controversial claim in this contested field. Much of this is simply gun rights troll work. If this is to be serious it will need to recognize that many of the gun rights sources are tainted by their funding as well. I suggest we focus on the arguments, not the funding. Alternatively we can get rid of virtually everyone who has written about this topic since they can't pass the funding test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philo-Centinel (talk • contribs)


 * I agree that the funding is irrelevant. Joyce funds these scholars because they oppose gun rights, not the other way around. THF (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You said the magic word. FUNDS!!!!!!!!!!! There is no difference beween hiring an in house author to push your agenda, and funding an outside author. Remember that Mr. Cornell got $400,000 in INITIAL funds. Who knows how much more followed. Frankly I don't know that many people who would NOT toe the party line for $400,000.


 * And ditto, but on the other side of the coin, when the NRA hires council like Stephen Halbrook. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * THF - I for one would like to see the POV dispute label come off the article. Your solution would keep it there.


 * Philo - Please lay off the name calling unless you want me to start calling you a gun control freak or a domestic enemey of the US Constitution. As for reliable source, I believe that many many such sources exist. I just don't believe that Saul Cornell or issue 76 of the Chicago Kent Law Review are reliable. From the evidence available Saul Cornell is nothing but a glorified handpuppet of the Joyce Foundation. Whatever comes out of his mouth is what Joyce wants to come out.


 * Salty Boatr - I believe if I got a copy of Halbrooks book and started including material from it you would start screamin POV bias. Am I wrong?


 * RE: WEIGHT issue, There does seem to an excesive number of references to Cornells book. Thank you for pointing out that we have a WEIGHT problem as well.68.163.104.5 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This is rather astonishing. The Cornell book was peer reviewed by Oxford and widely reviewed in scholarly journals. Halbrook's book was not properly peer reviewed and was subsidized by a conservative think tank. The notion that Cornell is a front for Joyce is delusional. Anyone who has read the book would realize it argues for a strong individual rights tradition, but dates that tradition to the Jacksonian era. It does not claim there was no individual rights tradition in the 18th century, but argues that it was relatively weak. Amar argues that there is no individual rights tradition until Reconstruction and that is held up as scholarly. Anyone who claims otherwise is really just mouthing gun rights propaganda. Just read the Levinson review of the book in Reviews in American History. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philo-Centinel (talk • contribs) 21:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This may be premaure but I'd like to welcome you to the world of Conspiracy nuts, where governent offials only care about getting more money and power and big money has bought up the government. ;-) Please check the links and text at the top of the page. Per those links Cornell got $400,000 in startup fund for his Second Amendment Research Center from Joyce. That was just the start up money. There are indiction more followed to keep the center going. In my world $400,000 buys a lot. What does it buy in yours?

Here's a additional link to what looks like a publication from Ohio State itself which states that Saul Cornell received a two year grant from the Joyce Foundation to set up his Center. No amount is mentioned. Can't get much close to the horses mouth then that

http://humanities.osu.edu/news/humex/humex2003.pdf

Here's a link to someone who disputes Cornells accuracy. Suposedly Cornell states that a certain stature applies to guns. According to this author it only applied to knives.

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/08/historian_revie.php

From this it looks like he's not up for a debate on the Secon Amendment issues and instead ties to muzzle those advocting the individual rights position. Not waht I consider the attitude of a tre scholar.

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/more_on_joyce_f.php

Can't say that further research into him has made me any more confidebt of his RELIABILITY! I therefore contnue to have issues where he is used as a reference. 68.163.104.5 (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Arms and the law is funded by the NRA-- this is precisely the sort of biased treatment of information that suggests that we ought not to trust the person making the complaints about Cornell. Why trust Hardy-- who has no serious academic credentials and is funded by the NRA?

As far as the issue of knives goes-- it is a mistake to treat the Second Amendment as if it protects a right to own guns. The actual language is guns. If one actually looks at militia weapons one might argue that certain knives ought to have more protection than handguns. One can argue the point--but the notion that this discredits Cornell is silly. I suspect we are dealing with someone without any legal education or any other academic credentials. Clearly the argument is typical of what one sees with high school students--

Then notion that a 400,000 grant disqualifies scholarship would mean that everything produced by scholars at George Mason Law school needs to be discredited. The NRA gave more than a million for Nelson Lund's chair. Robert Levy the money behind Heller is also a big donnor to Mason-- in fact the recent symposium on Heller held at GMU was in space named after Levy-- so do we simply toss out everything from GMU-- by the logic used here we ought to-- I think it is better to note the role of money in this debate and move on to facts and serious scholarly argument.

At the end of the day Cornell was cited by SCOTUS in Heller and has published in top law reviews and history journals. You can disagree with him, but this sort of smear tactic only suggests an effort to silence those who don't accept the gun rights view of things. In my posts I have tried to be balanced and weed out tedious discussions that would never survive any serious editorial process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philo-Centinel (talk • contribs)

Re:Hardy- I can't seem to find any reference to any Hardy in the article. Seems he's not trusted. Re:Levy - no material from any Levy is referenced. Again not trusted. re:Lund - One quote not subject to dispute and double reference to boot. See current referenced 99 and 100. Therefore not trusted, only reference has a backup.

Your complaints regarding the trust given to gun rigt advocates seem to be a bit thin. More like nonexistent!

Speaking of smears the "gun rights troll" remark was yours! You are the one with the smears. Ever heard of "Don't bitch about the mote in your neighbors eye, when you have a freaking beam in yours" or something like that? How about "War is Hell"?

Of course it is the gun right activists that would bitch about Cornells bias. You'd hardly think that his fellow gun control advocates would call Cornell biased now would you? Sticking a knife in the back of one of your leading spokesman is just NOT DONE!

Yet Again: The wiki issue here is whether a "bought and paid for" opinion is RELIABLE. I say it is not. Granted not wiki policy, but the rules of evidence are on my side. Compelled evidence is suspect and inadmissabe in court. What you may not know is that compelled evidence includes BOUGHT evidence.

One of the defintions for compel is To exert a strong, irresistible force on; sway

There is no doubt in my mind that $400,000 can SWAY a person! Is there in yours?

Lastly, if you believe that someone has received enough money from the NRA or any other gun rights group or organization to SWAY him, then simply provide proof (with the amount) and I will support the deletion of all references to material printed AFTER the money changed hands. If you insist I will even go back a year or two from the date of the transaction.

In the case of Cornell the money changed hands in 2003 and the book in question was printed afterwards.68.163.104.5 (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hardy's web site is arms and the law which is cited for some of the critiques of Cornell in the discussion above. It is the basis for much of this Anti-Joyce nonsense. The charge that money influenced the scholarship has no foundation. You would need to show intent. If anything the fact that his book and several of the articles acknowledge an individual rights tradition and actually critique the traditional collective rights argument cuts against your case. Halbrook was cited as good authority by someone in this thread yet he is professional gun rights lawyer and  the NRA got his Amazon numbers up by a book bomb. You might thinkg $400,000 is a lot but in the sciences grants run into the millions. Even in the social sciences grants run over a million. Actually $400,000 is not very much money for an academic grant at all. You make it seem like the money was given in small bills in a parking lot in a brown paper bag. University's take over head, release time is charged at the highest possible rate-- if you hire graduate students you have to pay their tuition and health insurance. I would say that if you actually had ever attended a serious university you would realize how silly your charges sound to an educated person. If you add up the fact that some of the money was used for conferences that is at least another 50-75 grand. The amount is really modest for serious academic grants and is a fraction of the money spent by the gun lobby on the many law review articles produced by David Kopel and others. The whole thing is guilt by smear-- the Joyce issue is a way to not deal with evidence and argument. Are you going to get serious or not. Either talk about evidence and argument, or find another hobby Philo-Centinel (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet again: Hardy is NOT trusted. He has no voice in this article. Do not use him as an example.

Also again: You are free to look over the citations on the article. If you find anyone that you suspect of having received enough NRA money to be biased, I will support any move you make to delete content from that person, but only AFTER you provide a link to sufficient proof.

FYI: I pumped Halbrooks book to the extend of stating that per Amazon it is WILDLY outselling Cornells book despite being twice the price and that those commenting there rated it higher then Cornells book.

Regarding whether $400,000 is lot. I'd say it would keep a professor in a Univerity employed for a number of years. That's a lot to a professor.

I was puzzled by your comment above that he Second Amendment refers to guns - your comment follows

it is a mistake to treat the Second Amendment as if it protects a right to own guns. The actual language is guns.

Checking the text I confirmed that the actual language is "arms" and not guns. You should remember this in order not to appear ignorant in the future. Wondering what else you may have gotten wrong I checked to see whether Cornell had actually been referenced in the Heller case. Turns out he had,

in the dissent

about Negro millitias after the Civil War!

In other words, he was a bit player for the losing side! 68.163.104.5 (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Due to your alteration of my Complaint below with the intent to hide Cornell worked for Joyce in 2006, the same year his Second Amendment book was printed, as editor of their bought and paid for issue of the Stanford Law and Policy Review I am no longer accepting complaints from you to be in good faith. You are dead to me! Get lost.

Other editors are asked to check the changes made to this discussion page in history at 19:06 for confirmation of intent to hide evidence.68.163.104.5 (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Since no valid obections have been made to deleteting biased, bought and paid for, opinion from Saul Cornells book I will now start to remove all references to him and his book as he is a paid "mouthpiece" of a gun control advoacy group. Again Mr. Cornell received $400,000 fom the Joyce Foundation prior to the printing of this book in support of their gun control agenda and the relationship continues.


 * The only objection so far is that his printing house is a valid source. This objection is BOGUS as a printing house is neither a book, a jounal, a paper, an article, a court case or associated legal document such as a brief, also is not a letter, or a transcript of a hearing, speech and whatnot. In short a printing house is NOT a source.

Portion of Verifiabiliy policy for Salty Boatr.

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.141.154.110.173 (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You and I may disagree about what constitutes a reliable source. See Verifiability for a description of my belief.   This is Wikipedia policy and is not subject to compromise.   I am willing to seek a third opinion to resolve our disagreement about whether the books published by the Oxford University Press qualify as reliable sources or not.  Are you willing?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Paying a cutout (a sockpuppet in wikispeak) to push your point of view is equivalent to self-publishing

Self-published sources (online and paper)

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.[5]

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.141.154.110.173 (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Adjust MiszaBot?
even with MiszaBot archiving threads that have had no discussion in 14 days, this page is becoming unwieldy again. i'd propose lowering the threshold to 8 days - a week and a day allows those who only have rare opportunity - perhaps on weekends - to still participate in threads should they choose to. thoughts? Anastrophe (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. That would make sure this talk page only shows current discussions. SMP0328. (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * i've done so, but obviously if any editors should disagree, they're welcome to chime in - or to change it to some other value. Anastrophe (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * in case anyone was wondering, the page archiving didn't change...because i'm an idiot. hey, it was late, i was sleepy, and i managed to only change the '14' to an '8' in the introductory text of the miszabot, rather than its actual code value. duh. fixed now! Anastrophe (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A better way to keep the talk page manageable would be for us editors to encourage each other to avoid using the article talk page to discuss anything other than the content of the article. A quick archiving cycle risks archiving genuine "article talk" prematurely.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * excuse the hell out of me, but what is your rationale for removing my last comments? i see no justification for it. i also disagree with your rationale - the better way to manage an unmanageably long talk page is to archive inactive discussion. two weeks without a response is excessive. eight days is a reasonable balance. reverting the change in archiving interval, while removing my comments, and not noting that you'd done so, is, well, i don't know what it is, exactly, but it's definitely not cool. Anastrophe (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing your comment was an editing error, (my failure to use the 'pg down' key). Sorry, not intentional. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * fair enough. Anastrophe (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A side effect of my rational, limiting discussion to just the article, is that it would limit the incivility that comes with personal attacks on editors, or discussions of personal opinions. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * that's fine, we can all strive to do that. we can also all strive not to badger other editors with questions unrelated to matters under discussion. we can all improve our behaviour here. be that as it may, half a month without a response in a thread seems excessive. as a compromise between the eight days i proposed, and the fourteen days you prefer, i have adjusted the miszabot to eleven days. let's see how it works. other editors are certainly welcome to chime in on this change. perhaps consensus is necessary.Anastrophe (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * At least we should wait 14 days to give editors a chance to read this section discussion before it gets archived. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * why? the talk page is already clearly archived. if an editor only checks in as rarely as once every half month, they have a reasonable expection that previous discussion has been archived. it will already have been archived whether it's 11 or 14 days. this seems like extreme obeisance to editors who aren't particularly active here to begin with. Anastrophe (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

so it seems that neither of us were actually adjusting the right parameters in the miszabot config. the counter apparently determines how many archives have been made, or some such. frankly, i don't have the time or inclination to screw with it any further, so i guess it stays at fourteen days unless someone wants to muck about with it. Anastrophe (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

section break
There seems to be disagreement over what the subject matter is. My POV is just below this in: Wikipedia policy. It would be helpful if editors would add their POVs here also. What is your POV on the 2A? What does it mean to you? Thank you. (Truwik (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Actually, discussion of editors' personal POV does not belong on this article talk page. Editors have a duty to set aside their personal points of view.  This article should reflect the POV balance of reliable sourcing on this topic.  A better way to phrase the question would be to ask which reliable source(s) best reflects the neutral balance point, that is: which fairly and neutrally describes both extremes of the points of view?  Answering that question I point to the books published by university presses, because of their vetting, peer review and fact checking, they tend to be more objective and less full of POV advocacy.  For instance the average of these three books: ISBN 9780195147865, ISBN 9780822330318 and ISBN 9780674893061 represents close to a neutral balance point.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First, my point of view is simply my position on the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment, which is in agreement with the Founders' intent and High Court holdings about it. By my questions I was seeking other editors' positions on the Second Amendment's meaning, to better know how to respond. If we can't agree on its meaning, which I assume is the 'topic' here, how would we know where the 'neutral balance point' is, or what 'both extremes of the points of view' are? With the Second Amendment topic, what are the two extremes for or against? Amendments? Infringements? People? Without knowing what the bone of contention is, it's impossible to pick a side, and make a meaningful contribution. (Truwik (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC))


 * the neutral balance point for the article is found in reliable sources. editor's opinion's are indeed irrelevant to finding that balance point, as saltyboatr notes. Anastrophe (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How reliable is a source that doesn't know what "well regulated" meant in Colonial times and/or what "infringed" meant then and still does now?

Footnote 67 request full quote
Bumping this talk page thread which got archived without an answer. I am still requesting a longer quote from this extremely obscure source for confirmation. Who is speaking? What is the question being answered? What is the context of that discussion? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

See this diff. I agree there are unanswered questions about the "violative" snippet quote. Yaf, please answer the open questions. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Giving this a bump. Yaf, please provide the full quote requested. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yaf, could you please give a full quote? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

After waiting for a very long time, with no answer, I removed the 'violative' passage. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your refusal to look at the reliable and verifiable source, simply to push your POV through deleting content that you don't like, is inexcusable. The material is properly cited and is verifiable.  Please stop edit warring with other editors.  Have restored content.  Yaf (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf, this source is very obscure and the closest public library which has it is 500 miles from my house. I am asking for more context than the short quote you have provided.  Who is speaking, and what question are they answering.  What is the context of the quote?  Your deletion of my "quotation question" seems like a hostile act.  Please, just respond.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Notice that Yaf uses the word "verifiable". This strongly indicates that the source is not actually yet verified.  I seek verification, beyond the truncated quote provided.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Then verify it. The cited information and source has already been verified in a reliable source, and this fact has been appropriately cited in the article. The source is additionally verifiable by SaltyBoatr just by his clicking on the provided courtesy link, or by his review of a copy of the complete original document in any federal library. If SaltyBoatr truly seeks verification, then he has but to verify it. But to claim it is not verified, simply because a Wikipedia editor writing under the "SaltyBoatr" moniker has not verified it, borders on egomania, with definite WP:OWN issues.  Yaf (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You say "the cited information has already been verified". By who?  If by you, tell us who is speaking, and what question they are answering.  In what context does that quote exist?  Sorry, I have checked, that obscure paper document is not available in any local library near where I live.  I have tried to buy a copy mail order, and the document is so rare it is not even available for sale on the used book market that I could find.  Do you know where I can buy a copy?  See WP:Burden.    SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * By anyone that knows how to click on a courtesy link associated with the cite and simply reads the text. This document is neither obscure, nor hard to verify.  Just click on the link and read what it says.  Yaf (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yaf - Either the link itself has been deleted, or it never existed. Although, it was easy enough to find through Google:  http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Pierce1.html.  You appear to be quote-mining though.  You cited this sentence when referring to Bliss:  "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."  But you didn't include the very next sentence, which seems to clarify the statement:  "In contrast to this, all states currently regulate the possession and use of firearms to some extent."  If you're going to cite something that seems to hold a certain view, you shouldn't post just the information that supports your position but the entire statement (or statements).  Of course, I have no idea how reliable Mr. Pierce is either way.  Is he known as an expert or a reliable source on the 2nd Amendment?Alexandr332 (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops... just went to the 'base site' www.saf.org, which is the "Second Amendment Foundation".  Is this available on any other site than a gun rights site?  What do you mean by 'verified'?Alexandr332 (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * two points: 1. due to changes in the article, the footnote under discussion actually changed from being footnote 67 to being footnote 66. so, your investigation of this footnote isn't actually relevant to the footnote that was under discussion. 2. that said, the saf page is little more than a verbatim reproduction from the Kentucky Law Review. the saf link is a courtesy link. absent some reason to believe that the text has been tampered with, i don't see a problem with unadorned textual reproductions from that site. Anastrophe (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

section break
There seems to be disagreement over what the subject matter is. My POV is just below this in: Wikipedia policy. It would be helpful if editors would add their POVs here also. What is your POV on the 2A? What does it mean to you? Thank you. (Truwik (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Actually, discussion of editors' personal POV does not belong on this article talk page. Editors have a duty to set aside their personal points of view.  This article should reflect the POV balance of reliable sourcing on this topic.  A better way to phrase the question would be to ask which reliable source(s) best reflects the neutral balance point, that is: which fairly and neutrally describes both extremes of the points of view?  Answering that question I point to the books published by university presses, because of their vetting, peer review and fact checking, they tend to be more objective and less full of POV advocacy.  For instance the average of these three books: ISBN 9780195147865, ISBN 9780822330318 and ISBN 9780674893061 represents close to a neutral balance point.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First, my point of view is simply my position on the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment, which is in agreement with the Founders' intent and High Court holdings about it. By my questions I was seeking other editors' positions on the Second Amendment's meaning, to better know how to respond. If we can't agree on its meaning, which I assume is the 'topic' here, how would we know where the 'neutral balance point' is, or what 'both extremes of the points of view' are? With the Second Amendment topic, what are the two extremes for or against? Amendments? Infringements? People? Without knowing what the bone of contention is, it's impossible to pick a side, and make a meaningful contribution. (Truwik (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC))


 * the neutral balance point for the article is found in reliable sources. editor's opinion's are indeed irrelevant to finding that balance point, as saltyboatr notes. Anastrophe (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How reliable is a source that doesn't know what "well regulated" meant in Colonial times and/or what "infringed" meant then and still does now?