Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 24

Loyalists versus Patriots in the American Revolution
SMP0328 reverted recently with the edit summary "(Undid 1 edit by SaltyBoatr (talk) - No need to use names each side gave to the other during the American Revolution)". This follows a similar revert by SMP0328 yesterday. This needs explanation pointing to reliable sourcing. When I look at reliable sourcing, I see that this was, especially the events of the militia prior to the war, fundamentally an opposition of those militia loyal the the British, and those militia favoring rebellion from the British. (See Millis pg 34, ISBN 9780813509310 plus many others). These two groups are known as "Loyalists" and "Patriots". They both were colonists. Calling them both "colonists" hides the fact that these two militia groups were in conflict which is pretty important. SMP0328, what sourcing are you reading that supports your edit? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is making such a distinction, as opposed to simply referring to "colonists", relevant to this article? SMP0328. (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is important per reliable sourcing, did you read page 34 of Millis? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You want that distinction made repeatedly. It is made once, but it's not necessary to do so repeatedly. Also, I don't agree with calling the American colonists "rebels", because that unnecessarily adds the imperial British POV of the American colonists. Finally, stop telling other editors what to read. You are not our teacher and you can't assign us homework. SMP0328. (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We are in dispute about this. Do you agree to follow WP:Dispute Resolution procedures to resolve our dispute? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I prefer to use my time in more constructive ways. Please explain how it's relevant to the article to repeatedly make your desired Loyalist/Patriots distinction. SMP0328. (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When you say "colonist" it is ambiguous, you could be referring to either a Loyalist colonist or a Patriot colonist. The article benefits from being more clear and less ambiguous. Also, I am simply following the precedence I see in reliable sourcing. Could you explain your reasoning? It appears to be entirely based on your personal opinion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no ambiguity. That subsection clearly refers to "colonists" or "colonial" regarding those residents of the American Colonies who supported the Declaration of Independence. Those colonists who supported the British forces are called "Loyalists". It is clear that "colonists" and "colonial" don't include "Loyalists". SMP0328. (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears that your personal opinion conflicts with reliable sourcing, including Millis. Where did you get your personal opinion about this? What have you been reading? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that wording preferences need reliable sourcing? I believe wording is covered by MOS policies. SMP0328. (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I guess I'll wade into this. I remember in elementary school trying to keep straight which ones were the loyalists and which ones were the patriots. The terms themselves do not help much, so memorization is required. To make it easier on readers, I'd prefer if this article would merely refer to colonists loyal to Britain, versus colonists not loyal to Britain, or something self-explanatory like that. Certainly we would be creating a royal mess by using all of the terms Loyalists, Tories, Patriots, Rebels and Colonists. It's just a matter of good writing, and has nothing to do with POV. It's fine for a book to use all of those terms, but this is just a brief encyclopedia article, and we shouldn't weigh the reader down with too much memorization, IMO.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe you have accurately described what the article does now. SMP0328. (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Saying "Patriot legislatures" is necessary. Saying "colonist legislatures" doesn't distinguish which legislature we are talking about, some were sympathetic to Loyalists and some were sympathetic to Patriots, and the distinction is critical. Ditto, some "colonial militia" were sympathetic to Loyalists and some were sympathetic to Patriots, and the distinction is critical. It is like saying the baseball league played in the All Star Game. The American League played against the National League. To be meaningful we must distinguish one colonist from another. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Which of the colonial legislatures were run by Loyalists? SMP0328. (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Until the separation by the rebels, all the colonial legislatures were loyal to the British state. That is the definition of colony.  The whole issue here is the experience of transition between a governed territory, a colony, to a self-governed territory, the nation of the United States and that transition process was a gradual process taking more than a decade.  Simply ignoring the difference of Loyalists and Patriots in this article section is wildly naive.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And the separation by the rebels occurred in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris? :-)  Just please make it self-explanatory.  The word "loyalist" does not say loyal to whom.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Answering your question: The separation by the rebels occurred variously.  In Boston, as referred in the article section, the separation occurred in earnest in response to the Townshend Act Crisis circa 1768.  Elsewhere it was different.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The use of a wikilink could solve this problem Loyalist (American Revolution) is a self explanatory way to say loyal to whom.  Similar, we could spell it out fully using Patriot (American Revolution) to describe the rebels.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's awkward for a reader to have to go to other Wikipedia articles in order to make sense of this one. As a matter of good writing, we ought to say "John Doe was loyal to Britain while Jane Doe was not loyal to Britain."Ferrylodge (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We should error on the side of being clear. Just saying 'colonist' without distinguishing which side leaves the reader guessing and ultimately confused. Lets look to reliable sourcing, and we see that there is a distinction made between Loyalist and Patriot, and therefore so should we. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While I think "colonists" and "colonial" are clear enough, I'm willing to accept the wording as it is currently. SMP0328. (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks SMP0328. While working here can be tough at times, I am encouraged that all of us here are working in good faith and can negotiate our differences in favor of our common goal of writing an excellent article.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Good Article
This article looks pretty good. Maybe the best controversial article I've seen in a while (it's hard to make progress on those). What were the reasons for its removal from the "Social sciences and society good articles" list? Noloop (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There was an explicit list of problems, see the archive. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Further Cornell footnote
Ferrylodge's recent revert skews the NPOV balance of this section paragraph. Presently this section has two footnoted sources, the first to a critical book review written by the senior attorney of the NRA, David Hardy, (but interesting, not to Professor Cornell's book being reviewed). The second to a book review of a book written by an NRA board member. I attempted to add a third citation to the Professor Cornell's book. Ferrylodge deleted out this edit. Lets discuss this. I object to neutrality that gives two cites to NRA advocates and which gives zero cites to more neutral sourcing. It seems plainly wrong per WP:NPOV policy to give favor to a critical book review and not give balancing coverage to the book being reviewed. Ferrylodge, please explain you actions which seemingly violate WP policies. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, please use section headers that are neutral, rather than section headers that say you are right and everyone else is wrong.


 * Regarding insertion of a twelfth footnote in this article to Saul Cornell, I have no objection to that in principle, although we have to be careful about over-reliance on any one particular source. The problem here is that the additional footnote is out of place; it refers to a "right to bear arms" which is not what the material in the article text is about, and is not what the quoted material from Hardy and Malcolm is about.  Also, we have an entire section of this article devoted to the meaning of "bear arms".Ferrylodge (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless, the David Hardy book review fails to mention the main point in Professor's Cornells book. I attempted to add this, and you reverted it.  You give no policy based reason for removal of this well sourced edit.  Removal simply because of personal whim is not sufficient.  It also makes perfect sense to group together the various colonial views, including the 'civic obligation' view.  Further, it seem more tenuous to include right to arms which seem further off topic than right to bear arms.  Your deletion seems illogical per policy, and it skews POV improperly.  It seems plainly wrong per WP:NPOV policy to give emphasis to an advocacy book review, and to delete out mention of the book.  We dispute about this, are you willing to follow WP:DR procedures to resolve our dispute?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly cannot be expected to join in any further WP:DR procedures with you, if you continue to start noticeboard discussions without alerting anyone at this talk page.


 * The Cornell quote that you want to footnote is this: “the right to bear arms was articulated as a civic right inextricably linked to the civic obligation to bear arms for the public defense.” Please recognize that this article already repeatedly discusses this view of Cornell, and repeating it again at this location of the article is not appropriate, and is WP:Undue weight.  This portion of the article is not about the narrow concept of “bearing” arms.  Additionally, this portion of the article already says that one consideration for early Americans was maintaining an organized militia system, which is consistent with Cornell’s view about bearing arms.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In this section it is important to contrast the David Hardy criticism of the book in his book review with the viewpoint presented in the book. Presently only the criticism is presented and the book source has been deleted.  This violates policy.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, you have not shown that the quote in the Hardy footnote was critical of Cornell, or contradicted anything Cornell said. Likewise for the book review by Malcolm.  Cornell acknowledged that early Americans did have "a right to keep or carry firearms for personal protection."  Cornell also said (p. 217) that there was a significant minority in the founding era that thought the Second Amendment affirmed that common law right; however, that issue is not discussed by the sentence that you're objecting to.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are a few words from Mr. Hardy's book review. "...fails......overlooked...reconstrued...omitted...misreads,...." Objectively, the book review by Mr. Hardy represents a POV, which is largely matched by the book by Stephen Halbrook. Both these men have been widely described as advocates for gun rights in reliable sourcing. This violates NPOV policy to favor one POV like this. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine SaltyBoatr, but none of those words that you quote is in the excerpt quoted in the footnote. How many dozens of times do we have to cite and quote and footnote Cornell, to satisfy?  Is it possible that Hardy may have actually uttered some words that were not contrary to the words of Cornell?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So what. David Hardy does not fully represent what Cornell wrote.  To be properly neutral we need to present both sides.  The article section does that better now than it did earlier this week.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, what could be more fun than continuing to argue after a compromise has been reached? SaltyBoatr, the Cornell footnote only refers to "public defense" which seems different from law enforcement or hue and cry.  If the fourth bulleted item is to remain, then we need a better footnote, IMO.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, the Levy book describes this well pg 136. Added footnote now.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Rather than perpetual arguing, can you suggest an edit that brings some balance to the opening of this section? The 'civic obligation for public defense' is an important point made by Cornell, can that be included somehow? SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * After the bulleted list of three considerations, we could simply write something like this: "It is a matter of some dispute which of these considerations they thought were most important, which of these considerations they were most alarmed about, and the extent to which each of these considerations ultimately found expression in the Second Amendment." Cornell's "civic obligation for public defense" seems to correspond to the third bulleted item.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, I agree with the addition of the "It is a matter of some dispute..." qualifier after the bullet list and have added it. No, civic obligation for public defense goes beyond militia, including also domestic law enforcement see the discussion of Hue and cry in Malcolm and Levy.  Also these four bullet items need to be qualified with an "and/or" not an "and" as the early Americans did not all see this similarly.  Additionally, the Cornell footnote cite should be included to assist the readers to verify. Considering that Cornell uses the words "right to bear arms", and Hardy "right to arms" we should include both.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What does it cover besides militia and law enforcement?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot say it better than Professor Cornell. Please read the book for your answer.  A real question is whether your paraphrase of "militia and law enforcement" is improper synthesis of what Professor Cornell wrote.  It would be wiser to just use the verbatim wording from the book which is "the civic obligation to bear arms for the public defense" than to use your paraphrase.  You have the duty to defend your WP:SYN or self-revert.  We are dancing around the POV issue here which is that you seem to favor suppressing the civic obligation because it represents a significant POV which is in opposition to the individual rights POV.  Like it or not, we must set aside our personal POVs and we need to present all significant POVs, including the civic.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You suggest that I have performed "improper synthesis of what Professor Cornell wrote." However, I did not cite Cornell, you did.  All I cited was Malcolm, Hardy, and Levy.  And I do not see that Cornell adds anything to that list of four items.  If you wish to dilute the list with further entries, all you have to do is explain what Cornell adds.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes you did paraphrase what Professor Cornell wrote, see this diff showing your edit. This appears to be improper synthesis which you must justify or self revert. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No you are wrong, either mistakenly or deliberately. Whatever that diff may show (and I do not see that it shows anything about Cornell), I subsequently urged removal of the Cornell reference, because it is not needed here.


 * SaltyBoatr, why do you still refuse to edit this article without edit summaries? And you continue to insert footnotes without providing available links.  Doing those two things would make things go much smooother here.  Also, are you Saul, Salty?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I consider your question to be highly offensive, please stop the hostility which is disruptive to work here. If you have a genuine concern of WP:COI this is not the forum, and feel free to proceed with your inquiry in the proper forum.  In the mean time, lets try to get along towards collaboration.    SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No offense intended.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the Manual of Style regarding the use of "and/or". Also, can you share your opinion on the relative prevalence of the "civic obligation" viewpoint? It seems recent and minor, and our treatment of it seems excessive. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My personal opinion and your personal opinion are irrelevant, so I won't answer my personal opinion. Your judgment of "seems excessive" appears personal.  If not, describe what reliable sourcing you are comparing to reach an "excessive" evaluation. Are you looking at a full spectrum of POVs in the reliable sourcing?  The answer as to the civic obligation viewpoint question is found in the prior cites given, see the article (and the article archive, considering that these cites have been repeatedly scrubbed) for your answer.  In short, I see a contrast between the major POVs, with one POV favoring to frame this as a "Standard model" versus a collective model.  I see other extremely reliable sources that examine the English historical tradition of a civic obligation of common defense in the militia and the Posse comitatus (common law), many of the major authors address this history of English experience and describe bearing arms as a civic duty including Saul Cornell, Joyce Lee Malcolm, Stephen Halbrook, Uviller and Merkel, Cottrol among others.   SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course our opinions (personal is redundant, unless you are representing a group or acting in a professional capacity) are relevant. You shared your opinion in your reply; "I see" is a statement of opinion when used as you did. Rejecting all opinions while elevating your own to be something other than an opinion is not helpful if you want to have a dialog about improving the article. Don't you see that? Please discuss the article. Celestra (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You and I seem to agree that we all have personal opinions. Our duty is to set our personal opinions aside, and to look at a balanced selection of reliable sources to observe the opinions of the these sources, and then to edit an article which matches the spectrum of POVs found in the sources instead of the POV which we hold personally.  I try to do this, and we can do it better by discussing the sources and not discussing the editors.  The civic duty concept has been discussed by a wide variety of reliable sources from both sides of the POV spectrum.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, we all have opinions. My opinion of the plan you have repeatedly proposed for establishing the balance is that it is both unworkable and unnecessary. It shifts the discussion from the article to the potential list of sources that might support one position of another. It also wastes our time, since the next editor to join us is in no way bound to anything we decide. He, and we, are only bound to the actual rules and not any one editors plan based on his interpretation of those rules. We are all reasonable people and can have a reasonable discussion on what should or shouldn't be in the article without resorting to personal attacks or insisting on rigid ground rules. Now please, do you agree that there are two major viewpoints (militia vs individual) and several minor ones (including civic duty and right to revolt)? Celestra (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, it depends on the time frame being discussed. Based on what I have read in reliable sourcing, the viewpoints have changed over time. So no, it does not distill down to militia vs. individual. I take it that your question is about the present time frame, or perhaps the time frame of your lifetime? The tricky thing here is that there is one major viewpoint espoused by modern gun advocacy groups, described differently in their advocacy press that it is described in several scholarly books. Have you read Disarmed Princeton University Press 2006 ISBN 9780691124247, Under Fire University of Iowa Press 1998 ISBN 9780877456469 and The Changing Politics of Gun Control Rowman & Littlefield, 1998 ISBN 9780847686155?


 * We should base the article on the reliable sourcing and try to exclude advocacy press that fails to meet our reliable sourcing standards. I am dedicated to stick with policy at Wikipedia and do not propose anything otherwise. I dispute that basing our article on reliable sourcing is "unworkable and unnecessary". It may be difficult, but we must base the article on sources, and that requires explicit discussion of the sources. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not suggest to base the content on other than reliable sources. I suggest that we need to use simpler, more to-the-point methods for deciding as a group what content to include. The article is about the Second Amendment. We need to present the reader with the text, some idea of the meaning as well as an understanding of the fact that there are differing viewpoints. The history of adoption seems interesting and, if everyone feels it makes sense, a history of the changing view of the meaning, as you mentioned, might be a reasonable part. I agree entirely about sources that advocate a position needing to be treated as such. Neither pro-gun ownership nor pro-gun control advocacy has any place in this article, beyond, perhaps, acknowledging that such positions exist. Celestra (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We seem to agree then. Do you agree that the book review by David Hardy, at the top of this section we are talking about, should be considered one of the advocacy sources deserving special treatment? SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

For the purpose of this discussion, what is "advocacy". Every source in this article involves someone who believes his interpretation of the Second Amendment is correct and should be the one that is followed. At what does that make a source into one of an "advocate"? We should agree upon what is "advocacy" before removing any source or material for being such. SMP0328. (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you read the books Disarmed Princeton University Press 2006 ISBN 9780691124247, Under Fire University of Iowa Press 1998 ISBN 9780877456469 and The Changing Politics of Gun Control Rowman & Littlefield, 1998 ISBN 9780847686155? The issue of gun rights advocacy has been well documented in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be easier for you to simply tell me what you believe "advocacy" means, rather than only citing books? SMP0328. (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No. We should base the article on what we read in the reliable sourcing.  The issue of the history of gun advocacy (and its relation to the Second Amendment) is long and complex.  If I just tell you then we go down the path of arguing personal opinions (again).  If we take the trouble to read a few books, and other reliable sourcing, then we can compare and contrast the various POVs and write an article like WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV policy requires we do.  If editors are too impatient to read whole books, a start would be to read the introductory chapters.


 * Also, this shouldn't be just me telling other editors which sources read, I am asking also for you to tell me what sourcing you have seen to be reliable. I would like the chance to read it.  Tell me, what sourcing have you been researching that I should be reading?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * SMP is right; we need to discuss what we mean by advocacy to be able to reach a larger agreement. We can't use RS to determine which sources are advocacy pieces; that would become a chicken and egg problem. And I totally agree with you that we do not want to argue with one another about our opinions. Mine are right, as are your's, as are SMP's, as were Yaf's and Ferrylodge's and Anastrophe's. Where we have opinions that conflict with one another, we simply need to find a way to agree on a compromise like reasonable people. In answer to your question about the abstract of the book review, the reviewer clearly thinks that "A Well-Regulated Militia" is one-sided and his ordering of the initial list and his assertion of "when in fact..." show some bias as well. I wouldn't take controversial content from that abstract, but I also don't see that introductory paragraph as being controversial. I take it as being a good way to introduce the section and we should adjust it to fit whatever well-sourced content follows, much in the same way as the lede to the article is not meant to be cited, but to introduce (and advertise) the content of the article. Celestra (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, those three books do discuss the history of gun advocacy in considerable detail, and make an excellent definition of "advocacy" in this context. I have no interest in discussing personal opinion. I have pointed to a few reliable sources. Would you please point to some of your sourcing for your opinions? What have you been reading?


 * You are simply wrong that this should be a discussion of the different opinions of the editors, see WP:NPOV which says: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors."


 * I agree that the initial paragraph is improved from its earlier status. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It always comes back to opinion, though. If you feel those books "make an excellent definintion of advocacy", that is your opinion. Yaf had a different opinion in an earlier discussion of those, or similar, books. (Pointing out "gun advocacy" is actually a good sign that the book might be biased toward one viewpoint, just as railing against gun control would be.) We need to decide the balance and agree, case by case, on the sources as they are cited for content. The fact that prevalence is not the prevalence of a viewpoint among the editors simply means we don't make the article two thirds about individual interpretation because only one in three editors has a strong gun control viewpoint. That is not difficult to avoid. Celestra (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent Ferrylodge revert
Recently Ferrylodge reverted my edit with the summary "Source not pertinent". Please elaborate. The cited source is the Spitzer book titled "The right to bear arms: rights and liberties under the law", which seems pertinent on its face. Further, the passage being cited describes and analyzes in some detail the colonial experience just prior to the drafting of the Second Amendment during the 1780's with an analysis of the early Americans bearing arms in militia suppressing insurrections, specifically in this case the Shays' Rebellion which was hugely important to the framers mindset as they grappled with the difficulties surrounding bearing arms, in the run up to the Constitutional Convention. On its face, Ferrylodge's revert seems personal. Please explain your reasoning further. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My revert is here. My edit summary said: "No edit summary. Source not pertinent. http://books.google.com/books?id=kYKrIwceQ1UC&lpg=PP1&dq=%22The%20right%20to%20bear%20arms%3A%20rights%20and%20liberties%20under%20the%20law%20%22&pg=PA194"


 * Nothing personal whatsoever. First of all, why no edit summary?  Second of all, why do you not provide a link to your source?  Your cited source is here, right?  That's page 194 of Spitzer's book, the entire page is an excerpt from an 1886 court case, and it says nothing about anything that happened before the Constitution.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ferrylodge has vanished
Ferrylodge has chosen to invoke his right to vanish. In light of his involvement at this talk page, I felt his vanishing should be noted here. I hope he chooses to return. SMP0328. (talk) 01:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I second that. You and he have done a great job recently at improving the content. Celestra (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Militia and slave control
SMP0328 should explain his recent revert with the edit summary "Referring to "slave control" places the 2A in a terrible light & that violates NPOV; " 

It is not at all obvious that WP:NPOV requires any kind of 'light' either terrible or rosy colored. SMP0328 should explain the apparent lack of policy basis behind his revert. It is extremely well documented in reliable sourcing that a major purpose of the militia system being protected by the founding fathers with the Second Amendment, (especially in the southern colonies) was the commercial necessity for a militia for slave control. Especially, the fear that a federal government might disarmed states militia used for slave control. (See U&M pg 179, plus many others.)

Why exactly should this information be suppressed in the interest of casting a favorable light on the Second Amendment? SMP0328, it appears that you are somehow defending an illusion of a idealized Second Amendment. May I suggest that we simply describe the Second Amendment without regard to illusions. The integral relation of the slave state and militia with the Second Amendment is a key topic to cover in this article, both during the colonial period, and in the run up to the Civil War, and in the aftermath of Civil War throughout the reliable sourcing, slave control was a vital element to the Second Amendment. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not asking for a "rosy" or "idealized" portrayal of the Second Amendment. I'm asking that you not link it with slavery. The Second Amendment was not adopted in order to protect slavery in the United States, it was adopted to protect a right of the People (like the rest of the Bill of Rights). Your reference to the South using their militias to keep slaves in bondage belongs in Militia (United States), not in this article. SMP0328. (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The various reasons given in the article cover a wide swath of various reasons, and it's clearly stated that no particular priority is given to any, and in no particular order of priority. The issue of slave control is, according to a number of reliable sources, among the reasons for the second amendment. No need to whitewash or suppress it. Therefore, I'm replacing the reliably sourced material. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To put some perspective on this, in broad terms based on what I have read in reliable sourcing, the Bill of Rights (including the Second Amendment) was added at the insistence of the Anti-Federalists after their concerns that the newly drafted Constitution didn't provide adequate protections of rights against federal infringement. Generally, northern colonies were Federalist and southern colonies were Anti-Federalist. It is an important aspect of the Second Amendment history that the predominant slave interests of the south wanted protection of their militias against federal infringement. The southern colonial and state slave patrol militias were a very important aspect of the reason in the minds of the founding fathers for drafting the 2A. See this tangible example of a militia slave patrol roster, in 1826. The militia based slave patrols in the southern colonies were active for over two centuries, from 1700 through the Reconstruction. See also the book Slave patrols by Sally E. Hadden; Harvard University Press, 2001 ISBN 9780674004702 SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * C'mon, guys! The list is a list of purposes for a right to (bear) arms. The debated text suggests that people viewed that right as important for slave control. That is not what the source says; that is synthesis. The source says, taking SB at his word, that the militias (already on the list) were used, to some degree, for slave control. The debated text should obviously be removed. Celestra (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Carl Bogus believes the Second Amendment was strictly for the preservation of slavery in the South. In the article SaltyBoatr cites, Bogus wrote:
 * "The Second Amendment was not enacted to provide a check on government tyranny; rather, it was written to assure the Southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by using its newly acquired constitutional authority over the militia to disarm the state militia and thereby destroy the South’s principal instrument of slave control. Source"
 * This is clearly a fringe theory, because this goes against any mainstream interpretation as to why the amendment was adopted. Pursuant to policy, a fringe theory can not be added to an article if the sourcing only comes from its promoters. The reference to "slave control" should be removed for being a fringe theory. SMP0328. (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Looking at the multiple sourcing I see that it is has been published in many places including two well respected university publishing houses and one top law review journal, this is not a fringe theory. The single example of 'opposition' you cite is nothing more than an opinion editorial by a well known gun advocate, published in an well known conservative opinion editorial magazine. More, the Kopel criticism is logically fallacious, making a statement that he objects to the premise that the reason was entirely slave control. (Implicitly, Kopel acknowledges that it was partially for slave control.) This is fallacious reasoning because I don't see that Law Professor Bogus argues that slave control was the entire reason for the Second Amendment. Kopel props up a straw man of his own making and and knocks is down. The purpose for militia in society was diverse and Professor Bogus observes and makes a compelling argument that in Virgina, slave control was an important role of the militia. His observation of the choice of wording "security of a free state" versus "defense of a free state" is notable. The concept of security was very much on the colonial mindset with the Dutch Berbice Slave Uprising experience and the fomenting of the French Haitian Revolution being well known domestic threat to the security of the USA state. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your interpretation of Kopel's article is nothing more than OR. The "slave control" theory is, in part, based on the belief of its adherents that the Second Amendment only deals with State militias. That theory is now on the fringe. All Supreme Court Justices have rejected it and every poll has shown a majority of Americans rejecting the "militia" based theory. On that grounds, all "slave control" material should be removed. SMP0328. (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Slow down please, and separate your personal opinion from what we read in reliable sourcing. It is hardly interpretation to literally read Dave Kopel's words which are: "Bogus argues that the Second Amendment was entirely the creation of southerners who wanted strong militias to suppress slave revolts". Kopel is disputing that the 2A was "entirely" intended to suppress slave revolts. No one, including Professor Bogus, asserts "entirely"; hence Dave Kopel is disputing a straw man. Also, the 5-4 SCOTUS Heller decision is hardly "All Supreme Court Justices have rejected", as you falsely assert. Further, you falsely assert using your personal opinion the the current precedent has "individual" right replacing "militia" right. The reality is that the newly found "individual right" is in addition to the long standing "militia" based right, see the 2008 court ruling US v. Whisnant: "Pursuant to the Heller decision it is clear that there are two specific types of rights protected by the United States Constitution.". SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The current phrasing suffers from a "did you stop beating your wife?" problem. It suggests that Kopel agrees that slave control was a significant purpose, just not the entire purpose. A better phrasing would be "Dave Kopel challenged the claim he ascribed to Bogus that the Second Amendment was adopted entirely for the purpose of 'slave control.'" But I think we are discussing details. You are quoting a defense attorney, not a ruling, but what he says is reasonable. The two major viewpoints are militia and individual rights. Setting aside our personal views and merely examining the various views people hold, slave control as a purpose giving background to the second amendment is out on the fringe. It clutters the list that should include enabling a militia (common defense), and self-defense. Adding 'deterence of undemocratic government' or 'law-enforcement' (common defense at a lesser scale) might be worth discussing. The current paragraph, though, in a synthetic mess; equating the right with the militia and blurring the purposes of a militia into the purposes of the right. Celestra (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The wording should be no more and no less ambiguous than the wording used by Dave Kopel. Kopel is a clever lawyer, so I presume that he deliberately chose the ambiguous wording and we can't presume that he suggests anything other than what he wrote. That said, Celestra's proposed sentence achieves this goal better, I have just inserted it. I question whether we should simply stay away from opinion editorials written by issue advocates, and instead favor reliable sources with vetting, like those published by well respected publishing houses such as university presses. It is important to include the major viewpoints, and the militia based viewpoint is one. We cannot cover the militia viewpoint fairly unless we describe what functions the militia served in the 1780's and among the anti-federalist colonies a primary function of the militia was slave control. I object to the Minuteman statue photo in this article section which creates the false illusion that the New England militia model was the model among the Anti-federalists as the Anti-federalists were the driving force behind the 2A. Therefore the southern colonial experience with militias is more important in this context that New England experience. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have provided distinct sourcing claiming Carl Bogus claims the Second Amendment was adopted to prevent slave insurrections. One of the sources is Dave Kopel, who disagrees with Carl Bogus. The other is from the Violence Policy Center, which agrees with Bogus. Both reach the same conclusion regarding Bogus's meaning, including Kopel providing where in Bogus's article Bogus claims that protecting slavery was the only reason for the Second Amendment. If SaltyBoatr disagrees with this interpretation of Bogus's article, he must provide RS before editing the article in this regard.


 * As for staying away from "advocates", an agreed upon definition of that word must be reached first. SMP0328. (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The section under discussion here is titled "Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution". It's clear from several RSs that slave control was among the motivations for the RTBA and state militias. Several RSs are provided in support of this proposition in the article. The article text clearly states that the motivations are presented in no particular order of priority, nor does it imply that any of them were or were not taken as the sole reason for the RTBA or for state militias. That ought be the end of it as far as we're concerned here, and let the academics continue to debate how strong or central a motivation it was. It might also deserve note here that gun control laws were, according to RSs, passed and enforced w.r.t. forbidding possession of arms by non-whites, while the right to bear arms was advocated as an innate right for whites. The reasons for this are quite plain even on the face of it, and get even more compelling when one looks at the evidence in greater depth-- although this is well beyond the scope of the issue currently being discussed w.r.t. this article. The only relevant point for our purposes here is that for some states in the Colonial period prior to consideration, drafting, and ratification of the Second Amendment, control of the slave population was among in the various motivations for taking as granted the right to bear arms and/or for the existence of state militias. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * While I still believe the "slave control" claim is a fringe theory, I believe we have reached a satisfactory place. The article now provides both sides of the "slave control" claim. Anyone reading the article will be provided with a way to read Carl Bogus's POV and Dave Kopel's POV. The reader can then decide which one he finds more persuasive. SMP0328. (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable to me based on what I've read thus far, starting from Cottrol and Diamond through Carl Bogus and his critics including, notably, Dave Kopel of the Cato Institute. All seem to accept that the RTBA and state militias were, at least among the slave states, deemed a necessary tool in the then-current arsenal of techniques of slave control. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

David Hardy's linkage
As long as we are on topic of synthesis, lets also discuss the assertion that David Hardy's linkage of "The right to arms" is on topic in a Second Amendment article. The casual separation of "bear" from "arms" is a POV push. The role of colonial militia, and the issue of Anti-Federalist slave control militia is on topic in reliable sourcing, see also the discussion of the slave control militias relative to the debate surrounding the Second Amendment by Carl Bogus pgs 67-69 and pgs 239-240 ISBN 9781565846999. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was trying to be inclusive by including "bear" parenthetically. I think a casual reader would not sense the fine distinction you see when you read "right to arms", but I recognize that you see and comment on that distinction. Let's focus. This is the introductory paragraph to a section giving the reader some feel for the times in which the Second Amendment was drafted. It needs to introduce the content in the section; it is not a battlefield for pushing POV. If you feel that there is anything about the paragraph that is pushing a POV, say so. I'll start: I find the current text, including the "and/or" and four additional purposes, to be moving away from the goal for an introductory paragraph. Do you see a different goal for the paragraph? Do you think that this paragraph is presented in an NPOV manner? We are supposed to capture conflict, not participate in it. Celestra (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

2nd Amendment as applied to states and the District
RE this edit with the edit summary "Reverted good faith edits - DC is not a State & the 2A has not been incorporated": The Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, while not going so far as to incorporate the 2nd Amendment under the incorporation doctrine (i.e., via the 14th Amendment-- neither the appellants nor the appellees chose to raise the issue of the incorporation doctrine in that case), nonetheless made clear that its ruling applied to states and the District. Indeed the case was in the first place about the laws of a "state" (of which the District of Columbia has the same status as far as Constitutional and Supreme Court jurisdiction). The ruling is unambiguous in its applicability to the states and the District despite the quite significant legal grey area regarding the 1st and 2nd Amendments w.r.t. the incorporation doctrine. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The District of Columbia is not a State, nor is it part of any State. The Second Amendment has not been applied to the States (including their local governments). I recommend you read NRA v. Chicago and Nordyke v. King, in addition to the D.C. article. Those cases deal with the incorporation issue. IMO, the Supreme Court will hear a case dealing with whether the Second Amendment should be incorporated. However, it has not yet done so. Heller did not rule on this issue, because D.C. is not a State or a locality thereof and so incorporation wasn't relevant to that case. I hope I've clarified things for you. SMP0328. (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The confusion is understandable. The Supreme Court is presently somewhat evasive of the incorporation-doctrine issue for reasons that appear to have much to do with an important legal principle known as stare decisis. But you're certainly not alone in the confusion about the District's status w.r.t. the U.S. legal term of art "states" as applied to constitutional issues. While the Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, evaded the the incorporation-doctrine issue whether the 2nd Amendment strictly applies to the states, it is longstanding precedent (the case line I can't recall at the moment nor do I presently have the time to look it up) that all Constitutional issues that apply to states apply equally to the states and to all organized incorporated territories (of which the District of Columbia is the only current territory having this status). One thing is clear-- absent some radical deviation from stare decisis in the future w.r.t. the District having the same standing as states on U.S. Constitutional issues, whatever goes for the District goes for the states, and whatever goes for the states goes for the District. That's the long-standing rule at present. If there's any doubt, perhaps start by replacing the words "or the District of Columbia" in the lead of this WP article, then examine it from there, because it's quite clear that the Supreme Court was ruling on a state/local issue within the US, and not just the federal gov't. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Could editors please avoid using this talk page to discuss their ideas about their personal theories? It clutters the discussion, which should focus instead on what we read in reliable sourcing and the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be civil. They are discussing the article. They have a difference of opinion over a change to the article. They are discussing the basis for their positions to reach an agreement on the content change.
 * Kenosis, you may find that it isn't helpful to assume a superior tone as you did above. SMP isn't confused; he holds a different opinion. I happen to share that opinion and I think reading the cases he referenced would lead most people to agree; areas under direct control of the federal government are covered directly by the second amendment, but the states are only covered by way of incorporation, which was not expressed in Heller. Do you have any facts that contradict that? Celestra (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am being civil. Perhaps this could be more constructive if we were to discuss "this source says this, and that source says that". I see little good that can come from discussions of "I think differently than you." or "I believe something." Avoiding arguments about disagreement of personal opinion will improve the civility of this talk page too. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Except for the sentence starting with "IMO", my comment above was simply stating the current status of the law. The article, with reliable sourcing, expresses the applicable cases. Kenosis is strictly stating his opinion. The Supreme Court wasn't being "evasive" regarding incorporation in Heller; that issue wasn't before the Court. As for adding "or the District of Columbia" to the Introduction, similar wording is already in there. So the Introduction already is clear that, at least for purposes of this article, "federal government" includes D.C. SMP0328. (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Introduction
We have a very lengthy article on a 200 year old amendment, that includes the perspective of the American Bar Association in the intro. I think this mistakenly elevates the POV of this group above the appropriate level of emphasis (should we include the viewpoint of the NRA on the 2nd Amendment, or other groups? The NRA doesn't think the Amendment II is controversial.) I'd rather strike mention of the ABA entirely. Thoughts? Kaisershatner (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the reference to the ABA is to show that there are many different viewpoints on the Second Amendment. Please note that the ABA's viewpoint on what the amendment means is not mentioned. Finally, the Introduction was reached via consensus, so don't add, subtract, or otherwise make changes, to it without first reaching a consensus on this talk page. SMP0328. (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I view the paraphrase of the ABA quote as a WP:SYN violation. Read their quote, they actually don't say "most controversial", and they instead say "less agreement, more misinformation, and less understanding" which does not equal "most controversial". The key thing I draw from the ABA quote is the amount of modern misunderstanding, not the amount of controversy. I favor inclusion in the intro, because this modern misunderstanding is a huge elephant in the room, but I object to the improper characterization of this modern 2A phenomena as harmless simple controversy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I also didn't view it as important, so I have removed that reference. As for the addition of that addition paragraph, I'm against that. The Introduction of an article is supposed to be a short summary of that article. The proposed additional paragraph is not necessary to that summary. Why should that paragraph, which is already in another part of the article, be copy and pasted to the Introduction? Didn't we have a consensus for what should be in the Introduction? SMP0328. (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Misunderstood" implies that there is an objective truth which some (or many) people don't understand. "Controversial" has a more NPOV implication that different groups have different subjective views about the subject. The ABA quote's "less agreement" can be expressed as "more controversy", and "most controversial" or "one of the most controversial" is a more neutral way to describe the dispute without participating in it, as required by WP:NPOV. Please return to the earlier wording. Celestra (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The ABA actually is saying that there is a lack of understanding of the 2A. This is documented elsewhere, see Uviller & Merkel pg 13, which describes Warren E. Burger's assessment of special interest groups advocating 2A disinformation amounting to fraud. It is neutral to assert that reliable sources describe the modern perceptions of the 2A as misunderstood, or under the effect of advocacy work amounting to fraud. This modern disinformation and misunderstanding is verifiable and documented in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How about something like "much disagreement"? That accurately expresses what the ABA said without the use of loaded words like "misunderstood" (implying the article will be giving the correct understanding) or "controversial" (connoting hostility among the parties). SMP0328. (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Except, that 'disinformation and misunderstanding' are verifiable in reliable sourcing. This point is very important. As a mater of reality, for those people whose preconceptions have come from disinformation found at non-reliable sourcing, the article probably does give a more 'correct' (more reliable) understanding. Face it, as the strict constructionist Warren E. Burger explained, there is a lot of people that hold opinions about the 2A learned from fraudulent non-reliable sources. This goes far beyond simple disagreement and the word disagreement does not convey the problem with rampant disinformation peculiar to the 2A in the last several decades. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a technique popular among some groups of dismissing opposing views. Justice Burger's imprudent remarks during that interview fall in that category. As time has come to show, many reasonable, educated people read an individual right in the Second Amendment and now a majority of the court hold that opinion. That doesn't invalidate the collective right viewpoint any more than Miller had invalidated the individual right viewpoint. I'm fine with "There is much disagreement", but "misunderstood" has exactly the implication SMP points out. We can not be NPOV and provide the one true understanding. Any source that claims that there is only one reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment is POV and not useful here. Celestra (talk) 05:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The ABA is not claiming there is only one reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment. The challenge is to give coverage to the various interpretations based on reliable sourcing, but we also must acknowledge that there are also other common interpretations which are widely held which are based on non-reliable sourcing. This modern disinformation campaign and resultant misunderstanding is verifiable and documented in reliable sourcing. It seems that your argument is WP:JDLI. Could you rephrase with source based reasoning? The concept that the 2A is commonly misunderstood is important to convey and it is well sourced. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I never made any such claim about the ABA. I was responding to your comments about 'disinformation and misunderstanding' being well documented in 'reliable' sourcing. In my experience, tracts which advocate a particular POV frequently disparage other viewpoints rather than respond to the differences fairly. More neutral, scholarly works rarely do. We should avoid using sources that provide an incomplete view of the subject. The first reference has a neutral summary which is a little out of date, but otherwise valid. Does this align with your "correct understanding"? Can you perhaps provide an example of a commonly held misunderstanding of the 2A which this article would help correct? If not, let's return to 'controversial', which is used at the end of the "less agreement..." quote, or to a neutral 'much disagreement'. Celestra (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Still, "misunderstanding" is verifiable and documented in reliable sourcing. The gpoaccess.gov 2A summary you point to is excellent. The misunderstandings are easy to see, for instance here. One specific example is even in a post-Heller individual rights viewpoint, virtually all gun control legislation is constitutional. Yet a commonly held misunderstanding runs otherwise. You keep suggesting the wording that doesn't match what the source says. Lets stick with what the source says. Here is another possible wording direct quote from the source: "there is considerable confusion and misunderstanding about the meaning of the Second Amendment". SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't question the ABA being a reliable source, but having the article imply that there is a correct understanding of the Second Amendment violates NPOV. The article should, and does, reflect many viewpoints about the Second Amendment, but the article should not be showing a preference for any of those viewpoints. Claiming any of those viewpoints come from people who "misunderstood" the amendment shows such a preference. SMP0328. (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The misunderstanding is not with any of the viewpoints in the article. The misunderstanding involves non-reliable sourced viewpoints outside the article, witness some of these Liberty Letters to the editor filled with 2A misunderstandings. Neither is the ABA saying that there is one correct understanding. They are just saying there is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding. The fact that there is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding is verifiable, and well sourced. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you be specific? I have no interest in reading some message boards trying to guess. Celestra (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither do I. Suffice it that I have identified two reliable sources as the existence of "confusion and misunderstanding" and one as to "fraud", that is plenty of sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Then it should be a simple thing to state the nature of the viewpoint which is held due to "confusion and misunderstanding". The statement we are discussing is "...among the most misunderstood...". We should be able to say from our understanding of the source what it is that is misunderstood. Otherwise, we are picking up words from some source and presenting them for our own purposes, which is synthesis. Given that this is the lede and we are merely introducing the article, saying 'controversial' prepared the reader for the content that followed. I do not feel that 'misunderstood' does so. I would be fine changing it to something else if 'controversial' is agreed to have a hostile connotation, but that word should capture the concept of multiple valid viewpoints and not simply imply some number of invalid viewpoints, unless we add a discussion of those invalid viewpoints to the article. Celestra (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Simpler still for you to read the source, see pages 286-295, in the Robert Cottrol book ISBN 9780815316664. It is too much to transcribe here, but the gist of the problem is revisionist history. This problem is more than a lack of understanding, it includes misinformation. Your choice of "controversial" doesn't accurately reflect the source, when the source says "misinformation". Lets stick with sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How about keeping the word "misunderstood", but adding a short clarification explaining that the article neither the ABA nor this article are professing what is supposed to be correct understanding? SMP0328. (talk) 02:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is already covered by WP:NOTTRUTH. It is enough to stick with verifiable sources.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Misunderstood' is your interpretation of "less understanding". 'Controversial' is included in the quote from the source. 'Controversial' actually predates the source, since it was added originally to capture the nature of the remainder of the article in an NPOV manner. Later adding a source for this obviously valid summary of all of the sources seemed unnecessary, but harmless. The current change moves away from summarizing the article. Without specifics about how this applies to the article, we can't reach an informed consensus to make the change. The burden is on the editor making the change to support that change. After three days, I don't feel that that burden has been met. I am changing to SMPs suggested compromise of "more disagreement" until we finish workiing this out. Celestra (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(indent) I have a solution that would make Occam proud: delete the ABA quotation. It serves mainly as a focal point for a long talk page argument, and adds little to the article. Must we inform the reader immediately that the 2nd Amendment is considered by the ABA to be misunderstood, or controversial, or whatever? Let the reader form their own opinion. Kaisershatner (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That would help in several ways, but defeats the key purpose of the lede, which is to summarize the article. The first sentence, without the painful level of detail, lets the user know which amendment we are covering in the article. The second sentence touches on the history. This sentence summarizes the bulk of the article, which covers the conflict of viewpoints. The new sentence presents a claim by Saul Cornell that there was less interest in this issue before the mid-1800s, which doesn't seem to summarize any portion. The last sentence has been improved to provide a summary of the SCOTUS section. I would be fine with removing this sentence if we can replace it with something that provides a better summary. Celestra (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

section break

 * Dear SMP0328, in the first instance, I am happy to discuss changes to the article on the talk page. In the second, consensus changes sometimes. Finally, if you review WP:LEAD and Summary style, you will see that this (enormous) article on the 2A utterly fails to have an introduction of appropriate length that summarizes the article and can stand on its own as a summary of the topic. The article includes large sections on the history, drafting, and case law pertaining to the 2nd Amendment. The intro does not make any mention of these. Kaisershatner (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Kaisershatner makes a valid point that the length of the intro is short per WP:LEAD standards. SMP0328 also makes a good point that the status quo intro has been painstakingly negotiated, and I think is kept short as a compromise to keep the peace around here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I know you mean well Kaisershatner, but, as SaltyBoatr pointed out, the Introduction was created through a large amount of negotiation. The Introduction should not be changed, except for very minor wording tweaks that don't change the substantive meaning of any of the Introduction. SMP0328. (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe attempting to improve this article is a waste of time, but would you consider this diff and tell me why you prefer the version that cut out (1) origin of the Amendment (2) history of the Amendment including the fact that "controversy" is a modern development, and (3) relevant legal cases beyond Heller, which has its own whole intro paragraph? It's hard for me to see where my paragraph fails to satisfy NPOV or how it makes the introduction worse than the current one. Kaisershatner (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Kaisershatner in this regard, and favor an attempt to follow WP:LEAD guidelines more closely. The over-emphasis on Heller is an artifact of the attention given to that case last year, and seems disproportionate now. As a real world practical matter, Cruikshank seems to carry the most weight, and Heller has little tangible effect. This article exists in a particularly difficult editing environment, an effect of editor bias which is difficult to avoid. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks- I am in fact sensitive to the challenges of a difficult editing environment; it is a point well-taken. In this vein, I would contend that mentioning the origin of the wording of the 2A (Mason) and the long history of relative legal quiet (1800-1900) are illuminating to the uninformed reader, objectively true, and don't cut one way or another vis-a-vis anyone's opinion on gun control. To me that para seems politically neutral, though of course, I wrote it. :) Kaisershatner (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Put it back in, I support you. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How about we reach a consensus before any change is made? I propose replacing the Heller reference in the Introduction and adding a couple of sentences covering what's in the article. No copy and paste jobs. That would provide the "concise" summary required by Lead section. SMP0328. (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you start this process by revising your recent wholesale revert to be an incremental revert? SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Added sentence on long non-controversial history to intro. Removed it from article body so it won't be duplicated (although I think duplicated sentences are perfectly fine). Kaisershatner (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have restored that material to the article body. No rule against having it in both places. SMP0328. (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! That's how I preferred it as well. Kaisershatner (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

States resisting federal gun control laws
Montana looks like it has started a trend with its Montana Firearms Freedom Act. This Act states that guns, ammo, and gun accessories, manufactured in Montana and used in Montana are not subject to any federal gun laws. Tennessee has passed a similar act. Similar acts have been introduced in the legislatures of Alaska, Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Minnesota and Michigan but not yet passed. Legislators in 19 other states have indicated that they will introduce similar language soon or when their legislatures next convene.

Looks like over half the states are now resisting federal attempts to disarm the citizenry.141.154.15.8 (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This sounds like it belongs in articles such Gun politics in the United States, Federalism in the United States, Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Nullification (U.S. Constitution). The reason it doesn't belong in this article is that the States passing these laws are doing so on federalism grounds, rather than based on the Second Amendment. SMP0328. (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It sounds like a backlash against infringement of the right to keep and bear arms!68.163.103.192 (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

restriction to federal government in first sentence?
I was surprised to find that the very first sentence states that the amendment restricts only the federal government. The first sentence should define the subject matter of the article, not state a specific contingent fact about it. So I think this would be inappropriate even if there were very little controversy about this fact. In addition, there is considerable controversy about this fact, as evidenced e.g. by Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights) and by the fact that the Supreme Court just accepted a case (McDonald v. Chicago) that wouldn't make any sense if it were an undisputed fact that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states. So I think this should be taken out of the first sentence, perhaps even out of the introduction, and treated not as a fact but as a view upheld by previous Supreme Court decisions but currently under review and dispute. (By the way, I'm European and very much in favour of restrictive gun laws; I'm not writing this out of personal bias.) Joriki (talk) 05:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be in favor of removing those details from the lede as well. It is technically accurate to say that this amendment only applies to the federal goverment even if the supreme court decides that it applies to the states through the fourteenth amendment, but that is a level of detail that doesn't need to be in the lede and can be taken as slightly biased. Better to step back toward the old lede which ended the sentence after 'keep and bear arms'. I was in there removing an edit that made it seem that the details included state government, which isn't accurate at that level of detail and could be taken as biased the other way. I'll go ahead and make the change, but I expect it will be reverted fairly quickly. Celestra (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I seems more then a bit two faced for the states to require that something (such as the right to arms) to be considered "a right" that is not to be infringed, and then opine that the states themselves can infringe that right. By the mere fact that the states require something to be "a right" bars the states from infringing that right.98.118.13.18 (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit
The recent insertion of text from a opaque website appears to flatly fail the WP:V standards, especially for a high profile article at Wikipedia. Who is the publisher of this website, and what is their reputation for fact checking standards? SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words, you have no evidence that the material I added is false or that the source I provided is untrustworthy. How do you know if any particular website does fact checking. If that's the standard, almost every source in Wikipedia would have to be removed. I'm restoring that material and don't remove it again, unless there's a consensus for the proposition that my source is unreliable. SMP0328. (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is a dispute about this web site as a reliable source, maybe we should discuss it at WP:RSN. I don't see anything about the site that would cause me to doubt the accuracy of the facts presented. Like most of our sources, it has a fairly strong POV, so conclusions would need to be presented neutrally with alternative conclusions. Celestra (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That website seems to be run by the NRA-ILA, which has the explicitly declared purpose of advancing their lobbying agenda. We should stick to policy that: Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. How about finding a book, or something, fact checked by a third party? SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The NRA can be a reliable source, just like the Brady Campaign. Having a viewpoint on a subject does not prevent a party from being a reliable source on that subject. This is especially true on Constitutional and controversial issues, because a neutral party likely doesn't exist. What party doesn't have a viewpoint on abortion? None. That doesn't mean there are no reliable sources for that issue. NPOV doesn't require the absence of viewpoints. SMP0328. (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the publisher for that website isn't disclosed. The "contact us" email points to an NRA-ILA email address.  The policy here is WP:V, and the burden of proof is on you, the editor inserting the text.  I ask again, please identify the publisher for your reference.  And, do they have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy as is required by our policy.  I dispute that this source can be anonymous and be considered to be reliable per WP:V policy.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the statement in the article that has been asserted by SMP0328, e.g. here: "However, many other ratification conventions expressed a desire that the Constitution be amended in order to prohibit the federal government from preventing any person to peacefully bear arms. " Let's have a bit of a closer look at the source used to justify this statement. Firstly, it's plainly an advocate of arms-rights pushing the POV that the "founding fathers" wanted the possession of firearms to be protected as an individual right as well as a state's right. Secondly, taken as a whole it's not an ideal source in that it's a hodgepodge of several states' bills (read that: "proposed legislation" ), bills of rights, proposed bills of rights, minority statements of state constitutional conventions, etc.. In other words, while we might be able to tentatively assume the statements in this source are probably true, they're of widely varying original context, so it can be highly misleading if not used very carefully. And thirdly, the statement in the article that "however, many other ratification conventions expressed a desire that the Constitution be amended in order to prohibit the federal government from preventing any person to peacefully bear arms" is misleading even with reference to what's given in the source. ..... Therefore, I'm removing it until and unless suitable wording is used in the article to properly reflect what's provided in this source. I suggest that one example of such wording might possibly be, e.g., "However, several states included "right to bear arms" provisions in their respective state bill of rights ([name specific states with citation(s)])". ... Kenosis (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, though we should be careful. The topic of the respective states bills of rights belongs elsewhere than this federal article.  The greater topic of right to bear arms is also not synonymous with the federal 2A.  It is a logical fallacy to say that because some states did this, therefore the federal 2A means "possession of firearms therefor protects an individual right".  SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's what the Constitution of New York of 1777 has to say about this issue, especially "it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it". "And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service. That all such of the inhabitants of this State being of the people called Quakers as, from scruples of conscience, may be averse to the bearing of arms, be therefrom excused by the legislature; and do pay to the State such sums of money, in lieu of their personal service, as the same; may, in the judgment of the legislature, be worth. And that a proper magazine of warlike stores, proportionate to the number of inhabitants, be, forever hereafter, at the expense of this State, and by acts of the legislature, established, maintained, and continued in every county in this State."98.118.22.23 (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The Constitution of New York has to say about "this issue"??? No, you seem to be confusing the situation in just one state as if it is the same thing as the topic of this article.  New York in 1777 was not speaking about the federal 2A at all.  Mixing the two is wrong.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * MY issue is with Cornell and his ilk, who are either a bunch of paid propagandists (and likely domestic enemies of the US Constitution), or just plain old idiots and their "cited" comment that the minority report" at the Penn Constitutional Convention was "hastily written". The FACT that most if not all of the original 13 colonies had some form of protection written into their Bills Of Rights shows that this thinking was NOT hastily written and was in fact the mainstream thinking of the time.98.118.22.23 (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The Pennsylvania Constitution has the most common wording of the time for the right to keep and bear arms and is based on the wording from the Virginia Declaration of Rights


 * From the Penn Constitution of 1776: XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


 * The Current Penn Constitution states: Section 21 . Right to Bear Arms - The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.98.118.22.23 (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Benjamin Franklin (the most famous of the Penn Founding Fathers) on democracy and arms

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" 98.118.22.23 (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am adding back what was removed
The Conditions of the militia act are factual and relevant. Please justify its removal. Thedeparted123 (talk) 05:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please rephrase your idea by basing it on reliable sourcing found in well respected third party publications with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I would like a chance to read and confirm the sourcing for your ideas. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason for my removal of the new material here was that Tench Coxe's commentary (writing pseudonymously as "A Pennsylvanian") is not scholarly commentary but rather was anti-Federalist political advocacy published in the immediate wake of the Bill of Rights. That Eugene W. Hickock says it was the most complete exposition on the Bill of Rights in the ratification period doesn't make it scholarly commentary. Perhaps it has a place in the article, though it should be noted that Coxe wasn't by any stretch of imagination the only one who commented in writing at the time. ..... I apologize that the material about the Militia Act of 1792 got caught up in my removal. However, this version (which you submitted in successive edits logged in as User:Thedeparted123) is a concise and well written observation about the Militia Act and its demands on the citizenry of the time, placed in a section which deals with exactly this issue. I left it as I found it today except for a spelling correction. I hope you consider this reasonable. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I now see that SaltyBoatr has removed it here for lack of reliable sourcing. Personally I'd support replacing it, if cited to a more reliable source. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand removing Coxe's commentary. That is fine. I have added back the additional militia information and have cited it to a better source. Thanks for the spelling corrections.Thedeparted123 (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I just removed the recently added sentence about the New Hampshire Constitution from the section: The meaning of "bear arms". The New Hampshire constitution doesn't even use the term "bear arms", therefore no relevance. I would support a neutral coverage of the topic that a minority of the states and a minority of public opinion reads a right of revolution into the Second Amendment, but this doesn't have bearing on "The meaning of "bear arms" section of this article. Also, I have removed the sentence talking about the New Mexico Constitution drafted in 1911. Perhaps that sentence belongs in the New Mexico article, but I see no relevance of something that occurred in 1911 to this article about the 2A which was drafted in 1789. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I just restored the material you deleted. The NH reference is to the condition NH placed for ratification of the Constitution. Can you see the connections between "being disARMED" ad the right to "keep and bear ARMS"? The reference to the New Mexico Constitution is to show that the "hastily written" language was emulated 130 years after the fact and thus had quite a bit of staying power. Please advise why the comment "hastily written" has more relevance to this article then the fact that New Mexico emulated that supposedly "hastily written" language 130 years afterwords?


 * I also looked at the references and could not readily identify that those authors did in fact state that the language was more "hastily written" then anything else written during the Penn Convention. How about we include a comment that the ratification by Penn was done in haste without much thought? Would you like that? It's as true a comment as the "hastily written" comment currently showing in the article.98.118.22.23 (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * RE:Your objection that the NH Constitution does not even use the phrase "to bear arms", it does in fact do so, forbidding anyone from being compelled to "bear arms". XIII. No person who is conscientiously scrupulous about the lawfulness of bearing arms, shall be compelled thereto, provided he will pay an equivalent. 98.118.22.23 (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I see no connection between 'disarmed' and "bear arms", with the later having almost entirely a military service connotation in the 18th Century. There are multiple reliable sources cited to that effect in the article. Your inclusion of the 1911 New Mexico Constitution seem entirely your own original idea trying to make a case for your personal opinion, and your explanation given here lacks any mention of reliable sourcing. It should be deleted per WP:NOR policy. The words "hastily written" is taken nearly verbatim from the U&M book published by Duke University Press, see page 83 towards the bottom of the page.SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Upon checking, the date of the minority report was AFTER the end of the Convention and a good portion of it was composed of proposed amendments to the Constitution. How does that make this language "hastily written" and why are several authors cited as stating that this language was "hastily written when only ONE (assuming your reference is correct) author said so? It seems to me that something written after the Convention is LESS "hastily written" then something written DURING the Convention. Looks like someone on this board is a willing to "push the envelope" where truth is concerned. BTW was it you who added that "hastily written" comment or someone else?98.118.22.23 (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * SaltyBoatr, is there any wording under which you would not have an objection to the reference to the NM State Constitution? I'm not taking a side; just trying to see if compromise is possible. SMP0328. (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess the problem I have with this is the topic of this article is the federal Second Amendment. There is a separate article about the Right to keep and bear arms, perhaps the NM discussion belongs there. Or, it could be put in the Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state) article. Discussion of the various versions of this right, found in various constitutions, belongs in other articles about those other various constitutions. It would be just wrong to put in coverage of the 50 different state constitutions into this articles, why stop at just New Mexico? No, the 1911 New Mexico constitution is plainly off topic in an article about the 1789 amendment to the federal constitution. What is the connection? It appears that the anonIP editor is confused about the topic of this article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the Penn Constitution (see below) which has identical language to the NM Constitution and which looks to be the direct source of that"hastily written" language also out of bounds?98.118.22.23 (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that the first part of the "hastily written" quote from the Penn minority report comes straight out of the Penn Constitution of 1776, which is also quoted in the Meaning of "bear arms" portion of the article. How can a direct copy of the language of the Penn Constitution written some 10 years before the debate in question be "hastily written"?


 * The Constitution is quoted as The people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state.


 * While the minority report is quoted as [T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed.


 * Something reeks in Denmark!98.118.22.23 (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Since SaltyBoatr deleted the reference to the Penn Constitution language, it does seem that he has an issue with it. Perhaps he belIeves that the Penn Constitution was also "hastily written".98.118.22.23 (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Upon further review I noticed that the later portion of that "hastily written" proposed amendment comes directly from the Virginia Declaration of Rights and is language quoted in most of the early constitutions and is sill used in some state constitutions to this day.

The Penn Constitution states The people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state

The Declaration of Rights states That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.

The hastily written amendment states That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.

The first part come straight from the Penn Constitution, and last part comes straight out of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Hardly what ANYONE (except someone with an agenda to push) would describe as "hastily written". The language in that proposed amendment was the standard boilerplate language of the time.71.184.177.11 (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

deleting fringe extremist sources.
The blog run by Jon Roland as part of the the fringe and extremist Texas Consitutional Militia, named "www.constitution.org", lacks any visible reliable publication process and therefore fails to meet WP:V policy standards. The primary documents found at his website all are available elsewhere in the public domain. Per policy we should avoid using fringe sources, especially when more reliable public domain sources exist. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So why is Cornell, who is funded by the gun control nuts, used as the biggest source of quotes in the article, by a factor of two or three?98.118.22.23 (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Because he's published.150.199.21.127 (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So is the NRA - and I bet anything connected with them gets deleted from this article. Something about being "biased". Why is Cornell, who is in the pay of Obama's former employer (the Joyce Fundation) not treated the same way? see here for one connection - http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/JoyceCornellHeller.pdf Joyce made a $400,000 grant to Ohio state to fund Cornell's Second Amendment Research Center. Ohio State was aware that the money, and the center, were to be used to influence future Supreme Court rulings.


 * Cornell, along with Rakove and others, helped write the Joyce Foundation brief to the Supreme Court for Heller. http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290tsajackn.rakove.pdf - That brief contains all the major "scholars" (using the term loosely as the correct word would be PROPAGANDASTS) in the Joyce Foundation stable. Carl Bogus is a major Joyce Foundation player.


 * Joyce Foundation agenda and playbook is described here http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-the-attempt-to-destroy-the-second-amendment/

During Obama’s tenure, the Joyce Foundation board planned and implemented a program targeting the Supreme Court. The work began five years into Obama’s directorship, when the Foundation had experience in turning its millions into anti-gun “grassroots” organizations, but none at converting cash into legal scholarship.

The plan’s objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.

Joyce’s directors found a vulnerable point. When judges cannot rely upon past decisions, they sometimes turn to law review articles. Law reviews are impartial, and famed for meticulous cite-checking. They are also produced on a shoestring. Authors of articles receive no compensation; editors are law students who work for a tiny stipend.

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.


 * The biased Chicago Kent Law Review issue is used in the article. I've noticed at least one reference. 71.184.177.11 (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad reference for "hastily written" claim
Checked the article by Jack N. Rakove that is used as one of the 3 references for that disparaging remark and I found nothing there about the Minority Report being "hastily written". Reference is listed as "Jack N. Rakove, The Second Amendment: The Highest Stage of Originalism, 76 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 103 (2000)" Others may wish to confirm at the link below

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/RakoveChicago.htm

As an Aside: Rakove seems to e a retarded dufus who can't even count to 3. He states that the minority report contained 2 (as in 1 and then 2)proposed amendments relating to arms and the militia when the correct number of amendments proposed for these issues is 3.

Rakove states in the referenced article

Two of the minority's fifteen proposed amendments bear on the arms and militia issues:

7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of [Page 135] themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power.

8. The inhabitants of the several states shall have liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times, on the lands they hold, and on all other lands in the United States not enclosed, and in like manner to fish in all navigable waters, and others not private property, without being restrained therein by any laws to be passed by the legislature of the United States.[75]

Rakove missed proposed amendment #11 indicating he didn't even read the document he was commenting on. Such a scholar he must be! (This is sarcasm for those not able to recognize it).

11. That the power of organizing, arming and disciplining the militia (the manner of disciplining the militia to be prescribed by Congress) remain with the individual states, and that Congress shall not have authority to call or march any of the militia out of their own state, without the consent of such state, and for such length of time only as such state shall agree.

Original document can be found here http://www.constitution.org/afp/pennmi00.htm71.174.135.148 (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * On a more humorous note: In the above reference Mr.Rakove states "historical operations in the Second Amendment theater of combat are often mounted by campaigners not intimately familiar with the terrain. These are raiders who know what they are looking for, and having found it, they care little about collateral damage to the surrounding countryside that historians better know as context." I wonder if anyone even pointed out to him that he describes himself to a T in that statement - as proof I cite the above example of his "scholarship" where he attempts to reference the Minority Report but doesn't seem to have ever read it. I can with 100% certainty state that Mr. Rakove is NOT "intimately familiar with the terrain" ROTFLMAO! 71.174.135.148 (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I added a reference to a book published by Duke University Press 2002 which describes the minority report as being "written hastily". This now is solidly sourced to very reliable policy standards. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have replaced "hastily written" with the quote SaltyBoatr provided in the source he recently added. That makes more sense than "hastily written", which did not explain why that description was relevant. SMP0328. (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason the quote "hastily written" was included is because someone on this board is a gun control nut and is doing everything he can to get rid of opposing viewpoints, irrespective of the merits of those viewpoints. That person may even be on the payroll of some gun control group, being paid to act a censor for this article.71.184.177.11 (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * SMP - while I would like to thank you for removing the "hastily written" language, I find I can only thank you for the attempt as the language has been restored.71.184.177.11 (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

removal of passage based on source with unclear publication process
I removed the recently added passage based on the blog "revolutionarywararchves.org" which has a very obscure publication process and no apparent reputation for fact checking or accuracy. This source doesn't come close to meeting the high quality source standards WP:V necessary for this high profile article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Rakove is a low quality source (he can't count to 3 - see above ). Do you object to removing material from him? and I thought you had enough shame to crawl under a rock for a bit after your Concord comment above. Looks like I was wrong.71.184.177.11 (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Merkel and Uviller are low quality sources
Unlike Rakove who can at least count to 2, Uviller and Merkel look like they can't get past 1.

The following is now used as a reference as backup to the "hastily written" description and cited to Uviller and Merkel

this "minority report" turns out to be no more than the collected ramblings of a single embittered eccentric who departed the convention in disgust

The minority report was was a statement by 23 members of the Penn Conventions who objected to the Constitution and whose objections were not allowed to be put on the record by the majority. In response those 23 dissenters authored the minority report and had in printed in newspapers. That is a far cry from "the collected ramblings of a single embittered eccentric who departed the convention in disgust"

Like Ravove, Uviller and Merkel don't quite seem to know what they are talking about. As Mr.Rakove states "historical operations in the Second Amendment theater of combat are often mounted by campaigners not intimately familiar with the terrain. These are raiders who know what they are looking for, and having found it, they care little about collateral damage to the surrounding countryside that historians better know as context." Add Merkell and Uviller to the list of those not familiar with the landscape and whose opinions are therefore LOW QUALITY.

Does anyone have an objection to removing LOW QUALITY sources?71.184.177.11 (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

More on Merkel and Uviller

Merkel and Uviller quotes Will here http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/UvillerAndMerkelChicago.htm

Yet this "minority report" turns out, on closer inspection, to reflect no more than the ramblings of a single embittered eccentric who departed the convention in disgust when he was unable to scuttle ratification.[347] As such, the failure of Pennsylvania's one man "minority" merely accentuates the fact that opinion favoring a personal right to arms independent of the militia remained highly marginal in state conventions outside of New Hampshire.

347. See WILLS, supra note 72, at 65-66. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.177.11 (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to misunderstand how Wikipedia determines the quality of sources. See the policy WP:V and the guideline WP:RS.  Higher quality sources are determined more by the reputation of the publisher, and less by the reputation of the author(s).  An important factor is the independence of the publisher, see the essay Third-party sources for an explanation of this.  I can see that based on two references which you have recently given, to the blog of a prominent gun rights advocate www.davekopel.com, and to the website of a famous gun rights advocacy organization www.saf.org, that you might instead benefit from more use of third party sources when doing your research prior to editing at Wikipedia.  Remember, Wikipedia is about what the balance of reliable third party sources say, and not about what your personal opinion may be.   SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do I think that you are spewing bllSh%$t?


 * and in case you missed it, saf was the site the KEPT those articles by Uviller, Merkel and Rakove available for public viewing. Those were the "scholars" YOU referenced. Why do you object to me looking at what they ACTUALLY have to say instead of your cherrypicking of their "scholarship"?71.184.177.11 (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Additionally: If Kopel is so bad why is used as a source with respect to guns and slavery? The following text is now in the article. If Kopel is good enough source for one thing he is likely good enough for another.

Which of these considerations they thought were most important, which of these considerations they were most alarmed about, and the extent to which each of these considerations ultimately found expression in the Second Amendment is disputed. Additionally, Dave Kopel has challenged the claim that the Second Amendment was adopted entirely for the preservation of slavery in the southern states, while acknowledging this unattractive aspect of the southern militia.[33]


 * Looks like you are still blowing something out of your rear end.71.184.177.11 (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I agree with your point about the lack of reliability of Kopel's website for the "preservation of slavery" sentence. Removing that sentence now per WP:V policy.  We do agree on some things and could get along better if we try to find common ground and spend less effort on flinging insults.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That probably puts you into a 3RR violation.

and Can we agree that the second amendment protects the right to "Keep and bear arms"?

or are you going to keep blowing stuff out your rear end? You know little things like disin websites that have the articles from authors YOU referenced. You got something against what YOUR cited authors actually said?71.184.177.11 (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

RE Cherrypicking objection by Kenosis
The Penn Minority report contains 3 propose amendment to the Constitution.

How is referencing all 3 of those proposed amendments cherry picking?

Also how is it cherry picking to point out that the second amendment protects the right to "keep and bear arms" and not just the right to bear arms?71.184.177.11 (talk) 12:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The article already says that the Second Amendment protects the right to "keep and bear arms", prominently in the opening sentence and several places down in the article. Your compliant seems to have zero basis.  The article section to which you refer is giving coverage to a distinct subset of the article topic which is the meaning of the two word term "bear arms".  It is inappropriate to change the title to say something other than what the section is discussing.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is there no subsection discussing the words "to keep" and again I am sorry to see that you don't have enough shame to go hide under a rock for your Concord comment. The first step to recovery is recognizing you have a problem.71.184.177.11 (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would welcome some reliable sourced coverage of the various meanings of "keep" as related to the 2A. Indeed, there is a variation in in the well sourced opinion.  Some sources view "keep" to mean "possess" or "carry".   Other sources view "keep" to mean "maintain" as in upkeep.   And others view "keep and bear" as a technical term referring to up keep of weapons in connection with military uses. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Here you go - the meaning of "keep" - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/keep

1. To retain possession of: kept the change; must keep your composure. 2. To have as a supply: keep an ax in the shed. 6. To maintain for use or service: an urbanite who didn't keep a car.

Synonyms: keep, retain, withhold, reserve

These verbs mean to have and maintain in one's possession or control. Keep is the most general: We received a few offers but decided to keep the house. Retain means to continue to hold, especially in the face of possible loss: Though unhappy, he retained his sense of humor. Withhold implies reluctance or refusal to give, grant, or allow: The tenant withheld his rent until the owner fixed the boiler. To reserve is to hold back for the future or for a special purpose: The farmer reserved two acres for an orchard. See Also Synonyms at observe.

example of usage

keep - retain possession of; "Can I keep my old stuffed animals?"; "She kept her maiden name after she married71.184.177.11 (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Garry Wills thinks the Second Amednment is a HOAX and calls Madison a liar - dos this make him a High Quality source?
May be wrong but see for yourself

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/hk-coxe.htm

Garry Wills first advanced this view in a New York Review of Books article in which he asserted that James Madison, author of the Second Amendment, had pulled a hoax on the entire nation: despite what Madison's contemporaries thought, the Second and Third Amendments have no content. [12] In a letter to the editor, Glenn Harlan Reynolds quoted the most contemporaneous known exposition of the Second Amendment-a newspaper article written by Tench Coxe just days after Madison introduced the Bill of Rights in Congress. [13] Coxe described the Second Amendment as an individual right; Madison wrote Coxe a letter praising *352 Coxe's article. [14] Wills replied angrily that just because Madison wrote Coxe a nice letter approving Coxe's article "does not mean that Madison agreed with it." [15] Indeed, if Madison were so dishonest that he would defraud the American nation when writing the Bill of Rights, it would be reasonable to expect that Madison would also be less than forthright in his personal correspondence.71.184.177.11 (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Reality check time. You point to a web article by Dave Kopel as evidence.  Mr. Kopel describes this "article" by Garry Wills in his footnote 11: "11. Gary Wills, Why We Have No Right to Bear Arms, N.Y. REV. BOOKS, Sept. 21, 1995, at 62.".  Mr. Kopel both misspells Garry Wills name, and fabricates a false inflammatory title to the Garry Wills article.  The correct cite to this is found here, and it actually is a book review.  This underscores the importance of using reliable sources here at Wikipedia and the www.davekopel.com websites fails to meet our standards.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Quote from the book review - here http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1720


 * Garry Wills interprets the Second Amendment as a cynical maneuver by James Madison ["To Keep and Bear Arms," NYR, September 21].

BTW:The book review has this nice excerpt by Story - Do you object to including in the article? - The article seems to be a tad light on early commentary? Likely because some person or persons engaged in scorched earth policies to get rid of items not liked - whatever the merits.

Far more plausible, though, is Justice Joseph Story's analysis in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution:

''The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers.... [L]arge military establishments and standing armies in time of peace...afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers [means] to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms...offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them....[*]'' 71.184.177.11 (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Story comment already included - nevermind - My bad. But I noticed someone deleted other references to the Penn Minority report leaving the "one disgruntled man" the only reference left. Have you people NO SHAME? or is it that you need morals in order to have shame and you don't have those in the first place? 71.184.177.11 (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Focus please. (Also, stop the name calling, it is counterproductive.) Your purported link to the Wills book review is actually a link to a criticism of the Wills book review. Have you actually read the 9/21/95 Wills book review?  I have.  It doesn't really say what the critics claim.  I recommend taking the time to read the actual 9/21/95 source before you reach further conclusions.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Focus yourself - That criticism includes Wills response!71.184.177.11 (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Got it, I did read that 11/16/95 Wills response. I take it from your non-answer that you have not actually read the 9/21/95 book review, subject of this vitriol.  How can we constructively proceed until you read it?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Fucus fucus - Can I "keep" my gun like the little girl kept her old stuffed animals (I am assuming that her parents were loving - HAHAHAHA)?

keep - retain possession of; "Can I keep my old stuffed animals?"71.184.177.11 (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

getting along on the talk page
In the last few weeks an Anonymous IP editor has joined in here. Let me extend my welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately I sense that this editor is experiencing a certain amount of frustration trying to find a way to get what he wants, and a failure to "get along" with the process of collaborative editing with people of differing points of view. There are plenty of resources available to new editors which would help reducing this frustration. I offer my own assistance, but I suspect based on the name calling and hostility aimed at me, that my offer of assistance may not be accepted.

There are plenty of neutral editor's who also would be happy to help, take a look here: Questions and just ask. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Your welcome, the starting of an "edit war", has already been received.71.184.177.11 (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)