Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 28

Kenosis - Massachusetts Compromise
The Massachusetts Compromise was a defining moment in the ratification process. Without that Compromise the Constitution would not have been ratified "as is". 5 states, as part of the ratification process "required their members to support" a Bill of Rights once Congress has been assembled under the new constitution. I think 4 of those 5 included proposed amendments as part of the ratification document. Add the two states that would not ratify unless a Bill of Rights was already included in the language they were to ratify and you have 7 of 13 states that refused to ratify without a Bill of Rights or a promise of one. 7 of the original 13 is over half. Naming the states that refused to ratify seems more important then quite a few things in the article, like when and where Congress removed, or moved, a comma from the language. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Massachusetts Compromised is already wikilinked, and prior to its recent wikilinking it has long been referred to in this article as a "compromise" between federalists and anti-federalists. Perhaps a way of dealing with this objection would be to insert the word, e.g., ". . . generally referred to as the Massachusetts Compromise . . .". The reader needn't be subjected to a mention of every single state that did everything at every single step along the way. Else the article would be an outright tome. See WP:Summary style. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Naming the states which used the Massachusetts Compromise is a bit more informative then describing the high drama involved in moving a comma.96.237.120.38 (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In what way is the reader better informed about the Second Amendment by naming in this article the states that over two centuries ago followed the Massachusetts compromise? Some are from the North, some from the South; some today are comparatively progressive, some comparatively conservative, etc. etc. etc. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't personally understand why there is such a fuss about the comma either, but when you look at reliable sourcing there is plenty of discussion of the comma controversy found. Therefore we should give it coverage here, regardless of what I personally think. I don't see the same attention is given in WP:RS as to which States were part of the Massachusetts Compromise, or not. We should be following the policy WP:DUE here, therefore I agree with Kenosis on this one. AnonIP might want to review WP:NOR policy, this article is not the place to publish his original research about the Second Amendment. SaltyBoatr get wet 15:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you read the language cited? If you did you wouldn't be babbling about NOR96.237.120.38 (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My comment above was generally about your edits this last month, and not specifically about the last edit. I give you credit for using sourcing with that last edit. Though the book publisher, Pelican Publishing, is not a publisher of well known reputation for fact checking and accuracy and is known for being a vanity press. In a high profile article like this one, where available we should be trying to use WP:SOURCES which are of the "best sources/most reliable" type. That is: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources...university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers." If you were to be using those quality sources it would be helpful. SaltyBoatr get wet 18:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You appear to believe that the only truly reliable sources are those of academia. Many times, academia is an example of groupthink (everyone having the same viewpoint on a particular issue). That means peer-review ends up being no better than self review. In those cases, "Academic and peer-reviewed publications" end up being quite unreliable. SMP0328. (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand me. I am just trying to follow the WP:V policy, which speaks about "best sources/most reliable" sources. If you have trouble with "groupthink" aspects of that policy, speak up over at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability. This is an important article, we must follow policy and we should try to give it best quality sourcing. SaltyBoatr get wet 19:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me. I am pointing out that not all peer-reviewed articles are reliable. I don't interpret the Verifiability policy to treat peer reviewed articles as automatically reliable. I believe it means to express a preference for reliable articles that are peer-reviewed. SMP0328. (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say automatically reliable, I said "most reliable". If you have problems with the policy, go discuss the policy in the right place: Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability. The present policy consensus is that "best sources/most reliable" are "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources...university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers." Until that policy changes, we should stick with it. SaltyBoatr get wet 21:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed with both SMP and SaltyBoatr insofar as the reliability analysis doesn't necessarily end with simply noting that a source has been published in a peer-reviewed publication. And there may also a WP:WEIGHT consideration as to whether a cited source is expressing, for example, an extreme minority view or a dominant view or something in between. As well, we inevitably need to work in WP:Summary style, particularly with a controversial topic that involves as much potentially relevant information and background as this one does. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the full quote of the Verifiability policy regarding academic and peer-reviewed articles:
 * "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria."
 * So "non-academic" sources are acceptable and no type of source is categorized as "best". So it isn't necessary for sourcing to be from academia. Also, note the quote above says "usually". Academic/peer-reviewed articles sometimes are not the most reliable. I believe this is such a case. SMP0328. (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually read the policy, some sources are typed as "best sources". Exceptions exist. Examples of this might be a book like Bellesiles' Arming America published by a well respected publishing house, Alfred a Knopf Inc., which nominally would be considered a most reliable source. Yet, WP:REDFLAG is invoked with this book because we see a significant number of published 'most reliable' criticism in credible academic articles in Law Reviews and Journals like the Yale Law Journal, Fordham Law Review, William and Mary Quarterly and others.  Reliably needs to be checked against WP:REDFLAG. This is roughly analogous to the large amount of credible criticism we see of the history presented by Antonin Scalia in his Heller opinion, WP:REDFLAG is invoked in both cases. SaltyBoatr get wet 21:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We know our respective positions regarding academic publications, so there's no need to continue this back-and-forth. As for the Opinion of the Court in Heller (what you keep attributing solely to Justice Scalia), that's part of the reasoning of the United States Supreme Court regarding why it decided Heller as it did; that makes it relevant to the parts of the article referring to that decision. Criticisms of that reasoning are, of course, also relevant. SMP0328. (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't just me calling this a Scalia opinion, that is what I read in the Law Review articles I mentioned above, but you refuse to read them, your loss. Because, they are pretty interesting reading, even if you don't agree with them.  For instance, the opinion was drafted almost entirely by Scalia, with the apparent small exception being the 'longstanding prohibitions clause', that totally gutted the decision, and which was added at the last minute as a requirement to achieve the fifth vote.  Clearly Scalia's "Law Office History" is considered very dubious by a large number of reliably published experts.  SaltyBoatr get wet 23:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The REAL reason why the English have historically had a right to arms
The English Longbow! and the amount of practice it required to become proficient in its use.

Enuf said!96.237.120.38 (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * From the article on the English longbow

It was the difficulty in using the longbow which led various monarchs of England to issue instructions encouraging their ownership and practice, including the Assize of Arms of 1252 and King Edward III's declaration of 1363: "Whereas the people of our realm, rich and poor alike, were accustomed formerly in their games to practise archery – whence by God's help, it is well known that high honour and profit came to our realm, and no small advantage to ourselves in our warlike enterprises... that every man in the same country, if he be able-bodied, shall, upon holidays, make use, in his games, of bows and arrows... and so learn and practise archery." If the people practised archery, it would be that much easier for the King to recruit the proficient longbowmen he needed for his wars. Along with the greater ability of gunfire to penetrate plate armour, it was the amount of time needed to train longbowmen which eventually led to their being replaced by musketmen.96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The material above does not appear to be about this article, but rather it is general discussion about the topic of this article. This talk page is not the place for general discussion about the topic.  See NOT.  SaltyBoatr get wet 17:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * SOMEONE put the Assize at Arms into the article! and it wasn't me!96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The quote has nothing to do with rights at all! But it reinforces my point that rich and poor alike had a right to arms long before the 17th century.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My impression of history is that the low point for England was the Norman Conquest. The invading Normans took over the country, deposed the native nobility (if not outright killed them) and took steps to make the native English second class citizens, including disarming them. After a period of time (2 hundred years), the Normans felt so secure in their rule, that they took steps to encourage the Native English, who they felt they themselves were, to practice their archery skills, so that they could benefit from that skill in battle.


 * The English peasant,now armed with a longbow and skilled in its use, could take down the most well armored knight, unlike a peasant on the mainland who had to rely on farm implements. The English peasant enjoyed more rights then his counterpart on the continent, not because he was given those rights, but because he could kill anyone who would tried taking them away.96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Joyce Lee Malcolm references
The majority of the relevant chapter is accessible at Google Books. Having read the chapter I do not see any eveidence that Malcolc claims this as "being a transition from an obligation to a right" as the article text currently claims. Indeed quite the reverse because she scolds another historian, Roy Wetherup, for seeing a connection between the rights explicitly given in the English Bill of Rights and the term "well formed militia" when the English Bill of Rights was clearly connected to the Glorious Revolution and the preservation of protestantism in England. And she refers to the English wording as "a guarantee" - which it was - of an existing right. Later she refers to the rights of Englishmen being "refined and expanded", though rather confusingly she later says that "Since 1689 these rights included the right of Protestants to keep and use weapons" as if these rights had not existed before. As I point out in my recent edit to the article(backed by the full text of the relevant section of the English Bill of Rights instead of just part), the right was merely an explicit re-statement in statute law given by parliament and recognized by the monarchy of an ancient right to bear arms. That the statute applied explictly to Protestants has to be understood in the historical context and it did not mean that Catholics had no such rights after 1689, nor that the right in common law did not prteviously exist. I think this is merely a slip by Malcolm because most of what she says is eminently reasonable and backed by references. I therefore propose that we remove the following texts

"The right of some English subjects to possess arms was recognized under English common law; however many English subjects were not permitted by law to possess arms"

which cites Joyce but which does not seem to be supported by the reference. --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * On page 9 Professor Malcolm discusses the distinction between "a duty and a right". Prior to 1689, having weapons was a duty for certain British subjects.  After the 1689 declaration of rights, it was first established as a right for Protestants, but not for Catholics. Did you read page 10 which describes that under 17th Century British law that the use of weapons for hunting was considered to be "a privilege" revocable by law?  Clearly, according to this expert there was not an "ancient right to weapons".   SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the sentence you point to was not confirmed by reading pg 11 of the cited source, and I just tweaked the sentence to match the source and improved the reference to include a direct quote from the source. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to the texts on hunting. I admit that I was wrong in thinking that firearms were not restricted before the 19th century. Clearly an Act of 1671 (properly citable as "'Charles II, 1670 & 1671: An Act for the better preservation of the Game, and for secureing Warrens not inclosed, and the severall Fishings of this Realme.', Statutes of the Realm: volume 5: 1628-80 (1819), pp. 745-746") DID restrict gun possession for the purpose of preventing poaching.

"it is hereby enacted and declared That all and every person and persons, not haveing Lands and Tenements or some other Estate of Inheritance in his owne or his Wifes right of the cleare yearely value of one hundred pounds per ann? or for terme of life, or haveing Lease or Leases of ninety nine yeares or for any longer terme, of the cleare yearely value of one hundred and fifty pounds, other then the Sonne and Heire apparent of an Esquire, or other person of higher degree, and the Owners and Keepers of Forrests, Parks, Chases or Warrens, being stocked with Deere or Conies for their necessary use in respect of the said Forrests, Parks, Chases or Warrens, are hereby declared to be persons by the Lawes of this Realme, not allowed to have or keepe for themselves or any other person or persons any Guns, Bowes, Grey hounds, Setting-dogs, Ferretts, Cony-doggs, Lurchers, Hayes, Netts, Lowbells, Hare-pipes, Ginns, Snares or other Engines aforesaid, But shall be, and are hereby prohibited to have, keepe or use the same."

(Statutes of the Realm: volume 5: 1628-80 (1819), pp. 745-746. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=47447 Date accessed: 21 April 2010.)

However, this was not a restriction on the possession of arms for self defence (which I am sure remained a common law right, as it still does today) but it did without doubt restrict the availability of a particular type of arm (i.e. a gun) albeit to protect the gaming rights of the landed classes. I therefore suggest that we replace the vague notions in the text with this explicit restriction. --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You write "which I am sure remains a common law right". Tell us what is your sourcing for this belief.  Did you get a chance to read the Malcolm book?  In it she identifies prohibition on possessions of firearms (handguns) in Britain dating back to at least 1541.   So clearly, it was not simply an issue of controlling hunting.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, looking at the article, the only two references that describe a common law origin are from Stephen Halbrook and David Hardy who both are prominent NRA attorneys with non-neutral points of view.   In our duty to keep a neutral point of view here we must be careful with balance for this type of sourcing.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The right of self defence is widely recognized in the courts though there is no LEGISLATED right of self defence. Decisions as to what is and is not lawful are decided case by case by the judges in the courts. Thus the right to use arms in self defence is part of the COMMON LAW. You have the right to defend oneself by whatever means you have available and within the limits of the law. The right has to be proportional.  It is even within the law to use a FIREARM to defend oneself, though it is unlikely to happen as most people, due to the licensing laws, do not have access to firearm.  Similarly it is not legal to carry a knife for the purposes of self defence but it is okay to use a knife to defend yourself if one happens tp be available.  The courts in Northern Ireland have decided that it may be legal to have a gun for a legal purpose (for example to defend oneself or another another person under common law) even if there was no licence held for that gun. The absence of the licence means the breaking of the licencing laws but the gun could still legally be used for the legal purpose (i.e.one of self protection). It may seem odd that there can be strict licencing laws concerning guns yet the use of a gun (even an unlicenced gun) does not restrict the use of that gun for a legal purpose (of self defence or even defending a another). The presence of licening laws has not removed the common law right of self defence or even the right to use a firearm in self defence.  BUT... to defeat a charge of murder or manslaughter you would have to assert that common law right in court (which the court could accept) but then pay the penalty for breaching any licensing laws. (The Fegan case in the reference I gave applies here). Tony Martin (farmer) overstepped the mark when he shot at intruders in his home. He had a right in common law to defend himself and his property but he was not exercising that right lawfully when he shot at an intruder who was in the process of escaping and killed him. You will find a neat summary of the law at  http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/cases/self-defence.php. A reading of the cases will continually refer to the right of self defence without any reference to any statute in this area. This is, by definition, the common law. --Hauskalainen (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

But back to the original issue... The article still quotes Malcolms as claiming that (the English Bill of Rights) was "the first instance when the customary duty to bear arms transitioned into n right to have arms for defense." I have read Malcolm and she absolutely does not say this. If Salty wants to keep this in he is gping to have to spell out exactly where she says this.--Hauskalainen (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The subtitle of the book is "The Origins of an Anglo-American Right", key word: "origin", (not pre-existing). On the book blurb of her website she says: "This book explains how the Englishmen's hazardous duty evolved into a right."  See the first sentence of page one of this book which says: "The right of citizens to be armed not only is unusual, but evolved in England in an unusual manner: it began as a duty. "    You claim to have read Malcom, it is hard to understand how you missed this being on page one. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I believe I have read all the bits you pointed me to previously and nothing there seemed to show this. So it seems that Malcolm indeed write this. But she is clearly wrong. It is every man's right to defend himself. It always has been. She has got carried away by the tracing of the early references to armaments in the WRITTEN law and has ignored completely the COMMON law. If A attacks B, B is entitled to repel the attack and use whatever arms are available in a reasonable manner to stop the attack him. By your (and Joyce's reckoning) this would mean that, B would be as in the wrong as A. That is clearly nonsense and no common man, justice or jury would ever have said otherwise. I have no idea whether anyone has ever challenged the claim, but on behalf of my fellow Englishmen I do so now! The fact is that there was first a personal right (for self defense at least), then an obligation on nobles to defend the king, and then, in a fit of panic, a written law granting in perpetuity (which scholars today argue is non-constitutional because it is discriminatory and against the Charter of Fundamental Rights), certain rights to members of the protestant faith to the exclusion of all others, including the right to bear arms. The parliamentarians of the day did this only because they did not want that common law right taken away from them (which they had feared could happen). I know that you probably want believe Malcolm just because of the reference, so somehow I will have to seek to find a way to prove her wrong. Maybe I'll just write to her to see whether she will reconsider. --Hauskalainen (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Here, oddly enough, is Malcolm herself talking about the extent of the right to kill in self defense in relation to a case from the 1300s (See Page 24) http://books.google.com/books?id=ddaDbEIwiCUC&pg=PA342&dq=Joyce+Lee+Malcolm+-+Professor+of+History+at+Bentley+College+and+author+of+Guns+and+Violence:+The+English+Experience+-&hl=en&ei=CbPyS9zYDY_u-Qa5r7iRDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22common%20law%22&f=false. Here Malcolm seems to accept that scholars have argued that Englishman had the right to kill in self defense and not just an obligation to retreat first when acting as a peacekeeper or to defend himself, his family or his property. I think in her text she was merely ignoring the early right to use arms self defense or defending others or their property. It is interesting of course to note that even 700 years ago, there was an expectation not to revert to violence except under extreme provocation.   --Hauskalainen (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And here is an American text from the 1800s referring to every man except the priesthood being expected to be trained in the use of arms dating back to Saxon times, almost a thousand years before the Glorious Revolution. There clearly has been a right and a duty to bear arms in England for the common good at least from the very earliest part of our written history. --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When you say "expected to be trained" that means "duty".  The problem here I think is that we are not asked to personally agree with what the sources say, but we are expected to read and fairly represent what the sources say.  Professor Malcolm identifies the Bill of Rights of 1689 as the first instance of a right to bear arms.  The discussion of common law on pages 24-25 discusses permissible self defense, (as being permitted by the Crown) as necessary for the duty of maintaining watch and ward or the duty to respond to a hue and cry. Watch and ward, and hue and cry were duties to the Crown at that time.  Permission from the Crown to do something is different than having been granted a right to do something by the Crown.  Malcolm explains that it was the Revolution of 1689 that took by force the 'right' which had belonged to the Crown, (and which was subject to the permission of the Crown), and transferred that 'right' to the Protestants.  The Protestants then kept the right, and did not grant permission to the Catholics.  While I respect your different personal belief about this, this talk page is not the place to discuss your personal beliefs.  SaltyBoatr get wet 17:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the issue I have is simply that Malcolm is wrong to assert that the right to bear arms evolved from an obligation because, in simple terms, there would have been a presumed right in common law that a man (or woman) would be allowed to defend themselves given the right to life of every man. This would therefore mean that there has ALWAYS been a right to bear arms long before it appeared in the English Bill of Rights. It only appeared in the Bill of Rights to PREVENT it being taken away by the act of a monarch given the fear of so-called popary. The supremacy of parliament had only just been established and its permanence had not been firmly rooted (though in practice it has never been challenged since then). The duty to defend the community was an extension but as we have another very much earlier source for this duty perhaps we should use this one rather than the Malcom one. The strange fact is that this has never been a constitutional right in English Law, and it is rather strange that this should have been lifted from an Act of Parliament in England and turned into a constitutional right in the US of A. I suppose this shows that the right of assertion of rights over a monarch were as strong in the rights of American minds as they were in the minds of the English. The English do not regard this as a constitutional right but a common law right. English case law regarding the use of arms in self defense confirms this. Even weirder is the fact that right has now moved in the US to be one of a personal right which it never was even in the English law. It was very much written as a right of Protestants collectively to preserve their existing right. --Hauskalainen (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You also claim that Malcolm talks of "permissible self defense". I see no such reference on the pages you say or the pages around that and neither did a google books even find the word permissible within the book. On the contrary, on page 23 it says "The governments most urgent tasks, the restoration of order and the prevention of counter revolution, were exceedingly difficult because by 1649 large numbers of Englishmen posessed private weapons(by which she would have meant firearms), which they had becomes accustomed to useing as they saw fit. " This does not indicate at all that weapons at that time were held only for defense of the realm! Indeed the emptying of the royal forests of game (see the text) indicates that the use of arms for gaming was rife once the King had been executed. I really cannot accept your assertions that there was no common law right to posess arms before the Bill of Rights. Clearly there was and people did. This is also referenced in the two paragraphs at the top of page 11. There was a general right to arms, though the law did sometimes restrict certain persons the right to arms, the places where the right could not be exercised (for public safety) and at certain times, the types of arms that one could hold. But in general terms, the right to arms for self defense as well as defense of the community was well established. This right was NOT restricted to those obligated to hold arms as the text in the article as it stands currently seems to imply.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Consider that the article primarily is about protection of the "right to keep and bear arms", and we should give that priority. Pushing emphasis to a "right to arms" is actually tangential.  SaltyBoatr get wet 19:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

All my edits today have done is to re order the texts, move some text into the references (to avoid overbearing the main text) and to emphasise that the general right to arms (which is the same as the right to keep and bear) was an existing right (which is clear from the Malcolm texts and indeed the Blackstone commentaries). It also corrects the text which seemed to tell a misleading story... that the right began as an obligation... that is a totally misleading statement. I know that the cover of the Malcolm book may say that but it is wrong. The right to bear arms was a right in natural law (and common law) in order to preserve the right of self preservation. It goes back way before the days of firearms and later efforts to control firearms (and longbows for that matter). My edits thus establish historical accuracy against a presumed desire by some editors to assume that this is a "right" that developed slowly and flowered in the English Bill of Rights and thence into the United States Constitution. That, frankly, is a complete misreading of history. The truth is that the right was there first, then it got tampered with by King and Parliament and then, due to a moment in history, got put into legislation which, in English law was non binding on future parliaments (despite the wording to the contrary) and, despite the Bill of Rights being an important constitutional document, that part of it which relates to a Right to Keep an Bear Arms has absolutely no constitutional validity today. I believe this is said somewhere else in the article. Maybne this needs to be put together with this text. It would make sense to do so.--Hauskalainen (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ummm, your latest revert did nothing but put some vandalism back into this article. Slow down and think before you edit war.  SaltyBoatr get wet 21:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hauskalainen, it might be helpful at this point for you to be specific about what sourcing you base your claim that there is a common law right to arms which predates the duty to participate in militia and civil defense. We need to build this article by starting from the reliable sourcing.  SaltyBoatr get wet 15:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If there were no common law right to preserve one's own life then there would be no defense in law of "self-defense", because a right to self defense is not written anywhere in statute. Ergo it is a common law right. If there were no right to self defense and nobody attempted to defend themselves from assault using whatever came to hand (because it was illegal) then the consequences would be unthinkable. It is stupid of you even to argue that there is NO common law right of self defense. It has always existed and it is crazy beyond words that you should think that I would need a king's permission to arm myself in order to defend myself. --Hauskalainen (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The story of rulers disarming the general populace in order to 1)secure their position, or 2)make it easier to take the peoples stuff, or 3)both, is as old as man. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The argument that I must provide a reference for the common law right to keep arms for self defence is no different to asking me to provide a reference for the right that I have to keep milk in my refrigerator. There has been no law preventing me from keep milk in my refrigerator, nor is there a law preventing me from keeping an iron bar under my bed. I have a right to keep an iron bar under my bed just as much as I have a right to keep milk in my fridge. I can also walk down the street carrying milk just as freely as I can carrying an iron bar. The argument you are making is akin to saying that I have NO RIGHT to keep milk in my refrigerator because it has not been declared in some legal document (a law, a decree, or my nation's constitution). Because there is nothing in law to prevent my keeping something at home or carrying it with me does not make it illegal. The presumption is always one of legality unless some law or previous case declares it to be illegal.--Hauskalainen (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It really would be helpful if you could separate a discussion of what you personally believe from what we read in reliable sourcing. See Talk page guidelines.  Regarding your question about the personal liberties, keep in mind that the history behind the Second Amendment is older than the concept that people have liberty in a modern sense.  The modern concept of liberty of people to have arms is generally thought to have emerged with the Enlightenment, specifically with the Glorious Revolution of 1689.  Prior to that event, the modern concept of liberty didn't exist like we take for granted today.  I believe that the article is attempting to give the appropriate coverage to this 1689 event.  Except that I have problems with your reorganization earlier this week, because the passage discussing the Glorious Revolution is given redundant coverage, once at the beginning of the English History section, and again at the end.  I preferred the previous sequencing, before your re-shuffle, which had the earlier times first and the later times later and had a more logical flow. SaltyBoatr get wet 22:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you assert that you had a right to keep ice cream in your refrigerator? I think you would. But can you provide a reference for that? Of course not! The very idea is ridiculous. We are not discussing my opinions but facts. Here is another. Many Americans I have come across seem to think that their "liberties" come from their constitution and that people in other countries do not have these "precious liberties". This is faintly ridiculous but I have heard it said so often that I think they really believe it to be true. The law in any country may restrict your liberties but nobody can grant you a liberty unless it has been previously been restricted. When Blackstone talks of "the natural right of resistance and self-preservation" he talking about the same thing that I am talking of. The natural right of resistance and self preservation is that which any human being would assert was a right if their life and liberty was in danger and which the courts have allowed as a defense in cases where extreme violence has been used to offset extreme violence in the other direction. If I am wrong here, what else could this refer to? It is clear that the reason parliament (in haste I might add) wrote elements that were very bad law (which parts of the Bill of Rights is, and so too the laws of succession of 1701) was because they lived in fear that their (existing) liberties might be taken away. The argument about positive rights has raged in England for a long time. The advantage of defining these rights in law is not that it grants a new right that did not previously exist but that it aims to prevent those things that we think of as rights from being taken away (such as the right to free speech, the right of assembly, and even the right to keep and bear arms. This was what the protestants feared. It does not mean that there was no right to free speech or free assembly etc. before these rights got written into law. That is the issue and it is why people had a right to keep and bear arms long before anyone legislated on the matter. The simple truth is that all rights have to be balanced. In England I have a right to free speech but others have a right not be verbally abused because of their race, religion, or sexuality. These rights conflict. Similarly you in America have a right to keep and bear arms, but it is severely constrained by other laws. One right does not outweigh all the other. They have to be balanced. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We I understood your analogy about milk in the refrigerator the first time, no need to repeat it again. What is missing is that you are not giving the sources for your idea, as required by policy around here.  Read about that policy here: WP:SOURCES, thanks.  SaltyBoatr get wet 13:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We??? I don't think you did understand, because the purpose of the analogy is to show why it is unreasonable to expect me to find a source for the right to bear arms pre-dating any legislation in the area for the same reason that you would be unable find any references for the right I have to keep milk in my fridge. I have the right to keep milk in my fridge because there is no law to prevent it. So it was with bearing arms in ancient times. It is simply wrong for the article to imply as it did/does that there was no right (to have and use arms) before the Bill of Rights (in England) or indeed before the Second Amendment in the United States. The obligation is I think on the other foot. If there was a time when that liberty was lost, then it is for you to show that THAT happened. We already have reference to the specific case of hunting but the text in the article seemed to imply that there was no liberty before this time. For that to be so you would have to demonstrate when that happened (and how) from a reliable source. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I am only speaking for myself. I still have no comment on your personal opinion.  SaltyBoatr get wet 01:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not opinion but the application of logic. If it helps yo,u think about positive and negative rights. The creation of an explicit right in law was an intention to create a so called negative right (the right NOT to be disarmed). I am no expert in US constitutional history but I am prepared to fight for the correct statement of English history. You can opine to your heart's content as to whether or not that was a reasonable thing. The English and American laws actually diverged rather than converged with the passing of the Second Amendment because until then there was a general liberty to keep and bear arms to defend oneself, one's family, and one's country (with a few exceptions), a liberty very important when there were no forces there to keep the peace. The departure came because (despite attempts in the wording to the contrary) parliament in England can simply overturn the English Bill of Rights (though it may not have done so) whereas Congress alone cannot do so. Indeed a supermajority is needed to do so.  Furthermore judges in England  can and do re-interpret the law irrespective of what is written in legislation.  It is highly unlikely that a Catholic these days would be denied the right to a defense of a general right to arms for example. English judges will, when seeking an equitable decision,  look at recent legislation on equality, human rights, and dangerous weapons such as guns, knives, and nuclear or biological materials and the role of the police in civil society when interpreting any claimed rights. I am not sure, but I suspect that lawyers in the U.S. would be looking primarily at previous constitutional law decisions which are much more difficult to overturn than any similar situation in English law.  Two very different outcomes from similar wording placed in different contxts.--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Logic indicates that if Bamba, the tribes chief, took away the spears of the tribes hunters, he would shortly thereafter cease to be chief, and possibly cease to have a head based on the hunters severing the connection between said head and the normally attached body, or cease to have his normal quota of blood, or both. And there you have the origin of the common law right to arms.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a place that has rules. One of the rules is that we are not allowed to use original ideas in our edits, but that we must limit editing to what we read in reliable secondary sourcing. Neither is the talk page the place to discuss our personal ideas because discussion of personal matters is disruptive. See the policies WP:V, WP:NOR and the guideline WP:TALK. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Rules for article content do not apply to discussion pages. The discussion here is on the origin of the common law right to arms. I added my two bits to that discussion.96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Salty - the simple fact is that it is YOU that is defending the position that the "right" developed from an obligation and that before this there was no right. That is actually quite contrary to the majority of what Malcolm says (if you read her carefully and in full), but yes, in one place, she does seem to say that it did develop from an obligation. She is clearly referring to early references in the law to "arms". It is clear to me that reading Malcolm as a whole you must accept that there was a GENERAL right arms before these laws came into force. This is confirmed also by the text of the Bill of Rights and by Blackstone which refers to guaranteeing or preserving rights (I can't immediately recall the precise wording). The simple truth is that people had a right (in the sense of a liberty) to bear arms (subject to precise allowances under law) before the passing of the Bill of Rights for the same reason that I have the right to keep milk in my fridge. One has a presumed freedom to act until that act has been declared unlawful. You can cite that small piece of Malcolm but against that has to come the entire weight of Malcolm's arguments, Blackstone, the Bill of Rights itself, and the sheer logic of the process of law formation. It is YOU that is in the weaker position in this argument. --Hauskalainen (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Guide me through this, I just don't see Malcolm making this point about a "GENERAL right to arms", which exact page numbers are you looking at?   She seems loud and clear to be making the case that the right to bear arms was first a duty and then a right.  Heck, it is right on page one of the book in the first sentence "it began as a duty".  SaltyBoatr get wet 22:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

England Section looking poor at this time
Too many people pushing for total control - is like too many cooks making the soup. It will taste like crap. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's this article's history. I don't see that changing anytime soon. SMP0328. (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Why "looking poor"? I think it is now much shorter, with less focus on irrelevant issues. I am not seeking control but just a fair representation of the Second Amendment's English historical background which was set in a power struggle between King and Parliament, and a desire to limit the power of a King to withdraw the general right to have arms for defense. In America there was no doubt a similar desire to control the powers being vested in a new higher authority, the Federal government. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It reads like crap. Too many people with too many points of view who want this on top (prime real estate) versus that, (pushed by someone else) or that other thing (pushed by yet a third person). After adding a few minor points, and seeing the battle I can't see wasting any of my time on that section, as next week anything I add will probably end up gone, due to collateral damage.


 * A pretty house can still look good even if not maintained, an ugly house on the other hand is ugly no matter how much paint you slap on it. The English section is currently an ugly house.96.237.120.38 (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want to see the ugly, pretend you never saw it before and are looking at it for the first time. UGLY!96.237.120.38 (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this. Here is my suggestion for a revision of the text.

The Second Amendment is a variation of text in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which says the following:
 * That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law

At various times in the run up to, during, and after the English Civil War, militias on either side had disarmed both Protestants and Catholics. The war itself did not end with a full resolution of the conflicts between the Monarch and the Parliament until Glorious revolution and the enactment of the English Bill of Rights, which amongst other things reserved the right of Protestants to retain arms suitable for their defense. This was not a new right, but was a way of forcing the monarchy to regard this as reserved the right which the Monarchy could not take away.

In the American context, Americans remained fearful that the congress would assume powers over them in much the same way as the English monarch had tried to exert powers over Parliament. The words of the Second Amendment were this borrowed from the English Bill of Rights (which was seen as being very important to both Englishmen and Americans) but modified to show that the people reserved their rights to have arms which they regarded as essential for the formation of Militias to defend the states. Hence the wording


 * A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

The Supreme Court in Heller (see below) confirmed that the right to keep arms existed in English law prior to the passing of the Second Amendment and that therefore the right to arms was a personal one and not restricted to the militia. As in the case of English Bill of rights, the declartion is an affirmation and a reservation of a pre-existing right and not the creation of a new right.

In England, in the particular case of firearms, controversy arose in the context of hunting and long before the Bill of Rights, laws had been passed to restrict the ownership of guns to the landed aristocracy and those working for them "in order to preserve the game". Mere posession of a firearm without legitimate justification could result in sanction under law. Notwithstanding this, English law has always allowed a person the right of self defense to preserve life and to use arms for this purpose, subject only to a test of reasonableness as to their suitability and condition and their being allowed by law. The wording of the text in the English Bill of Rights was therefore not denying Catholics their general right to posesses arms for self defence nor did it repeal the earlier laws on the posession of guns for hunting. It did however create a reserved right for protestants, but as scholars have noted this was always subject to parliamentary revision. In practice, the English monarchy developed into its modern state of being a constitutional monarchy and parliament reigns supreme. The English Bill of Rights remains important constitutionally therefore not for its impact on rights to arms (which in practice changed very little) but for the impact it had on the powers of parliament over the monarchy. Therefore parliament has been free to leigislate on matters relating to certain classes of armaments such as knives, swords and guns without repealing the Bill of Rights explicity.

The advantage I see of this is that it points out that the Englishman's right to arms was long standing. It explains the similarity and the difference between the English and the American texts, and does so quite briefly. The links to other articles avoids loading too much background material into this article. I even included the reference to the guns issue for hunting, though neither the second amendment or the Bill of Rights discusses guns. The text above does not have references but they will be easy to find.

Comments please!--Hauskalainen (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * English history doesn't begin with the Glorious Revolution. The Assize of Arms and longbow is relevant showing that an obligation to practice archery skills turned into a right to have a longbow, which later evolved into a right to own firearms. The difference between the US and English forms of government also come into play. In England all rights are granted rights (sometimes granted at the point of a sword, like the Magna Carta, but still granted) from a higher power like the King or Parliament. In the US all governmental power is derived from the will of the people and all government officials are acting as representatives of the people. In the US, a deprivation of the right to arms for self defense, is akin to a hired guard disarming his employer, because the guard doesn't think the employer can be trusted. In England it is akin to the employer (the King and later Parliament) disarming his household staff (the people - serfs). What are the chances that Heller would have won his case, if he was in Engalnd?96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Following (not a "reliable source" but still indicative)on the Peasants Revolt of 1381

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/peasants_revolt.htm

1. After the Black Death, many manors were left short of workers. To encourage those who had survived to stay on their manor, many lords had given the peasants on their estates their freedom and paid them to work on their land. Now, nearly 35 years after the Black Death, many peasants feared that the lords would take back these privileges and they were prepared to fight for them.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Did I say that English history began with the Glorious revolution? We are only discussing English history in connection with the Second Amendment. What you are saying might be relevant to a discussion about arms in England but the Second Amendment is about te right to Arms in America. The simple fact is that the rght to arms is an ancient one, it was an established right in England and became declared again explicitly in the English Bill of Rights for a particular reason and then got written the American Bill of Rights in a slightly different way for a slightly different reason. The Bill of Rights (English or American) is not about militaty service or feudalism, or the black death. You offer no evidence for your claim that there is a big difference between America and England about how rights originate. In fact what you are saying is something of an urban myth. The American system of Law is based on the English. Both countries have a constitution, and contrary to popular belief, both are written down. The English constitution as it has emerged from the 17th and 18th centrury is arguably more flexible and more democratic than the American one. We do not have a situation in England where a single line in a constitution written two centuries ago can be used to resolve issues almost unimginable at the time it was written and one which no doubt have the founding fathers twisting in their graves. Such as the right to free speech being used to allow the distribution of pornography into the home at the speed of light and whether a corporation (almost unheard of at the time) with reserves of wealth far greater than that of the average real person can use that wealth to attempt to sway public opinion at election time. Or that the fate of a child not yet born should be decided on the right to privacy and which now cannot be changed by the normal process of legal reform. I am not aware that the English constitution gets itself into these knots. The American one does all the time. Anyway the main point is that discussions of laws regaring longbows, obligations to defend the community, historical forms of government and the Black death all have their place in Wikipedia. But not here because they are not strictly relevant to the topic at hand. --Hauskalainen (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be OK if you could cite a reliable reference connecting the Assize of Arms or issues regarding longbows to the American Bill of Rights or the English one. Heller's case could not arise in England.


 * You asked me about the UK and the decicion in Heller. The Supreme Court's ruling was that "...(DC's) ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense". That could not be brought in England because Parliament, representing the people, has already determined that in balancing the freedom to carry arms and the risk of death or serious injury arising from the posession of handguns, that licences for handguns should be issued only in very exceptional circumstances. That was a lawful and democratic decision made a parliament elected in the last 15 years in which all adults over the age of 18 were eligible to vote. It was not decided by an unelected group of people (a body of judges) interpreting a declaration made by a bunch of men 200 years ago that was not manadated even by vast numbers of the US population at that time (women, slaves, men under the age of 25) let alone the majority of the people in modern times. I think the English law is more representative of the collective spirations of the people. But that is just my opinion.--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What I am saying is that, as you put it, no Parliament can control the actions of a future Parliament. Parliament considers itself "top dog" and the "source" of power. In the US the "source" of power are the people. The individual states are required to go to the people for changes to the state constitutions and the US government is required to go tot he states for changes to the US Constitution. The point I am trying to make is, "where does ultimate power" reside. In England, it is Parliament and in the US, it is the people. In the US any law "repugnant" to the Constitution is "null and void".In England there is no constitution and the Bill of Rights can be changed at the whim of Parliament.96.237.120.38 (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of claims that the Bill of Rights was a victory of one class over another
I deleted text which made this general claim. It appears tc conflict greatly with what was said in the Heller case settled by the Supreme court of the United States. This is that the right to Arms in England was not amended at all by the English Bill of Rights (see recent discussions above about the legal decision by the Supreme Court in the Heller case).

I therefore tried to follow the references. The reference in Conde cites as his source Michael A. Bellesiles for the claim that Parliament voted for the disarming of Catholics immediately after the Bill of Rights was passed. I can find no evidence this anywhere, but I did discover that Michael Bellesiles had to resign his professorship and had a prize he had been awarded revoked. I found this article http://hnn.us/articles/1185.html which describes the shocking allegations that Bellesiles regulary misquotes and transposes intent in his use of references. My questions over Bellessiles is his claim that Parliament voted after the passage of the Bill of rights to disarm Catholics. To my knowledge this is nonsense and given doubts over his credibility I think that we should disregard this opinion. The second citation only gives a page number of a book that I do not have access to. But in any case, this is in total conflict with opinion recently given by the highest court in the United States. Given the lack of detail about the claim that Schwoerer is of the opinion that the Bill of Rights was somehow one class of people lording it over another class of people I have taken the liberty to delete both claims. Our purpose is to inform our readers about the true nature of the English law and both claims seem to be widely off the mark.--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The Supreme Court rules on US law, but they don't rule on history. (Especially with a highly contentious opinion which has been widely ridiculed in the major university law reviews.) For history we read third party reliable sources. Ditto for what you call "to my knowledge", no, you should point to third party reliable sources. Reliable sources per WP:V.  SaltyBoatr get wet 21:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Bellesiles is lying scum. His peers said so. Material that is even partially based on his work, unless supported by other sources, should not be in the article.96.237.120.38 (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Explain these reverts please...
Hauskalainen recently did two reverts which need explanation, see and. Both of these reverts serve to advance Hauskalainen personal point of view, and appear to violate WP:NPOV policy. Both of these reverted edits were attempt to reflect the balance of the POV fairly, and both were sourced to reliable sources. SaltyBoatr get wet 21:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I dispute the "personal opinion" barb but I'll gladly explain why I reverted them.


 * The first one points to Malcolm and actually repeats your preferred opinion that this was an obligation that developed into a right. As I have said to you before this clearly does not represent that Malcolm says as a whole because in other places in the text she clearly accepts that there was a pre-existing right to arms. I can give you many examples. If you dare to challenge this I will make you look stupd. Do you dare me to do this?


 * The second reversion was because you are conflating connection and relevance. That thyey are connected is pretty much undoubted. Whether there is any relevance to looking back at the English law to undertand the American is the point that the citation makes. This is not the same as the text edit you made which implies that experts do not agree whether the American text has any antecedence in the English text.


 * Honestly Salty, you are now totally exposed (in my mind at least) as a total fraudulent editor trying to push a POV. (See the other section I added recently). And yes this is not really in the spirit of Wikipedia regarding civility but there are limits to every editor's patience. --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the 'personal opinion' seeming like a barb. I wrote that because you did not make your edit based on arguments made from third party reliable sourcing.  See WP:V and WP:NOR. Lacking your sourcing, your edits appeared personal.  We obviously disagree.  My I suggest that we discuss this based on what we read in reliable sourcing?  Both of those edits came from ideas found in high quality third party reliable sourcing.  I know you dispute me, but do you dispute that what I wrote accurately conveyed what is seen in the sourcing?


 * I dispute that Malcolm really believes what you say she believes. You have taken one small quote from her book that appears to support your argument and ignored a huge swathe of what she writes which shows that to be a false representation. I have no doubt from your edit history that you are more widely read on this than me. And I have little doubt from the structure of your reply that you know that I am right and you are wrong. Just because an edit carries no citation does not make it personal opinion or original research. The civil thing to do in such a case is to ask for a citation for things that are obvious (especially to well informed editors). I am always ready to cite because I don't make things up. I am as guilty of being mis-informed as the next man (as I was on the issue of hunting restrictions and rifles) but I am always happy to admit when I have made a mistake. Do you STILL argue that Malcolm believes that the right "developed from an obligation" or are you man enough to admit that her other writings acknowledge that having arms was always a right?  --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Concerning Footnotes, Format, and Flaming
While there exists no policy forbidding lengthy footnotes, I believe that most information should appear in the article and quotations should only be used to justify a particular stance, not as an area for potpourri and factoids. If you make a statement that such and such is this way, then put a reference to the page in the book where this material may be found, it adds an air of superfluity to then repeat the same point with a quote from the book, especially if multiple sources make the exact same point. Moreover, if you enter a quote in-text, it is highly burdensome to then place a paragraph worth of additional quotations in the footnote tangentially related to the quoted material. Lastly, if you quote a court case, the ruling justifies the statement. There is no imperative to write out exactly what the ruling says in a footnote, especially if the quote is exceptionally long and contains numerous formatting errors, including inconsistent quotation marks, formatted ellipses, etc. If the quote is exceptionally enlightening, either place it directly in the text, or else place it in the footnote, including the most relevant point while excluding unnecessary text using ellipses and brackets.

As for the new formatting changes, I am simply following the formatting found in featured articles. It may be a tad tedious to make sure that your source isn't already listed in the reference section, but it makes the article look professional. As of now, not a single Amendment article is even rated good! That is appalling considering Canada's Charter of Freedom and India's analog Bill of Rights are both featured articles (though, I believe, they lack substance). In fact, not a single American legal article is a featured article. For this reason, I suggest we continue adding more detailed materials to this article, conscious of style and formatting, and move it toward feature status. Flaming over some decision by such and such judge in England concerning the Bill of Rights is a little silly. As I understand it, reference to a case wherein a point of view is expressed by a high-ranking judge, learned in a particular legal system, is not a point of view violation. The interpretation by the judge is, de jure, the officially correct interpretation, regardless of whether other scholars disagree. Their disagreements, however, ought to be addressed, but in an article more appropriate than an article about a different country.Andy85719 (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Except you have stripped out much more than potpourri and factoids. You have stripped out very much detail, explanatory material and convenience URL linking from the footnotes, and for no apparent reason other than "I believe that most information should appear in the article...".   Fine.  Except you deleted this information from footnotes and did not bother to put in in the article!  Which is it?  Net effect here is that you deleted very much useful information.


 * Your opinion about "a point of view is expressed by a high-ranking judge" doesn't seem to be based in policy either.  There is a big difference between the holding of a ruling and the dicta of a ruling.  It usually takes a expert to distinguish between the two.  Further, judges rule only on law.  In their dicta, judges sometimes also express opinion on history.  That doesn't make a judge a historian.  A judge cannot change history, for that we must check with historians.  See Law Office History for another POV about how Scalia skewed history in this instance. We can report what Scalia's opinion of history was, but we can't report is as 'fact, as we need to also give equal time to other expert sourcing in disagreement.  We need to follow NPOV policy and report both POV's fairly.  The argument above is that Hauskalainen seems to think that the courts can determine the facts of history by edict.  They can't.  SaltyBoatr get wet 00:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the Obsession of Some to Clarify the Language of Article VII
It has become clear that some editors are driven to include language justifying the use of the word "protestant" within the context of (English Bill of Rights). These justifications, however, are often placed inappropriately and are not sourced properly, instead consisting of the editorial conclusions based on personal reasoning. Personal reasoning is not appropriate for articles included in Wikipedia when such reasoning is not supported by an independent credible sources. To those involved in the repeated introduction of unsupported materials, I urge you to either find support or remove such additions. Moreover, I urge everyone to ensure fluidity in all additions to this Article. Haphazard additions and cut-and-paste jobs are not acceptable in quality articles. Andy85719 (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am growing quite weary arguing that arguments must be supported by sources. I do not desire a flame war but I must insist we comply with Wikipedia article guidelines, of which citing sources for arguments is a critical component. Also, why must we elaborate so thoroughly on English gun right history for an article about the Second Amendment? Why must we ensure that we include long excerpts from the English Bill of Rights in order to justify the claim that protestant was not an exclusive term. Clearly, this is a position for which I have sources directly contradicting. I do not seek to argue the contrary, merely to provide a good, well-balanced coverage of necessary materials for this article. A book making the point you extensively develop in the unsourced additions and placed in bullet two of the distinctions list is most prudent. Andy85719 (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is troublesome that Hauskalainen keeps inserting his personal opinion into the article. We simply must follow the policies, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.  To that end, we must start by examining what reliable third party sources say about this topic, then we must fairly represent each significant point of view in the article.  What individual editors personally believe has not place here.  SaltyBoatr get wet


 * I am quite happy to have opinion in the article, even as to two sides of a legal argument which the courts may have settled. But those opinions should not be presented in a way that obsures the settled opinion and where settled opinion has been reached they should be discussed together so that reader can see the whole argument. The reason for putting the English Bill of Rights (note! You should not refer to the element in question as "Article VII of the Declaration of Rights" because it is simply confusing because it is almost never called this) in its full context is because it exposes very clearly WHY the word "protestant" is mentioned and why it is NOT a denial of rights to other religions. If the "Scholars" that Salty (I think) referred to who believed otherwise had just taken the opportubity to read the thing fully it is highl unlikely that they could have made the observations that they did. Either they are scholars because they attended high school or they are just repeating the wrongful assertions that were made in the "myths" I mentioned above. I am happy for these people to be shown up as ignorant in the article and it is wrong to say that I am just adding my personal opinion.  As I have said, I am more than willing to find sources to back up that which I write, which, I would argue,has much more clarity and integrity than anything that was in the section I have been editing on an off (mostly off) for a year or so now. As Salty has been a regular contributor and has even been trying to resist the addition of clarity (on the spurious grounds that they are POV or unsourced or improperly sourced) he must bear a some responsibility for this. As I say, I am willing to take matters to arbitration and I am willing to provide references and discuss the adequacy of any references that have been added. All you need to do is to put a citation request in the article or discuss the matter here.  I am not superman and unlike some editors here I am not working full-time editing this article. How you guys can do this makes me wonder sometimes. I am trying to be constructive in these matters. I see that Salty prefers just to regard my observation above about the "myths" that have been spun here in the past as cranky. Well, fortunately we have the history of the article and the edits that have got it to the stage where it was whenit was telling those myths. It will be a simple matter to show how this has been done. (Though it will take a lot of time). The fundamental truth of the matter I think will be clear to any reasonably well educated person. On the topic of third party sources, this is usually needed when the veracity of source documentation could be in doubt or where this is room for doubt about how to interpret the content. I do not think that can be said to apply for example in the clear statement of legal opinion given in writing by Supreme Court judges in fairly plain English, or even the content of the preamble to the declarations in the English Bill of Rights (despite the unfamiliar spelling). The WP rules on third party sourcing are not as strict as Salty seems to make them out to be. --Hauskalainen (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If we have disagreement about the rules, let's consult with the policy talk page(s) to seek clarification. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I lost you when you wrote "obsures the settled opinion", followed by more of your personal opinion and zero references. What is "settled opinion"?  Point to third party reliable sourcing when you answer.  These sources should say the opinion, and say it is settled. Stick to third party sources, (avoid primary), and cite specific page numbers in books please.  Thanks!  SaltyBoatr get wet 16:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Settled opinion? Take the example of whether the references to "Militia" in the second amendment was meant to imply that only those that serve in the Militia have a right to bear arms or whether it means that in order to be able to form Militia that the people had to have the right to be armed and that the right to arms for self defense is more widely held. This is now settled opinion. It has been discussed by the only authority empowered to consider the issue and that opinion has been given. The article must clearly state the settled opinion and in discussing discussing how that settled opinion wa arrived at discuss the alternative opinions. We must not be allowed to confuse personal opinion with settled opinion. The Nazis (and in reality probably only some of them) believed that people of arian descent were superior to those from Africa or the Middle East. But we cannot allow WP to preesent this as though the opinions of the Nazis have equal value to the opinions of others. We cannot allow ourselves to take the opinions of a minority and try to give it equal status on the grounds that we have to represent ALL opinions. We have to reflect all MAJOR opinions as well as being clear about what the settled opinion is.--Hauskalainen (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we disagree whether the Supreme Court of the United States gets to trump policy here at Wikipedia. Here at Wikipedia our policy is to include all significant points of view. I don't think that the SCOTUS gets to tell us otherwise.  Further, I think your perception of "settled opinion" is wrong.  The last time I checked, the only thing binding in US Court decisions was the holding, in other words the ratio decidendi.  This thing you called "settled opinion" is not the holding of the court, but it is merely the opinion of the court, in other words the obiter dictum.  In the United States the obiter dictum is not binding, and therefore your idea about "settled opinion" seems fanciful.  SaltyBoatr get wet 17:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of POV and OR in this so-called edit correction
Maybe my original edit was not clear. Let me expand on the point that I wished to raise in this piece of text. And it goes back to the myths I spoke about earlier with regard to which of these two positions is correct,


 * (a) that the Second Amendment created a new right,
 * or
 * (b) whether it was an affirmation of an existing right.

If (b) is correct, then the American right is similar to the English right

Furthermore there are two other related issues (though I cannot I recall if this was in an earlier court's settled opinion in this or another case) as to


 * (c) whether the right is so fundamental that it applied to everyone
 * or
 * (d) whether the States can modify it through legislation (for example exluding felons or the insane from the right to have certain weapons.

If (d) is correct, then the States' situation is similar to parliament's in the UK - it can modify the right. I suspect though that it is not as simple as this. (I see from the judgment that the court found that the carrying of handguns is Americans preferred means of exercising their right to self defense and that it was wrong in principle for DC to seek to ban that ownership of that class of weapon). That certainly is a nig difference between the UK and the US because almost nobody carries a gun in the UK, not even the police (except in rare situations and at sensitive places such as ports of entry or near foreign embassies).

and finally also the issue of the words relating to the militia settled the argument


 * (e) was the right to arm pertinent only to those serving in the militia in the context of that service ?
 * or
 * (f) was the right intended to be for everyone (subject perhaps to due restictions on qualification?

If (f) is correct then the situation in the U.S. again resembles that in England

So first of all, am I right that it has been settled that (b) (d) and (f) are the settled positions and that all were decided in Heller? And if so, how can we best express that simply in the article (pointing out the similarities to the English law) without repeating all that is contained in the lower sections on Heller?

Comments please!--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, "decided in Heller" is not true. The decision of Heller was the Ratio decidendi, the holding, quoting verbatim:  "...we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."  It is also the case that there is a large amount of rationalization and reasoning written in Heller that we can read and try to make sense of.  Those writings are considered merely Obiter dictum, non-binding opinion.  I accept that some people like you think that non-binding opinion decides the matter of history.  There are many experts that disagree with you, quoting just a few:"an act of (self?)-deception or conscious fraud", "a hollow sham", "patently erroneous", "simply foolish" and "rife with absolutist rhetoric". The response from legal experts and well known historians has been scathing dismissal of Heller as being self-absorbed "law office history".  Certainly, the matter of the "true meaning" of history was not settled with Heller.  The only thing that was settled was the holding, which involved prohibition of an operable firearm for the purpose of immediate self-defense in homes in the District of Columbia.  To say much beyond that takes editor interpretation, which we can't do per policy.  For that we need third party reliable sourcing and neutrality balance.  SaltyBoatr get wet 17:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My Goodness! What is going on here? Why are people using unsourced opinion and moving the article into non-sensical sequences? Why are people still arguing over the ruling in Heller? Why can't the section on English history contain fact only without distorted blathering about squinting one's eyes and "clearly seeing" something to be true? Outrageous! It is so discouraging that, instead of improving the article, people are destroying it with point of view and original research garbage. Likewise, it does no good to repeatedly attack the ruling in Heller without acknowledging that it is the ruling. The law is the law is the law, reasonableness notwithstanding. Both of you need to cool it with the attacks and reverts and blighting of the article. Include both views and move on. Andy85719 (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't thing any of those law review articles have attacked the ruling of Heller, in other words, "the holding". The holding is simply the holding.   Those experts are criticizing the obiter dictum, the reasoning given to support the ruling.  There is a huge difference between the holding and the dicta.  It is sloppy for editor's here to confuse the two.    The reality is that there is a large quantity of reliable sourcing that questions the reasoning behind Heller, we must face that fact.   I strongly support including all the significant POV's that are seen in third party reliable sourcing, fairly and neutrally, so I don't understand how you can say I do not.  I do oppose original research, or POV imbalance.  SaltyBoatr get wet


 * Let's see if can find any agreement. I will outline my understanding of the issue.  The right to bear arms existed under (unwritten) common law and became the received law of the American colonies at the time of settlement.  The Bill of Rights 1689, which as imperial law was binding on the U. S. colonies, confirmed this right, at least for some subjects.  The common law and the imperial law continued in effect in the U. S. following independence although the former colonies and Congress had the power to repeal to restrict them.  Some states and the U. S. incorporated versions of the right to bear arms into their constitutions.  The actual meaning of the right and the power of U. S. legislatures to restrict it has never been resolved.  Although D. C. v. Hitchens Heller addressed some issues, a lot of the interpretation remains unsettled law.  While S. C. decisions are binding on lower courts, it is not a reliable source for understanding legal history.  TFD (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be more simple if you were to point to third party reliable sourcing, we shouldn't care about (as you put it...) "my understanding" . It has been frustrating for weeks now, but no one yet has pointed to a third party reliable sourcing that says "right to bear arms existed under (unwritten) common law".  When you read the most well known book on this topic: Joyce Lee Malcolm's (1996). To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674893077; the year 1689 is marked as the date of the origin of the right.  In that book she describes at length that the origin of "the right" occurred in 1689 with the English Bill of Rights.  Also, there is huge disagreement in the third party reliable sourcing if the right to "have arms" is synonymous with the right to "bear arms".   Prior to 1689, Malcolm explains in detail in that book, the issue of "having arms" was a duty to the crown for citizen police and militia duty.  I am not sure what you are speaking of when you say "D.C. v. Hitchens" I am guessing that you 'typo' meant to say DC v. Heller.  And, yes, the opinion of the court is simply opinion.  The court doesn't get to change history by ruling, they merely get to comment on history.   SaltyBoatr get wet 22:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur SaltBoatr. I wasn't referring to you when I attacked revisions, I was referring to a certain other editor that constantly places unsourced material into the English history section and says we need to look at context, dicta, blah, etc. Usually this material is a regurgitation of Heller, which had, until I began deleting footnotes, been hidden at the bottom of the page. Although I agree with the Heller ruling, I too am unwilling to use the ruling to justify a historical argument. I am certain, however, that such material exists, and, given enough research, may be brought to bear in this article. Andy85719 (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence that it was a natural right. Blackstone refers to it as such and says it was merely being restated in the Bill of Rights. We have another author (a British one) who says that the Bill of Rights actually changed very little. We have a British parliamentary library briefing for members of parliament which says that the Bill of Rights is NOT what a modern bill of rights is.. i.e. a declaration of fundamental rights which supercedes contrary laws (which is thee myth that you are trying to portray). And we have the very text of the Bill of Rights itself which makes it about as clear as it could be that it was about the anger of parliament with the former King having disarmed them and allowed Catholics to remain armed and it reinstating that right. We have Scalia in his judgment (rightly) referring to the fact that this was a negative right (one that stops someone from denying that right) enforceable against the Crown only and not against parliament (which could do as it liked). You cannot have it both ways by declaring that there was no right to arms before the Bill of Rights when the Bill of Rights ITSELF makes clear that is not true. Malcolm claims that the wording was somehow fuddled to make it LOOK like there was a right in existence before this time, but she offers no credible explanation for this. Elsewhere she recognises the fact there was a natural right to arms so this reference to previous rights and the the right in the Bill of Right can only refer to the right against the crown. There clearly WAS a right in common law to have arms for self defense. This is what the colonists were demanding and why they were angry when the Crown tried to disarm them. As I have said before, IF there was no right of man to arm himself for his self defense that would create a crazy situation in which an illegally armed person could go around at will killing legally unarmed people. British law even today does allow the right to be armed for self defense, but in its wisdom it has decided that there are certain weapons that are so lethal that it is in the best interest of society as a whole that they should not be in private hands, whether it be a potentially mass murder weapon as plutonium or a sub-machine gun, or something as deadly but less of a mass murder weapon such as a hand gun. I am at liberty to use legal arms to defend my life. What you are simply trying to do is to re-tell the myths that I have outlined. That these are "myths" is not just my "personal belief"; they are demonstrably true. --Hauskalainen (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hauskalainen writes "they are demonstrably true". Then demonstrate it by pointing to reliable third party sourcing.  Further, you need to demonstrate that they are the only point of view, otherwise, we need to neutrally describe that they are just one of the significant points of view.  SaltyBoatr get wet 12:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In the colonies the right to arms was a pre-existing rights not connected to any obligation to serve in the militia. The US Bill of Rights protects that pre-existing right. Madison did NOT create that right and in fact he was against a Bill of Rights, wanting the Constitution passed "as is" without a Bill of Rights.96.237.120.38 (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Saltyboatr, I did not quote RS because I wanted to know first what were the points of dispute. TFD (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Joyce Lee Malcolm's view (1996) is that the "right to bear arms" was actually an obligation of citizens to protect themselves, their neighbours and their country at a time when there were no police or standing armies, and was only elevated to a right by the Bill of Rights 1689. She also states that there is no evidence that the right existed in common law.  Blackstone however said it did.  The right to bear arms was an issue in "Bacon's Rebellion" (1676), and written about by Helen Hill Miller in The case for liberty (1965).  (I do not have a copy of this book.)  Since this article must be based on RS, my suggestion is to accept Malcolm's view until and unless current reliable sources are found that contradict it.  The types of sources required are difficult to find, and we may benefit from an expert.  Whether or not such a right existed under common law however, it was not an unalienable right, but an auxiliary right (per Blackstone).  TFD (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Warning!
This is a direct warning to all those engaging in editing that attempts that...

1. seek to re-write history by the false presentation of material. In particular making it seem that the history of the right to keep and bear arms in England was that it developed out out of an obligation to bear arms and that the right only fully came into being and with a proviso that it only applied to protestants and only came into effect with with the passing of the English Bill of Rights. (At best this is a WP:POV position which needs to balanced.)

2. downplay or worse, seeks to delete, material references in the article which points to multiple examples showing that the right to arms in England was


 * A. personal,
 * B. was a a right in common law,
 * C. applied equally to protestants and catholics and
 * D. applied both before and after the passing of the English Bill of Rights.

(deletion and downplaying of this material is tantamount to writing the article in a way to portray the one POV that the editors would wish the readership to know about and keep them from seeing alternative POVs. This is contrary to Wikipedia policy.) I also wish to warn editors that some of them are engaging in gaming the system which says that "Playing games with policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of communal consensus, or thwart the intent and spirit of policy, is strictly forbidden."

If this behavior continues their actions will be reported forthwith to the administrators.--Hauskalainen (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We have a dispute. (Disputes are not unheard of between editors editing important and potentially contentious articles, especially ones that invoke personal passion like this one.)  Wikipedia has guidelines about how to resolve disputes.  I am 100% committed to work through and resolve this dispute.  Will you agree to do this too?  The guidelines about how to resolve disputes is found here:  WP:Dispute Resolution.  Let's begin.   Starting at the beginning.  Speaking for myself, no I am not opposed to the point of view you describe.  My problem all along is that you are making this point based on your own personal research of centuries old primary documents.   Stop doing that.  Start using third party reliable sources.  Start doing that and this dispute can be resolved.  SaltyBoatr get wet 14:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course I am prepared to go to dispute resolution. Actually I would welcome it. I even suggested this myself early (my references to arbitration). You know exactly what I mean by the re-writing of history. I explained it well enough earlier in the context of the "myths" as I have labelled them. It would help if you stopped engaging in using WP policies to game the process for your own purposes. In particulat suggest you begin by re-reading this section regarding editors who cite Wikipedia policies (such as the rules on secondary referencing and original research as you just did above) when you know that the wider issue is that I am accusing you (and other editors) of is misusing those policies to defeat the proper purpose of Wikipedia which is to inform the reader of the truth and where there are differences of opinion as to what the truth is, to present these fairly and neutrally. Your calling my actions "personal research" and implying that my sources are somehow suspicious or ineligible is NOT acceptable behavior. If I can get you to accept that all I am trying fairly and honestly to get the article to represent a balanced view of English history then we can move forward. Otherwise I will report you and the other editors of trying to use Wikipedia policies to subvert the main aim of Wikipedia.


 * Now for my part I am fully willing to admit that I have made accusations against you which are not in accordance with WP:AGF. In particular my making it known publicly my personal belief that there is actually a cabal of editors here who SEEM to be furiously working to maintain the article and in their representing different shades of opinion. To the casual outside it seems that the article is being well maintained by a group of disconnected editors. My suspicion is that in fact, this too and fro is a sham and collectively they are working together to keep the overall content favorable to a certain POV. The English history section has been an example of this. I can't comment for sure about the other sections. An example of what they do is to make life very difficult for editors outside of this cabal to do what they are supposed to do - i.e. to join in and edit the article to make it more perfect. They have a deliberate policy when a new editor comes along. This is to have at least one editor from the cabal to side with them (at least at first) and another one who obstructs. The obstructive ones make life difficult by reversing edits or re-writing them in a way they they can be later modified again and again so that in the end the text and intent of the original author is lost. This process continues until the new editor gets fed up and goes away and leaves it in the hope that the other editor (who seemingly sides with him/her) will carry on the cause.Or they force a page protection claiming that an edit war is in progress with the aim of freezing the article in their preferred status. In the worst case, the "friendly" editor turns against the outside editor and leaves him without support. And then "voilá!" the cabal wins.


 * So what happens next? Are you going to help me get this English history section into a fair shape? (cos I am not giving up yet!) Or shall I expose your games in the last few days and my other suspicions to the Adminsitrators? I should say at this point that I am so "paranoid" (I think that is the term you would use) that your cabal has at least one or two Administrators "friendly" to your cause (I have met them here in cyberspace) that I will insist that a way is found to prevent an adminstrator from nominating him or herself to the task of reviewing the issues and making a recommendation on how to proceed. The choice is yours. --Hauskalainen (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, see below. SaltyBoatr get wet 19:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If this behavior continues their actions will be reported forthwith to the administrators. Speaking as a newly minted administrator, I'd greatly prefer it if you could resolve this without administrators getting involved ;-) I've been following the edits here for a few days (the article popped up over at WP:RFPP) and I have to say I've seen far, far worse content disputes - you all seem intelligent, capable editors. I'd suggest continuing discussion here, maybe consider asking for outside opinions at relevant WikiProjects, and - if necessary - consider dispute resolution. By posting here, I've made myself "involved", so please don't expect me to protect the article or block any of you - I won't! However, while I really don't feel admin involvement is required, I'm happy to offer my services as an editor. TFOWR 16:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * By all means watch and learn. But as you say, its best not to join in. I'd insist on several admins nominating a third who has never been involved in disputes over this or a related article. As you say, you kind of nominated yourself so it would not be appropriate. --Hauskalainen (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution - formal or through TALK?
Hauskalainen agreed to dispute resolution and asked "what is next?" Please look at the procedure then. Click here ==> WP:Dispute Resolution <==. You see it is a multi-step process, please read it. It starts simple and escalates if the simple steps don't work. The first three steps are:     1.1) Focus on content, 1.2) Stay cool and 1.3) Discuss with the other party.

So, let me start by acknowledging you and thanking for your efforts at conciliation above where you discuss WP:AGF. Please try to trust me that I am not part of a Cabal. At heart, my problem with this dispute is that the edits you are trying to make do not come from reliable third party sources. If only you could please use reliable third party sources I believe that our dispute could easily be solved. Please reconsider your approach here, and try to use reliable third party sources. I am open to hear your answer: Do you have a reason why you can't use reliable third party sources? SaltyBoatr get wet 19:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Er ... my "what happens next?" was followed by a choice for you to make. Were you going to help me get this English history section into a fair shape? Or did you want me to to go with my suspicions directly to the Administrators? It was not an open invitation to go straight to formal dispute resolution which I think would be crazy until we have had all the issues out on the table and discussed here first. Frankly we have not been able to get on to doing that because you simply dismiss the issues I have as fanciful, personal opinion, and without any foundation and so far have refused to engage with me over them.  For us to work together you have to first stop treating me like that. I am prepared to work co-operatively with you. I need to provide references, from valid sources, all within the rules. As do you. And we need to agree a way to present the issues fairly and without undue weight to just once view of the world. If we can do this then we may be able to agree an overall shape for the English history section and how to present the valid views that we have determined exist. Then we write the text. Simply battling in the article space is a waste of time. We need to sort out our issues here and invite as many editors that have edited this article in the past as we can - perhaps going back as far as 3 or more years. In that way we avoid having other editors coming along and unpicking it all later. What do you say to that?


 * If you don't agree to giving me proper respect and show willingness to co-operate then the issue of dispute resolution will not be about English History. I'd prefer not to do that but I will if the option of using TALK to thrash out the issues does not work. It's your choice. --Hauskalainen (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding your question about "...other editors coming along and unpicking it all later", sorry that is a problem some times. I remind you that every time you click "Save Page" when you edit the article you agree to the "terms of use" and with your click you acknowledge the warning "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. ".  You were warned of the problem that your writing would be edited, sorry if you didn't read the fine print.  That said, feel free to invite old editors if you want.SaltyBoatr get wet 21:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I know this - of course - and that is precisely why I want the other editors to know about this and contribute. Endless editing and re-editing is what the cabal does. --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is what I ask: I want to be able to corroborate what you claim by reading it in a book.  Point to that book please.  It isn't acceptable to me to only read what you claim here on this talk page.   And, no, I do not want to be interpreting 200 year old books. Nor, do I want to be told by you how to properly interpret 200 year old books.  Fortunately, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of contemporary scholarly books written on this topic. Any idea worth including in this article is written in those books. So, your ideas should be confirm-able by reading books.  SaltyBoatr get wet 21:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I will not be bound by your rules. You do not make the rules for Wikipedia. There are many sources available. Laws are a good primary source and their nature makes them a good and valid primary source (it is not true that ONLY secondary sources are compatible with Wikipedia policy). Even 200 year old books. I suspect (though I have not checked) that you may have referred to 200 year old documents yourself. We can leave interpretation to the reader. --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not my rules, just following WP:Policy is all I ask. WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.  If you are going to use primary sources, avoid any interpretation, see WP:PSTS. SaltyBoatr get wet 01:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You write: "I need to provide references, from valid sources, all within the rules. " Good, do so now please.  SaltyBoatr get wet 21:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I will do so. --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * When? SaltyBoatr get wet 13:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The answer to that question is "When I am ready". I have contacted an English academic lawyer for assistance on this one. I cannot guarantee that he will even answer my request or when he may da so if he is willing to help. I have done this because I don't see any point pulling together all the other information already available from the references within the article (from Malcolm and the opinion of the majority on the United States Supreme Court) that I have read that indicates that people had a common law (or natural law) right to arm themselves before the bill of rights lest there are other, (which no doubt you and others might choose to challenge on the basis of dodgy assertions like those of Malcolm) if there are easier and more reliable British sources to prove the point. Maybe in the meantime, whist I am working on gathering irrefutable proof that there WAS a pre-existing right have arms for self and collective defence before the Bill of Rights (and hopefully demonstrable too before the Norman conquest when the modern system or recording laws came into being) perhaps you will be kind enough to show WHEN it occurred and HOW it occurred that the English ever LOST the right to use arms for their defence. This I believe is the case that YOU are trying to defend (as per the myths I have outlined previously). You had better be prepared to substantiate it my friend. It is no good you just citing Malcolm unless Malcolm too can substantiate her claims. The claim has to be founded on SOMETHING or else it is worthless.  We know that Catholics and others were carrying arms before the Bill of Rights. Why was that not illegal? We know that landowners had firearms and could use them to shoot game. Whay was that not illegal? Why pass laws restricting possession of guns to "preserve the game" if those people had no rights to guns anyway?  Your argument that there were no rights to arms would, had it been true, not have needed the passing of such a law restricting them. It only makes sense if they DID have a right to use them BEFORE the law restricting use for hunting was passed. Something for you to think about.--Hauskalainen (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

My 2 bits, SB's objections to 200 year old books means that he objects to Blackstone's Commentaries, which are close to 250 years old. I for one strongly object to any attempt to remove references from Blackstone's Commentaries from the article.96.237.120.38 (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My objection is to the editor interpretation of these centuries old source documents. There is plenty of scholarly third party reliable sourcing discussing those books, and I support the use of that to include all significant points of view.  I am simply opposed to editor original research.  SaltyBoatr get wet 13:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am already aware that what is plainly evident, if not crystal clear, to an educated person, is as clear as mud to you. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if you are correct that I am dumb like mud, there still is no apparent reason to not improve the article by using third party secondary sources. Just because the point can be made using interpretation of primary sources doesn't mean that the point must be made that way.  I suspect your same point could easily be made using third party reliable sources.  Why don't you do that?  SaltyBoatr get wet 18:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And if a Primary source does a better job of illustrating a point, why not use that primary source? Why should we use an inferior secondary source that some second rate historian made up? Care to find a source that explains how the right to arms is militia based when at least one colonial government refused, even during wartime, to organize a militia? 96.237.120.38 (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Answering your question #1: Wikipedia is not about making a point.  Question #2:  Because using third party reliable sources is what we do here.  Question #3: I am not totally familiar with the history of the Pennsylvania militia during the Revolutionary War, but there sure seems to have been an active militia from Pennsylvania around that time  There was the issue of the politically powerful Quakers advocating for pacifism.  It looks like the answer to your question might be found in this paper by Nathan Kozuskanich.  SaltyBoatr get wet 03:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 1: If wikipedia is not about making a point, then why are you arguing so hard on behalf of the discredited militia based theory of the right to arms? 2:Not completely true. Here we use all sources in the manner allowed by wiki rules. Those sources are not limited to just 3rd party sources. 3: Those militias was not sponsored by the colonial government because the Quakers objected. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Answering your questions: 1) The reason is that I am arguing on behalf of including all significant points of view seen in the reliable sourcing. I am not arguing just for my personal point of view, therefore I am not trying to make a point.  I am trying to give fair coverage to all the significant points of view. 2) See WP:V which states prominently Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; while there are limited exceptions, the fundamental policy here is: reliable third party sources. 3) I don't care much about your speculation about Quakers and militia, unless you can point to sourcing for your idea, I have no choice but to discount it as mere original research.  SaltyBoatr get wet 21:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) I have yet to see post anything in favor of the individual right to arms. As a result you are making a point that the right is militia based. 2) Third party sources are not the only cites allowed by wikipedia policies. You constant attempts to get valid citations removed is at best tiresome. 3) Not speculation at all. Straight out of the Heller historians brief. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox
I have moved the disputed section over to a sandbox, so we can work out our problems while the article is locked.

See here: Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/english_history_sandbox

Let's work out the problems now please by finding agreements and improving the sourcing and neutrality, thanks. I started by focusing on some the unresolved concerns, and welcome collaboration with others. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have started this by making a number of edits to the draft text, and added some "original research" tags to the lines that probably can be fixed by doing our homework and finding verification in third party reliable sourcing. (Check the page revision history to see some of my comments.) I invite other interested editors to go to that sandbox and make their edits to help with the hard work of finding a mutually agreeable compromise, and one which complies with WP:Policy here. The sooner we complete this negotiation, the sooner this article can be unlocked. Let's get to work.  SaltyBoatr get wet 16:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The current English section reads like crap, and is full of it as well. The Civil War was not a struggle between a Catholic leaning monarch and Parliament. The English Civil War was a struggle against a PROTESTANT monarch who believed he could do whatever he liked, whenever he liked, to whoever he liked. That type of conduct is called "tyrannical". The article then can be taken to read that the Protestant militias disarmed the KING. HEEEELLLO! The use of periods at strategic points would be appreciated. Like I said, reads like garbage and is full of it as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * From the wiki article on Charles I

Charles I believed that he had no need of Parliamentary approval, that his foreign ambitions, which were greatly expensive and fluctuated wildly should have no legal impediment, and that he was himself above reproach. Charles believed he had no need to compromise or even explain his actions and that he was answerable only to God, famously stating: "Kings are not bound to give an account of their actions but to God alone".[33][34]
 * F —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The Divine Right was part of Charles I claims, but anyone claiming that Charles I was of the protestant religion is being fanciful. He was head of the "Catholic Church of England" - the reformed Anglican Church of England still claimed to be Catholic albeit without subservience to Rome. Hence the main references in the day was to "papists" - i.e. those that wanted to bring the Church of England back under the authority of Rome - which was as much a political threat than it was a religious one. Belonging to the Anglican church (or even being the head of the church as Charles was) does not per se make you a Protestant. The Anglican Church has always sat somewhere between pure protestantism and its Roman Catholic heritage. --Hauskalainen (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you cut out the derisive personal comments, they distract from what we are supposed to be doing here, which is writing this article. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hauskalainen - A Protestant is someone who "protests" the claim of the Catholic Church to be the one true Christian religion and the claim of the pope to be the leader of all true Christians. The Anglican Church which denies both, therefore falls into the Protestant camp. Its head is the Archbishop of Canterbury and not the pope and certainly not the king as you state above. Per this site http://www.boisestate.edu/courses/westciv/english/04.shtml Charles I was not openly a Catholic.


 * Salty. I know what a protestant is and many regard the Church of England as sitting somewhere between Catholicism and Protestantism. When the Church of England was formed it was called the Catholic Church of England. Only the titular head of the church changed. Catholic here meaning "having broad appeal". Many who stayed with the Church of England still thought of themselves as being Catholic even though the King and not the Pope was at its head. Only much later did the church take on some protestant character. But the spiritual beliefs of the people and their off-spring never changed overnight and the church divisions away from Roman Catholicism which was very strong in Germany and Scandinavia as well as the remoter corners of the British Isles, the Church of England steered a very middle course. The disputes between Protestants and Catholics in England were more or less political quarrels and not religious, odd as that may seem. Thus people in those days did not find it hard to switch church allegiances and the same can be true even today. As for instance was the case with Hauskalainen (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Much of the conflict between king and Parliament centered around religion. Charles was widely believed to favor Catholics, if not himself secretly one. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've always thought of the Anglican Church as not being quite Catholic, but not being quite Protestant. Its usually placed in the Protestant category, because it was created in opposition to the Catholic Church. Perhaps it would be better not to refer to it as being Protestant or Catholic. SMP0328. (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The English, the vast majority of whom are members of the Anglican Church and who did in fact revolt so that they would not be forced to become Catholics, don't consider themselves Catholics. See Glorious Revolution - the term "papist" - and of course the fact, pointed out repeatedly in the article, that "Protestants" are the only English group allowed a limited right to arms. " having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law." Can we now stop rehashing obvious material? or doesn't anyone here actually READ the article?96.237.120.38 (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

militia sentence
Responding to the AnonIP edit at the sandbox about militia, the proposed text: "In both England and America, subjects and citizens have created militias, many times of their own free will, without government sanction. " If that is a true statement, I need to see some sourcing. I have read many if not most of the books in the article bibliography, and I don't think any of them say that militias were "many times of their own free will". What the sourcing says is that mostly (actually always) the militias were formed on the order of the government. In the cases of the revolutionary militias, they were sanctioned by the local provisional rebel governments, like the Massachusetts Provincial Congress who met to keep and call up a militia in 1774, and the 99% rest of the time when not revolutionary, the militias were government. I think it is fair to summarize the sourcing as saying a group of people were gathered together not authorized by government would be described as an armed mob, or insurrectionists (as with Daniel Shays) where were crushed by governmental militias. That said, I tried to neutralize the sentence to be ambiguous about the origin of the militia. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That said, we need to continue to work to come to agreement as to a consensus about the disputed text. See the sandbox for the most current version of this work towards consensus.  Hopefully everyone interested can edit there, and in the near future we can move that sandbox live into the article to end this dispute.  Thanks.  SaltyBoatr get wet 16:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Any militias forms in Pennsylvania during the two decades prior to the Revolution were voluntary. The Pennsylvania colonial government refused to set up a statewide militia. From my readings the Massachusetts militia was voluntary and the leadership of that militia was elected by the members of the militia. Officers were not appointed by the Massachusetts government.96.237.120.38 (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * To SB: Before the Revolution, most if not all of the colonies were run by "colonial governors" appointed by the king. If you need to be told that those colonial governors did not set up the militias who resisted them, then even the making of mud pies is beyond your speed. http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/ "He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them."

English Section - Possible Compromise
After looking at the sandbox, I've come to the conclusion that I would much rather use a version of the English section, as it was before the SB/Hauskalainen conflict, as a starting point for further edits. The current version needs too much fixing up.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually think this idea is a good one, to start with a "last stable version" and then work forward. This has the complexity that the giant overhaul of the footnotes done by Andy85719  occurred simultaneously with Hauskalainen total rewrite the English history section.  It is unfortunate that Hauskalainen (and Andy85719) seem to have now disappeared.  We still have this open dispute, some discussion is needed. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK trying to keep this moving forward, I just updated the sandbox to change the proposed compromise English History section back to the last stable version prior to the conflict. Consider this a starting point and lets all try to find a mutually agreeable compromise for this section.  See here: Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/english_history_sandbox  SaltyBoatr get wet 12:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't disappeared (I do have a life outside of Wikupedia, and I do not get paid for my efforts here). I certainly do not agree with the suggestion that the start point is the start point in the article before this dispute broke out. That was a primary objection I had. It implied that there was some relationship betwwn the laws made in the early middle ages concerning an obligation to carry arms and those made during the period after the civil war when it was about the right not to have ones arms taken away without due process. As I have explained, this seemed to have been done to further a myth - one that said that the English gained a right to have arms for their individual and collective defense only by executing one king and ousting his royal successor once removed and the getting the new joint monarchy to agree to "granting" new rights. Futhermore the claim that this was only a right given to the "winning" protestant / parliament side and not to the "losing" catholic / royalist side. This is a total distortion of history.


 * there was no grant "given" because the right was an ancient one.
 * there was no negative discrimination in he Bill of Rights against non-protestants. Rather positive discrimination for protestants guaranteeing their rights and righting a wrong which had happened iunder the previous monarch
 * there is no connection between the Bill of Rights and the obligation to have arms for defense. It is disingenuous to begin the story of the Bill of Rights there.
 * worse still, the text had at one time implied that only a few people had the right to arms. This is incorrect. People had arms for hunting as well as for personal and collective defense.

We need to tackle first of all the BIG PICTURE, and the myth versus the reality issue. They cannot both be true. Either the right to keep and use arms in England (and in the second amendment) were new rights or they were not. They cannot be both at the same time. More likely I think that they were old but never before written down. Would SaltyBoatR I wonder argue that Boudica managed to defeat the Roman occupiers of Briton on several occasions without the use of arms? In Colchester, St Albans and London (though not known by those names at that time. Does he try to claim that her arms were illegal? On what basis I wonder

Once we have determined where the main evidence lies then we can tell the story. I repeat what I said earlier you cannot begin with a story they tells of a growing right. It has been a right pretty much since prehistoric cave times. It did not suddenly disappear (at least if it did, SaltyBoartR will be able to tell us when that happened because it'd certainly have been a significant event that he would know about. --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I hear your complaint which you summarize as: "That was a primary objection I had. It implied that there was some relationship betwwn the laws made in the early middle ages concerning an obligation to carry arms and those made during the period after the civil war when it was about the right not to have ones arms taken away without due process."


 * Can you hear my complaint? My complaint is that when I look at the book by Joyce Lee Malcolm (1996). To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674893077, I see that this book contradicts what you claim. Professor Malcolm argues in quite some detail that there is a relationship between the ancient duty to bear arms, and the modern right to bear arms.  I say we cannot ignore what we read in that book.


 * Can you suggestion a workable compromise between your position and my position? Please answer my question.  SaltyBoatr get wet 16:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We need to keep working on finding a compromise. The point of the article lock is to encourage us to discuss and resolve things on the talk page (as opposed to reverts in the article space.)  If we don't discuss it now, when?  SaltyBoatr get wet 14:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion
I came here in response to a plea posted on Third opinion. This is a rather complex discussion. After reading the debates on this page, I think one point of Wikipedia policy needs to be pointed out:

What matters on Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth.

Hauskalainen appears to be concerned with truth, but I don't see Hauskalainen offering up alternative reliable sources to back up his/her arguments. SaltyBoatr appears to be more concerned with what one particular source says. That should be the concern here: What do the sources say, not what the truth actually is.

Did I miss something? I can't quite tell if you two are arguing about interpreting the source in a way that changes its meaning, versus arguing one set of facts versus the source. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the third opinion. (Actually, you are about the sixth editor giving a similar opinion.) You got it correct when you wrote about Verifiability, not truth.    Hauskalainen's argument is that earlier version of this "English History" section contained "myth", and which he has replaced which his original research which is "the truth".   (That prior version was stable for at least a year and was cited to about a dozen reliable sources and reflected the full spectrum of significant POVs.)  The article now locked after his revert war to preserve his original version of "the truth" which he put into the article. We are supposed to be discussing this to work our our disagreements, and you can see how well that is going. SaltyBoatr get wet 21:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

When can we expect SaltyBoatr to provide evidence for the position he is trying to defend, which is that the English possessed NO rights to have arms for their self or collective defense before the twelfth century? This is his most astounding claim and it has to be supported by someting rather more substantial than a small line from which we are left to suppose that this was the case (because the writer Malcolm does not out and out claim that the English had zero rights to arms). This is only supposition which the reader has to have to make sense of her claims. And when will he (SaltyBoatr) explain how that that right was ever lost because it would have to have been taken away by somebody somehow? Then there is his supposedly clever argument that aomehow it is encumbent on me to prove that the English DID have rights in the early twelfth century. I am not a philosopher but I am sure that his demands that I have to prove that such rights existed are not logically do-able or even reasonable. It is akin to the question "When are you going to stop beating your wife"? You cannot really answer it one way or another because it itself is based on a false proposition. Earlier on in this discussion I posed the following point.

The argument that I must provide a reference for the common law right to keep arms for self defence is no different to asking me to provide a reference for the right that I have to keep milk in my refrigerator. There has been no law preventing me from keep milk in my refrigerator, nor is there a law preventing me from keeping an iron bar under my bed. I have a right to keep an iron bar under my bed just as much as I have a right to keep milk in my fridge. I can also walk down the street carrying milk just as freely as I can carrying an iron bar. The argument you are making is akin to saying that I have NO RIGHT to keep milk in my refrigerator because it has not been declared in some legal document (a law, a decree, or my nation's constitution).

His argument, that I must prove the existence of liberty to bear arms is really is intolerable because it is akin to asking me to provide a WP:RS that an English mother had a right to keep milk in a cool place in the twelfth century. Why would anyone ever wish to assert that? Only if that right had been taken away would it even be discussed! To prove the existence of a right of freedom of action is very difficult because generally the law is only about the curtailment of freedoms for some greater good. Not to drive whilst under the influence; not to sell food that is unfit for human consumption: not to carry out the services of a physician without proper training. It is a nonsense to expect me to "prove" the existence of a right or a liberty to do something. The nonsense that there was a time before the 12th century when having arms for self or collective defence must be supported by a demonstration of an historic event which caused this liberty to be lost. It would have to have been a momemtous occasion that must be recorded in history somewhere. Why cannot SaltyBoatr tell us when that happened? The simple answer is because it never did happen. And I suspect he knows it.

What does our Third Opinion have to say about that?--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Answering the question directed to me: I am just trying to read third party reliable sourcing (including the sources I don't personally agree with) and then to write an article that matches the sourcing.  Regarding the question of "right or liberty" going back into ancient times, I haven't read enough to have a solid idea of what the sourcing says.  It looks like Hauskalainen has read more than me.  I welcome the chance to read what Hauskalainen has been reading so I can confirm what he says, but he hasn't disclosed what secondary sourcing he has been reading.  SaltyBoatr get wet 14:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What I have to say about that is the same thing I said originally: Verifiability, not truth, is what matters on Wikipedia. Pause a moment to understand what that means. The existence of a right need not be "proven" &mdash; no one has demanded such proof &mdash; it merely needs to be asserted by a reliable source. Editors here are not reliable sources for such assertions.


 * The absence of a law does not automatically imply that a right existed. Therefore, a Wikipedia article should not take a position. To conclude that a right exists based on the argument above, amounts to a violation of the policy No original research.


 * As an analogy, there is no law in existence (that I know of) that specifically prohibits me from falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. Does that mean I have this right, because this instance of "free speech" isn't specifically prohibited by any law? The answer is no (if you look at the article I wikilinked, it's a documented court case). Yet, because the law is silent on this particular instance of speech, Hauskalainen would have Wikipedia taking the position that I do indeed have this right? Courts would disagree. Therefore Wikipedia can't take a position based on deductive logic.


 * Of course it's nonsense to "prove" the existence of a right. But that isn't necessary here. Wikipedia isn't about proof. All one has to do is find a reliable source that advocates the same thing that Hauskalainen is asserting, that the right to bear arms existed prior to the 12th century.


 * I suggest that the article say that common law didn't (or failed to) address the right to bear arms for individual or collective defense before the twelfth century. Beyond that, one cannot conclude anything about the existence of such rights during that period, unless a reliable source is identified that draws a conclusion. Drawing a conclusion without citing a source would violate the No original research policy. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not convinced that you are just an innocent watcher of the second opinion page who happened to stumble into this argument. I believe you are a part of the cabal of Wikipedia editors created to make this page seem to be edited by people with a variety of views, but in fact the cabal member even take contrary positions at times just to give the article the impression of being edited by people of various ideological persuasions. All I am saying is that that the right to have arms for one's own defence is an ancient right. It existed before the second amendment was written and even before the similar passage in the English Bill of Rights was written. It is a natural right and not a right granted by any legal body (King, parliament, founding fathers or what have you. It is that simple. I don't see why you don't insist that SaltyBoatr provide evidence that the right DID NOT EXIST in the 12th century. That is, in effect what he claims yet it is NOT what his source says. The way the article is written is to subtley suggest that the myth which Salty wants us to swallow has some validity even though NO SERIOUS SCHOLAR as far as I can tell is really advocating this. It is the cabal at work here that wants to create this impression. Salty is, I believe part of this cabal and for all I know, you may be too. Paranoid?? I don't think so. --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hauskalainen, can you please assume good faith? Attacking editors with whom you disagree is not acceptable. TFOWR 16:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be right to assume good faith if there was no evidence againt not doing so. (Sorry for the double negative). In fact the evidence rather supports me. You only have to go back to October 2008 to find an another innocent passer-by making this change. The edit is the very edit that I myself would like to put in the article. But whereas I have to provide a reference for my making such an edit, this editor does not, it seems, have to do so. So who is it making this edit?  Oh! Goodness gracious me!  It happens to be the very same editor who chides ME for making edits without a citation and who wishes to assure everybody that Wikipedia is not about TRUTH but VERIFIABILITY! Sorry, but I am not having any of it. There is a cabal at work here trying to use a very weak statement in a particular book, albeit by a reliable though POV source, to make a most outrageous claim... that there were no historic rights to arms by the English until some got an obligation and then 500 years later a "right" to have arms. SaltyBoatr's source actually does not state this though with some prompting might one believe that she does. In fact she clearly does not believe this at all. I found this article by reading the Wikipedia article history of October 2008.  Hmm... The very same Joyce Lee Malcolm says the following:-


 * "As Robert Cottrol points out, the American colonists took from England the tradition of armed individuals responsible for their own safety and for general peacekeeping duties in the larger community. Only one aspect of these duties was service in the militia. Common law, as practiced in both Britain and America, appreciated the need for men and women to be able to defend themselves and permitted them to do so. There was also, of course, a long philosophical tradition that a free man was a man who was armed. All this seems unusual today, not because there is no longer a need for self-defense, but because most governments, including the British government, have not trusted their people to be armed and have, instead, insisted on a monopoly over the use of force"


 * It would be interesting to see who put this into the article and who later who took it out. Would you like me to continue to find out who did this?  It might be interesting but it'd take me a little while. And I believe that you too are part of the editing cabal. Sorry if you think that too breached WP:AGF but I think I'll find that the record shows this too. --Hauskalainen (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And I believe that you too are part of the editing cabal. Sorry if you think that too breached WP:AGF but I think I'll find that the record shows this too. Just so I'm clear, was that directed at me? TFOWR 18:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hauskalainan, did you even read my response? It says right up there: one cannot conclude anything about the existence of such rights during that period, unless a reliable source is identified that draws a conclusion. That was a response to both SaltyBoatr's position and yours. Your conspiracy theories about cabals and such are meaningless and distasteful.
 * You claim the right to bear arms is a natural and ancient right. I agree with you. But that's an opinion, or at least a logically derived conclusion. Your opinion and mine don't matter here. Your logical arguments don't matter here. Remember, verifiability, not truth is all that matters. Your claims of "the truth" won't trump Wikipedia policy. If you disagree, you are free to start your own encyclopedia with different policies. But here on Wikipedia, you must find a source that says what you claim, or stop arguing about it. In other words, put up or shut up &mdash; to both of you. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If I may defend myself here. I am not actually arguing against what Hauskalainan believes.  I am doing nothing more than insisting that if he wants to insert his belief into this article I (we) must be able to verify it against third party reliable sourcing.  Considering that the burden of proof is on the editor seeking to insert material, in this case, the burden to "put up or shut up" is on him.  My duty here is to verify Hauskalainan sourcing.  Pardon me if I am dogged in my insistence on verifiability, but I insist.  SaltyBoatr get wet 19:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There are any number of articles in wikipedia that have few citations. Much of that is due to the fact that most of that material is common knowledge and needs few citations. The fact that the right to arms for self defense is a right that pre dated the Bill of Rights is in that same kind of common knowledge. I find some of the things that SB wants citations on to be in the "plain as day" category. I myself was forced to find a citation to the freaking "Divine Right of Kings", which anyone with two brains cells should know about.96.237.120.38 (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First: We are discussing this article. WP:OTHERSTUFF discussions of flaws in other articles are irrelevant here.
 * Second: Contentious claims require references, plain and simple. See Verifiability. If it wasn't contentious, we wouldn't be discussing it. The burden of finding a source is on the person wanting to insert the claim. I quote: "anything challenged or likely to be challenged, ... [must] be attributed to a reliable source." Like it or not, that is the official policy here.
 * Third: It is also "common knowledge" that unwritten rules exist, that have been enforced now and then through history. Common knowledge can go either way. The assertion that the absence of a law restricting a right automatically means the legal system of the time recognized such a right is a contentious assertion that needs a source. Either find records showing that the right was recognized, or find a reliable source making that claim. Otherwise, the article cannot take a position either way. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I grant there is a common knowledge of a natural right of self-defense, with limitations of duty to retreat, on concealed weapons, etc. that vary over time and vary from place to place. (Because of these variances and more, this is such an important issue to this article that we should be precise when describing it and sourcing is important to that end.) This gets sticky when editors seek to expand the framing of a self-defense right as being protected by the Second Amendment. Some sourcing says it is, and some sourcing says it is not. On that point, there are distinct disagreements between the significant POV's which each must be fairly described here. These POV's also vary over time, and that also must be fairly represented here. For instance, from 1939-2008 the Supreme court held one POV and from 2008 to 2010 the same court (w/ different justices) held another, the article should fairly describe this POV shift over time. The safe way to navigate this thistle patch is to set aside personal opinion, read all available reliable sourcing and write a fair summary based on the balance of that sourcing. SaltyBoatr get wet 22:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You're not arguing against what I have written? It sure seems like the contrary to me. If you are willing to accept that it was a long held right to have arms in natural law or common law we now get back to the main issue which ís the nature of the English Bill of Rights and the fundamental connections between English history and the Second Amendment. Lets keep that discussion in the section I created for this purpose. --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If the cabal here wishes me to continue my investigations on past editing activities by y'all I am glad to do so. My eyesight may be failing but at the moment I have read enough into your past activities to build quite a strong case to show that this is what you are all up to. This will involve looking back also at the editing and intervention history of some Administrators and how they achieved their status (i.e. who recommended them and THEIR edit history. If on the other hand you'd rather I went away and left you to it, then you had better stop trying to re-write English history and use WP:Game to do so. TRUTH is just as important as VERIFIABILITY. Verifiability is the route to truth. After all, we are not here to tell fairy stories. Well, some of us are not anyways.--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the quote you provided from Malcom above is a good.
 * However, your "cabal" accusations are boring and tiresome. If pursuing that accusation is your pleasure, please take it off this page and knock yerself out pursuing it somewhere else. Your violation of WP:AGF is off topic on this page, and inappropriate. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You may find it boring and tiresome but a new editor arriving on these pages should be aware of the tactics that are used. You are not exactly an editor who has never edited this page before. Presenting yourself as some neutral third party coming anew to the topic chasing an appeal from another editor here does not quite fit your editing history does it? To be clear, third opinion gives a strong hint that editors who have previously edited the article in dispute should NOT offer a third opinion because it could be construed to be biased. You brought this on yourself. It is because of the editing histories I see that this is a problem and this is exactly the page to make the point so that other editors can be made aware that this may be going on. THey would do well to be on their guard. In fact it deserves to be in section all of its own. You are right though - this issue needs to be discussed elsewhere also. Ultimately. If I decide to take it further that is. It all depends on what happens next.
 * --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, I have not previously edited this article in the context of a dispute. I have reverted unexplained anonymous edits without regard to content, and reverted vandalism, probably a handful of times, a couple years ago. My first encounter with this article was to give a third opinion a couple years ago. I believe my editing history will confirm those facts. I haven't monitored this article in well over a year. When it appeared again on WP:3O, I decided to return to offer another opinion, again without editing the article. Given those facts, I daresay whatever problem you perceive doesn't exist.
 * Regarding your perception of bias: You're imagining it. From the beginning, I have based my opinion on Wikipedia policy. I have even stated that I agree with your point of view, so if I have any "bias" it's in your favor. Wikipedia policy, however, doesn't permit me to render an opinion based on my own personal view, but on what Wikipedia policy says. That's all I did. I find it curious that you find this "biased" just because it goes against our shared view. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, let's WP:AGF and keep on topic. I think the above quote of Malcolm citing Robert Cottrol is a step in the right direction for Hauskalainen who so rarely makes any attempt to identify his sourcing.  This cite comes from a debate sponsored by the American Bar Association, and I question whether debate transcripts qualify as reliable sources in Wikipedia.  Considering that debaters are trained to debate various points of view, even hypothetical points of view, citations to a debates are not the same thing as citations to scholarly research papers and books which are fact checked.  That said, that ABA debate is informative because the various debate participants do a good job of framing each of the significant POV seen about this topic.  SaltyBoatr get wet 22:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I cited Malcolm. Malcolm was not citing Cottrol. She was giving her own historical view of the matter. --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

SB/Hauskalainen - rules on edit war and 3 revert rule
The 3 revert rule is used as a guideline to see if editors are engaged in a edit war, which SB and Hauskalainen obviously were prior to the freeze of the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edit_war

The three-revert rule ("3RR") states: An editor must not perform more than three reverts (as defined below) on a single page within a 24-hour period.

A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.

Per above any change that involved the "deletion" or "replacement" of pre-existing material, of as little as one single word, is an edit that counts as a "revert". 3 changes pr day is all that is allowed. Editor still have considerable leeway to make changes per bold section above. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you trying to imply that I breached the rule somewhere along the line? I know the rules full well.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I read it as a gentle reminder to both (or all) editors. As this article was listed at WP:RFPP not that long ago, it's probably worth mentioning WP:3RR from time to time. TFOWR 16:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is also worth mentioning the core message behind this administrative page lock: "Don't use edits to fight with other editors – disagreements should be resolved through discussion ... editors are strongly encouraged to engage in civil discussion to reach a consensus" Therefore, during this article lock down, we should be discussing things civilly and resolving our disagreement, so that the lock can be lifted.  SaltyBoatr get wet 16:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Responding to both SB and Hauskalainen: From the volume of edits originating with both of you, I am sure both of you have been in violation of 3rr multiple times over the past couple of weeks. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources
WP articles must be based on reliable sources and so far only SaltyBoatr has provided any. Whether or not Malcolm's views are the final word, only reliable sources may be used to present alternative views. Some writers have claimed that the right to bear arms was an issue in Bacon's rebellion in Virginia, which was before the Bill of Rights 1689. However, I cannot find any scholarly sources to support this view. Blackstone's work cannot be considered a reliable source for law before the Bill of Rights, but that should not present a problem because we can use modern commentaries on his writing as sources. Also whether or not the right existed at common law, it was an auxiliary not unalienable right. There was no question that the Imperial Parliament had the power to limit or abolish this right. (Incidentally the Bill of Rights 1689 continued in force after the U. S. revolution.) TFD (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Blackstone CANNOT be considered a RELIABLE source? What color are the pills you are on? Blackstone is THE source for law.96.237.120.38 (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You should avoid making personal attacks. Blackstone was a legal scholar and his Commentaries on the Laws of England have influenced legal understanding in the U. S,  But his interpretation of history has been questioned and he is seen as defending Whig history.  If such a book were published today however it would be considered a tertiary source.  Although Blackstone wrote in 1765-1769 that the right to bear arms existed under common law, he provided no examples of case law that establish this.  Did he form this conclusion by reading the Bill of Rights 1689 or from reading through cases that predated the bill?  Of course following 1689 the issue of whether the right existed under common law was moot.  TFD (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Every author cited in the article defending the militia based theory is also interpreting history. From all indications wrongly. Why can they be used and not Blackstone?96.237.120.38 (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Because we do not know what degree of acceptance, if any, his views on this matter are accepted today. (Please see WP:NPOV.)  However that should not present a problem for you.  If his view is correct, then contemporary sources will confirm it.  He also wrote, for example, "To deny the possibility, nay, actual existence, of witchcraft and sorcery, is at once to contradict the revealed Word of God in various passages both of the Old and New Testament."  (Wendell's Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol. IV, p. 59.  Stephen Abbott Northrop, D.D., A Cloud of Witnesses (Portland, Oregon: American Heritage Ministries, 1987), p. 33)  We cannot use that as a reliable source that the Bible is the revealed word of God and that witches exist.  Otherwise we would have to radically change most of the articles on science and ancient history.  TFD (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Opinion today is not the issue. Opinion when he wrote his material is the issue. Blackstone is a a reliable third party source on the law, easily verified. he is considered THE SOURCE by many. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Any claim that Blackstone is not WP:RS must be dismissed and the claimant discounted for making it. All of which is not to say the claimant may not present alternate contrary views, so long as they are backed up themselves by WP:RS. -Welhaven (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Joyce Lee Malcolm references in Heller
Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. See J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms 31–53 (1994) (hereinafter Malcolm); L. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, p. 76 (1981). Under the auspices of the 1671 Game Act, for example, the Catholic James II had ordered general disarmaments of regions home to his Protestant enemies. See Malcolm 103–106. These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” 1 W. & M., c. 2, §7, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441 (1689). This right has long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment. See E. Dumbauld, The Bill of Rights and What It Means Today 51 (1957); W. Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America 122 (1825) (hereinafter Rawle). It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia. To be sure, it was an individual right not available to the whole population, given that it was restricted to Protestants, and like all written English rights it was held only against the Crown, not Parliament. See Schwoerer, To Hold and Bear Arms: The English Perspective, in Bogus 207, 218; but see 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §1858 (1833) (hereinafter Story) (contending that the “right to bear arms” is a “limitatio[n] upon the power of parliament” as well). But it was secured to them as individuals, according to “libertarian political principles,” not as members of a fighting force. Schwoerer, Declaration of Rights, at 283; see also id., at 78; G. Jellinek, The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens 49, and n. 7 (1901) (reprinted 1979).

By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects. See Malcolm 122–134. Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999), cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen. See 1 Blackstone 136, 139–140 (1765). His description of it cannot possibly be thought to tie it to militia or military service. It was, he said, “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” id., at 139, and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence,” id., at 140; see also 3 id., at 2–4 (1768). Other contemporary authorities concurred. See G. Sharp, Tracts, Concerning the Ancient and Only True Legal Means of National Defence, by a Free Militia 17–18, 27 (3d ed. 1782); 2 J. de Lolme, The Rise and Progress of the English Constitution 886–887 (1784) (A. Stephens ed. 1838); W. Blizard, Desultory Reflections on Police 59–60 (1785). Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

And, of course, what the Stuarts had tried to do to their political enemies, George III had tried to do to the colonists. In the tumultuous decades of the 1760’s and 1770’s, the Crown began to disarm the inhabitants of the most rebellious areas. That provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms. A New York article of April 1769 said that “[i]t is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence.” A Journal of the Times: Mar. 17, New York Journal, Supp. 1, Apr. 13, 1769, in Boston Under Military Rule 79 (O. Dickerson ed. 1936); see also, e.g., Shippen, Boston Gazette, Jan. 30, 1769, in 1 The Writings of Samuel Adams 299 (H. Cushing ed. 1968). They understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves. As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.” 1 Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) (hereinafter Tucker’s Blackstone). See also W. Duer, Outlines of the Constitutional Jurisprudence of the United States 31–32 (1833).

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 17 June 2010


 * That is all very interesting, but it is original research. You need reliable sources that state this.  You must also be aware that it must be determined whether this is a consensus, majority, minority or fringe view and be presented properly according to neutrality.  TFD (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Original research is something original. This is the US Supreme Court referencing Malcolm, who in turn references Blackstone and others. All the text is copied verbatim from Heller.96.237.120.38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC).
 * Could you explain where in WP:RS it says that court decisions are reliable sources anything other than their decisions? In any case, observations by judges are obiter dictum, and therefore do not orm part of the law and are not binding on other courts.  TFD (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you explain where it says that court decisions ARE NOT reliable sources.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Court decisions are primary sources. They should be used for what the decision says, but not what it means.  Offering an interpretation of a court decision that's not completely totally obvious (XYZ was found guilty of crime ABC) is OR.  If the decision is even slightly controversial, interpretations of it should be based on secondary sources. Ravensfire ( talk ) 14:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The text above comes directly from the US Supreme Court "opinion" in Heller. It summarizes the accepted views of the right to arms. What is your problem with that? Do you find the US Supreme Court "unreliable"?96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, many top experts writing in major law reviews and university journals say that Scalia's opinion attached to that US Supreme Court ruling is "a hollow sham", "patently erroneous", "simply foolish" and "rife with absolutist rhetoric" and "self-absorbed law office history". Considering the amount reliably sourced criticism we are seeing of this SCOTUS opinion, the policy WP:REDFLAG comes up, and we should be cautious when using it as a definitive source of history in this article. It is one opinion, but not the definitive opinion. SaltyBoatr get wet 15:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * and about as many think that Scalia did not go far enough. Now here is the $1,000 question: Why can YOUR use of Malcolm's work be OK, but the use of that work by the Supremes is not?
 * Is there significant reliably sourced criticism of Malcolm's book? If there was, then WP:REDFLAG would apply there too.  SaltyBoatr get wet 15:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am asking you a simple question, If it is OK for YOU to use that book as a reference, why is it NOT OK for the Supremes to do the same?96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please, don't put words in my mouth. As I said, court decisions are primary sources. You can use them to talk about what was said/what was ruled, etc. You cannot interpret them without sourcing to a secondary source unless it's obvious. Summarizing what the SC said and attributing it to them based on that source is probably okay (haven't looked deep enough in this to say one way or the other). Offering an interpretation of that ruling needs a secondary source. Example - "SC said XYZ, which means that PDQ is good but ABC is not" where PDQ and ABC aren't the scenario in the ruling, but similar enough they probably are affected. Ravensfire ( talk ) 15:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you bothered to read the "quoted material" you would have noticed that it already contains a plethora of verifiable third party references in its text. Again: what is your problem?96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What is your problem? Take a look at the question I was trying to help answer.  It was asking about court decisions as reliable sources.  That's all I answered.  Sheesh.  Pardon a guy for trying to help out here.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 17:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You QUESTONED using the statements of the US Supreme Court on an interpretation of law. That's like questioning the ability of a Nobel Prize winning chemist to answer a question on Chemistry. Sheesh right back at you!96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems like Groundhog day, again. Must we keep on arguing whether third party reliable sources are needed?  Or, can individual editors which hold strong personal opinions as to  "the truth" insert it into the articles?  Fundamentally, this boils down to the question of whether we are going to follow the WP:V policy.  Show us the sourcing.  SaltyBoatr get wet 14:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Like "the truth" you keep pushing that the right to arms is militia based.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

To correct what seems to be obviously boneheaded thinking by a number of posters, let me repeat that the title of this section is "Joyce Lee Malcolm references in Heller" and all text quoted is verbatim from the Heller opinion.96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I am not pushing "the truth". I am simply asking that we give fair and proportionate treatment to all significant points of view which we see published in reliable sources. SaltyBoatr get wet 15:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You do understand that the above can be taken to mean that you are pushing "a lie". And I am not particularly amused by the fact that every source you don't like is "unreliable".96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If we disagree about what is or is not considered a reliable source, then let's take our disagreement to the reliable source noticeboard. I welcome outside opinion.  SaltyBoatr get wet 15:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Considering all the cites already in the article to US Supreme Court language, I don't see a need to further waste my time.96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Lund seems to be suffering some sort of schizophrenia
Looking at SB's references above, I find one to be Merkel, who from all appearances is at best a second rate historian, and another to be by Lund, who seems to be of two minds. Lund states that the interpretations of Miller and Heller are irreconcilable, i.e so different that they cannot be reconciled, and then states that SCOTUS adopted the Miller opinion.

''The interpretations of the Second Amendment in the two cases are irreconcilable. There was no legal need for the Heller Court to adopt Miller’s interpretation of the Second Amendment,''96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The Levinson "simply foolish" by was directed at Justice Stevens, and not Scalia

Justice Stevens, for example, writes that anyone who reads the text of the Second Amendment and its history, plus a murky 1939 decision of the Court, will find “a clear answer” to the question of whether the Second Amendment supports a “right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes.” This is simply foolish.96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Tushnets "absolutist rhetoric" comment is about Scalia's failure to follow his own method of interpretation,thereby compromising the opinion.

Justice Scalia’s majority opinion is rife with an absolutist rhetoric about the methods of constitutional interpretation, but the compromises embedded in the opinion are inconsistent with that rhetoric.96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

English Section - Prelude to taking this dispute to dispute resolution. Sub-points of issue
(I brought this section and sub section back from the archive - the issues here are NOT resolved--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC))

I don't agree with the suggestion in the previous section about arguing the situation from an earlier frozen position. This is because the very structure of the section was trying to push a POV and that is what is so unacceptable. I'd rather that we discussed the issues that I have raised previously, and then see what are the things that we can agree on and what are the things we disagree about. This is with a view to taking these things to some form of arbitration, probably in connection with WP:POV.

My problem was the structure of the article which basically said the following:-


 * 1) That there has been a progression in the development of the right to bear arms
 * 2) That it began in England where (simplicity) there was originally no right to bear arms and then
 * 3) There came an obligation on SOME to bear arms for a limited purpose
 * 4) That after a battle with the king there was wrenched a right for protestants to bear arms and
 * 5) finally that the right of everyone to bear arms came first to America in the writing of the constitution.

Now let us look at the various elements and let us see where we agree and disagree.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Progression of the law
Clearly there has been a series of laws regarding arms. And clearly Malcolm contends that this means that this was an ever developing progression from no rights towards full rights. This contentious position is how the English history section is written. But this is just Professor Malcolm's OPINION. It is certainly challengeable. As is the claim that the English Bill of Rights was a major breakthrough in the "granting" of rights. These two disputed issues (that the English originally had no rights and that English Bill or Rights resulted in the granting of rights to protestants only) are the subject of objections detailed further below. I am going to suggest that anyone who wants contest anything concerning those specific issues raises them in the appropriate section below. Otherwise it will get confusing having these issues handled in different places. Comments in this section (Progression of the law) should be confined only to the matter of referring to individual laws (such as the law relating to obligations on certain persons to carry arms) and using them (or misusing them, depending on your POV) to "tell a story" of a "developing right". --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If there is a dispute about whether the Malcolm book is a reliable source, the place to discuss that is the reliable source noticeboard. I see no sourcing at all for Hauskalainen stated opinion (even if it is was true), it would violate policy to use it here per WP:NOR. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not a question of whether or not Malcolm is a serious academic (I have little doubt that she is), or whether her book in general is a reliable source. I suspect you know this already. The issue is whether the basis for the particular telling of history (on the dust cover and brief way into the text) that Americans right to have arms developed out of England from a situation where there was originally no right, to an obligation for some and then into a right for most and ultimately into a right for all is a true summary of what she believes or knows to be true. It seems to me to be more like the work of a marketing executive given the job of producing the front cover and an editor trying to make the preface reflect the story on the dust jacket. I have a feeling that I have already read in Malcolm's works much of which seems to go against this "summary" story. Beyond this I will go no further at present because there are two big implications of this "evolving right" (that there were no rights in England at one time, and that the Bill of Rights granted a new right) which are contestable. These are better discussed in the appropriate sections below. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This issue is not one of WP:RS but rather one of WP:NPOV. At the point where the claim is made, there are no primary sources given (which makes me suspect that these are not her writings). So at worst we can only describe this as her point of view. I would urge you to use the sections below to point us to examples in her texts which are her justification in the implications in the text that Englishman at the turn of the millennium and at all times before then had zero right to have arms and the implied assertion that the Bill of Rights "granted" new rights or that it only was "granted" only to protestants. If you cannot do so we must take this claim of progression as a being POV. If that is the case then at the very least we have to present alternative POVs and at best we should not structure this section of the article to tell an evolving story of new expansion to rights if that interpretation is open to question.--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with the edits and the sources is really very serious. What we have here is an editor who wants to defend the use of ONE SOURCE (Malcolm), saying one small thing in her book, and using that to construct a wholly revised view of English History! It has never been in doubt that Englishmen hava always had the right to use arms to defend themselves and protect their family and use spears bows and arrows to catch food to feed himself and his family. These are ancient rights.


 * But now, one Wikipedian who is defending the use of a small quote from an American historian who intended to rewrtite the entire history of English rights up to 1100 and the 500 years or so beyond that. Salty must go and get better references if he wants to change the story of English history. How did the English do Battle with the Vikings at the Battle of Maldon in 991 or Boudica defeat the Romans 900 years earlier if they were not armed? The whole idea that the English had no right to arms at the start of the second millenium is SUPPOSITION based on ZERO evidence. Or if they had the right then and then lost it, when did this happen? This is why the claim is so egregious.


 * It should not be for me to defend the common view of history, but for SaltyBoatr to defend his outrageuous revisionist view. What other serious historians hold this view? If he wants to claim that the English had zero rights at the turn of the first milennium then he had better do so with with something more substantial than a throw away line in a book about the Second Amendment.--Hauskalainen (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

In England there was originally no right to bear arms
This is an implied argument both in the telling of history in the section and is seemingly that asserted by Malcolm in the early part of her book and on the dust cover. What is the evidence for this assertion? In fact, it's just her OPINION. It is not based on any primary sources (as far as I can tell). --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If there is a dispute about whether the Malcolm book is a reliable source, the place to discuss that is the reliable source noticeboard. That book is published by Harvard University Press, and as a general rule of thumb books published by major university publication houses are considered reliable sources here. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

We do know that for centuries, Man has carried arms both for hunting and for defending his kith and kin. We know that many legal historians claim that this is a "natural right", born of the right of every man to live peaceably in his environment and to be able to feed himself and his family. We know also that English law has many sources and that legislation and decrees are just one of them.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Need to verify this assertion in reliable sources. Please provide your sourcing.  SaltyBoatr get wet 20:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My genetic memory states convincingly that, when facing a lion, tiger, pack of wolves, and assorted other meanies, it is better to be armed and alive, so that one can ENJOY supper, then to be unarmed and BE supper. If you doubt my genetic memory, we can try to test yours for confirmation. Is there a zoo near you with a zoo keeper that will look the other way, so that we can toss you into the lions den? If you scream in mindless panic, I think your genetic memory will provide the needed confirmation. :-)96.237.120.38 (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that this needs verification but are you seriously suggesting that Englishmen did not have longbows, simple bows and arrows, or spears before the twelfth century? Or that if they did they were doing so illegally. Or that many laws are not written down but made by judges based on what is deemed to be fair? It seems to me that you are engaging in gaming the system again. Please desist! I am not providing text for the article but just trying to reason with you. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

For years Kings and Justices have interpreted the law based on what is fair and which will have the support of the people. Joyce Malcolm in her "progression" myth cites only the law as she has seen it develop by decree and by parliament and is ignoring that other source of law, the common law. Law made by Justices and Kings based on what is fair. If the implied assertion is that the English had no such right, when did they lose it? What decree took away the right to have arms generally for hunting or self defense? I think we need to be told.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Regardless whether Malcolm is correct or not, that book is a reliable source. The Hauskalainen assertion is unsourced and even if he is correct, it violates WP:NOR.  Also, if there are differing significant opinions, they all must be included.  You can't just delete significant opinion because you dislike it.  SaltyBoatr get wet 20:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a crucial matter of whether Malcolm is correct or not. Either the English had the right to use arms at the turn of the first millennium or they did not. It is wrong for you to say "she is a reliable source so she cannot be questioned". My view is that she does not ANYWHERE make this claim other than implicitly in the recounting of the progression of laws. It is not made explicitly and as far as I can tell it is not backed anywhere by a primary source. At best it is Malcolm's opinion. At worst it is misrepresentation of her views by her publisher. We need to cite it as opinion and not fact if is not backed up by a primary source. We can see from both Blackstone's commentaries and the full wording of the Bill of Rights that parliament certainly felt there had been a long established right to arms before the passing of the Bill of Rights. We certainly should not structure the article as if it were fact.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There came an obligation on SOME to bear arms for a limited purpose
That such an obligation was imposed (and which presumably had previously been just a moral obligation) is not in doubt. What is important here is not that such laws were passed (which is not in dispute) but their meaning in the context of an alleged "developing right" (which IS disputed). In this regard, Professor Malcolm is not a secondary source but a primary one. It is her opinion. We know for a fact that Joyce Lee Malcolm is a supporter of the value of the gun laws stemming from the right in the US Constitution. She has even written in an British newspaper about how proud she is of this. Her opinion is, however, no more valid than anybody else's. I am going to suggest that nobody adds any comments to this section because, for the record, I am not doubting that there ever was any such obligation written in law. If you wish to discuss the issue of the validity of the use of this as contextual to a "developing right" I would suggest that this is made in the sub-section titled "Progression of the law" because, as far as I can see there is no other reason for referring to this otherwise non-contentious fact of law. --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

After a battle with the King, the English wrenched a right for protestants to bear arms
This is a very easy mistake for an ordinary person to make just reading one line from the Bill of Rights. It is important to read the law in full to understand its meaning (something which I added and has not been taken out of the article). It is not a mistake that a professional historian should ever make (even an opinionated one like Joyce Lee Malcolm). It is a challengable assertion on several grounds. It implies that there was no right for Catholics or Protestants to have arms before its passage into law. This is not the case because the very "law" itself asserts that both Catholics and Protestants has been carrying arms before its passage and historians do no doubt this. It challengeable also because it seems to claim that the law says that only Protestants ended up with a right to carry arms. But clearly, non-protestants have had arms legally after the passage of this law. In fact, the English Bill of Rights neither created a new right to arms or took away an old one. I have already given you a reference that says that in practice the English Bill of Rights did not really change very much at all. It was an affirmation of existing rights and an undoing of the wrongs (performed illegally as the drafters would have it) by the previous king. It is totally a distortion of fact to claim that this was the granting of a new right to have arms for defense. --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It is wrong also to imply that the battle with the King was over the right to have arms. The English Civil War was primarly about the the powers of the King to raise taxes to finance a standing army in support of the monarchy without the consent of Parliament. It was not about the personal right to have arms as the article once implied. It did lead to the temporary disarming of Catholics holding arms caches (for fear of them being used for an armed struggle involving foreign powers to overturn the State religion in favour of re-establishing catholicism). It culminated in the unprecendented beheading of a King, and briefly to Republicanism. But not over arms. The civil war and the Glorious revolution that led to the establishment of the Orange William and Mary as co-monarchs was certainly the background to the English Bill of Rights. But it is totally wrong to imply that the Bill of Rights created a new right and a denial of rights to others. This is a mistelling of history and a grievous wrong which we, as Wikipedians, ought to resist. It may be ONE VIEW or one claim but it has to be told in the context of other views and background material which totally contradicts the claim. I am greatly annoyed by the removal of this contextal material which shows this position to be false.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that Salty seems prepared to agree with me that the English DID have a natural law right to have arms to defend themselves (and if we use the Malcolm quote I just gave as evidence that she herself does not believe that the English had zero rights to arms in the twelfth century), then his next job ought to be to find a respectable source that believes that the English Bill of Rights granted (a) a new right (in which case the source must tell us where the old right went) and (b) that it granted this "new" right ONLY TO PROTESTANTS. My understanding from history and from reading around this subject for many weeks (both English writes and American ones) is that the English Bill of Rights did not create a new right but just re-stated that old common or natural law right. If you want the article to say (a) and (b), then what are your sources? It is not a small matter.


 * And thence to the meaning. If the American drafters of the Second Amendment simply restated their pre-existing rights (in the same way as the English did - which is as I understand the Supreme Court's majority view) did putting this text into the constitution actually change anything? And how does the difference in the wording (references to "militias" which appears only in the American wording and to "suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law" in the English version affect their interpretation and impact. These are obvious differences but what is the impact of them?

--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hauskalainen, can you please provide the name of the pre-1689 case that established that there was a right at common law to keep and bear arms. TFD (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ".. the pre-1689 case"? You seem to be referring to case law when in fact that part of common law refering to this right in common law emenates from the enforcement natural rights. Though the common law often refers to previous judgements there is no need to do so when it comes to common law defending common natural rights. That the law has regarded this as a natural right is seen in Blackstone for example but it is also evident from the wording of the English Bill of Rights and the interpretation of it in the courts, especially it seems in the American Courts.--Hauskalainen (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This entire discussion has been about whether or not the right to keep and bear arms existed under common law. Now you seem to accept that it did not but claim that it is a natural right.  But common law rights are legal rights, and unless it can be shown that there was a legal right to keep and bear arms which could only be limited by legislation, then no common law right existed.  TFD (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "But common law rights are legal rights" . . . . agreed
 * unless it can be shown that there was a legal right to keep and bear arm s which could only be limited by legislation, then no common law right existed. . . . not agreed.
 * I can claim with some certainty that I have a right to keep milk in my refrigerator. Just because I cannot show that I have that legal right does not mean that it does not exist. The law works the other way round, by generally restricting peoples rights for some wider good. If you want to claim that there was NO right to keep and bear arms (or no right for me to keep milk in the fridge) then you would have to show how and when that right was withdrawn. Nobody has seriously claimed that the English in the twelfth century had no rights to arms because they would have to demonstrate that this was the case by showing how and when that right was lost.--Hauskalainen (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)