Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 30

English History: Connection between the English and American Bill of Rights re right to arms
(I have pulled this back from Archive. We may need this for review purpose)--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty keeps wanting to argue that the connection between the two is disputed, but this is clearly not so. Everyone that I have read points to the connections which are both connected in historical time and subject (even though the wording differs). It is totally disingenuous of him to claim that this is "disputed" when he points to a reference which merely refers to the relevance. Sure, they are not relevant to one another. One was setting a constitutional right in one country (USA) and the other was not. One was specifically related to the use in the Militia (USA) whereas the other was a confirmation of a personal right (UK). But they ARE undoubtedly related to each other. The Supreme Court of the United States recognized this and even extended the personal right to American citizens of the District of Columbia arguing that this was the intention of the English and therefore the intention of the Americans. I find it incredulous that Salty wants to diregard this clear statement of the highest court in the United States.

In the past I have noticed this editor working as am "opposer" of pro "second amendement rights" supporters but at the time I thought that this was a sham (with the editor working to give the impression that the article was being edited by a group of editors of opposing opinions when in reality he was not). Clearly his recent edits have been aimed at preserving a sham argument that had begun in this section that had tried to spin the argument that


 * 1) English citizens originally had no rights to arms
 * 2) That some only got the right through the Assize of Arms
 * 3) That the right was then won to all protestants in England and that finally
 * 4) It was America that granted the right to EVERY citizen

Well I am sorry but that is not at all the history regarding the right to arms in England or America. The correct sequence is


 * 1) ALL English citizens originally had EVERY rights to bear arms
 * 2) SOME got an OBLIGATION to do so through the Assize of Arms
 * 3) Parliament tried (and failed in the long run) to preserve the right only to protestants
 * 4) Americans made their rights constitutional in an unclear way (tho the Supreme Court has ruled that the right is a personal one not restricted to military duty)
 * 5) The English STILL have the right to bear arms but have restricted the rights to bear certain arms on grounds of public safety
 * 6) The Americans are still tied in knots about whether the right is personal and to what degree the States can modify it (clearly some States have already modified it and this has been agreed by the Supreme Court as lawful) and how the constitutional right to arms the affects particular types of arms (rifles, pistols, nerve gasses*, nuclear weapons*).


 * - ok I made this up, but maybe you'll be clever enough get my point. --Hauskalainen (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again, not interested in your WP:NOR personal opinion inappropriately given here on this article talk page, see WP:TALK for guidelines. We must be both neutral, and verifiable. My edit, which you reverted was sourced to the highly influential 1995 Garry Wills article in the New York Review of Books V42 N 18.  Have you read it?  If not, please do so and let's discuss what it says. Wills writes, speaking of the English Bill of Rights, "it is irrelevant".  Do you dispute that this Garry Wills article is a reliable source?  Do you dispute that it should be included for the sake of neutrality?  If you do dispute, please say so.  SaltyBoatr get wet 22:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyone saying the colonists were "granted" the right to arms is smoking something. I added a snippet from the historians brief, showing that even the pro gun control group recognizes that Pennsylvania refused to organize a militia, even during wartime, and upon petition, by these in danger.96.237.120.38 (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Salty, you are muddying the waters. The issue I have IS NOT that Wills may have argued that the English law is not relevant to American law, but to the claim that you made in the text that they are not connected. Their relationship is well established and I doubt (though I cannot prove it as I don't have ready access to the text) that Wills would claim that the two texts so close together historically and written by men well versed in English law would not have had the English Bill of Rights when drafting the American Bill of Rights. That the wording is slightly different, that they apply in different jurisdictions, and even are in different kinds of legal texts clearly makes the RELEVANCE of one in the context of the other highly dubious (though the Supreme Court in the U.S. has had to look to the English Law when trying to puzzle out what the drafters of the American Law really meant by the words therein). The edit I deleted was your conflation of the words irrelevant and connected. They do not mean the same thing. Of course I am willing to be proved wrong if you can show substantively with a quote from the source you cite that Wills does NOT believe that the drafters of the American Bill of Rights had in mind the contents of the English Bill of Rights when they wrote what they did. Of you can show this, let's have it.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Got it, the disagreement in the significant POV's which we see is about relevance. OK. One POV gives it a lot of relevance because it advances the theory of a personal right to arms.  Another gives is no relevance because they believe that the 2A was about guaranteeing a militia based military system.   The key issue for me is not that I agree or disagree with either of these POV's, but the key issue is that I want the article to reflect both POV's.  I am guessing that you personally want the article to reflect your personal POV.  Please stop doing that.  Read WP:NPOV policy, and comply.  Thanks.  SaltyBoatr get wet 02:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * With respect, you STILL haven't got it. We do not have a disagreement about "relevance" but about your presentation of the issues of "connection" (e.g. this diff. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=366855674&oldid=366848416) and its muddling with "relevance" (e.g. this diff. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=366629458&oldid=366627427 which says this (enhancements are mine)...


 * Some scholars, like Joyce Lee Malcolm believe that the Second Amendment is a variation of text in the English Bill of Rights of 1689...(o)ther scholars, like Garry Wills, believe that the English Bill of Rights is largely irrelevant to the Second Amendment because...


 * When you begin one sentence with "Some believe" and the mext sentence with "Others believe", the topic of their beliefs must the the same. Your presentation was entirely unacceptable. The issue that you make (that the relevance is disputed) may be so - but at least present it fairly and do not make it seem unchallengeable by accusing me of inserting POV (which you have done in edit summary after edit summary and have done so again above). I hold NO POV on the matter. The text I had written which you deleted DID in fact say that the relevance was disputed (because you clearly wanted the article to say this). Mine was a fair representation. Yours is a total muddying.


 * But now I am now beginning to doubt whether the issue of "relevance" is even worth mentioning here. A dispute over relvance (if ever there was one) can clearly be shown to have been settled because the United States Supreme recently in Heller had to refer back to look at both the English Bill of Rights and the American Bill of Rights to try to understand what was in the minds of the drafters of the US Bill of Rights (because the words in a modern context may not be seen in the same way as the drafters saw it then). The minutiae of arguments before the Supreme Court may be of interest to those interested in the arguments of academics and lawyers before this decision, and may even be relevant as content in the Wikipedia article on that case, but the matter is now surely settled. Going over old arguments like this is just distracting for the reader.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No. The court majority opinion in Heller did not eliminate the fact that there are different POV's.  Regardless of what the Supreme Court opinion might be, we must represent all significant POV's.  SaltyBoatr get wet


 * The article as it was did state that there was a difference of opinion regarding the reference to militias and the matter is adequately handled elsewhere in the section and in the article. There is NO JUSTIFICATION for this blatant ignorance of the main issue which is your muddying of the issue of the relation of one law to the other and the issue of the relevance of one law to the other. These are different issues and should not be dealy with by trying to link the issues.  You are clearly trying to mislead the reader. I think you should desist or I will submit a complaint to an Administrator for disruptive behavior.--Hauskalainen (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the issue of the importance of the English Bill of Rights, or not, reflects that there is more than one point of view. Did you read the Garry Wills article?  It describes a significant point of view which you personally may disagree.  Still, our job here is to write an article that includes both the points of view that we personally agree with, and also the significant points of view that may personally disagree.  We must include all significant points of view, and you cannot simply keep deleting significant points of view because you personally disagree with them.  Understand?  If not, please read this:  WP:NPOV, thanks.  SaltyBoatr get wet 20:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent). Answer the accusation! You conflated two issues - origin of the text and the importance of the earlier text to American law. It matters not whether I have read or not read the reference. This is a matter of presentation. By all means include the reference and by all means lets hear a direct quote. But do NOT mix up the matter of origin with relevance. They are two different things.

I am not pushing a POV as you have accused me of doing multiple times today. If you seriously believe that I would sure like to know what that POV is.

There is a cabal of editors at work on this article, which I accuse you of being one, who seem hell bent on selling the little story I outlined above which is UNDOUBTEDLY a false one.

This Cabal wants us to believe the following myths

Myth Number 1. Englishmen originally had no rights to arms and could only bear them in support of the King

Myth Number 2. They started of as peasants in some form of slavery, and by the sword and later by the gun, they came eventually to kill their king, declare a republic, and later resume the monarchy only to have to oust him in a coup and finally get the new monarch to concede the right of the majority of them (the protestants) to have arms for their defense.

Myth Number 3. Americans shared this history but in making their constitution added the same rights but not restricting it to the protestants but to the militia in order for them to preserce their local States.

Myth Number 4. Parliament has slowly but surely eroded the right of the people to have guns because parliament keeps passing legislation making it more and more difficult to get them legally.

Myth Number 5. Americans in comparison, and in particular a brave cabal of people seeking to protect their second amendment rights, are determined not to let this happen lest a future government gets too big and powerful and tries to disarm them. The majority of this article is dedicated to this struggle.

Myth Number 1 is false because Englishmen have ALWAYS had the right to arms for self defense. This right has always been subject to the law of the land and in particular as to whether they were suitable for that use. The law of the land has fluctuated, sometimes controlling the type of arms and sometimes controlling the persons permitted to use them.

Myth Number 2 is false because even peasants had a right to bear arms. Freemen were OBLIGED to do so. The English Bill of Rights in relation to arms created no new rights nor removed any. Nothing changed. It was an affirmation of an existing right but affirmed with the explicit mention of protestants rights (hardly surprising given the reasons for the coup that had just taken place). But this did NOT constitute any religious discrimination BECAUSE NOTHING CHANGED.

Myth Number 3 is wrong because it is founded on Myths 1 and 2. The fact is that Americans had the right to bear arms BEFORE the passing of the American Bill of Rights for the same reason their Englsih cousins did. It did though couch this in terms of the military (again hardly surprising given that they had just broken away from a state that had tried to disarm them and were about to create a new superstate which might one day try to do the same thing). The Heller decision confirms this.

Myth Number 4 is a myth because it implies that the consent of the people has not been obtained. All rights come from law and the law changes according to the will of the people through their elected representatives. The rights of the people are actually strngthened because they are free to go about their daily business generally without the fear of being shot. (And yes, there are exceptions, some of them recent, but each time it happens there are calls to re-examine the law).

Myth Number 5 is a myth because, as in England, there are also large numbers of people who disagree with the idea that there should be an unfettered right to bear certain types of highly lethal weapons. They believe that ready access to weapons leads to their illegal use and that in balancing the rights of legal users of legal weapons against the risk of those legal weapons being used illegally (as happened recently in Cumbria England) it is reasonable to make these weapons hard to obtain. The fact that the right is constitutional in America but not in Britain means that those in America seeking to curb gun use face a huge hurdle because the constitution is hard to change. Bit not impossible. This is why SAF fights so hard to preserve it.

Now actually myth 5 is getting into POV and may be fairly represented in the article (I don't know because I have not read it - I am only interested in a fair presentation of the English Law as it relates to the creation of the second amendment). I am concerned that the article originally presented the history as though Myths 1-4 were true. I have tried to change that and now there is a concerted effort to prevent the truth from being told. If this dispute continues much longer I will take the matter to arbitration.

Alternatively, we could discuss the matter here and try to come to a common presentation that fairly represents both sides (the myths as I have called them and the evidence for and against). But we can only do this in a way that makes it easy for the reader to read. If it gets too complex then it is not worth us trying and we shall have to leave it to arbiters to help us find a way forward. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not interested in engaging in a discussion of your personal theory and assertions. Please do not take article talk page space for that purpose.  Please rephrase your concerns by pointing to explicitly to WP:Policy and by citing specific reliable third party sourcing.  Thanks.  SaltyBoatr get wet 00:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * On the contrary. The article talk page is absolutely the right page to have this out. This is what it is for. We have to address the issue that the clique has tried to present this view of history and Wikipedia is not here simply to present a one side view let alone a cranky one. The sad truth is that.


 * The article must present the facts of history and the facts of law and what's more it should give them greater prominence than that opinion or the other opinion which may or may not have been held in the past. What I am trying to do is to engage you in that process of shaping the article for the better. A review of what has happened in the recent edits that you in particular have made is to destroy or discredit any attempt to show the true path of history and true judgments in law and try to scupper them by attaching them to POV positions one way or the other, or try to pretend that someone's point of view (about the relevance of the English Bill of Rights to the Second Amendment) can be balanced against an overwhelming weight of evidence on a different topic altogether (the historical relation between the two). The two things are not related and cannot be "balanced" like this. I am offering you the chance to back off and think about the implications. If this goes to arbitration I am fairly sure you will lose. I would think it better for you and your mob to concede on this point on the run up to the creation of the Second Amendment.  You can argue all you like which other (which is what your cabal does) about the law and history subsequently. But your misrepresentation of English History and the law in England regarding the right to arms is not something that really should stand.  The story is as I have told it is the correct one and the myths as they had been put in the article ought not to be allowed to stand.--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me make a suggestion that we concentrate first on the shape of the English history section. I have made a start on getting rid of the myths by getting rid of the chronological order. This forced the narrative along the lines of making it give the impression that the right to weapons was a struggle culminating in the Bill of Rights. This is a false impression. The connection between the American Bill of Rights and English history is obviously the English Bill of Rights. There are similarities and there are differences. To understand those you have to look back in time because the drafters had their own histories and historic rights in mind when drafting the texts in the way they did.


 * I am going to suggest that we structure the explanatory text around the fundamental narrative as I have spelled it out (i.e. that that the English right is ancient, was always subject to appropriateness and legal constraint, was re-affirmed in the Bill of Rights and not granted as a new right). We need to do this as part of the narrative explaining the similarities and the differences between the texts.


 * 1) We should begin with the English text and its affirmation of long held natural rights or common law rights.
 * 2) We need to show how the Civil War had led to bad nerves on both sides leading to periodic diarmaments which may (or may not, according to your view) have been unlawful.
 * 3) We need to show why Parliament after the Glorious revolution even bothered to put into an act something which was already the law of the land.
 * 4) We need to examine the significance (if any) of the wording relating to protestants
 * 5) We should explain what is meant in the English text of "suitable as to their cndition" and
 * 6) Also what is meant by "as allowed by law" (or whatever the actual phrasing was).
 * 7) We need to identify what in the American text is the same as the English text
 * 8) We need to explain what is different - including
 * 9) Why the American text refers to Militias (perhaps including the obligations on militias in both countries) and
 * 10) Why the Supreme Court argued that the clause is not restrictive to Militias and finally
 * 11) We need to show why, when both countries have so similar laws, the countries positions with regard to arms seem so very different (ie constiutionality versus implied repeal by Parliament)

That's my suggestion for going forward. It seems to me much more logical to work from this basis.--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Tö: SaltyBoatr: Why did you add this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=371540540&oldid=371539403 knowing that the position you are stating (that the right to bear arms flows from a military tradtion - the view of recent American revisionist historians) which is entirely contentious when the long held historic position, which was certainly the view in the 17th century and as far as we know still is by mainstream English historians, is that the right to bear arms DOES NOT flow from a military tradition but as an auxillary right of self preservation to the absolute right to life?  This action is was bound to create a reaction, given all that we have said here in these pages. That you should deem that I have begun to "edit war" after YOU made this statement is beyond belief. Your actions are intolerable!--Hauskalainen (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason I made that edit is that per Wikipedia policy we are required to fairly represent all significant points of view seen in reliable sourcing. My edit to that paragraph was an attempt to correct defects in the wording where one of the points of view is represented as "fact" and the other points of view which we see in the sourcing are omitted. The wording I inserted was an attempt to use neutral wording which fairly represented without bias that there are multiple points of view seen in the reliable sourcing on this topic.  Did I answer your question?  Now, would you answer mine please:  You write that my "actions are intolerable!"  Why do you say this? Because my actions seem to be in accordance with the policy here of maintaining a "neutral point of view".  What basis are you using when you say "intolerable"?  Is this because of your "opposition to myth" belief's explained on June 9th?  Would you please answer my questions? Thanks.  SaltyBoatr get wet 15:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Salty says that he made the change to present a significant point of view that he claims was missing from the article. Well just ten minutes before he made his edit the article said this


 * The right to arms in English history is believed to have been regarded as a long established right in English Law, auxiliary to the natural right to life. One American historian has expressed a contrary view that the right developed slowly over a period of 500 or so years beginning in the twelfth century and peaking in the seventeenth.


 * which clearly has the long established view about the right to arms being auxilliary to right to life and then reference to an alterative view (not stated to be recent, though it is) that instead of the right being an ancient one, it developed slowly over 500 years and peaking in the seventeeth century Second Amendment (in Amercia). This is clearly a neutral statement which reflects both POVs.


 * Ten minutes later, after your edit and an intervening IP editor edit it read


 * The right to have arms and the right to bear arms in English history is believed to have been regarded as a long established right in English Law, auxiliary to the natural right to life and flowing from a long English tradition of militia service. The right to have arms is also referred to in the English Bill of Rights which protected the right against its being withdrawn by the King without the consent of Parliament.


 * All reference to the fact that the developing right theory is novel and held by only a few has gone. The "flowing from a long tradition of military service" claim is highly POV and not acceptable without it being in the context of the revisionist developing rights theory. If you were genuinely trying to have Malcolm's views represented you would have challenged the IP editor, added the references and the names of other supporters of this theory, But you did not. Instead you went back to the BIG LIE.--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hitler you used to tell some BIG LIES and he got away with it because people were too scared to challenge them. As with the Nazis, the bigger the lie the better as long and as it is repeated loudly and often enough it will be accepted. Your actions are aimed at abusing Wikipedia to spread a big lie. THE BIG LIE being that the right to have arms was a slowly developing one coming from the duty to form militias. (This is what the gun lobby wants people in the United States to believe). And with it some corollary lies. That the Founding Fathers were granting a new right to arms. (They were not; the right to arms already existed). That the right to arms peaked when the Second Amendment was written. (It did not - the right to arms was ancient and has been under threat ever since modern governments began to recognize that people with arms are potentially a force for evil in the world as well as a force for good).--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * you are actually talking about the position of the ANTI-gun lobby. The gun lobby thinks the more guns available to the public the more honest we can keep the politicians. The hard core gun crowd is already stating that if the politicians show up to take their guns and ammo, they will be happy to comply by giving them the ammo first. There is no question in my mind that that the political establishment has built up a reserve of hatred among the population that is hard to believe. My guess is that we either have a revolt in the US in the next 10 years, or we end up under some sort of fascist or socialist dictatorship.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If I may answer this one, your actions are intolerable because you edit this article not to make it better but to PUSH your discredited POV. Answer my question below. Why did you remove "in support of the militia" as a reason for the creation of the Second and replaced it with "slave control". The reason you deleted ""in support of the militia" is one of the major reasons why the Founding Fathers enacted it, while "slave control" amounts to the ramblings of a disgruntle Joyce employee, pimping his employers gun control bull.71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's perfectly fine to disagree with SaltyBoatr and challenge his assertions, but please remember to be WP:CIVIL. These personal attacks are unwarranted. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No. They ARE warranted. This is not a matter of POV balancing as Salty would have you believe but a deliberate attempt by him to change the perceived view history of arms in the United Kingdom. He is putting in a POV position that we have argued over for weeks and which clearly is novel and not the mainstream view. Re-writing English history to say that everything you thought was true is actually false is no small matter. And not standing up to it will have consequences just as the failure to stand up to the excesses of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all had consequences. Salty is complicit in the mistelling of history. Joyce Lee Malcolm's book, which carries this revisionist history, is referenced from time to time by the Supreme Court in decisions about gun laws and gun rights. The degree of revisionism in this book has not received the attention it deserves.(Yes that last statement is POV but this is TALK).  If people cannot stand up and say how revisionist this book really is, and worse, to pretend as Salty does that it represents an unchallened truth is to be complicit in the telling of an historical big lie. The gun lobby in the United States would have you believe that arms controls in England have failed and that violent crime is rife there. In England and Wales (which has a population one sixth of the United States) the death toll from gun crime is a worrying 50-100 deaths annually. In America it is about 9000 or so, or two 9/11s a year. Big lies matter because they have big consequences. --Hauskalainen (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Pretty much everyone here is aware that Salty is pushing his POV and cares little for the article itself. Witness the fact that the article is frozen just when it needs to be updated based on the recent McDonald Supreme Court ruling. Guess who got it frozen. Salty! Guess who was the only one engaged in a 3RR violation at the time? Salty! Guess who shifted the blame to me and Hauskalainen as the cause of that edit war? Did you guess Salty before you got this far? If not then yes it was Salty! and lets not forget that the article was previously frozen because of an edit war with Guess who? as one of the guilty parties. Yup! Salty! and now guess what he filed a disruptive editing complaint against me to muddy up his involvement in an edit war. Yup! Salty! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Second_Amendment_long_term_AnonIP_disruption.71.184.184.238 (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have problems with my editing behavior, take it up at the relevant noticeboard. This article talk page is not the place to discuss the behavior of other editors.  SaltyBoatr get wet 23:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As you wish! Your next 3rr gets reported.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Ancient English history of the US Second Amendment
For more than a month now, an ongoing dispute over sourcing requirements and neutrality concerns regarding the ancient English History of the US Second Amendment resulting in article lock down. Requesting outside help resolving this question and bring this dispute to resolution. Thanks. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Salty, Can you include a brief/concise description/summary of what the debate revolves around? NickCT (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, this talk page section captures the nature of this dispute pretty well.   Hauskalainen and the AnonIP have opinions about a common law origin of the Second Amendment.  This opinion appears to be entirely their original research.  My repeated requests to be able verify their opinion by reading confirmation in reliable secondary sourcing have not been answered.  Both of these guys feel very strongly that their opinion is "truth" and that any other opinion is "myth".  The trouble I see is that a book written by Joyce Lee Malcolm published by Harvard University Press (To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674893077) says quite clearly otherwise.  She argues that the Second Amendment codifies a "right" that originated in 1689 with the English Bill of Rights.  That 1689 document marked a milestone when the duty to serve in a militia changed for the first time into a "right" to have arms.  And, I am open to the likelihood that this point of view expressed by Professor Malcolm is just one of the significant points of views.  We are stuck on the problem that Hauskalainen and the AnonIP really have been unable to cite any third party reliable sourcing that verifies their strongly held personal opinions.  SaltyBoatr get wet 20:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm.... the discussion sounds complex. Can you point a specific piece of content or proposed content that is under debate.  Unfortunately the talk page above presents an intimidating read.  Offering a summary or a piece of content under debate might help in getting more response to this RfC. NickCT (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the 50,000 words of talk page above, (and that isn't even counting what has been archived!) This dispute centers on Hauskalainen's opinion that the previous stable version of the English History section seen here contains "myth".  Hauskalainen prefers this version.  To support his assertion of "myth" he makes arguments, seen many places above, but perhaps are most concisely seen here where he makes a presentation of his original research.  SaltyBoatr get wet 21:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The main issue is whether or not there was a right under English common law to keep and bear arms before the Bill of Rights 1689. The only reliable source provided was To Keep and Bear Arms (1996), which states that there was not. Hauskalainen and others are unable to provide any contemporary secondary sources that the right existed and insist on using primary sources like Blackstone's Commentaries (1765-1769), and modern legal cases. My position is that they must find a reliable contemporary book of legal scholarship that claims the right existed or accept the scholarship that says it did not. While I do not know whether the right existed, I am opposed to including unsourced material. All of the arguments by Hauskalainen above are original research from primary documents. TFD (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * To quibble a bit, the last stable version of this English History section was sourced to several reliable books and the Encyclopedia Britanica, so it is not exactly accurate to say "the only reliable source was To Keep and Bear Arms (1996)". Though, that book alone is of very high quality and states very strongly that the right to bear arms evolved from what had previously been a duty to bear arms in 1689.  Also, that book is cited by hundreds other books, confirming its weight as a WP:RS.  SaltyBoatr get wet 22:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. TFD (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Every reputable source states that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing right. In the same manner, the English Bill of Rights also protects a pre-existing right that had come into danger due to the actions of a Catholic King (James II) who disarmed his Protestant opponents while arming Catholic supporters. The people finding his actions contrary to their well being revolted, tossed him out and replaced him. As a result of his attempted disarming, the English codified their rights into the Bill of Rights of 1689. As a rule Bills of Rights protect pre-existing rights, they don't "create" rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Point of fact, "every" source does not agree about protecting pre-existing rights in 1689. The book Gun violence in America: the struggle for control by Alexander DeConde, Publisher: Northeastern University Press, 2001 ISBN 9781555534868 pages 13-14 examines the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and views that it was fundamentally a law designed to keep weapons out of the hands of undesirable people (Catholics) and as such it was not really a protection of a pre-existing right as it was an early example of a gun control law.  Certainly that is not the universal POV about this, but it is one significant POV about this that disagrees with AnonIP.  Our duty is to fairly represent all significant POV's, even those we personally may disagree.   SaltyBoatr get wet 15:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Point of fact AGAIN: Every reputable source states that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing right.96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well this debate seems rather indepth and it would probably take a while to offer an opinion that was worth much. My initial impression is this;  isn't this debate a little esoteric to be having here?  It seems to me that this topic is only partially notable in the context of the second ammendment.  I wonder if this debate might better take place in an article called 17th Century English Gun Rights or Historical basis for the 2nd Ammendment.  This issue strikes me as being somewhat too scholarly to be of interest to the average Joe wikipedia user looking for information about the second ammendment.  Has anyone considered summarizing and forking this section? NickCT (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the Second Amendment does not create a right but protects an existing right, the nature of that right is important to the article. Was the right it protects created by the Bill of Rights 1689 or did the right exist from time immemorial?  What is the right that is protected?  These issues are relevant to the article.  TFD (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This article is supposed to reflect what the reliable sources say about this topic. Looking at these sources, it is very common to see coverage of the origin of the "right to bear arms" being traced back into English history. Therefore, so should we.


 * The elephant in the room now is that the sources divide into two (or three) POV camps. One of the camps, favored by Hauskalainen, is that "the right to bear arms" is fundamentally a right of self protection, with ancient roots.  Unfortunately, Hauskalainen neglects to use third party reliable sourcing to make his case.  Another very major POV is that "the right to bear arms" is an individual right which evolved out of a tradition of militia duty, this described by Joyce Lee Malcolm in her famous book.  A third POV is that in the era of the drafting of the Second Amendment in 1789, "the right to bear arms" was overwhelmingly considered to be a miltia based collective right, and this milita has fallen into disuse, see the Uviller and Merkel book.  We have a duty to represent all significant points of view, and Hauskalainen insistence two of these significant POV's are "myth" and therefore must to be deleted from the article violates WP:NPOV policy.  SaltyBoatr get wet 15:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Your second and third POV's are the same old tired militia based garbage created by the gun control groups. The US Supreme staked that POV through the heart in Heller and plainly stated that the right to arms was NOT based on militia duty. The right to arms is an individual right unconnected with the militia. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @TFG - "These issues are relevant to the article" Things which are relevant to something are not always notable. Note in Third Amendment to the United States Constitution and First Amendment the "historical context" of the ammendments are either not addressed or touched on briefly.  I would suggest this article should take the same direction.
 * SaltyBoatr - "This article is supposed to..." I'm sure you'd agree that the article is not meant to reflect what EVERY RS has to say on the issue. In my mind WP articles should give basic and concise background information regarding an article's title.  The content under debate seems to go above and beyond "basic and concise".  I'd still be for a WP:FORK. NickCT (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All of the rights in the 1st and 3rd amendments were created by those amendments with one exception: the "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".  These are covered under related articles, the Right to petition in the United States, which mentions the history of the right and the Freedom of Assembly, which does not.  If these rights had been listed as separate Amendments then I would expect those articles to contain a history of those rights.  However, it is not the history of the right that is notable but the nature of the right.  Since the 2nd amendment protects an existing right, the nature of that right is important.  That of course was the whole issue in the District of Columbia v. Heller.  Whether or not the right to bear arms is an individual right depends on what right existed before the U. S. Bill of Rights.  TFD (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely disagree with the above statement that the 1st and 3rd Amendments created rights. Freedom of religion was a basic principle in the colonies and was included in the Virginia Declaration of Rights and many (if not all) of the original state constitutions. The 3rd Amendment upheld the old English tradition that a mans home is his castle and not subject to invasion against the wishes of the homeowner. Look up "Castle Doctrine" to see how deeply embedded this principle is in US law.96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @NickCT. Agreed, there has been a problem of with this English Section, both versions really (but more with Hauskalainin's), over time the push-pull of POV battles has lead to bloating with excessive quotes of primary documents (from Blackstone and Tucker for instance) which seek to give emphasis to one favorite POV by implication. We should be able to concisely and fairly summarize the three major POVs, and move on.  The trouble is that modern political pressure over the correct meaning of the 2A depends on the correct framing of the historical origins.  Witness the extreme pressure here and now to frame it as being based on ancient self defense.  SaltyBoatr get wet 17:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I again dispute the insinuation that Blackstone's Commentaries are primary documents.96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you should read WP:Primary sources. You might want to look up the meaning of insinuation too.  TFD (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Blackstone was probably not even born when the English Bill of Rights was passed, and was most likely dead when the US Bill of Rights was created. He was therefore not an "insider" connected to either. Insinuate - force one's  way  into. Synonyms: curry favor, edge in, fill in, foist, get in with, horn in, infiltrate, infuse, ingratiate, inject, insert, instill, intercalate, interject, interpose, introduce, muscle in, slip in, wedge in, work in, worm in. I do believe that SB was attempting to foist, insert, muscle in his own pet belief on this matter. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just so there is no confusion: Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I also dispute the continued and repeated attempts by SB to "frame" the Second Amendment question in a manner that would support his POV slant. ALL the Justices of the US Supreme Court have stated, in the opinion and in both dissents, that the right to arms is an "individual right". Most of those Justices have further stated that it is a pre-existing right unconnected with service in the militia.96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is whether the right existed under common law. TFD (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that the English were disgusted enough to revolt and depose a King, because he in part violated that right, indicates that THOSE English thought it was a right.96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @Salty - re "The trouble.......... historical origins. " - I'd agree with this.  But I don't think this article is the correct place to be having this debate.  Surely we could come up with some suitably vague summary for this discussion (i.e. "Some historians have pointed to English common law as providing the basis for the second ammendment"), then forking to page like Historical Context for the Creation of 2nd Ammendment (or some other suitable title).  NickCT (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "The fact that the English were disgusted enough to revolt and depose a King..."  Can you please stick to actual history.  Re:  Blackstone.  Blackstone is a primary source for how the law was understood when he wrote the Commentaries.  Of course he was born long after the Glorious Revolution and relied on Whig history for his interpretation of 1688.  There are however scholars who have written about Blakcstone and these are secondary sources.  NickCT:  They do not see common law as providing the basis for the second amendment, but see the 2nd amendment as protecting a common law right.  Notice the wording:  "the right... shall not be infringed".  TFD (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Blackstone is a SECONDARY source on law. He was not its author, and recorded the prevailing views on that law. That makes his a secondary source. RE: The fact that the English were disgusted enough to revolt and depose a King... Can you please stick to actual history. --- That the English revolted in disgust IS ACTUAL HISTORY!96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @NickCT I couldn't agree more! When I said "the trouble is..." I was referring to the fact that this article has long been a magnet for advocacy editors and zealots who insist that the article's point of view must be "truth" as seen from their personal point of view. The flip side of that coin is that very few editors have the stomach to withstand the onslaught of advocacy editors drawn here. SaltyBoatr get wet 19:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Advocacy like your discedited militia based views.96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Re: "Some historians have pointed to English common law as providing the basis for the second amendment".  Unfortunatately the editors saying that a common law right existed are unable or willing to provide any sources to back up that statement and instead provide countless arguments like, Re:  "Some historians have pointed to English common law as providing the basis for the second amendment".  Unfortunatately the editors saying that a common law right existed are unable or willing to provide any sources to back up that statement and instead provide countless arguments like, "History states that Ugh the Caveman had a right to his spears and clubs".  TFD (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I continue to ask if Ugh the caveman had a common law right to his clubs and spears and if this right predated the English Bill of Rights.96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Common law did not come into place until the Middle Ages in England, and therefore no, a caveman did not have any rights under common law. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oliver Wendell Holmes seems to think that "common law" is quite a bit older then you think. Pardon me for having more faith in him then I have in you. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Oliver+Wendell+Holmes In The Common Law, Holmes traced the origins of the common law to ancient societies where liability was based on feelings of revenge and the subjective intentions of a morally blameworthy wrongdoer. For example, Holmes observed that in such societies creditors were permitted to cut up and divide the body of a debtor who had breached the terms of a contract.96.237.120.38 (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So what law protected his right to his property (spears and clubs)? I hope that we don't disagree that Ugh the cavemen is included in "people".96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @TFD Agreed. Can I also make a suggestion that might allow us to calm the waters. A repeated problem here is that when people speak of "the right", they are talking of different things. To some "the right" means armed self defense. Or, "the right" to have guns for hunting. To others, "the right" means a right of revolution. To even others, "the right" means the right for the states to keep well regulated militias. When we toss the word "right" around without distinguishing which version of the right is being spoken of, we too often spin up and out of focus while arguing personal opinion. Let's get disciplined, and focus on an article that neutrally and fairly covers all significant points of view, strictly using the most reliable sources. SaltyBoatr get wet


 * What makes you think that there are versions of the right? You cannot sustain that there are "versions of the right". The right is what the right is and it stemmed from a personal right of self defence just as Blackstone had said and not from the duty to performm military service. It is so clear. We can accept that minority of others have a different point of view (Joyce Lee Malcolm for example) but we should not pretend as you have done in the past edits (and enly a couple days ago with this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=371540540&oldid=371539403 edit that the only possible explanation is the military service view (a modern revisionist position specifically designed to make the Second Amendment look like a peak in the development of a right when in fact that is a total fabrication and a revision of a 1000 years on English history).  This is why this dispute is still going on! You clearly have not learned a thing!--Hauskalainen (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Answering your question: When I look at reliable sourcing I see that a variety of books on the subject describe a transition in the viewpoint of the nature of the right(s) to arms.  There are many, but three major sources that describe the right(s) which are particularly influential are Sanford Levinson's 1989 Yale Law Journal article, also see the Garry Will's book ISBN 9780684870267, especially Chapter 6. Also, Saul Cornell's book ISBN 978-0195147865, Chapter 1.  (Not to mention the books by DeConde, Williams and Uviller/Merkel, see the article for page numbers.)  Would you answer my question now?  Please tell us what reliable sourcing you are reading that describes your "natural right" hypothesis?  SaltyBoatr get wet 18:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Levinson says NOTHING OF THE SORT!! I don't know about Wíll's book but maybe you'd be kind enough to give us a direct quote and the same with the others. I am beginning to think that you are keen to quote from sources that I cannot check. Last time someone did that it was clear that he was merely repeating an earlier given source. As to the sources as to natural rights we have given you Blackstone (several times now) and we have the wording of the Bill of Rights which claimed it as an "ancient right". This is the source that stood the test of time until, it seems, Malcolm decided to challenge it. Now you are claimin that others have independently come the same conclusion as Malcolm or agree with her. I'd like a direct quote from your claimed sources please that demonstrates that they DO NOT ACCEPT that the English generally had a right to arms before the passage of the Bill of Rights. --Hauskalainen (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not arguing that what you believe is wrong, (though I still am waiting for you to show your sources).  Nor am I arguing that what the others believe is truth.  I am simply reading a wide spectrum of reliable sourcing and noticing that there are different points of view. SaltyBoatr get wet 02:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We are arguing about whether Malcolm's revisionist theory of a developing right, is well supported. You claimed that these other people support this view. But I cannot see that they do and when I ask you for a direct quote from the books you mention to show that they do support that view then you fail to do so. I have shown you my source. It was a leading jurist from the period and to my knowledge that view has not changed until Malclm came up with her startling revisionist theory. The key point we are discussing, let me remind you, is that revisionist theory of Malcolm is but one minority view and it is wrong, as your edit did recently, to present it as an accepted fact. It simply is not. It is a POV and the article should state that it is a POV.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, not we. You "...are arguing whether Malcolm's revisionist theory of a developing right is well supported."   And, I am simply reading books and trying to fairly describe what the various books say.  I don't know what "revisionist theory" means in this context.  This boils down to the question of whether sources are considered to be WP:RS or not, and that question should be asked on the RS noticeboard.  This does not boil down to whether Hauskalainen says a book is to be discarded because he thinks it is "revisionist history".  Would you answer my question now? Please tell us what reliable sourcing you are reading that describes your "natural right" hypothesis?  SaltyBoatr get wet 18:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, today in the mail, my recently purchased copy of the Clayton E. Cramer book (suggested by TFD) arrived, ISBN 9780275949136. It can be fairly said that Clayton Cramer is at the extreme end of the 'individual rights' point of view.  I have only started reading Cramer's book, but I notice right away that even he acknowledges the role of the militia tradition as part of the history of bearing arms precedent to the 2A.  For instance on pages 1 and 2 Cramer describes ''"Two radically different interpretations of the Second Amendment are commonly espoused in the United States. One school asserts that the Second Amendment protects the right of individual states to maintain military forces independent of any national government... The other school claims that the Second Amendment protects an individual right "to keep and bear arms" ... essential to maintaining a counterbalance to both federal and state governmental power".  "The two positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive; a society might believe in both perspectives, or either, or neither." SaltyBoatr get wet 02:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not arguing about what the Second Amendment was referring to - a personal right or a right to have arms to serve in a militia. I am taking you to task for claiming that, IN ENGLAND, the right to arms developed from an obligation to serve in the military. That is Malcolm's revisionist theory and it is not in accordance with other historical views of the right to have arms which is that it was regarded as fundamental to the individual to defend his life when all other means had failed. This about THE LAW IN ENGLAND. --Hauskalainen (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Cramer identifies two primary POV's the "states to maintain military" (militia) point of view and the "counterbalance to...governmental power" (insurrectionist) point of view, and says they are not mutually exclusive.  Notable in it's absence is your "natural right of self defensive" point of view from Cramer's two primary POV opening passage. Also, on page 19-29 (Chapter 2 "European Origins"), Cramer writes "The tradition of an armed citizenry in Britain, as part of the military obligation to the state, is of long standing.  Henry II's Assize of Arms of 1181 required all freemen to arm themselves for the common defense".  It appears that you don't even agree with Clayton Cramer who is at the extreme end of the 'individual rights' POV camp!  SaltyBoatr get wet 02:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * All of us here are quite aware of the militia based view which you push. Just about everyone is also aware that the Supreme Court has described that viewpoint as worthy of the mad hatter.

''A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If "bear arms" means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage ("for the purpose of self-defense" or "to make war against the King"). But if "bear arms" means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add "for the purpose of killing game." The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter''.71.184.184.238 (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * all this is irrelevant to the issue I have raised which is about the source of the "right" (=freedom to act) to use arms IN ENGLAND in 1688 and not what what was meant by the terms when used in America a hundred years or more later.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I personally like Justice Story - http://www.constitution.org/js/js_344.htm

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Addressing Hauskalainen request of 01:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC) where he asked "I'd like a direct quote from your claimed sources please that demonstrates that they DO NOT ACCEPT that the English generally had a right to arms before the passage of the Bill of Rights." This is a diversion from the key issue here is that there are different points of view seen in reliable sourcing regarding the English history which is viewed as precedent to the Second Amendment. When we read the spectrum of reliable sources we see essentially four or five themes being cited as significant in English history ordered according to the frequency:

1) Militia theory. An ancient history of militia military service, most commonly identified as originating with the Assize of Arms. Many reliable sources, mention this, and this is the most common theme seen.  (Seen in Malcolm, Uviller & Merkel, Wills, DeConde, Cornel, Spitzer, Whisker, Cramer, Cottrol, Bodenhamer & Ely, Delgado & Stefancic, and others).

2) Insurrectionist theory. A tradition of armed resistance to tyranny. (Seen in Cramer, Halbrook and others.)

3) Self defense theory. A common law based right of arms for self defense. (Still waiting for Hauskalainen to identify his sourcing of this theory, but this is seen (I think) in Scalia's dicta in Heller, and in Cramer)

4) Gun Control theory.  An ancient tradition of the group in power keeping arms out of the hands of undesirables.  A similar theme to this is the slave/native control theory.  (Seen in DeConde, Cornell, Bogus, Hadden, Bodenhamer/Ely, Uviller/Merkel and others.)

The main issue is that we see multiple points of view in the reliable sourcing, with several of the sources pointing out that more than one aspect of English history is important. We must include each point of view seen, fairly and without bias. We cannot limit this to just the one point of view that Hauskalainen thinks is the TRUTH point of view. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I posted a comment on Saltyboatr's talk page about Cramer, because I find it hard to find comments here. TFD (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Salty! Your supposedly #1 frequent items in the literature is actually a result of taking too many mind altering substances, resulting in an incurable state of "mad hatterism" . Since the Founding Fathers had little in the way of mind altering drugs available to them, there are no references to #1 and #4 in Revolutionary War era literature. The Founding Fathers had to deal with reality and not with that land beyond the looking glass.71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The Above Mess is Evading the Main Point
The subject of this article is a matter of US law, which, by definition, is as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By definition, most of the "questions" which Salty Boar seems to be endlessly shopping the world for tangents and irrelevant-to-the-US-law-topic alternate opinions and debates on, are, by definition not questions....they (such as the meaning of the wording of the Second Amendment), by definition, have been answered in and by by and are defined by the Heller decision. Those tangents might be relevant to a section of what some people wish the law was, but not to the main article which is on what it is. The open question (and of the McDonald case) is only the applicability of the Amendment to state and local laws.

There is significant detail and clarity in the Heller decision on this topic. It reaffirms what my 4th grade sentence structure teacher already knew, that endless creative theories about the preamble to the 2nd Amendment are irrelevant to its operative clause. North8000 (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Totally off the mark. The issue is what right the amendment protects - is it a right under common law or one created by the Bill of Rights 1689.  DC v Heller does not decide that.  TFD (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The "issue" is "what is the topic of this article?", and then see above. North8000 (talk) 10:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I somewhat agree with Four Deuces, but want to point out that Heller's dueling history is (judges doing history is another issue) a good reason why we look for some sources, rather than making the arguments in the talk page. If the supreme court can't reach an agreement, we certainly won't. The argument isn't settled simply on the side of the majority opinion in Heller because it was the majority. In the article we need to talk about those underlying sources (only using secondary sources of course), and while a discussion of whether or not the right predated the English Bill of Rights is relevant, it can't be argued sua sponte here, but needs some sourcing so we're not just having our own judicial conference... but instead improving the article. Shadowjams (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What "argument"? If you're talking about the 2nd Amendment, the Supreme court decided it. I suppose folks who don't like a decision would try to say that if it wasn't unanimous, it wasn't a decision, but that's not how the court works. If the "argument" is whether people should be allowed to have guns, or the "world history of firearm rights" you're in the wrong place, this is an article about a particular US legal instrument. North8000 (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. "The Supreme court decided it." Since when does the Supreme court trump WP:NPOV policy at Wikipedia? No.  If we see significant POV's in reliable sourcing we must include them fairly in the article.  The (latest opinion) of the Supreme Court, Orbiter dicta, describes just one of the significant POVs.  You are not talking about the holding of the court here.   SaltyBoatr get wet 13:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are creating a red herring argument by mixing two different things. The Supreme court (in the areas of question that it ruled) is the definer of that which is the subject of the article.   Like the last election defined who is the President of the United States.   NPOV might call for alternate opinions or endless discussions like "John McCain should have been President", but it does not call for airing opinions or endless discussions claiming that John McCain IS the president of the United States.  North8000 (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @North800 Wrote: "The areas in question it ruled". The SCOTUS did not "rule" on the meaning of history.  Their ruling (properly called, their "holding") was about one municipal ordinance in the District of Columbia.  This is the court's holding, quote:  "In sum, 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."  And no, the court did not rule on the meaning of history.  The court wrote their opinion of history, non-binding Obiter dictum about history.  If we disagree about the policy here whether the non-binding opinion of the Supreme Court trumps WP:NPOV policy, then that question should be put to the NPOV noticeboard.  I don't see how non-binding opinion of a court can justify deletion from this encyclopedia of significant points of view seen in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Who said "rule on the meaning of history"....another red herring argument. I said that it ruled on the meaning of the words of the Second Amendment, in areas where such was in question. And whoever said that a supreme court ruling  trumps NPOV policy with respect to WP content?  Nobody!.....another red herring argument.   My analogy on the presidential election / who is the current president of the USA above applies here.  NPOV wight dictate covering "McCain should have become the President" views, but not "McCain IS the President"  views.   North8000 (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither did the court rule on the meaning of the Second Amendment. Their holding is quoted above "In sum, we hold...", and pertains to a municipal gun ordinance.  Their obiter dictum is something else, and yes that dicta does discuss the Second Amendment, and yes it does describe one significant point of view which deserves coverage in this article. Which policy are you thinking of that says that their point of view should be the only point of view described in this article?  Or, am I missing your point?   SaltyBoatr get wet 16:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is that that, on the topic at hand (meaning of wording in a US legal instrument)the Supreme Court DEFINES the reality, it is not an "opinion" on the reality. One can oppose what they did, but not deny what they did, ditto for WP coverage. I think that I communicated my point, you are ignoring the key points of what I said and instead inventing straw man arguments that I did not make and arguing against those. I think I'm signing out now. I just dropped in because I heard elsewhere about the issues raised regarding what you are doing to this talk page. North8000 (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The court did in fact rule on the meaning of the Second, because the contested law was contested as being contrary to the Second, and the Supreme Court so ruled and the law was made null and void.96.237.120.38 (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The law was not null or voided, rather per the court order the law was revised to remedy the constitutional problems. These new "presumptively lawful regulatory measures" (Heller, pg. 55) were deemed "regulations ... as permissible" (Heller, pg 63).  Dick Anthony Heller then sued the District over this, (see Civil Action No. 08-1289), and he lost that case on March 26, 2010.  Presently, the District of Columbia has one of the most restrictive set of gun control laws in the country, all found to be Constitutional per the Heller ruling on March 26th, 2010.  It remains illegal to have a handgun outside the home in DC.  Strict registration requirements remain.  It remains nearly impossible to purchase a handgun in DC. Even pistols remain to be illegal everywhere in DC including inside the home. You still must keep your handgun inoperable and locked or disassembled within your home at all times, with the one exception being if you are facing immediate threat, and even then gun must be directly accessible such as in a holster or being held in your hand.  Those handgun regulations exist today and are Constitutional. SaltyBoatr get wet 19:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The Supreme Court upHELD a lower court ruling which stated that the DC regulations were contrary to the Second, therefore unconstitutional and thus null and void. DC Appealed to the Supreme Court, which upHELD the lower court ruling.96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, read the ruling, pg 63. The SCOTUS only ordered the District to use "permissible" regulations, while at the same time stating that essentially all conceivable regulations were declared to be "presumptively lawful regulatory measures" (Heller, pg. 55).  Scores of federal court cases have been heard in the last two years where gun laws were deemed "presumptively lawful regulatory measures" and fully Constitutional.  The District did this, revising their regulations.  This was tested in court with Civil Action No. 08-1289, and the new regulations were found to be Constitutional on March 26, 2010.  The District presently has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, and they have been deemed Constitutional.  The net change amounts to the use of a revolver (though not a pistol) inside the home only during an event of immediate threat.  Essentially nothing else in the DC law has changed.  If you don't believe me, read Civil Action No. 08-1289 (RMU), No. 23., 25.  SaltyBoatr get wet 20:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The lower court ruled that the original regulations were unconstitutional and thus null and void. The US Supreme Court upHELD that ruling. How many times do I have to repeat this before it sinks in?96.237.120.38 (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And, that same lower court subsequently held that the revised strict gun control regulations were constitutional under Heller, see Civil Action No. 08-1289. My point is that this article should reflect the current condition, seen in reliable sourcing, that essentially any conceivable gun control regulation is considered "permissible" and were deemed "presumptively lawful regulatory measures" by the Heller decision.  The article gives undue emphasis to the symbolic "individual right" portion of the dicta, but the "presumptively lawful" words in the dicta have been cited as the practical and operative words taken from Heller in more than eighty court cases so far.  See the article in the UCLA Law review for a detailed examination of this trend in lower federal courts interpreting Heller these last two years. ...this celebrated landmark decision (Heller) has had almost no effect on the constitutionality of gun control. To date, the federal courts have yet to invalidate a single gun control law for violating the Second Amendment right to bear arms, despite scores of cases." SaltyBoatr get wet 21:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sad to say you still don't get it. The US Supreme Court upHELD the lower court ruling which declared the original DC laws contrary to the Second Amendment and thus null and void. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I accept that you are right, the lower court was upHELD by Heller. I don't deny that.  And, I haven't close my eyes to the events since 2008. Things have happened in the courts during the last two years.  That same lower court found the new strict DC gun control laws to be entirely Constitutional. Plus, eighty+ other federal court cases pointed to the "presumptively lawful" wording in Heller and upHELD essentially every gun control law brought before them.  Read the UCLA Law review article[ which examines post-Heller court cases. [[User:SaltyBoatr|SaltyBoatr]] get wet 22:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Aren't there a few Chicago area laws that got struck down as well? If so your selective blindness knows no bounds!96.237.120.38 (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not exactly struct down. Post-Heller, some gun laws in the Chicago vicinity towns of Morton Grove, Wilmette and Evanston, Illinois were voluntarily repealed by those town councils when faced with the cost of defending the lawsuits against deep pockets of the NRA.  The big deal now is the one Chicago lawsuit that did go to trial.    On Monday the verdict of the one remaining gun law, McDonald v. Chicago is likely to be announced.  SaltyBoatr get wet 13:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Modified regulations exist today which may or may not be constitutional. The original regulations were struck down.96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't care where this right came from, I just care that we provide reliably sourced information about it. IP's personal theory that Ugh the caveman had the right to bear arms is just disruptive converstation.  IP, could you please stop wasting everyone's time, and provide actual sources, rather than treating this like a blog page on the John Birch Society website.  TFD (talk) 06:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Common law is derived from the "common practices" of the people. If Ugh the Caveman had the right to carry around his spears and clubs, then that was a "common practice". Same for Vikings and their axes, Mongols their bows, and more recently, cowboys their revolvers and farmers their shotguns. Anyone want to point to a case where Billy the Kid was brought before a judge for carrying a weapon?96.237.120.38 (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The common law developed from case law. At some point Sheriff Barney Rubble tried to take Ugh's guns away from him and Mr. Justice Fred Flintstone said that Ugh had a right to have guns or he did not.  It appears that Flintsone J. ruled that he did not.  TFD (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And that case law is based on whether something is punishable or not. For Ugh carrying weapons was not a punishable act. After J Flintosne ruled in that manner he was then tarred and feathered and tossed from the tribe, and Ugh got his stuff back. HHMMM! Sounds like what happened to King James II.96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The article may be about U.S. law but the section being argued about is about English law. We cannot have revisionist U.S. historians and their followers editing Wikipedia articles wping out 1000 years of British history. The right to have arms in England was and still is one of having the right to defend oneself in the event that other means of control have failed to prevent someone from taking your life. That was outlined in Blackstone and is reflected in the wording of the English Bill of Rights. Attempts such as this which is aimed at wiping out 1000 years of history and substituting it with a new revisionist history which tells a myth of a developing right culminating in the Second Ammendment is what this long and proteacted dispute is about. DO NOT FORGET THAT!
 * The section that you are writing in (that I started) is about the article as a whole....maybe you didn't notice and thought that it was a subsection of the topic which you are describing. North8000 (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Dispute over wording of the English History section.
Plainly we need to continue our work on this talk page in order to resolve our dispute through discussion, as opposed through revert war. I encourage that we negotiation the details by working out the details using the Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/english_history_sandbox sandbox section previously started. See the discussion above, but another editor suggested that we start by working with the last stable version as the starting point, and I agree this is wise. Let's work through the details please. SaltyBoatr get wet 01:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not been absent from those discussions and actually initiated quite a few of them. --Hauskalainen (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * hey! What's this?... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=370176136&oldid=370175853
 * You write as though I have been a bad boy and have not tried to participate in the resolution of the dispute about this section. This http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASecond_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&action=historysubmit&diff=370179326&oldid=367507099 is the list of changes to the Talk page since the protection was added. I have made many contributions to the discussions above. I count TWENTY OR MORE sections or sub sections that have been added to the TALK page where I and my fellow editors have tried to reason with you and others about this issue. I am shocked that you should now go running to an Admin saying
 * "may I suggest another page protect to force Hauskalainen to collaborate with editors on the talk page rather than hs (sic) "negotiation" through revert war"


 * Enough is Enough Salty!--Hauskalainen (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

When I look at this talk page (admittetdley a superficial look at the zillion words) I feel that if anybody is out of line it is Salty. This whole talk page looks like Salty wanting to eternally and incessantly debate /advance a particular point of view, and to seek "spin" in every discussion and subject towards that end. Even the article content itself seems secondary in that quest. Salty is very wiki-saavy in this quest, making this particularly hard to sort out. North8000 (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Bingo!96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is fundamentally wrong for Salty to try to get around a page protection by editing the article in another place so that he can just paste his changes back to the article when the protection is over. Sandboxes are not places where we bypass the process of sorting out our differences as to what is in the article and what is not. Instead he should say now what, if anything, is wrong with the English History Section as it now stands. That is the proper thing to do and if we can do that we may, a last, get to a point where we agree some wording in advance which will not be rapidly unpicked later. --Hauskalainen (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A sandbox area is an appropriate place to put a proposed modification for a protected article, so that the new proposal can be discussed. I have done this myself; it's a good way to collaborate on a draft and come to an agreement before the block is lifted. If SaltyBoatr failed to direct the discussion toward that sandboxed version, shame on him. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You might work on a NEW VERSION after discussing the OLD VERSION. But he just wanted to carry on editing like he had before using an earlier start point (which meant he did not have to justify many of the changes he was making - i.e. as if he was going to mass revert without explanation and then carry on editing in a way that gets around the page protection and then just paste back the changes. THAT is inappropriate use of a Sandbox but it is what he tried to do.--Hauskalainen (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you guys are mad at me personally, take that out on my talk page, or at the appropriate noticeboard. This talk page is intended to be used to improve the article.  Regarding the question of dispute about fixing the English History section, the policy here is to read reliable sourcing, (including the sourcing we may personally disagree) and to write an article that matches that sourcing.  The problem I see with Hauskalainen latest suggestion is that it fails to connect with what the reliable sourcing, and neither does it fairly represent the various points of view seen in the reliable sourcing.  Plainly, editors are drawn here who feel strongly in the cause of self protection with guns.  Also, that reflects a significant point of view seen in reliable sourcing.  It does not mean that this article should be a vehicle to promote that point of view.  Compare the sourcing of Hauskalainen's latest proposal with the last stable version in the sandbox and the lack of NPOV balance and relative lack of citations stands out.  Also, Hauskalainen's latest proposal shows a transparent intent to promote a personal point of view seen in his original research published here, see above.


 * To that end, may I suggest that we start by identifying the various reliable sources that discuss the English History behind the Second Amendment. We have talked at length above of the Joyce Lee Malcolm book, ISBN 9780674893078..  This Google book search might be helpful.  Other books I have read that cover the English History of the 2A in some depth are the Greg Carter book, ISBN 9781576072684.    Garry Wills book, ISBN 9780684870267.  Uviler and Merkel, ISBN 9780822330172.  Books new to me seen in this Google Book search are Richard Holbrook's, ISBN 9781412006071 which describes the English origins going back to year 690 As long ago as 690 A.D., Englishmen were required to possess arms and to serve in the military. (If you don't like these books, tell which books you want me to be reading.)  Plainly, a very common theme seen in these books is the role of the history English militia service in the formation of the Second Amendment (it is the dominant theme we should be matching).  These sources don't much mention of an English History of "self protection" as playing a role in the origin of the Second Amendment.  Show me the sources that discuss an English History of a right to self protection being discussed in context of the origin of the Second Amendment please.   SaltyBoatr get wet 14:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned before, Clayton Cramer' s book, For the defense of themselves and the state (1994) could be used to present the view that the right existed under common law. TFD (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Has anyone here read that book? When I paged through it with the "look inside" Amazon feature, it seems to be more a book exploring the American history of the 2A, not the English History.  @TFD: Which page numbers in that book are you speaking of?   SaltyBoatr get wet 17:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Giving this a bump. I am interested in reading all the reliable sourcing we can find. TFD mentions this book by Clayton Cramer, ISBN 9780275949136.  The nearest public library that stocks it is located two counties away, a 100 mile trip for me.  Has anyone around here read this book?  If yes, can you transcribe a bit of what it says about the English History relative to the Second Amendment.  Thanks.  SaltyBoatr get wet 20:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (from Salty above) "The problem I see with Hauskalainen's latest suggestion is that it fails...." - Pray, Sir, what latest suggestion?


 * See here, I put your latest version here. Let's work out the problems.  SaltyBoatr get wet 15:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So tell us what is wrong with it then? Which bits need reliable sourcing? Which are the the POVs that are not represented? Lets have that discussion in this new section--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I inserted specific requests for citations directly into the [[|English History sandbox]. Would you please insert the citations directly there. (If you do not, I intend to continue my collaboration there too, so I will be removing unsourced portions.)  You, I and other editors can collaborate on editing this passage into shape.  This gives you plenty of time to work this out in the sandbox before it goes 'live' in the article.  When the page lock lifts, this sandbox can be the basis for what we insert into the article.  Hopefully, if we do our work now, this insertion can be mutually agreeable. If you continue a boycott of the sandbox, you might not get your input as you like.  Collaboration on the sandbox can avoid surprises or reverts in article space as happened next time.  SaltyBoatr get wet 14:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * All that will happen is that I will put stuff in and you or others will pull stuff out and then we are just editing in a place other than the article space. I would rather use the TALK space to discuss the issues YOU HAVE with the PRESENT content. The place to do that is here in the TALK space. It was you that called for the edit freeze for heavens sakes. Now you want to go on editing instead of sorting out the issues. That is NOT a proper way to behave. I do not think your ojections to the English History section content really warrants a freeze that covers all the other sections as well. --Hauskalainen (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So there are no surprises; I have waited several days for responses to citation requests and answers to questions posed over at the English History sandbox. I have given ample opportunity of time.  Shortly, I will deleting the problematic sentences and making edits in preparation for the lift of the page lock.   I will be inserting the edited sandbox version into the article "English History" section.  One week of page lock was intended to allow us to work out the specifics of our disagreements, and refusal to participate in this is your prerogative.   That said, that refusal, if followed by revert warring in article space after the page lock is lifted would look very bad.  SaltyBoatr get wet 19:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have given you many references and you either claim that they are invalid or ignore the reference I have given and chose to read another from the same page and claims it does not match. If you claim that a reference I have given is wrong then your action should be to take it to a dispute resolution noticeboard for RS or NOR depending on the nature of your complaint. You are NOT the final arbiter of what is and what is not a valid reference. Your sandbox is not a place where to edit to get around proper discussion here as to the content of the section. I will not get involved with you in editing there and I am justified in doing so because Sandboxes are not places to get around a page protection and edit regardless.  Your task as an editor is to engage constructively but so far all I have heard from you is "I don't like it" or some such. I think you are going to look very silly when we finally get down to discussing the merits of your objections. Especially the ones that claim that Blackstone is a primary source and that the clear implication that the parliamentarians were lying when they were referring in legislation to the ancient rights of protestants. The same applied to TFD who at times has said much the same kind of thing at various times. --Hauskalainen (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, use of a sandbox as a place to insert your citations might be a very effective way to sort this out. It is very easy that your responses to my specific requests for citations could have been lost in the mountains of talk page text (see above, and below!).  Instead of talking endlessly, just put your specific citations in the specific locations I am pointing to in the sandbox.  It might be unintentional, but insisting on 100,000 words of discussion actually makes this dispute harder to follow and more difficult to resolve. The requested citations could be written in 100 words.  This begs the question of why you refuse.  SaltyBoatr get wet 16:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Issues with the English History section
1. "The right to bear arms in English history is believed to have been regarded as a natural right for the preservation of the person" 


 * SaltyBoatr here wishes to dispute this.
 * Hauskalainen I am sure we can get a reference for this as I have read it many times. Bear with me a while or maybe someone eles can get me a reference.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * andy85719 Is concerned that this position's use of the word "belief" renders it superfluous to the subtopics contents and wishes that all editors avoid using the words "believe" without citing several reputable, published, persons who share said belief.Andy85719 (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hauskalainen@Andy85719 I agree, which is why it needs a reference, which will be forthcoming. I don't think it is wrong though to use the word "belief" because history is always one of interpretation.
 * Haauskalainen offers citations sourced from the Supreme Court decision in the Heller case. In rejecting the defense claims that the meaning of the Second Amendment was limited to the militia ruled that “Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else. See Page 9 of the Opinion of the Court at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf) which expands upon this and includes the following three citations which I offer as potential citations proving that it was believed to be a natural right of the person


 * A Compleat Collection of State-Tryals 185 (1719)
 * Hath not every Subject power to keep Arms, as well as Servants in his House for defence of his Person?


 * B. Wilson, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson 84 (1804) (with reference to state constitutional right: 
 * This is one of our many renewals of the Saxon regulations. ‘They were bound,’ says Mr. Selden, ‘to keep arms for the preservation of the kingdom, and of their own person’ 
 * W.Duer, Outlines of the Constitutional Jurisprudence of the United States 31–32 (1833) (with reference to colonists’ English rights:
 * The right of every individual to keep arms for his defence, suitable to his condition and degree; which was the public allowance, under due restrictions of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation”

Do you want all three or will just one do? --Hauskalainen (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * SalthyBoatR @ Hauskalainen No. Instead Give us a specific citation to a modern, third party reliable source.  I would appreciate the chance to verify this reading the full source in context.  SaltyBoatr get wet 14:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hauskalainen @SaltyBoatr I just did. The Supreme Court of the United States in a majority finding in a recent case. You cannot get much more authoritative and more recent than that. That they used 3 sources more contemporary to the drafters of the Second Amendment is excellent. The SCOTUS document gives you all the information you just asked for.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * SaltyBoatr @Hauskalainen Scalia writes on pg9: "The phrase “keep arms” was not prevalent in the written documents of the founding period that we have found, but there are a few examples, all of which favor viewing the right to “keep Arms” as an individual right unconnected with militia service."  I don't see that this matches your summary #1 above closely at all, you appear to have inferred too much here.  SaltyBoatr get wet 22:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hauskalainen @SaltyBoatr Now you are deliberately playing games again. I did not point to that quote on the top of the page but the quote at the bottom and the note [7] attached to it (which goes on to the next page also). These 3 citations quoted by the the Supreme Court show that the right to keep arms was a personal one and for the purposes of self-preservation. It was NOT just for service in the Militia. I am sorry that this does not fit your beloved "developing rights" theory but that is no excuse for excluding them from the article.--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No. You provided a source, and I checked it and found that the source didn't match what you wrote.  (And no, you cannot tell me to disregard the top of the page which you don't like, because you were just looking at the bottom of the page.) (And no, it doesn't mean much that you find that the SCOTUS is footnoting to the same primary documents as you are looking at.) The trouble here is you cannot write what you want and then stick in random citations to justify what you want, that gets it backwards.  Instead, we must read the reliable sourcing and write an article to match the sourcing.  SaltyBoatr get wet 19:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

2. "though one American historian has expressed a contrary view that the right developed over a period of 500 or so years beginning in the twelfth century".


 * SaltyBoatr here wishes to know who this is.


 * Hauskalainen. Well clearly I had intended it to be Malcolm and only in deference to your wishes that this be regarded as a POV if not an indisputable fact of history. I added this reference to an American Historian as I thought Malcolm might actually be rather ashamed to be associated with this view because I am not entirely sure that this really is her view. As I said earlier it sounds more like the insertion of a sub-editor or a dust cover writer. Personally I suspect she meant a "right backed up by legislation" because she looks back only through legislation for her sources of a right in law and has either ignored the natural right to have arms for self preservation or you have failed to show where else in her book this may have been referred to (I do not have the luxury of having her book but I have many on medieval English and Irish history. You claim that this is her POV so perhaps you can tell us which reference. I believe at least one other writer you have cited has a similar view but if I recall correctly that too was sourced to Malcolm. I am not sure that these other writers were historians or just other gun lobby fodder spewing out the myth. Maybe you can help us out here. If there are other historians with a similar view, please feel free to let us have the references for that too.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * andy85719 I wish that, should an assertion be made as to the number of disputants of said position, an article should be cited to support this numerical assertion. Otherwise, it is conjecture.
 * @ andy85719. It would be OK to change it to "some" American historians if you can show me that there is another who has come to this conclusion independently (i.e. not some other historian simply citing Malcolm). --Hauskalainen (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * SaltyBoatr Just insert a compromise wording into the sandbox.  Start by reading secondary sourcing, then write text that matches that sourcing.  I can recall at least four sources that describe the English history of 'militia tradition' as being vital to the 2A.  To comply with WP:NPOV, this militia theory needs to be given proper weight to match that balance of sourcing.  SaltyBoatr get wet 14:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hauskalainen @SaltyBoatr Firstly, your sandbox is not a place to get embroiled in more rounds of furious editing to get around an edit freeze. Now I wish to understand what your complaint is. The first issue you raised about the sentence I have listed under point 2. was "who is the American historian"?. I don't mind if we name Malcolm. If you want to name others, please let us know who they are and the sources that show that these are independently arrive at opinions and not just a reciting of Malcolm as a source for that view.


 * There is no doubt in anyone's mind that there WAS a military connection to the drafting of both the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment. Both came about due to the disarming of Militias by the King. If you like, we can add a sentence to that effect. How about if we replace this sentence


 * Scholars and lawyers recognize that the Second Amendment has its origins in the text of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 though one disputes its relevance
 * with this one
 * Scholars and lawyers recognize that the Second Amendment has its origins in the text of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and that both of these texts were expressions of the right not to be disarmed and not the liberty to be armed. Who got that right and against whom it could be enforced differed slightly. The English Bill of Rights had been drafted to give Protestants the right not to be disarmed. English Protestants had recently experienced the Catholic King mis-applying the gaming laws to shore up Catholic strength by disarming the majority Protestants. The Second Amendment in the United States sought similar rights for the US people who had formed militias to protect their States but which had similarly suffered attempts by the English monarchy to disarm them. Who the right not to be disarmed could be enforced against differed in each country. In England the right was enforceable against the against the King and not parliament. Thus parliament could still act to modify the laws relating to arms. In the American law the right was enforeacable by the people against the new Federal Government. The drafters feared that this new creature might seek powers to disarm as the King had once done. Thus in the United Sates the Second Amendment right not to be disarmed was a right held against the Federal Government, which left the States still free to pass laws regarding the control of amarments within their territorial boundaries.


 * The above is quite long and as yet unreferenced but I think it gets to the heart of the issue. What the right was in each case (the right not to be disarmed), who got the right (protestants versus the entire People) and who the right was enforceable against (the King in England, and the Federal Government in the United States.


 * I assume that this is what you meant and not that militias are a new thing. I can assure you that people have gone armed into battle for as long as we can look back in history.--Hauskalainen (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * SaltyBoatr @ Hauskalainen Astonishing! Is this a circle game?  Once again: Don't tell us what you think the reliable sourcing says.  Tell us what reliable sourcing you are using!  Let us read it.  SaltyBoatr get wet 20:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hauskalainen @SaltyBoatr Stop playing WP:Game. You know that we are discussing the content and how to structure it. You asked for compromise wording to include reference to Militias and I provided it. We can put the sources in later. If you have a better way of telling your beloved "developing rights myth" steeped as it is in a myth of servitude blossoming into full freedoms, you tell us how you want it told. The only thing is that you must source it to Malcolm and it must be presented as a POV and not an accepted position.--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not OK with a suggestion that we choose the text now, then "we can put the sources in later".  NO. We should read the sources, then write text that matches the sources.  SaltyBoatr get wet 19:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

3. '"...contrary view that the right developed over a period of 500 or so years beginning in the twelfth century." '


 * SaltyBoatr here wishes to put the militia tradition to much earlier as per other citations on this page.


 * Hauskalainen Personally I do not mind but as I have said earlier on this page, the right to act collective with arms to defend one's clan probably goes back to time immemorial. We should not say it began (for sure) in this year or that but just that these are some early examples of the collective right and duty appearing in the written record.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * andy85719 Wishes that assertions as to time periods be made with a degree of certitude befitting a scholarly publication. Airy/flimsy assertions ought to be rejected as conjecture unless supported by a respectable source.


 * SaltyBoatr @Hauskalainen Again. What is the reliable sourcing for your idea?  I want to verify by reading confirmation in sourcing.  SaltyBoatr get wet 14:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hauskalainen @SaltyBoatr My idea!!! That is rich!!! This is your beloved Professor Malcolm's idea and it is pretty crooked. If you don't want to provide a reference for it or if you doubt that anyone has claimed that the right developed over a period of 500 years or so, or that anyone has ever postulated a "developing right" theory, then I will gladly delete the sentence once the page protection is listed. This was my concession to you Salty. I added it right up top so everyone could see it. If you don't want to see it there I can live without it.--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

4. "The period from the mid 1500s though to around 1700 was one of great instability based on religious divisions (between Catholics and the growing numbers Protestants) and differences that set parliamentarians (the landed gentry) against the King"


 * SaltyBoatr here asks for a citation claiming that this is original research.


 * andy85719 Wishes that citations were provided, even where a statement may seem obvious to the writer, as such is not always obvious to the casual reader.


 * Hauskalainen This sounded fairly innocuous and neutral to me. Which bit do you not believe to be a faithful representation? Let me break it up for you.


 * That their were religious divisions that grew?
 * That this happened between the dates given?
 * That the religious disputes were between Protestants and Catholics?
 * That the parliament was filled with the landed gentry? (the franchise being limited to Forty Shilling Freeholders - a lot of money in those days!!!
 * That the parliament was in dispute with the King?

All I was doing was trying NOT to overwhelm the reader with unnecessary references. Do you really mean ALL of these? I could respond by being akward myself and asking for all the other obvious stuff in the wider article to have citations. That will keep you all busy! --Hauskalainen (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * SaltyBoatr Show us your sourcing! I want to be able to confirm as verifiable.  Please read WP:NOR to be sure you understand the distinction between original research and third party reliable sourcing.  Insert your footnotes directly into the sandbox.  I will be beginning to remove your unsourced sentenced prior to the page lock lift, so please get started.  SaltyBoatr get wet 14:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hauskalainen @Saltyboatr Actually none of this is individually controversial. You know and I know that all these individual elements have been in the article for a very long time. Nothing I have written is inconsistent with anything in the article as it was before. Your refusal to call ALL of what I have written as somehow WP:OR is an action beyond the Pale. It just reeks of WP:Game.--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You raise an unrelated issue. The topic at hand is that you are proposing text in the article which lacks apparent sourcing.   I still am asking to see your sourcing, so I can check what you are writing for verifiability.  When do you plan on providing your sourcing?  SaltyBoatr get wet 20:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hauskalainen The items (1. to 4. above) are the first four objections cited by SaltyBoatr. To me, it hardly seems to be a list of objections so grievous that it warranted a request for a page protection.
 * If anyone else has further objections then please add them in this section and number them from 5. onwards. I will try and keep all my comments on the subject of the English History Section to this section. It was NOT helpful to have 20 or so new sections added as happened during the last page protection period.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * SaltyBoatR I want to see your citations for your entire work, which has appearances of your "original research".'''  To be clear here, comparing your "original research" to the last stable version you reverted, I prefer the last stable version because it was well sourced, and because it reflects the full spectrum of points of view seen in reliable sourcing.  SaltyBoatr get wet 14:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hauskalainen Your preferred version was structured in line with the "developing right" theory. This is a theory that has emerged only recently and is contrary to what many others have long believed to be the case. It is not even a very widely supported theory and the alternative and much more long standing view (that the English have always had the right to carry arms and the Bill of Rights was not a particularly revolutionary in this regard) was not given any attention at all. It is WRONG to structure the article to fit with one theory and it was wrong to eliminate a long held view that the right to arms was a natural right in support of the similar natural right to life. We must present the material neutrally in a way that exposes the controversies to the reader as well as the commonly agreed facts. It is also wrong to claim as you have done above many times that my material is not sourced. As I have shown above you and others are complaining bitterly about sourcing but the article has said many of the same things and these have not been challenged. Your actions in getting me to dot every i and cross every t that have not been crossed before is just WP:Gamesmanship on your part. This is why the edits I have made are causing you so much grief and why the cabal at work on this article is joining you in your quest. Up with this I will not put. I know that this group of editors has seen off many other editors in their quest to preserve the article in their preferred mould. But this time will be different. The English section must reflect

English history and not one American historian's romanticised version of it which attempts to blow away a history of rights exercised without question.


 * Would you like me to get some English History scholars to join in with you? A half dozen or so could balance things out. I don't suppose this article has had much attention from them because Brits on the whole are rather satisfied with their arms laws and think the American obsession is absurd. In England Wales (population aout 50 million) in 2005 there were just 50 gun homicides annually;http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf (Page 36) if the United States (population about 300 million) had as good a record as England & Wales there would have been about 300 American gun homicides. In fact there were more than 10,000 American gun homicides (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html).The law in England and Wales has not, in fact, changed the general right to arms. Only the right to hold certain types of highly lethal arms, and especially firearms. I think it would be a good idea to highlight how American and British laws have differed over history since the Second Amendment. The British parliament has it seems preferred not to make a radical change to the law relating to the right to arms (it did not make it a constitutional right for instance) but has controlled the right to hold certain types of highly lethal weapons and in particular firearms. It would of course be wholly wrong to imply that the very big difference in firearm deaths is due to that difference but the British reaction has generally been to tighten the laws of access to firearms as public concern over firearms has risen. It probably is also right that the British have put the very personal Right to life as being more important than right to keep arms for personal defence even though this may mean more that there are more robberies and burglaries. Malcolm has written about this I think. --Hauskalainen (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Too many words. Are you trying to distract from the central question here?  Really, what does your discussion of modern gun violence UK and USA statistics have to do with your text about "The period from the mid 1500s though to around 1700 ..." I ask again, please provide the citations to the reliable sourcing for for this wording you propose as "number 4, The period from the mid 1500s though to around 1700 ...".  SaltyBoatr get wet 20:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

5. The article (whether in the English History section or the earlier Background section) could be more clear about "The developing right theory"  (Added by User:Hauskalainen )


 * Hauskalainen I call it the developing right theory for want of a proper scholarly name for it. It is the elephant in the room in all of the discussions we have had. The dispute is about


 * the rights (=liberties) of the Early English and Americans at various points in time to have arms
 * the duties (=legal or moral obligation) of the English and early Americans at various points in time to have arms to defend their communities or others
 * the meanings of the wording in two laws (the English Bill of Rights and the U.S. Second Amendment) as they affect rights.


 * These three things seem to have been interpreted differently acccording to which version of history you wish to believe is true.


 * One view (in part supported, allegedly, by Prof. Malcolm and parts of the gun lobby in the U.S.) broadly argues that


 * People's and liberties expanded as the obligations given to them expanded
 * The duties expanded from few or none towards an obligation to serve in a militia
 * People feared their government would form a standing militia which would disarm them
 * The laws granting explicit rights were drafted to guarantee the rights of citizens to bear arms (against the tytanny of governmment if necessary)
 * That the rights won were so precious that they must be preserved
 * The other view (broadly supported by a large swathe of historical record and legal decsions) says that


 * People have always had the right to use arms to defend themselves when in imminent threat of losing their life or limb - but not before that.
 * People have always had an obligation to defend their communities. It was the developing legal system that caused these obligations to be written down.
 * Across human history, peoples have armed themselves not just to protect their person but also against possible external threats to their group - i.e. they have formed militias. History shows that after virtually any conflict a peace has to be restored and the vanquished are disarmed by the victors, for obvious reasons.
 * The laws in the 17th and 18th century did NOT grant a right to have arms. They instead protected explicit rights of citizens NOT TO BR DISARMED unlawfully.
 * The People have the right to shape the laws that affect them according to their present circumstances and ought not to be bound by historical. Hence legitimate governments can change the law, but the U.S. constitution reserves this right to the States' legislatures and not to the Federal legislature.


 * These two versions of history should be discussed somewhere in the article, and probably in the English Hisory section or the Background saection.--Hauskalainen (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * SaltyBoatr Please stop telling us what you personally think. Take this elsewhere, it clutters the talk page. We need the chance to confirm these theories by reading them in third party reliable sourcing.  SaltyBoatr get wet 14:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hauskalainen @SaltyBoatR I am discussing what I believe should be the content of the article not ruminating about what I think. If there is a dispute between editors as to POVs then there are clearly POVs that need to be in the article. You wish the article to reflect only the Malcolm theory of a developing right. This has been criticized by other writers not just me. Especially the bit where Malcolm claims that the reference to ancient rights was a fiction made up on the spot. I have at least one reference which says that Malcolm has no evidence for this and that it flies in the face of other scholarship. You clearly do not want the myth of the developing right to be exploded in the Wikipedia article and you are doing your utmost to obstruct that. please be more positive.--Hauskalainen (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The Four Deuces @Hauskalainen Could you please provide the name and page no. of the book or article that challenges Malcolm's book. TFD (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hauskalainen @The Four Deuces Try this one "IT ISN'T ABOUT DUCK HUNTING: THE BRITISH ORIGINS OF THE RIGHT TO ARMS, David B. Kopel (a critique of the Malcolm book) republished here


 * The main body of the book ought to be the portion that attracts controversy: In it Malcolm argues that the 1689 Convention tricked the next three centuries of Britons and Americans with its claim that the British right to arms was "ancient, true, and indubitable," rather than fabricated on the spot as a result of recent experience with oppressive monarchs and their standing armies. Because Malcolm's thesis contradicts the viewpoint of almost every scholar--pro-gun or anti-gun--who has written anything on the British right to arms, one might expect controversy. So far, however, no scholar has challenged Malcolm's conclusion in print.


 * Malcolm's argument is, on the one hand, irrefutable, because there is no known British legal document prior to 1689 that refers to a right to arms; all the official documents call bearing arms a duty rather than a right (p. 9). But, it is not impossible for a duty and a right to coexist. Jury service was certainly a duty, but many Britons also viewed it as "an ancient, true, and indubitable right."[68] It is possible that deeper inquiry into medieval social history materials might show a similar understanding of a duty-right to arms. While the 1689 Convention may have fabricated a right in a strict legal sense, some kind of rights consciousness regarding arms must have existed beforehand, or else the Convention's assertion of an "ancient, true, and indubitable right" would have been so self-evidently absurd as not to be worth asserting.


 * The argument Kopel uses is not that different to my argument about the right to keep milk in the fridge. Just because there is nothing written down giving me that right does not mean it does not exist. This is what Malcolm seems to have assumed. It is interesting to see that the author says that Malcolm's thesis contradicts the viewpoint of almost every scholar--pro-gun or anti-gun--who has written anything on the British right to arms.--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Four Deuces @Hauskalainen It is not a good source because it is a book review written after the publication of Malcom's book and as it says, "no scholar has challenged Malcolm's conclusion in print". However, the statement that Malcolm's view that the right originated with the Bill of Rights 1689 "contradicts the viewpoint of almost every scholar" was certainly true when she wrote the book, but we need a source that shows whether the earlier view is still held.  All the evidence shows that it is not.  Also, it is incorrect to say, "The argument Kopel uses is not that different to my argument about the right to keep milk in the fridge".  He says that, "rights... arise by long-standing tradition from the ancient past".  He is talking about legal rights, something that can be either the basis or to the defense to a claim.  TFD (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hauskalainen @The Four Deuces Er.. you asked me to provide the reference to "the book or article that challenges Malcolm's book" and I did just that. Now you claim it is not valid because it was written after the publication of Malcom's book. It could hardly criticize the book before it has been published! Yes, Kopel says no scholar has challenged Malcolm in print but then he goes on to do just that. Therefore Kopel, an academic, does criticize Malcolm. You say "we need a source that shows whether the earlier view is still held". With respect, we do not. Unless you can find one that says that he or she has changed his/her position since Malcolm published, the best you could then argue would be that at least ONE has changed their mind. Otherwise we must leave the assumption of previous pulished positions being retained. I simply do not understand your point about why you think my right (liberty) to keep milk in the fridge is any different. If someone tried to prevent me keeping milk in the fridge I would have a right to go to law to understand how I lost that right, because in the absence of a law to the contrary I would be exercising my natural right to live as I please. So it was with right to keep arms. Yes, occassionally, people in the past were disarmed. Catholics and Protestants. And they protested. They didn't say "OK guv, your right, I shouldn't have had 20 rifles in my basement because I never had the right to do so" and leave it at that. But in times of war and civl war especially, there is a breakdown in law and we can understand why the niceties of the law were just ignored. It is hardly surpising that the English Protestants should have the right to hold against the King the right not to be disarmed after James II did what he did. It is interesting to note the US Supreme Court recognizes that the right was one against the King and not held against parliament. Hence parliament has been able to freely amend the law even though the Bill of Rights is one of the main documents making up the British Constitution. --Hauskalainen (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read the book review section in your newspaper, you will notice that book reviews, although often written by experts in their field, are not peer-reviewed articles but are written to comment on recently published books. I have already explained the legal issues to you and your repetition of your opinions that are not based on any understanding of the law or any sources indicate that further discussion with you is pointless.  TFD (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This thread is discussing topic #5 what we read in the Malcolm boon versus Hauskalainen's thirteen bullet points. The conversation has drifted away. Tell me where can I read about the conflict between the thirteen bullet points and Malcolm in reliable sourcing?  These thirteen bullet points need to be sourced.  Give specific ISBN and page numbers please.  Thanks!  SaltyBoatr get wet 20:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

6. The English Civil War did not totally resolve the powers dispute between the primarily Protestant parliament and the Catholic-leaning monarchy.
 * SaltyBoatr here commented "why lead with the English Civil War? Chronologially, earlier history should come first."


 * Hauskalainen @SaltyBoatr The reason is that the background to the 2nd Amendment was the same concern as the background to the English Bill of Rights (fear of disarmament) and we know that the drafters of the 2nd Amendment were in some sense copying the English Bill of Rights. The background to the English Bill of Rights was the disarmaments that had happened around the time of the English Civil War and afterwards. That is why it should begin here. This bit is not in dispute. I anticipate your motive is wanting to go back even earlier is to instill an idea, as Malcolm did, of "the developing right" theory. To construct an article section in that way without pointing out that this is a POV position with considerable problems associated with it would be unacceptable. I have no problem in the "developing right" story or myth being told in the article but it firmly belongs in the section that needs to be added regarding that particular theory.--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hauskalainen, the Second Amendment protected an existing right which was received into American law from English law. That is why English law is important.  You should be aware that imperial and colonial law remained in force after 1776, and some of these laws are still in force, including all laws relating to the right to bear arms.  TFD (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Several sources, when discussing the English History of the Second Amendment start with the ancient history of the tradition of militia service. Per policy we should be matching what we see in the sources.  Hauskalainen says "The reason is...(fear of disarmament)...".  Which sourcing says this?  It appears to be your personal preference.  Instead, we should set aside personal preference and be matching what we see in reliable sourcing.  SaltyBoatr get wet 20:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The tradition of defending the group one belongs to (family, tribe, or nation) goes back to "defending the pack" and is pre-caveman. In order to defend the group one has to have arms and training in how to use them. Among other thing the Second defends that pre-existing right to have arms, with the intent being that you have those arms available in order to learn how to use them. Try becoming a well trained football player without a football, and see how far it gets you.71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

wikilink to "natural rights" article was again deleted
The English section "used to have" a wikilink to the natural rights wiki article. I know because I restored that wikilink after SB had deleted it. It seems someone wants no attention given to what a "natural right" is.

I will again restore it after the article is unprotected. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights71.184.184.238 (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Someone needs to source that the term "natural right" used by Blackstone centuries ago is the same as the term "natural right" today. I recall reading in reliable sourcing that there is significant differences between Blackstone's meaning and the modern meaning.  Therefore the Wikilink is inappropriate WP:SYN. (I forget the precise source at this moment, but is discussed above. See above.)  SaltyBoatr get wet 18:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The Constitution is a contract. Contract law states that a contract MUST be interpreted based on the language used at the time that it was written. I hope you remember all the fuss you made about what "well regulated" meant.71.184.184.238 (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW: Since you believe that the natural rights article is in violation of WP:SYN, why don't you go over there and delete it. I believe that I will LOVE the results of such an action. The fact that you won't will only add to my pleasure.71.184.184.238 (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Saltyboatr, Could you please explain your comment, "Blackstone breaks down 'natural rights' differently than we do in modern times", and therefore the wiki-link is WP:SYN". Your link does not say this.  TFD (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The link just is discussing the individual rights component of natural law as viewed by Blackstone (see pgs 253-255), so I concede your point about 'natural law' meaning in the source being at best implied. Though the burden of proof is on the editor making the Wikilink insertion, not the challenger. My greater concern is actually about the more general issue here of using the famous 'natural rights' quotation from Blackstone, that is widely used by individual rights POV proponents.  By making a direct quotation from Blackstone primary document as we do, it improperly represents the natural rights POV viewpoint as universally agreed 'truth'.  When as you can see in the Heyman article pgs 253-255, that the 'individual rights' thesis is not universally agreed.  Therefore the use of a Blackstone quote to imply the individual rights thesis as being WP:TRUTH is improper WP:SYN. We have a duty to represent both points of view about the meaning of Blackstone relative to the Second Amendment.  One says it supports an individual rights thesis.  Another says it supports a civic rights thesis.  We should be using secondary sources that discuss Blackstone, and we should be representing both of the POV's we see.  SaltyBoatr get wet 21:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * For the nth time SaltyB, Blackstone IS a secondary source. He was interpreting the law and not making it. That another writer takes a different view is entirely normal and this kind of thing happens all the time. It does not make Blackstone a primary source. We have established that Malcolm has created another POV and I can accept that others may have taken her line. But it does not invalidate the alternative view that the right to hold arms was a pre-existing right at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted. You can argue all you like about whether it was a natural right itself or as Blackstone puts it an auxilliary right in support of the natural right to self preservation. In this respect I am not bothered too much as to how the right is described. I would haved thought an auxiliary right based on a natural right was in practice itself a natural right but I am not that deeply interested in the demantics of the thing But the really important thing for me the non.revised version of history was that the rights given to protestants was NOT A NEW RIGHT TO HAVE ARMS but instead a PROTECTION OF AN EXISTING RIGHT TO HAVE ARMS and a right not to have that right taken away by the monarch as James I had done. The new element of the right in the Bill of Rights was the protection it afforded against the King disarming the protestants ever again. It was NOT a right against parliament because it was a protected right subject to law and the law could still be changed only by Parliament. It is this plurality of views (the conventional view versus the Malcolm view) that needs to be spelled out to the reader somewhere in this section and the reasons for their being different interpretations. Giiven that this is a complex issue perhaps there should be a WP article on the Malcolm book, the thesis at the heart of it, and the criticisms the book, good and bad, that have been made since its publication. Then we can direct readers there if they want to know the ins and outs in more detail and we can just note in this article the novelty of this piece of historical revisionism and the views in support of it and against. --Hauskalainen (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that you are not just using Blackstone as a secondary source, instead you are deliberately selecting the the passage from Blackstone which is mirroring the exact same quote which is so popular with the gun-rights advocacy websites to advance an "individual rights" thesis. For a neutral treatment of this matter, we should inform the readers that interpretations of Blackstone have context depending on the points of view of the subject.  It is not neutral to present this "individual rights" POV as if it is simply TRUTH, because contrary points of view of how Blackstone viewed individual rights is seen in significant third party reliable sourcing.  We must deal with this Blackstone passage in accordance with WP:NPOV.  SaltyBoatr get wet 13:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Other POV's are represented in the article, arguably with much more prominence then they deserve, due to your endless attempts at censorship and POV push. After Heller the "militia based" POV on the right to arms is dead. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We seem to disagree whether the Supreme Court of the United States determines NPOV policy at Wikipedia. If the Supreme Court says one viewpoint as to history in their opinion, do they trump all other opposing viewpoints of history seen in reliable sourcing?  If we disagree about that policy, we should take it up with the appropriate policy page.    SaltyBoatr get wet 14:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't think Haus. is engaging in TRUTH pushing, rather he's insisting on reporting Blackstone as a reliable secondary source on this subject. Salt. rather shoots himself in the foot with his guilt by association argument: "gun-rights advocacy websites", etc. For what it's worth, it's my impression that, regardless of vagaries in English common law, it was English common practice, for many centuries, to go armed with a knife or staff of some sort. To be armed with more than that, without drawing official scrutiny, depended on social status. It may be that the Malcolm book deserves an article, but this topic is important so show everything. -Welhaven (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia Welhaven, interesting to see that you chose here as your place to start. What I am speaking of is the policy WP:NPOV.  In this case we have two points of view about this Blackstone passage.  We are required to represent them both neutrally and fairly.  It is pretty hard to do that by presenting one point of view by directly quoting Blackstone (making no mention of the secondary advocacy sourcing that exists), and omitting the other point of view entirely.  This direct use of Blackstone skirts the context that the reader deserves to get the whole picture.  It is a fact that we repeatedly see this specific quotation of Blackstone being used in the advocacy sourcing (by NRA-ILA, Gun Shows On the Net, etc.) to build an 'individual rights' argument.  Let us let the reader know that, and then trust the reader to make their own judgment.  SaltyBoatr get wet 21:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV does not apply to a WP:RS, only to us. Hauskalainen may use the Blackstone passage as a ref. This does not stop you from using other WP:RS to support a contrary view. You must stop, to the extent you are, deleting each others' writings and ref cites. If you try, as one other editor did, to say Blackstone is not WP:RS on English common law, you put yourself on imaginary thin ice. Please stick to providing WP:RS for your points. Misuse of Blackstone by gun nuts might be a good point but not reason to bury the prima facie meaning of the passage. No more deletions. -Welhaven (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not read anything that says the meaning of natural rights has changed since Blackstone, and therefore see no reason to prove that the the terms has the same meaning. If you think it has changed then you should find an alternative definition used in modern writing.  TFD (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @TFD. Digging, I re-located the source I was remembering that questions the Blackstone 'natural right' argument familiarly used by the individual rights POV camp. See the Heyman article in the Chicago-Kent Law Review Vol76:237, pgs 253-255.  Blackstone discusses the natural rights in context of his essay on types of absolute rights.  According to Heyman's analysis of Blackstone, the types of rights belonging to the individual are life, liberty and property. When Blackstone discusses the right to arms, he discusses it not as an 'absolute right' but rather as an "auxiliary subordinate right of the subject".  Blackstone breaks down 'natural rights' differently than we do in modern times, and therefore the wiki-link is WP:SYN. At the least, we need to neutrally describe that scholar's of Blackstone hold differing interpretations as to Blackstone's meaning of 'natural right' and that the modern interpretation favored by the 'individual gun-rights POV camp' is just one significant POV, and not agreed universally. SaltyBoatr get wet 19:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That issue of the Chicago Kent Law Review is suspect as it was an issue that was bought by the Joyce Foundation to publish articles that were paid for by the Joyce Foundation and chosen by an "outside editor" with strong ties to Joyce. Opposing views were not welcome. It is equivalent to "self-published" material. http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/joyce_foundatio.php

''A bit of inquiry showed that Joyce had done some serious bankrolling. The law review consented to having an outside editor for that issue, who surprisingly was anti-Second Amendment. (And when pro-Second Amendment law professors volunteered to write, he refused to allow it). He got paid $30,000. Authors of the articles in it got $5,000 each for their time. The rest of the grant went for buying a load of reprints to be sent to judges. So Joyce had essentially bought a issue of the review, stacked the deck of authors, and then mailed a load of copies to judges.''


 * The "outside editor was Carl Bogus, a front man for the Joyce Foundation. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-the-attempt-to-destroy-the-second-amendment/

''In a breach of law review custom, Chicago-Kent let an “outsider” serve as editor; he was Carl Bogus, a faculty member of a different law school. Bogus had a unique distinction: he had been a director of Handgun Control Inc. (today’s Brady Campaign), and was on the advisory board of the Joyce-funded Violence Policy Center.''71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If we dispute whether the Chicago-Kent Law Review is a reliable source, the place to raise that question is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. The issue isn't whether we agree with the POV of the article, the issue is that the article represents a significant point of view.  SaltyBoatr get wet 20:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not correct to say that source reliability should not be discussed on the article talk page. In fact. most such specialized WP venues want to see that it has first having been discussed on the article's talk page. Salty, you continue to use your wiki-saaviness to try to maneuver this towards your POV rather than towards the goals and intentions of these policies etc. that you keep referencing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't distrust the Review, I distrust everything in that particular issue of the Review.71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And your sources for that distrust are... blogs. Got anything better? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Blogs that include responses to those allegations from some of the people involved seem pretty reliable. Volokh.com for instance seems reputable. A question was raised on the Reliable Source Noticeboard for that issue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Chicago_Kent_Law_Review_-_one_specific_issue_only71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The Chicago Kent articles were also printed in book form - http://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Law-History-Constitutional/dp/1565846990/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277933196&sr=1-1 Amazon lists the editors as Carl T. Bogus and the infamous Michael A. Bellesiles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Bellesiles. Bellesiles got himself into trouble when it was found he "manufactured" his research. For instance he "purported to count nineteenth-century San Francisco County probate inventories, which had been destroyed in the 1906 earthquake and fire".71.184.184.238 (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Saltyboatr, I do not understand what you mean by Blackstone breaks down natural rights differently than we do in modern times or that your sources say that. Could you please explain. TFD (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Objectively commenting on possible alternative interpretations of the language does not violate wikipedia guidelines, but one must be mindful of the language they use and what it conveys. Wehatweet (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They do not appear to be using different interpretations. TFD (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Re ALL OF the ABOVE: ....    zzzzzzzzzzz Boring!! Blackstone is an excellent secondary source. I don't give a dman whether the right enjoyed by Englishmen BEFORE (and AFTER come to that) to have a weapon was a common law one, a natural one, a fundamental one, or an auxilliary right predicated on a fundamental or natural right. What IS IMPORTANT is that the right WAS pre-existing. This issue (supported now by several references) of its long pre-existence needs to be in the article and put as opposing the Malcolm view that the right to arms only arose from the Bill of Rights. There is clear evidence that it did not do so and had long been a fact of life. And that the Bill of Rights was an affirmation of an existing right and a protection against it being removed by the monarchy without the consent of Parliament. Salty, you cannot go on protesting that there is only interpretation of this. Because there clearly are two views. You should not write the article in a way that seems to tell the myth of the growing right. That means that the references to the Assize of arms goes into the section about the new theory because it is irrelevant in the light of the mainstream view. I think the fairest way to do this is to state the standard view that has been the position right up until Malcolm published her revisionist ideas. And then we explain the revisionist view. Personally I think that depiction of the evidence for and against the Malcolm view should be on an article about the book that published this idea. That will avoid lengthening this article any more. Iy is way to long already! What about it Salty? Shall we get together to write an article about the book and its controversial core theses? It could be FUN ;)  --Hauskalainen (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

To save search time if anyone interested, the discussion of the Bogus symposium conference issue has been archived at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_68#Chicago_Kent_Law_Review_-_one_specific_issue_only Naaman Brown (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Governments secure "natural" rights - they do not "grant" them
Straight from the US Supreme Court - Budd v New York http://supreme.justia.com/us/143/517/case.html

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights -- "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" -- and to "secure," not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted.

"granted" or legislated rights,such as the right to food stamps, are not natural rights.71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there any relevance to your comments? TFD (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that any editor here disagrees, (nor have I seen any sourcing that disagrees) with the fact that the Second Amendment protects and doesn't grant. There is POV disagreement over the exact nature of the right(s) which are protected, and there is discussion over whether the perceptions of the right(s) have changed over time.  We should fairly represent each of these POVs without bias.  Also, I see no disagreement about what the 2008 opinion of the Supreme Court has said about an individual right component being protected.  So, the AnonIP can relax a bit and not WP:BATTLE these things so much.  SaltyBoatr get wet 21:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you do a search of the talk page for the word "grants" in this current talk page, you will find two editors stating that the second "grants" a right and many more then two if you search the archives.71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I personally 1000% prefer the concept that it an already-existent right which the 2nd merely protects. But, as a practical matter, that isn't likely to get one very far without something else.   Whatever you call it, having it explicitly listed in the highest-authority document of the USA, and interpreted by the highest USA authority  on such certainly does SOMETHING which needs to be covered. And, as a practical matter, it does something which claims of pre-existing rights does not.
 * And after all, the topic of this article IS the 2nd Amendment. North8000 (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see the point of this discussion. The Second Amendment confirms a right and no one disputes that.  The only issue is what right it confirms.  TFD (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we steer this conversation away from a discussion of what editors believe? We should be instead discussing what the sourcing says.   SaltyBoatr get wet 12:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * With respect to article content, I think that few if any of us even know what the "question" is. This seems like a rambling debate within the topic "world history of firearm/self defense rights"  North8000 (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Salty, both you and TFD seem to think that there is more the one right to keep and bear arms. Why don't you list them for us? Please don't confuse a right with "a purpose for using" that right. Example, I have the right to spend money, one purpose would be to "spend to buy candy" since "candy is dandy" or I could "spend to buy liquor" since "liquor is quicker". I can "spent to buy flowers" since chicks dig flowers, or I could "spend to buy chocolate" since chicks dig chocolate as much as they dig flowers. All of things I just posted are examples of a PURPOSE for exercising the one and only power - "The power to spend". I apologize to all chicks offended when reading the above.71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I wrote above? "[T]hat does not mean that one has more than one right to keep and bear arms. I have not seen it described this way and it certainly is not phrased that way in primary sources."  TFD (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Only a few posts above you stated "The only issue is WHAT right it confirms." indicating that you believe there is more then one right. Salty made a big todo over WHAT right the Second protects just a few days ago by stating "Even if there is demonstrated to be a natural right to have guns, the mere existence of the right is not proof that this is the same right protected by the Second Amendment." and "The 2A protects an individual right, but which?" to which I sarcastically responded "Perhaps SCOTUS was speaking about the right to keep and bear arms up your nose, in your mouth or even up your ass, but somehow I don't think so!" You seemed to be following in his footsteps.71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If I had meant to say that it confirmed more than one right, I would have added an "s" to the end of the word right (one right, two rights, etc.) It seems that the writing is pretty clear and I am sorry that you misinterpreted it.  TFD (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD could you tell us what you are reading that says "one right"? Are there other significant POVs which say otherwise?  SaltyBoatr get wet 14:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but every source I have read talks about the "right" not rights. The subtitle to Malcolm's book for example is "The Origins of an Anglo-American Right".  Notice the use of the singular noun.  I always thought it was one right, two rights, not one right, two right.  It is not one of those irregular nouns, like moose (one moose, two moose).  TFD (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The word "What" implies you have a choice of options. From Salty's post above, HE seems to think that there is more then one right to keep and bear arms.71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The post referenced is this one - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=372590226&oldid=372589920 - which Salty deleted right after posting.71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The choice of options is how the right is defined, not that there are different rights. TFD (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Typo
Please correct the spelling of "independance" to "independence" in citation 119. I've reviewed the linked PDF and the word is spelled correctly there. Nick Number (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ here. Thanks! TFOWR 16:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

18th and 19th century style
Rhode Island's 1842 constitutional freedom-of-the-press provision declared: "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty."

Late 18th and early 19th century laws occassionally include "a purpose clause" before the "main clause", a practice not seen today. The Second Amendment is the only amendment I recall with a purpose clause. I emphasize "a" purpose clause, since they are usually not the only purpose, but are often a purpose the government would have a vested interest in protecting, regardless of other purposes for the main clause. If you are not familiar with the style (and I wasn't until ~5 years ago), it can be confusing, but the main clause stands without the exemplar purpose clause which is not an exclusive limitation on the main clause.

What is protected in the Second Amendment is the "right of the people to keep and bear arms"; the United States have a interest in assuring an armed populance from which to draw a militia: that is "a" purpose of the right but that is not the only purpose. Rhode Island guaranteed that "any person may publish sentiments on any subject"; the example clause shows a vested interest in the state assuring liberty of the press for political purposes, but that does not mean that non-political speech is unprotected and that the state could ban "Marmaduke" from the funnies because it is not protected political speech under the exemplar clause: under the main clause, "any person may publish sentiments on any subject" limited only by restrictions on libel or slander. Naaman Brown (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This talk page is not the place for a general discussion of the Second Amendment. It is the place for discussion of the article.  Thanks.  SaltyBoatr get wet 14:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The language structure of the Second was a key part of Heller. See this, often repeated language, from Heller.

''A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If "bear arms" means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage ("for the purpose of self-defense" or "to make war against the King"). But if "bear arms" means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add "for the purpose of killing game." The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter.''71.184.184.238 (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Typo
near citation [14] Parliament thouugh... should be changed to though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.138.178 (talk • contribs)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The last edit made to the article was meant to correct the spelling of the word "though", but ending up spelling "through". Please correct, thank you. SMP0328. (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I'm an idiot ;) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

section break

 * Hauskalainen, in fact a person in the U. S. may be sued for a civil wrong committed anywhere and the local court will apply the substantive laws of the jurisdiction where the wrong occurred, except where they conflict with the U. S. Bill of Rights. I suppose you are right that the U. S. Supreme Court is just as competent to rule on English law as any other supreme court, but there is always the possibility that the rulings will differ.  Incidentally the Canadian Supreme Court may hear a case on the right to keep and bear arms, based on English common law and the Bill of Rights 1689.  TFD (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that there are 2 issues/questions floating around / getting mixed together at once.  The biggest debate on the talk page is over the natural right / common law / etc. roots aspects.  And then the second one is USA legal meaning of the 2nd.  E.G. a right available to individuals independent of any militia affiliations etc.  It might be good to clarify which one of these two one is talking about. North8000 (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They are inseparable. The Second Amendment protects a right that existed in colonial America.  What that right was is critical.  TFD (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you say "protects a right", using the singular? It seems to me that the sourcing is describing several different types of rights, and we should be using the plural.  SaltyBoatr get wet 17:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is a consensus in the literature that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" refers to multiple rights then we would put that in. Can you please explain what you mean by "different types of rights".  TFD (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There certainly is plenty published in reliable sources discussing at least three views of this right. The right to arms for self defense is one (and it appears that the SCOTUS has broken this down to self defense within in the home which is protected versus the right of self defense elsewhere which is not protected).  The right of arms for insurrection against tyranny is another.  Also, there is the right of the states to maintain militia independent from federal infringement.  SaltyBoatr get wet 20:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the same right - Your examples show how it can be used in different ways - against different enemies.71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While the right to keep and bear arms exists because it is necessary to protect other rights While (according to Cramer, Malcolm and others) the right to keep and bear arms exists because (the understanding of English jurist was) that it was necessary to protect other rights, that does not mean that one has more than one right to keep and bear arms. I have not seen it described this way and it certainly is not phrased that way in primary sources.  TFD (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you might be revealing your personal bias, which seems to describe the insurrectionist against tyranny viewpoint. The secondary sources describes other POV's, and actually the primary 2A is ambiguously worded.  Different people in good faith can read it differently.  The American Bar Association has observed that there is more disagreement and less understanding about this right than of any other current issue regarding the Constitution. To maintain neutrality, we should treat each of these viewpoints fairly, with respect, and without bias.  SaltyBoatr get wet 22:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see why you are seeing a bias. Again I believe that you are making this overly complex.  Just state what mainstream sources say and do not try to analyze their theories unless you have reliable sources that do this.  Do not worry that they have different opinions.  TFD (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have diligently been citing my sources, see above. The bias I was seeing is when you wrote: "While the right to keep and bear arms exists because it is necessary to protect other rights".  You don't mention your source, suggesting this is your personal opinion.  Or, are you echoing some source?  Perhaps this one which is well known opinion?  SaltyBoatr get wet 01:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in this discussion am I mentioning my personal opinions, and I have rephrased the sentence. For full disclosure, my personal opinion by the way is the U. S. Revolution lacked justification and was illegal, that the U. S. Bill of Rights should never have been passed and should be repealed.  TFD (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Too bad we can't get Salty to write Blackstones fifth right language about 500 times in order to remember it. On second thought he has already seen the language at least 500 times already, so make that 5,000 71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

@ Salty @ North When I say "it is my issue" all I mean is that the issue I wish to raise at the NPOV noticeboard is one of my choosing and not anybody else's. For instance my objection id to your presenting the English right to arms as "flowing from" the military service obligation and doing so in a way that does not make it clear that this is part of a novel re-interpretation of history by Professor Malcolm and that the long held alternative view was that the right has always existed as an adjunct to the natural right of self preservation. I do NOT want other people muddying the waters by claiming we are discussing something different (i.e. what is the evidence for and against the Second Amendment right referring to a military right or a personal right). That might seem very similar but actually it is very different because we are now in the realm of American History and not English History. I want the focus t be on English History. If North or anyone else wants to raise a different issue he is free to do so but not in this discussion. I will raise my point at WP:NPOV Noticeboard and it will be my point of issue not anybody else's.--Hauskalainen (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To: Hauskalainen, TFD, 71.184.184.238 and Salty. You you all say that the main current big dispute in this article is primarily along the lines of what Hauskalainen just described?  North8000 (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that yes, Hauskalainen has summarized the key point of his dispute accurately.   (My response is: 1) show me the sources. 2) show me each of the significant POVs seen.  3) The issue is how the American Colonial experience of English history, being thirteen British colonies, is precedent to the Second Amendment.)  SaltyBoatr get wet 20:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there might be a problem then. Your question about NPOV policy depends on the policy of "views that have been published by reliable sources."    Malcolm has either been published by reliable sources, or not.  Once something has been published, I see nothing in NPOV that is depends on "novel re-interpretation".  Rather, your complaint seems to be about WP:Verifiability.  The question about a "novel re-interpretation" seems to be a question for the WP:RS noticeboard.  SaltyBoatr get wet 19:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Novel re-interpretation" sounds like WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE, both of which are aspects of WP:NPOV. The assertion is that Malcolm's view is less prominent and shouldn't be presented in a way that makes it appear more prominent. Hauskalainen's proposal of concisely capturing this one issue, from both sides, and taking it to the noticeboard seems to be worth a try. It would be more useful if you would present your side, but it would probably work well enough if he "wrote for the enemy." Celestra (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. The WP:FRINGE does include NPOV as one of the tests.  Therefore, I would welcome a discussion of whether the book by Joyce Lee Malcolm is a WP:FRINGE source relative to WP:NPOV policy.  Let's do it.  SaltyBoatr get wet 16:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * One piece of evidence to weigh when deciding whether this book is credible, or fringe, is the fact that the Supreme Court majority opinion in the 2008 Heller decision uses the book as a reference, twice, see pg 19 and 20. Is it possible that this book can be considered a fringe theory even if the Supreme Court considers it to be sufficient to use as a reference?  SaltyBoatr get wet 16:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Another piece of evidence comes from the article written by Lois G. Schwoerer in the Chicago-Kent Law Review, which strongly dissents from the thesis presented in the Joyce Lee Malcolm book, and in the process gives an overview of the credible standing of Malcolm's book: (quoting)


 * "To dissent from Malcolm's interpretation, some might say is foolhardy. After all, her book was enthusiastically received by American historians, legal commentators, and the gun community.  Lengthy reviews, warmly praising it poured from the American law journals, including those of the highest reputation. Her argument has been described as 'irrefutable,' her research in political and legal history as 'meticulous,' her book as a "foundational text" of the so-called standard modelers.  Predictably, the National Rifle Association promoted the book, and reviews in its journal were especially enthusiastic.  Less predictably, indeed rather surprisingly, the book found favor from the bench: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia described it as "an excellent study"...It has been noted that no scholar has challenged Malcolm in print.  That is, strictly speaking, not true, but it is true that of the formal published reviews, only two--one of them by me-- expressed reservations about the thesis and scholarship, and just two other historians have negatively criticized Malcolm's study in print.  In short, Malcolm's thesis has been widely accepted; in some circles it enjoys the status of dogma respecting the English origins of the Second Amendment."


 * In light of this evidence that her book enjoys the status of dogma, can Joyce Lee Malcolm's book be called WP:FRINGE, when exactly the opposite seems to be true? SaltyBoatr get wet 17:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Malcolm claims that the Bill of Rights 1689 created a right, while other writers believed it protected a right. However the origins of the Bill are irrelevant to the law in colonial America.  TFD (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (I am afraid to ask.) You say "other writers".  I presume you mean that Blackstone is one, but who are the others?  SaltyBoatr get wet 21:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cramer, for one, and Malcolm comments on the wide acceptance of this view. When I looked through various books other writers seemed to say the same thing.  We can at least assume that it is a mainstream view.  (Malcolm and Cramer are both reliable sources for the prevalence of the opposing views in the literature.)  TFD (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am confused. Malcolm's central thesis is that the right to bear arms evolved from the duty of militia service, and this occurred in 1689.  How is that Malcolm takes both sides of this issue, that it was created in 1689 and that it pre-existed 1689?  Also, could you tell me page numbers please (for Cramer and for Malcolm) of your assertion that the right to bear arms predated the Bill of Rights of 1689.  Thanks, I would like the chance to verify your assertion.  SaltyBoatr get wet 00:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have the Malcolm book in my hand now, and I guess you are referring to page 130? But that page says, quote: "It was William Blackstone in his classic work Commentaries on the Laws of England who set the stamp of approval on the need for citizens to be armed to guarantee freedom. ... Blackstone wrote: 'But in vain would these rights be declared...if the Constitution had provided no other method to secure the actual enjoyment.  It has therefore established certain other auxiliary rights of the subject...to protect the three great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty, and private property.' He identified five auxiliary rights, the last being the right of the people to have arms."   Malcolm points to Blackstone that the Consititution of 1689 "established certain other auxiliary rights"..."the last being the right of the people to have arms".  She says that Blackstone says that the right to arms was established in the Constitution of 1689, and doesn't say that Blackstone viewed the right to have arms was a pre-existing right.  SaltyBoatr get wet 02:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Malcolm: "Five hundred years of performing a duty did not automatically transform that obligation into a right....  No claim was made for a right for Englishmen to be armed... before 1689." (p. 9)  Cramer:  "The English common law tradition clearly recognized a right to arms for self defense against private criminals, and for resistance against governments turned tyrannical." (p. 26)  I do not have a copy of Malcolm's book.  Could you look through that section again because it seems surprising that she would claim that Blackstone considered the right to have been created by legislation.  He wrote, "The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."(Commentaries 1:139)  (The statute referred to is the Bill of Rights 1689.  Clearly he argues that the right derives from common law not statute.  And Blacksone would not have referred to the "Constitution of 1689".  TFD (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The sentence on Malcolm pg 9 preceding your sentence is: "(The Englishman) had no explicit right to have weapons for either peacekeeping or self-defense." That says unequivocally that Malcolm sees no right to weapons in England prior to 1689.  SaltyBoatr get wet 15:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The statement from Cramer pg 26 is verified, and is a RS. It is unfortunate that he doesn't footnote that sentence, and we must conclude that he is making that statement as his unsourced opinion.  Which when read in context of his lengthy discussion of the game laws and other laws disarming the lower classes, which were also English tradition, I see some internal conflict when reading Cramer as a whole.  SaltyBoatr get wet 15:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I know that is her viewpoint. But does she claim that is the viewpoint of Blackstone also?  Where does she said that Blackstone did not consider the right to exist in common law?  TFD (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you meant "natural right" not "common law". Malcolm, pg 130 says that Blackstone writes that the Congress of 1689 established a new right to have arms in order to protect the ancient natural rights of liberty, security and property.    Blackstone uses the words "a public allowance, under due restriction" ... "if the Constitution had provided no other method to secure the actual enjoyment. It has therefore established certain other auxiliary rights of the subject", so you can read Blackstone's meaning directly in Blackstones words: "auxiliary rights" "established", in the Constitution of 1689.  SaltyBoatr get wet 15:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You appear to be confusing some of these concepts, perhaps by seeing them from the perspective of the U. S. constitution. The English constitution is unwritten and was not established in 1689, but is ancient (or so Balckstone thought).  (Malcolm's reference to the Constitution of 1689 is her own concept.)  According to the Whig interpretation of history, which Blackstone followed and Malcolm rejects, James II abandoned the throne which then passed to his daughter, who then restored the constitution that James had abused.  While Blackstone wrote that auxiliary rights derived from natural rights, the Commentaries is a legal textbook and he is explaining the reasoning of common law.  The common law courts are there to protect and enforce the rights of individuals except where prohibited by law (e.g., the Statute of Limitations prohibits them from enforcing rights if cases are brought to them after a specified date) or by the law of equity (e.g., laches).  Blackstone clearly states that the fifth auxiliary right derived from a natural right not the Bill of Rights, and therefore is a right that common law courts must protect.  TFD (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that you believe this. But you make no citation that any reliable source says this.  Plus, your rationale seems flawed on its face.  Blackstone used the words "therefore established" in reference to "auxiliary rights" which were written in 1689.  How under any rationale can "therefore established" when describing something that was drafted in 1689 be thought to mean something that happened in ancient times?  Or, to make my question precise, this seems very dubious, WP:REDFLAG policy comes up now so please provide solid sourcing, and don't bother to explain it in your own words.  Just tell me where I can verify this by reading solid reliable sourcing. Worse, when you read the Steven Heyman paper, he says quite boldly that the 'auxilary rights' (which are derived from law) are new things established by government, distinct from the 'natural rights' according to Blackstone which covered the ancient primary rights liberty, security and property.  SaltyBoatr get wet 19:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

And, repeating myself now. I have provided sourcing that says that "Malcolm's thesis has been widely accepted; in some circles it enjoys the status of dogma.". You said that "other writers disagree", I asked who, and you responded that two were Malcolm disagreeing with herself, and Cramer with one sentence picked out of context which makes sense only if you stop reading after just that one sentence. That is hardly "multiple writers" and you continue to evade my request to identify the reliable sources that disagree with Malcolm. PLEASE! We have spent weeks and tens of thousands of words circling around this same question. Still unanswered. Time is up. Tell us where we can read sourcing that disagrees with Malcolm's thesis. SaltyBoatr get wet 19:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I still do not understand what your point is. Cramer said that the Bill of Rights 1689 confirmed an existing right, while Malcolm says it created a new right.  I do not know what the majority view is.  However an ordinary reading of Blackstone, and Cramer agrees with this, shows that the right to bear arms is an auxiliary right from natural rights, not statute.  I do not have a copy of Malcolm's book and do not know her understanding of Blackstone,  But he does not say that the right was created by the "Constitution of 1689" and in fact never uses the term.  Also, when people praise Malcolm, are they referring to her view about the origins of the right described by Blackstone or are they talking about her interpretation of the right described by Blackstone?  Consider that it does not matter whether Blackstone got his history right.  His influence was sufficient that if he said we have a right to bear arms, then we have that right, even if either we do not have that right or no one before had recognized the right.  TFD (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To be clear: Stop telling me what you think Cramer or Malcolm said.  Instead just tell me exactly where you read it, page numbers and paragraph.  Let me verify it by reading it myself in the source.  Thanks.  As it stands, (I think) you now are pointing to just one source contrary to Malcolm's thesis, and that is Cramer.  Earlier, you implied multiple sources.  Which page(s) and which sentences in Cramer are you speaking of?  Perhaps you might copy the passage which you are speaking of here on this talk page verbatim.  Also, if you are going to dispute Malcolm's book, please find a copy of Malcolm's book.  It seems like a waste of our time for you to oppose what she wrote without having even read what she wrote.  SaltyBoatr get wet 22:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have provided sources for my statements. Could you please list comments I have made that you require sources for.  Also, could you please point me to the section in the Commentaries where Blackstone talks about a right created by the Constitution of 1689.  TFD (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pardon me it looks like is missed it then. I don't see that you have provided specific sources for your claims that:
 * 1) "the right to bear arms is an auxiliary right from natural rights, not statute" Cite please.
 * 2) "other writers believed it protected a right." Which other writers? specifically.  Your citation to Malcolm pg 9 looks like a mistake.  Did you mean that one other writer (other than Cramer, pg 26 ) believed it protected a right?
 * 3) And, for your entire analysis of Blackstone presented above at 16:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC). How do you know this about Blackstone, did you read it or is it your personal research?
 * Thanks for taking the time to address this. I believe that your answers are important to complete our vetting process of whether the Joyce Lee Malcolm book is to be used as an source for the English History section.  SaltyBoatr get wet 15:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)  Blackstone:  "The fifth... auxiliary right of the subject... is that of having arms for their defence....  Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right.... (The word also means in addition to, not derived from.)  2)  "The English Bill of Rights asserted that the nation was "vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties....." (Cramer, p. 26)  That seems to be a fairly standard interpretation of an act "for the Vindicating and Asserting their auntient Rights and Liberties".  I can find other writers who claim the bill's intention was to vindicate and assert ancient rights, but see no reason since we I am not proposing adding any of these writers to the article.  Here is the link to Malcolm p. 9, where she says, " "Five hundred years of performing a duty did not automatically transform that obligation into a right.... No claim was made for a right for Englishmen to be armed... before 1689."  I am sorry but I can do not better than provide you with a direct link to the page where she stated this.  3)  Please be specific.  There is nothing I have written that is not very standard.  15:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) If we are discussing the meaning of Blackstone, then Blackstone is the primary source and we need to use secondary sources which analyses Blackstone. Which sources describe the meaning of "also" as defining "having arms" to be ancient?  Your use of your interpretation of "also" is original research.  2) OK, to be clear, you have pointed to one writer Clayton Cramer, not writers plural.  Correct?  If not, be specific identifying the other writers please.  3) Your use of Malcolm in this way seems baldly selective and invalid.  Read the two sentences just prior to the sentence you quote.  They negate your point.    That said: I think we are making progress now and might be close to a resolution of the dispute!  There now are sources identified on both sides of this POV, (Cramer on one, and a number of sources on the other including Malcolm, Schwoerer, Heyman, Bodenhamer and others. ).  And, the article should represent each of these POVs in proportion of prominence.  Agreed?  SaltyBoatr get wet 16:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And, answering your request. I believe I already explained this here and my wording appears to be clumsy, though clearly Malcolm (pg130) is saying that Blackstone is saying that the constitution "established certain other auxiliary rights" and the fifth right about "having arms" was dated 1689.  I don't see any other way to view this other that that the Constitution established the "right to have arms" in 1689.  SaltyBoatr get wet 15:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you are paraphrasing Malcolm correctly? A search of the book does not return any hits for the "Constitution of 1689". Blackatone did not use the term either. TFD (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Granted. I could have used a better choice of words when summarizing Malcolm pg 130.  Regardless, she says Blackstone said that the constitution established certain rights by act of law, and then describes the laws which were dated 1689.  The key point she is making is that the auxilary rights are established, and that event occurred in the year 1689 as provided by the constitution.  SaltyBoatr get wet 16:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That is synthesis:

1) "Blackstone said that the Constitution established certain rights by act of law."  Acually untrue.  He said the rights under the Constitution derived from natural law.

2) "The key point she is making is that the auxilary rights are established, and that event occurred in the year 1689 as provided by the constitution."  You are confusing the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.  It may be that the Bill of Rights established the right, but Blackstone does not say that, he says the right "is also declared by the [Bill of Rights]" (my emphasis). Could you please provide a direct quote from Malcolm where she says that Blackstone claimed the Bill of Rights established the right?

TFD (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am speaking of the paragraphs in Malcolm that begins on the bottom of page 129, and extend onto page 130.  She starts by saying "It is interesting to note that these defences of the legitimate need for firearms did not rest upon, or even mention, the need to keep weapons for the militia.  As the century progressed the general right of Protestants to have weapons became increasingly explicit, and the Whig view that armed citizens were a necessary check on tyranny became orthodox opinion.  It was William Blackstone in this classic work...who set his stamp of approval upon the need for citizens to be armed to guarantee freedom."  I hope that helps, and asking again, if you are going to continue to argue against a book which you haven't yet read, could find a copy of this book for the purposes of our discussion?  Clearly, Malcolm paints Blackstone as part of a new viewpoint about a right to weapons that was Whiggish and emerged in the 17th Century.  SaltyBoatr get wet 17:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing against the book, merely challenging your opinion of it. Your passage does not support your statement, "she says Blackstone said that the constitution established certain rights by act of law".  In fact it seems to say the opposite.  TFD (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I grant you. Instead of "law" I should have said "established auxiliary rights".  My central point remains unchanged, which is that the date of this establishment is 1689.  That is Malcolm's central thesis, that the right to have arms originated in 1689.  This is hardly disputed.  In tens of thousands of words, see above, and only one mention  that identifies any secondary sourcing, (Cramer pg26), that disputes this central point.  Unless you know of another source?   SaltyBoatr get wet 18:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am still having trouble following this discussion. Malcolm said the right was created in 1689 while Cramer said it existed before.  No need to add more writers.  But to be clear Blackstone did not say the right was created in 1689, but derived from natural law and makes no comment on whether this right had been recognized before that time.  TFD (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, where to you get "to be clear Blackstone did not say the right was created in 1689?" Seems like original research.  Explain please.   What does "established" mean?  Except as a synonym for "created".  At least that is what I get from the Steven Heyman essay, plus from Malcolm 129-130.  Blackstone used the word "established" when describing auxiliary rights.


 * English Bill of Rights established auxiliary rights??? I don't think so! Blackstones listed the auxiliary rights as follows. The first is Parliament and its authority, another is the limitation on kings power, a third is access to the courts, a fourth is the right to Petition and the last is the right to arms. Which of these five auxiliary rights were created by the English Bill of Rights?71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * AnonIP. Please do not tell us your personal opinion on this article talk page.  Use secondary sourcing.  SaltyBoatr get wet 00:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're the one that believes that the English Bill of Rights "established Blackstones auxiliary right". One of those auxiliary rights is PARLIAMENT!71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, It is Blackstone who uses the word "established" to describe the auxiliary right to arms. And  TFD, where to you get "to be clear Blackstone did not say the right was created in 1689?"   This looks like nothing more than personal opinion, cite please.   What does "established" mean?  Except as a synonym for "created".  This is also explained in Steven Heyman essay, Natural Rights and the Second Amendment, 76 Chicago-Kent Law Review 237 (2000).  In that paper he describes that Blackstone (pg 253-4) view of the right to arms as: "In other words, Blackstone's "absolute rights" correspond to classic natural rights of life, liberty and property.  The right to arms, on the other hand, is not an "absolute right" but is one of the "auxiliary subordinate rights of the subject".  (and) "...the right to arms is limited to "such as are allowed by law."  "Finally, we should note that...Blackstone nowhere suggests that the right to arms derives from "the common law".  Instead, this is a right that is secured by "the constitution" and in particular by the Bill of Rights".   Do you dispute that Steven Heyman  says this?  SaltyBoatr get wet 00:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Established" just tells you it created in the past. It does not tell you how far in the past. PARLIAMENT is one of Blackstone's auxiliary rights and PARLIAMENT was not "established" by the English Bill of Rights. Anyone who states that it was is not only not a "reliable source", but probably ranks below "blithering idiot".71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)