Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 33

How best to cover the "collective" view
All arguments about Wills aside, it would be good to address at a high-level how to conceptually handle the information about the collective view vs the individual view. Two things in particular I think we should avoid: 1) ignoring the collective view - it's historically significant. 2) ignoring the present reality that the individual view is law of the land.

Can we write a section that discusses (without overwhelming the whole article) how these two views came about, and what the state of them is today? Maybe we could start with a proposed outline that we could agree (hopefully) upon and then fix it up. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Good idea. But if you try to get too "big picture"  organized I think that your head will end up spinning. Right now (after the lead and "text", and "Court Cases" later in the article, the main organization scheme is:


 * Historical sequence (Sections 2 - 6)
 * Scholarly commentary (on all topics?) Section 7, with 5 subsections, 2 by age ("Early and later") and 3 by subject.


 * For now it might be good to just write succinct material and find a place (probably under "scholarly commentary" ) to put it. North8000 (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We need to do a big cleanup eventually. Prior to the Supreme Court decisions, this subject was a battlefield of the gun control wars. This article did not describe the conflicting views; it participated in them in a "he said, she said" style. While this was still an open issue, these arguments at least had some bearing on the second amendment. Now that the Supreme Court has interpreted the amendment, the arguments around the meaning of "keep and bear arms" and "well disciplined militia" reduce to what SCOTUS interpreted them to mean plus some small mention. How much history about the different possible imterpretations improves the reader's understanding of the second amendment and how much should be moved to a "History of the Second Amendment Interpretation Debate" article.
 * I'm for trimming down to the lede, the text, the current meaning, the important SCOTUS cases and the key historical background. The remaining deep history can be forked off. Does that sound right to anyone else? Celestra (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning that direction myself. We have a lot of info on this page that doesn't help understand the 2A directly. We need to somehow at least have this article discuss the pertinent subject matter as it's primary topic. The divergent topics (English history, Right to bear arms, specific court case deep histories, ...) should have a brief paragraph or two explaining how they're relevant and a "main article" tag. I'm not sure yet if we need a separate "History of the 2A debate" article but I do know that what we have right now seems unwieldy and unhelpful. I'm only hesitant because I don't want to simply create a POV fork that sends people somewhere else to argue key issues that prior to Heller were unresolved and open to interpretation, but are now resolved. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's so unwieldy because it contains so much he said/she said. You could cut the section on "the meaning of to keep and bear arms" to a third its current size, and the only thing you would lose is commentary on past arguments which have now been settled in the courts.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that getting the material organized, and condensing the now-less-important or now-settled stuff is the way to go. I think that the subjects of these are still good for this article, just cover them in a more succinct, more on-target and more organized manner.   I have a hard  time envisioning forking something off and the new article being good and having a real title / subject.   But I could be wrong. North8000 (talk) 02:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with AliveFreeHappy that we should condense some/all of the divergent topics (English history, Right to bear arms, etc.) per WP:SS. I think that should take care of most of the content without the need for a "History of the Second Amendment" article, but we can certainly revisit the possibility later if necessary. --Hamitr (talk) 03:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless the 500 lb POV warrior in the room agrees, this is going to be a rather tendentious exercise, as most of the militia/collective content came from just this one editor, from both of his two major Wikipedia identities. (There are more identities that he uses, too, such as the one he uses for topics such as sailboat related contributions.) As for me, I think some condensing would certainly help the readibility of the article. Right to keep and bear arms, incidentally, was started by this very same POV warrior as a POV fork from this very article specifically to remove the individual right content once upon a time.  Yaf (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's hard enough to figure out how to create a good article and then do it without contorting the results based on one POV warrior. Let's just, get a consensus on the route to a good article per high standards and wp: standards, and do it.  North8000 (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you guys are talking about me, bear in mind that I am just insisting on WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. So, calling me a POV warrior is misplaced.  The actual problem here is that disproportionately editors are drawn here is a 'pro-gun' personal political point of view.  There is nothing wrong with this.  That is, except when these editors violate WP:NPOV policy which says "...in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors .  POV balance here is being set by the prevalence among Wikipedia editors, how else can you explain that my insistence on NPOV based on sourcing is being characterized as a POV warrior?  SaltyBoatr get wet 19:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you never listen to the answers, which establish that you mischaracterize the situations and mis-use the policies, people will stop answering such questions. North8000 (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Try to answer. Actually, it is my impression that recently you have stopped answering my questions. Though you are quick to smear my character, as actually I do listen to the answers. See WP:CIVIL.  Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others.  SaltyBoatr get wet 21:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Outdent If we're talking article organization issues, I think that we need to acknowledge the following two items:


 * We must acknowledge that this is the main article for high level "firearm rights and restrictions in the USA" topics. Whether it be legal, political, history, parlance or whatever, the two are beyond inextricably linked, they are near-synonymous.

North8000 (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * While Heller / McDonald has completely changed the landscape, there continues to be a huge area of issues that are open, will be debated, will have court cases, laws, wiki-coverage etc. This might start as a "Post Heller/ McDOnald developments"  or a still-open-issues" related section, but eventually the Heller/McDonald dust will settle enough where the article will just tacitly realize this and just cover developments and material on open issues. Right now there is no place in the article for this.


 * AFH wrote "the individual view is law of the land." Can we verify this please.  I see that Heller added protection for a type of gun right which is an individual gun right.  I haven't seen that Heller eliminated the protection of the states to have militias free from federal infringement.  What sourcing says that the 2A protection of state militia was eliminated?  Thanks.  SaltyBoatr get wet 16:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that Heller eliminated anything. What I said was that the "collective" view that the 2A only protects militia rights has been put to bed, which is what we see in WP:RS. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed then. Presently, since 2008, the 2A doesn't only protect an individual right and it doesn't only protect a militia right.  Why then is there discussion of "the individual view is law of the land"?  The so-called 'collective' states militia point of view has not been diminished in any way that I have seen in reliable sourcing. What am I missing here?   SaltyBoatr get wet 19:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The overwhelming majority of the source I could find that specifically addressed post-Heller said that the collective view was done. Most of them even say just as specifically as that. I'll try and cleanup the working list of quotes I have - it's too unformatted to spam people with it here at the moment. If you have additional sources that cover post-Heller analysis (I will add Winkler to the list) I'm trying to make a brief biblio of sources for that. Thanks. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A brief list of sources re the impact of Heller:

              AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I couldn't access all your links, as several of the blogs are blocked from my view by a firewall, but the one's I could read do indeed describe a variety of opinions about the impact of Heller. What is your point?  SaltyBoatr get wet 19:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you couldn't get all the links. If necessary I could get PDF's and put them somewhere for your convenience. But essentially the point is that I did some research looking for articles discussing the impact of Heller. Almost universally they seem to say that the "collective" model is dead. By this I believe they mean that the "militia only" view is gone. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Be specific please. When I read your list of sources I didn't see that they said that the "collective model is dead".  What I did see was that Heller established protection of a type or right to bear arms that was individual and independent of the militia based right.  Could you specifically point to exactly what you are reading please.  I can take a look at specifics later when I get out from behind this firewall.  Bear in mind that to establish "universally" we need to show universally in the sources. You have not yet done this.  SaltyBoatr get wet 21:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will get a more specific list as I mentioned above. In the meantime, I suspect the issue is that the scholars seem to equate the phrase "collective model" with the idea that 2A only protects militia related rights. You seem to be using it to say "individual+militia" but that's more of a mixed model than a collective model. Therein lies the confusion. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Confusion, or better said, complexity. Still, there is plenty written in reliable sourcing about the various models of viewpoints regarding the right to bear arms, and the Second Amendment. Let's just read it, and fairly represent what we read here in this article.  One core theme in this issue of viewpoint is that it has transitioned over time.  (In other words: I don't think we can find any scholar that says the 2A only protects a militia based right since 2008 and all scholars agree that an individual right component was added in 2001 or 2008. But we can find many that say the 2A only protected a militia based right from roughly 1875 to about 2001.)  We need to fairly represent the significant viewpoints seen in reliable sourcing and we need to give coverage to how this changed over time.  Calling a spade a spade now, there is also the challenge of how to deal with the issue that today 2008-1010 some people are using an Originalism rationale to discern what people were thinking 220 years ago. (This is also called the "Standard Model".)   Without a doubt, there is stark disagreement seen in reliable sourcing about this 2A Originalism rationale.  A key problem in my POV dispute is that certain editors here have made edits to this article which subjectively make the Originalism argument where per policy we should instead be objectively reporting the Originalism argument.  SaltyBoatr get wet 15:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO we need to explain to the reader the meaning of such terms where such is ambiguity, conflicting meaning in uses, or where they are likely to be unfamiliar to the reader. Both with respect to as it is used in the text written for the article, as well as in quotes or paraphrases from sources.  I think that not only is such needed, it would be a very informative addition to the article.  North8000 (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

US Supreme Court Determinations
US Supreme Court has made six rulings regarding the Second Amendment, with the two most recent being in 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller and June 2010 (McDonald v. Chicago), their first since 1939.

Null edit. This section doesn't seem to be getting archived, maybe because there are no signatures / dates in the particular section. If so, this edit might do it. North8000 (talk) 11:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

US Supreme Court Determinations
The US Supreme Court made significant rulings on the Second Amendment in 2008 (District of Columbia v. Heller) and June 2010 (McDonald v. Chicago), their first since 1939

District of Columbia v. Heller
According to the Cornell School of law summary, and the syllabus prepared by the US Supreme Court Recorder of Decisions ,  in this decision the Supreme Court Held:

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

a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

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

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

(2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

(3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

Other legal summaries of the court's findings in this case are similar.

McDonald v. Chicago
Ruled the Second Amendment limits state and local governmental authority to the same extent that it limits federal authority. Remanded a case regarding a Chicago handgun prohibition.

Pre-Heller Supreme Court RUlings
The most recent Second Amendment related Supreme Court ruling prior to the Heller decision was United States v. Miller in 1939. Prior to that were United States v. Cruikshank in 1876 and Presser v. Illinois in 1886.

Articles of Confederation
I added the language of who has the power to arm the militia from the Articles of Confederation as well as the corresponding language from the US Constitution, so that readers could more easily understand the concerns of the Founding Fathers. Salty has several times stated that the Second Amendment brought back the language of the Articles of Confederation. That is plainly not true as the states continue to NOT HAVE THE POWER to arm their own militias.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Removing this. Your use of primary documents to make your point about "the concerns of the founding fathers" is a POV push and is original research.  SaltyBoatr get wet 15:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yet Again: The use of primary documents is allowed in a wiki article.71.184.184.238 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC).
 * Primary documents are allowed, but, quoting WP:NOR, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." The fact that the states do or do not have the ability is an interpretation on your part (and the part of the courts, etc.). Qwyrxian (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That the arming of the militia is a federal power is an established legal fact and was a complaint during the ratification debated on the Constitution. Let me know if your state provides funds for the "arming of the militia". Mine does not. Quite a few people have complained that with the wear and tear on equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan, the National Guard is becoming a "hollow force". It is an accepted legal fact that the states "cannot arm" their own militias. If they could you would see appropriation bills being passed by the states for that purpose, instead of complaints that the US Government is not providing enough funds to properly equip the National Guard. See http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-15-guard-equipment_N.htm  and http://www.army.mil/-news/2010/01/12/32821-budget-for-2010-to-help-guard-equip-modernize/ 71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Militia suppression of slave insurrection and the 2A
I am open to negotiation on this, as I appreciate it is a delicate issue, but there are several reliable sources that describe the importance of the role of the domestic militia in maintaining order against slave insurrection at the time of the drafting of the Second Amendment. This is also confirmed by the words of Patrick Henry. You cannot just delete passages sourced to reliable sources because you personally don't like them. We must fairly include what we see in the reliable sources. SaltyBoatr get wet 15:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There is only one source of this opinion and that is C Bogus. It is therefore a small minority opinion limited to one man, and possibley the few others he may have been able to convince. As a small minority opinion it does not deserve space in a wiki article.71.184.184.238 (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW: What did you "restore" by also removing the language from the Articles of Confederation?71.184.184.238 (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, you appear to be removing this because you simply don't like it. The standard here is that if we see it published in reliable sources, we must include it fairly in the article.  The suppression of insurrection purpose of the militia at the time of the drafting of the Second Amendment is a well documented topic in reliable sources.  It is a red herring that you diminish the work of Carl Bogus as "small minority", as the real question is whether it is significant.  Looking to Google[], I see that dozens of scholars make reference to this hypothesis, so it seem plainly significant.  This is given coverage by some major Second Amendment scholars in their books, Uviller and Merkel pg 178, David Williams pg 180 and Garry Wills page 117.  Rather than edit war with you on this, yet another in a long series of POV pushing edits, it is warranted to put the POV warning tag on the article why we discuss and resolve this mess.  SaltyBoatr get wet 17:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Marking an article as POV, simply because of the perceived absence of content, based upon one sole editor's attempt to push his own POV, is not a valid reason to tag the article. Have removed POV tagline.  If more content is needed, then it should be added, with appropriate cites.  This is the best way to resolve the issue.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How? When I added the content, it gets reverted.  I cannot edit war, therefore your suggestion is hollow and impossible.  By the way, this deleted content was appropriately cited.  There is a POV problem now, yet the POV tag gets reverted.  This "consensus" you speak of doesn't seem to be based on WP:V policy, but rather based on the personal opinion of editors which is the systemic editor bias problem I have identified.  This editor bias situation, and this article is now really mess up. Worse, revert warring the POV tag serves to hide the problem.   SaltyBoatr get wet 19:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The "slave control" argument originated with C. Bogus and was not an issue during the drafting of the Constitution, during the ratification debates, or during debate and the ratification of the Bill of rights. It is a small, insignificant position held sorely by Bogus and perhaps a few other people he convinced. Small insignificant positions have no place in a wiki article.71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I tried looking at the discussed "slave control" material, but your edits involving it changed a huge amount of material unrelated to this and so, not having a 1/2 hour to dissect all of that, I can't even see what you are talking about.  In particular the size of the coverage.  There are probably hundreds of theories of this minimial stature, and we certainly don't have space to give each of them a lot of coverage. North8000 (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you see the books Uviller and Merkel pg 178, David Williams pg 180 and Garry Wills page 117? That confirms the Carl Bogus papers, so the question isn't whether Anon71.184.184.238 likes it, the question is whether militia suppression of slave insurrections is significantly found in reliable sourcing.  Mentions in four books is significant.  As an aside, this suppression of the 'slave' question is highly relevant in this article because the major drafters of the 2A were from a slave state, and the Antibellum period of the US history had a huge element of the question of slaves bearing arms, as seen in the dicta of the Dred Scott case, and the first major SCOTUS case Cruikshank which was explicitly about a battle between a black militia of freedmen and a white militia. Ultimately, the Fourteenth Amendment got written to address in no small part the issue the individual rights of freedmen, (including their right to bear arms). The cleansing of this history from this article by Anon71.184.184.238 is a great POV harm to this article.  Sad and shocking really.  Can't we just read sources and write the article?  Why, over/over/over and over again must editors come here and treat this article like a POV battlefield? Worse, we must pretend like the there is no POV dispute?!?  Sad, very sad.  SaltyBoatr get wet 20:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Your answers seem to posturing to read by some who-know-what-audience rather than carrying on a discussion. I just said that I wanted to look at and couldn't see what you were trying to add on this topic. And I get no answer to that simple question, and instead got the usual rasher of indiscriminate POV accusations against everybody. North8000 (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Perhaps I missed your question.  My direct answer is that I see that 'slave control' is a significant point of view seen given coverage in reliable sources, both from the 1998 Carl Bogus paper,  Carl Bogus, J.D., "The Hidden History of the Second Amendment", 31. U.C. Davis L. Rev. 309, 359-74 (1998), and I pointed to more than four books that give it coverage.  Actually, I am asking that we restore the coverage that had been in the article, long term and stable, before it was scrubbed by Anon71.  See 2009 here and present day here, and search on 'slave control' to see what Anon71 has scrubbed.  I am asking that this be restored in order to comply with WP:NPOV policy.  SaltyBoatr get wet 01:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's getting closer......perhaps I was too indirect. I guess that the short version is: could you show us exactly what you want to put in?


 * My thought is that if it's brief and stated as being the opinion of some persons, that it might have a place here. North8000 (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what he wants put in. The slave control viewpoint is too small to be included in a wiki article. All the material Salty has so far cited refers to C. Bogus, and considering Bogus is a sometime employee of the Joyce Foundation, this viewpoint is nothing more then a an attempt to "blacken" gun rights "by associating" them with slavery. A classic defamation strategy.71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Slave control has already been argued over and judged not worthy of including in the article - see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/Archive_31#Slave_control_in_slave_states

What makes this an especially pathetic piece of POV by Salty is that he inserted slave control issue into the article, while at the same time REMOVING the purpose stated on the Second itself, to aid in the formation of militias. Yup! You read that right Salty took out as a reason for the Second, which is on the second itself, the formation of militias and replaced it with "slave control". No how POV is that?71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

At least one of Salty's supposed cites for slave control is bullcrap
http://books.google.com/books?id=pOacGnRKGEoC&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=second+amendment+%22slave+control%22&source=bl&ots=ZdvOxqUE1F&sig=Ch7KqRCNCFdWh7Crf4KKJj9G6FM&hl=en&ei=WvtyTI--E8L78AaS8KjrCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CDgQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=second%20amendment%20%22slave%20control%22&f=false

Uviller and Merkel in "The militia and the right to arms, or How the Second Amendment fell Silent" page 179, state on the Bogus slave control thesis

"Nor can we endorse the intriguing thesis that the Framers purpose ......"

and later ''"This reading is, we think, misguided." While provocative, it is not only inconsistent with the historical record,....but in several important respect, contradicted by known facts."''

Even the collectivists think that slave control is bullcrap.71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

At what point does Salty's attempts to push his discredited POV by deleting mainstream material become vandalism?
This question comes up because Salty has yet again deleted the Heller ruling from the article.71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The most important ruling ever on the 2A, where the Supreme Court defined the legal meaning of several aspects of the 2A, heavily discussed, sourced by multiple AAAA sources, and he has tried to knock it out many times by continuously changing tactics. I think that it has reached the point of vandalism.


 * And at the same time he wants to put in one person's assertion that the 2A was created for controlling slaves. He has definitely gone off the deep end. North8000 (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * State militia were called up to put down insurrections (including slave rebellions). The contemporaneous debates and commentaries on the militia and the 2A are not exclusively about using militia to put down insurrections in general or slave rebellions in particular. The theory that 2A was written to put down slave rebellions is a minority Bogus theory. Naaman Brown (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Trying to formulate roadmap proposal, questions about reference format.
I think that nearly everyone acknowledges that this article could use some organizing and updating. I have been trying to develop a "roadmap" proposal, and trying to learn what's in the article (and the intent of such) well enough to do so intelligently. I ended up needing some help and thoughts on the latter regarding the reference format. As far as I can tell the intent is to split it so that the particular citation is in the first section, and such just briefly mentions (author and title) the source. And then the source is fully detailed in the second section, starting with the last name of the author. I'm assuming the reason for the split is so that when the same source is used many times, but with different pages, that this split method avoids having to fully describe the source multiple times. I guess the down side would be the complexity of it. To follow the practice, an editor would have to learn/understand the system, and make two entries for each citation. And, also, when people don't do this, you end up with a mixture as we currently have, where many sources are only in the top section. Also, unless one tackles a huge manual job, there is no way to find orphaned unused reference in the second section.

1. Did I sum this up right?

2. Do people have an opinion for or against this "split" concept?

Next, in the second section since this allows "human" layout / organization (vs. automatically being done by Wikipedia) editors have done so. It appears that the top level "sort/split" is by primary vs. secondary, and then within that, it is by the type of source (book, periodical etc.) And then within that it is sorted by the last name of the author.

I guess I have a problem with the "Primary vs. Secondary" split. First it didn't work out. "Primary" is a category of one source. Second, a source is not inherently primary or secondary, such terms only have definition in the context of a particular use. Third, that attribute is not defined in the citation in the first section, so who knows which section the source might be in. If there are no objections, I propose we immediately remove the primary vs. secondary classification. That would be a simple task...just remove two headings, and move one source. (DONE)

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"Grammatically correct" punctuation?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The article refers to this as "a grammatically correct version". I don't see how it's grammatically correct. It's obviously incorrect and is probably a punctuation mistake. It's just like "John, being smart, Jane, understood the lesson". The only way to understand this is if the first comma in the sentence, the one after "Militia", is dropped, so that the sentence means "Because a Militia is necessary, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." The last comma is also redundant.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You are conflating grammatical correctness with logical correctness. Your statement about John and Jane is correct English grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.8.246 (talk • contribs)


 * Sorry, my statement about John and Jane is incorrect English grammar as well as logically meaningless, the latter distracting from the former. Let's take a logically meaningful sentence. John is Jane's father, thus, Jane must be John's daughter. We can express this as "John being Jane's father, Jane is John's daughter." But punctuation as in "John, being Jane's father, Jane, is John's daughter." turns this into nonsense. If anything, it would mean that John = Jane's father = Jane = John's daughter.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I basically agree with you, but there are two things to consider:
 * Orthography, including punctuation, was less standardised at the time. One function of commas is to indicate short pauses in speech, and it's not inconceivable that someone speaking this ceremonial text would make short pauses at the positions of those "incorrect" commas – though not as long as at the "correct" commas, or it would be misleading.
 * The Supreme Court has used the incorrect commas as a pretext for misunderstanding the text. They even found "experts" to support them in this. As a result, we now have "reliable sources" that claim that the sentence does not say what it obviously says and that the commas are consequently correct. Hans Adler 12:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As for number 1, I agree that the scribe probably reflected each pause used in the dictation with a comma, though, from my own experience with writings from the time, I still don't think this type of punctuation was normal even back then. As for number 2 - well, I suspected something like that. I presume they wanted to interpret the punctuation to mean "John, Jane is John's daughter", i.e. "John and Jane are John's daughters". Thus, in this case, "A militia (militias are cool, BTW) and people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Or perhaps "A militia, a militia ... I was saying something about a militia ... err, sorry, forgot what I was talking about ... Whatever, forget it, let's move on... People should have their own arms!!" But if they did claim this, the controversy about the punctuation should also be stated clearly, the claim that the incorrect punctuation is or once was correct should be sourced (you say that reliable sources exist, but they aren't explicitly given in that sentence), and the opposite view should also be given (I have no doubt that there will be sources for it, because it's completely obvious), so that NPOV is observed rather than one viewpoint being given as THE truth. The US Supreme Court has no exclusive jurisdiction over the punctuation of the English language, over the grammar of the English language and over the use of conjunctions in the English language, so it can't have the last word on what is grammatically correct and what isn't.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This discussion makes no sense, and I don't know what it is doing here. First, by definition, 2A is what it is written and says what is written. What is the point of discussing writing it differently to say something different?  And 91's "corrections" aren't corrections, they are changes. Is this a talk page for re-writing the Constitution? North8000 (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to have understood anything at all. First, I didn't propose any new changes, I was discussing two official versions of the same text - the one passed by Congress and the one ratified by the states. If you're saying that the second one has a different meaning that the first one, you're accusing the Founding Fathers of having rewritten the Constitution, not me. Second, the point was that the article text first presented the version passed by Congress and then introduced the version ratified by the states as "another grammatically correct version". Thus, it claimed that the first version had been grammatically correct. I argued that this claim was incorrect and this should be obvious to any person literate in English. In the meantime, I see that the words "grammatically correct" has been removed, so I have no issue with this anymore. (Though perhaps you people are going to edit war about this - count me out, in that case). --91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked back weeks and the terms "grammatically correct" has not been in that section (with the two versions). Confusion probably came from that. North8000 (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

POV sections on "the meaning of X"
At least the sections "Meaning of 'to keep and bear arms'" and "Meaning of 'well regulated militia'" are written in an inadequate and biased way. Instead of clearly stating that disagreements exist and then explaining what they are and what the major points of view are, opinions belonging to one of the points of view (the "Individual rights" one) are just stated as THE Truth, and other opinions are listed after them. As for the essence of the controversies and the major different types of interpretations, they are only stated relatively clearly in the section "Historical models of interpretation".

And no, don't try to dismiss this comment by telling me to fix the problem myself if I'm so smart. The mess is too big, the passions too high and I don't intend to spend my time and efforts on this.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Your comments cut across various different situations and sections.  With respect to the "individual right" area (the meaning here being that being in a militia is not a condition) with respect to the legal meaning in the USA, the US Supreme Court creates the reality, and it has ruled that it is an individual right.  "Wish it wasn't so" could be a credible alternative view, but "it isn't so" now falls  under the category of a flat earth viewpoint. North8000 (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course my comments cut across different sections, that's because so many sections as well as the general structure of the article is messed up. Surely the principle of individual liberty shouldn't extend to the idea "Each article section for itself, and down with the tyranny of the whole article interfering with the internal affairs of article sections!" :) What I'm saying is that instead of stating clearly what the disagreement is about the meaning of "bear arms", we get a series of disconnected pointed citations. We get veiled and overt polemical objections to the "collective right" interpretation of the expression before that "collective right" interpretation has even been explained or named. I needed to read a large part of the article before I even understood what all the fuss was even about.
 * What the Supreme Court creates is only the modern legal interpretation of the text. This is distinct from the historical and philological question of what was meant when the text was written (even if the correctness of the Supreme Court's decision hinges on historical accuracy): in this latter respect, the US Supreme Court has no exclusive monopoly over truth. It can't control the minds of people, including academics. Wikipedia is not a US court or an organ of the United States government, it is an encyclopaedia for and by the whole world. It can state objectively that the Supreme Court's opinion counts as the truth for legal purposes in the US, but that doesn't mean it is obliged to say that it is also correct from the point of view of the facts. The numerous sources cited in the article in favour of the "collective rights" camp are much more than you could ever find for the Flat Earth hypothesis, and if your extreme comparison were correct, you should have deleted them all by now. Instead of such a consistent approach, what I see in the text is just the typical messy Wikipedian pile of citations and countercitations, where whichever side is more fanatical and stronger in numbers places its favourite citations at the top and/or gets the last word in terms of "criticism of the criticism of the".
 * Finally, even if the general position on individual rights by the Supreme Court were to be accepted as THE truth, this still wouldn't mean that each claim from any publication from the pro-gun camp must also be presented as THE truth. This applies e.g. to the accuracy and relevance of "The people's right to have their own arms for their defense is described in the philosophical and political writings of Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, Machiavelli, the English Whigs and others" (coming from a pro-gun source) and the correctness of "Though possessing arms appears to be distinct from "bearing" them, the possession of arms is recognized as necessary for and a logical precursor to the bearing of arms" (coming from another pro-gun source). In contrast, views from the opposing camp are not worded as the unconditional truth, but qualified with terms such as "X claims", "X advocates", etc.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your "hodge podge" assessment, a characteristic of nearly all contested Wikipedia articles. My point was that with respect to the legal meaning in the US, the US Supreme Court CREATES the reality. As an analogy, the last election created the reality of who the US president it. An alternative point of view that McCain SHOULD have become our president might be reasonable to carry, but a view that McCain IS our president need not. North8000 (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Again - this is different, because the current legal situation is one thing and the correct philological and historical interpretation is another. A US citizen is obliged to abide by the law, including the court's interpretation of that law, but that is distinct from the issue what the law was really intended to say (even if the court's current interpretation hinges on claims about what it was really intended to say). For example, let's assume a somewhat absurd situation: tomorrow, the US Supreme Court says that chimpanzees with practically human minds exist and therefore the killing of chimpanzees is automatically murder under existing US law. This would mean that as far as US law is concerned, chimpanzees are human beings and one is obliged to abstain from killing them. However, it wouldn't mean that all psychologists and biologists are obliged to rewrite their textbooks about chimpanzees, or that we are obliged to claim that the US laws on murder had always, historically, been intended for chimpanzees to be protected in the same way as humans. Anyway, that'll be all from me, I've reached my self-imposed limit on the duration of participation in a single discussion. Best, --91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice strawman. The point you, and others, need to remember is that this article is about the Second Amendment, not just some twenty-seven word sentence. Since Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court has been recognized as having the authority to interpret the Constitution and their interpretation is the only meaningful opinion in the context of the Second Amendment. Prior to Heller, reasonable people could have differing opinions over the meaning of all or parts of the Second Amendment; after "Heller", those opinions are moot and the words mean whatever the Supreme Courts said they mean. In the section that explains what "keep and bear arms" means, we can choose to explain that some people had the opinion that it meant something else. People that have that opinion are ignoring reality in the same way as people who think, as North8000 said, that McCain is president. We have to decide separately whether that fringe is worth including or not.
 * North8000 said something else a while back: that this would remain the main article for high level "firearm rights and restrictions in the USA" topics. I hope that he is wrong about that. Gun control would be easier if individual gun ownership was not a constitutionally protected right, so the Second Amendment was a battle ground. That battle is over, so the gun control debate changes to arguing the balance between an individual right and a perceived societal benefit. Not being the center of the debate will be good for this article; hopefully the POV warriors will move on. Celestra (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * On your last point, I'm flattered that you remember what I wrote. I wrote imprecisely in that writing that you are referring to, and didn't mean to define it that broadly. Inevitably some governments will answer that "balance" question with "to whatever extent that we can make firearms/ammunition illegal, expensive or difficult or onerous to get, own etc, we're doin' it", and then the limiter becomes the extent that the 2A will let them do that. And so what I really meant was that the article will inevitably be he place that covers THOSE issues.   And that those are likely to be the big news at the national level.  Including, I would expect, at least one more Supreme court case.  North8000 (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 91.148.159.4's comments get into WP:TRUTH versus what is, as Celestra points out. The article (and the various sections) must give prominence to the prevailing position as based on reliable sources.  Specific to US law, the ultimate primary source for that view is the Supreme Court with the secondary sources interpreting that ruling.  With the recent decision, that's not too hard to define.  No other view, including "what was originally intended" or "what X thinks it ought to mean" should be given prominence or more weight in the article.  Wikipedia focuses on what is, not what should be or what was intended to be.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 23:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced Anonymous Commentary
I have posted three 'verifiable' points (verifiable by applying the rules of proper English grammar which have no particular source, AND by reading the Constitution of the United States itself, which, being the very topic of this article, would result in the use of numerous improper pronouns.) --And yet, those points have been removed; repeatedly and under any number of false justifications. The most interesting (and convenient) of these was "unsourced anonymous commentary".

First of all, the anonymity or otherwise of a thing is irrelevant; that is a strawman argument which bears no relation to the 'factuality' of a statement.

Secondly, the notion that ALL unsourced statements should be removed is incredible and ridiculous (exposing attempts to apply this tenant as merely politically motivated self-justification.) In order to illustrate this point, I began the arduous task of removing all unsourced commentary from wikipedia.

I imagine, once we are finished diligently executing this "labour of love", it will become quite a bit shorter a book--but hallelujah! It will all be sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.8.246 (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct Text
The current article has two different versions of the text, differing in commas and punctuation in significant places. Legally of course (in theory at least), there can only be one version of the text. Is it too much to ask that the correct version be verified and displayed on its own, or would this inevitably step on too many toes? Personally, I think the current two version page—no doubt a result of consensus—is an appallingly lax presentation of a significantly important topic. ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You should read the first source in that section. There doesn't appear to be a "correct version". The amendments needed to be approved by congress and ratified by two-thirds of the states. The congress approved one variation and the states ratified various. The Supreme Court has referred to both a three and one comma version. We had, at one time, a text section and a commas section, with these interesting details. As i recall, The text section was often changed back and forth, so we ended up presenting both and removing the then redundant commas section. How would you suggest we proceed? Celestra (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OMF brings up a good point (there should be an "official" version), but Celestra is correct (one has not been identified by the Supreme Court as "official"). Unless the Supreme Court picks one to the exclusion of all others, we should not claim any are correct with the others being wrong. BTW, proposed amendments need to ratified by three-fourths of the States in order to be adopted. SMP0328. (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Trying to formulate roadmap proposal, questions about reference format.
(copied / retrieved from the recent archive)

I think that nearly everyone acknowledges that this article could use some organizing and updating. I have been trying to develop a "roadmap" proposal, and trying to learn what's in the article (and the intent of such) well enough to do so intelligently. I ended up needing some help and thoughts on the latter regarding the reference format. As far as I can tell the intent is to split it so that the particular citation is in the first section, and such just briefly mentions (author and title) the source. And then the source is fully detailed in the second section, starting with the last name of the author. I'm assuming the reason for the split is so that when the same source is used many times, but with different pages, that this split method avoids having to fully describe the source multiple times. I guess the down side would be the complexity of it. To follow the practice, an editor would have to learn/understand the system, and make two entries for each citation. And, also, when people don't do this, you end up with a mixture as we currently have, where many sources are only in the top section. Also, unless one tackles a huge manual job, there is no way to find orphaned unused reference in the second section.

1. Did I sum this up right?

2. Do people have an opinion for or against this "split" concept?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

North8000 (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

1/2 of a road map proposal

 * 1) I guess the first item (which I brought up August 31st above with no opinions received since) is to merge the "split" reference section into a single references section. This could be done gradually, by, for each citation in the "notes and citations" section, copying the reference material from the"references" section into the citation. Of course, there is already a "mixture" in there. When someone adds a reference in the normal manner, it goes only and fully into the "notes and citations" section. When this process is completed (could take months) then delete the "references" section and rename the"notes and citations" section to "references"
 * Comment - to clarify, you're saying let's get the non-inline refs into inline? AliveFreeHappy
 * Just to make sure I'm not using the wrong words, they would still be in line citations as they are now. But it would go to an entry at the bottom which has all of the info on the source. So, in essence, the two lists at the bottom would be combined into one.  Or, to put it another way, the same system that is used on the majority of WP articles.North8000 (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk) 17:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Reduce the "English History" section by about 1/3. This section seems a little big /slightly less germane for this article, more so now because some arguments which they provided foundation information for are now settled.
 * Agree English History should be brief here with a "main article" reference to the proper location. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Eliminate about 90% of the material in "Lower Court Cases Since Heller", and the in the future move the other 10% into some new section. 90% of this section is basically selected post Heller pre-McDonald  court cases which doubly have no relationship to the Heller decision.  First, since they were pre-McDonald, Heller was not yet binding on these.  Second, they are in areas where Heller is irrelevant, and where Heller declared itself to be irrelevant. I can't even see why this section exists. The only reason I can see for that section is someone inserting selection of cases to make or imply a particular point.   One could trot out various WP:OR and WP:Undue citation relevant to this, but I'd rather start with just discussing how to make the article better.  The remaining 10% would be those which have some reference to Heller.
 * Agree AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. Put all lower court cases (including state) into one section.
 * Done North8000 (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2. Somehow start developing something like an "Open Questions" section. I imagine that this would include areas that are not clearly inside or outside of the reach of Heller.
 * Agree AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is only 1/2 of a road map. The second half (later) would deal with organization of material.

Any thoughts? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * All of that plan seems reasonable to me. I'd add the reducing the "Meaning of..." sections and removing the first few paragraphs from the beginning of "Experience in America...", but that could come later.
 * The current reference structure seems like a good attempt at reducing the bulk, but it makes finding the actual reference much more burdensome. It would be good to try again with some framework beneath it to link the abbreviated citation (with the page and quote) to the full citation. Celestra (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess if there were lots of repetition of citation use, this split concept would reduce the bulk. If not, it owuld increase the bulk.  I haven't figured out which is the case here. But either way, splitting it adds complexity for the reader, and doubly so for someone adding a reference.  Which is presumably why many have not been following it, and we have a mixture of the two systems. North8000 (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Null edit to prevent moving to archives North8000 (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced Addition
An editor recently added the following paragraph to the subsection English history:


 * Thus the effect of the Bill of Rights in England (and Wales) was to ensure that only an elected body, the parliament, could determine an individual's right to bear arms. Thus democratically elected parliaments have been able to exercise the collective will of the people for more restrictions on the ownership of weapons as society has become safer under the rule of law and with law enforcement transferred from the people (hue and cry system) to formal bodies established to maintain law and order such as the police (against internal threats) and the nation's armed forces (against external threats). This contrasts markedly with the effect of the similar Bill of Rights in America (incorporating the Second Amendment) which over time has been interpreted as creating a personal right to bear arms for personal protection. And because it is a part of the constitution, the collectively will of the people thorough state legislatures cannot overrule it, except in certain cases deemed appropriate by the Supreme Court.

I reverted the addition because none of it is sourced. The editor just undid my reversion and in the edit summary said: "Hey please just mark the bits you think need references....I'll get them." Well, it's certainly a civil request, but given that none of it is sourced, shouldn't the burden be on the editor to source it before adding it? Am I the only one bothered by the addition?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have clarified some of the word in the above material, so it now reads:

"''Thus the effect of the English Bill of Rights was to ensure that only an elected body, the parliament, could determine an individual's right to bear arms. Thus democratically elected parliaments have been able to exercise the collective will of the people for more restrictions on the ownership of weapons as society has become safer under the rule of law and with law enforcement transferred from the people (hue and cry system) to formal bodies established to maintain law and order such as the police (against internal threats) and the nation's armed forces (against external threats). This contrasts markedly with the effect of the similar U.S. Bill of Rights (which includes the Second Amendment) that over time has been interpreted as creating a personal right to bear arms for personal protection. Because it is a part of the Constitution, the collective will of the people thorough state legislatures cannot overrule it, except in certain cases deemed appropriate by the Supreme Court."


 * I believe the burden is on the editor adding the material to also provide reliable sourcing for it. I believe one week should be allowed for the providing of reliable sourcing. At that time, any part of the above material not reliably sourced should removed from the article. SMP0328. (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds very reasonable, but what do you base that time frame on? Why should the material be added before the sources are found? I'm not trying to be argumentative, it simply doesn't make sense to me and, more important, doesn't comply with policy. Finally, a lot can happen in a week. You've already made some changes to the material. Other editors may make more changes. And then at the end of a week, we remove the material because it's not sourced, having wasted the time of the intervening editors?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm cutting Hauskalainen some slack. The deadline should be one week from when Hauskalainen restored the disputed material to the article, unless there's agreement to another time. SMP0328. (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't know that anyone agreed to the 7-day time frame. :-) However, if you want to cut the editor some slack, and no one else objects, I'm not going to make any more of a fuss than I already have.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Unsourced statements are unacceptable, especially one the expresses opinions. Also, it is incorrect that parliaments are "democratically elected". The monarch and the Lords, who are part of parliament, are not elected. And while the Commons is democratically elected today, that was not the case when the Bill of Rights was passed. TFD (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Have removed the original research. There are multiple problems with the statements. Unsourced original research can be removed at any time by longstanding Wiki policy. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hauskalainen has restored that material. I have added a citation header to the Pre-Constitution background section (the section in which Hauskalainen's material is located). Including Hauskalainen's material, there are paragraphs worth of uncited material. Should that material be moved to this talk page? SMP0328. (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In theory, any unsourced material can be removed. However, I give some slack to material in an article that has been there for a while, even if unsourced, as long as it's not controversial or inaccurate. However, when an editor adds an entire paragraph of unsourced material and another editor rightfully removes it, the burden is on the adding editor to source it before restoring it. It shouldn't be the other way around. I haven't been doing the reversions, though, because I said earlier in the discussion that I would wait as you requested. But I also said if "no one else objects," and others have been objecting. Frankly, what's the problem with the adding editor sourcing it and restoring it later? It's not like there's anything "urgent" in the material. It can wait until it's done properly.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There definitely appears to be a consensus against that material as long as it is unsourced. As for the other unsourced material, I'll leave it for now (as long as the citation header remains). Unless it is sourced, we should consider moving that material. This article has been a source of controversy in the past and I don't want allowance for unsourced material to become a new source. SMP0328. (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that sounds like a very reasonable plan. My only suggestion is that if you or someone else wants to remove "old" unsourced material, you might want to do it in increments so editors can discuss it. Removal of too much at once can create havoc.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I noticed that someone just deleted Hauskalainen's material en masse. From what I have see of his/her expertise, in the real world Hauskalainen would be ranked as a much more expert and reliable source  in their area of expertise than most Wikipedia "Reliable Sources", and this was an excellent informative piece of writing. Not that that is relevant here.   : - (     North8000 (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Heller and new paradigm
I have changed the claim that the new militia-based view, sometimes described as limited individual rights view or civic rights, theory has few adherents. It has been adopted articulated in two major peer reviewed university books published by Oxford and Duke, and elaborated in peer reviewed scholarly journals such as Law and History Review. It was endorsed in several amicus briefs in McDonald which brings the number of scholarly supporters to well over fifty. Moreover, it was adopted by four justices of SCOTUS. Rather than say few supporters it would be better to call it what it is the Dissenting view in Heller, a modification I would have little trouble with. The earlier claim is simply uninformed and not NPOV. I don't see how even the most ardent gun rights advocate could dispute this claim-- it is a simple statement of what happened in HellerPhilo-Centinel (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I ran out of time to thoroughly review and discuss it. However your last few sentences are quite a major reach and uncited. Calling it a "new" model, (especially since it is a mostly old model that was controversial at best, and now largely discredited) and saying that the 4 SCOTUS Justices adopted it.  I don't want to start reverting.  Could you review your work with respect to this?  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I revised the sentences in an effort to make the asssertions more neutral, better worded, and cited. However, I want to make it clear that I was trying only to improve it, not deciding whether it even belonged in the article. Even when I changed Stevens to "agreeing" with the model rather than adopting it, I was bothered by the statement because it implies that Stevens read the authors' statements and then agreed with them. I found the whole thing kind of awkward.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My point exactly.  Philo, do you have any thoughts on this?  North8000 (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This all seems reasonable. Clearly Stevens did not go collective rights and his reading--individual rights controlled by the preamble is pretty much what the new historical model claimed. The Stevens Dissent cited several essays by the historians so this seems a NPOV summary of the current state of the debate for SCOTUS-- individual rights 5 votes,  militia  constrained individual right four votes, traditional collective rights view no votes. Even gun rights advocates such as Robert Cottrol take note of  a so-called sophisticated collective rights view, but that term is not how supporters of the new model would view it-- I would follow NYT  practice-- adopt the label of the users, not the critics-- sort of like calling pro-life people-- anti-choice and pro-choice people anti-lifeBrutusjr (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

English Bill of Rights of 1689
The discussion regarding the English Bill of Rights is extremely misleading. It relies strictly on a parsing of the text of the statute and ignores its enforcement and subsequent interpretation. For example, while asserting that the right of Catholics (Papists)to keep arms predated the statute and therefore was not modified by it, the actuality of the statute was that the language regarding "Protestants" was interpreted for almost 300 years to mean ONLY Protestants could bear arms and Catholics were not only prohibited from keeping arms but were on multiple occasions stripped of existing arms as well as periodically denied the right to serve in the English army. Further, while the author here states that the Bill of Rights was affirming generalized rights to keep arms, and merely clarifying that Protestants (previously denied this right) were now being restored to their rights, the reality of interpretation and enforcement of the next 300 years was that the language "according to their station" was interpreted and enforced to mean only landowners and those with hunting licenses had the RIGHT to keep arms. Others could keep arms only through sufferance and were on multiple occasions denied the right to keep arms as well as being periodically stripped of their arms through involuntary seizures.

The article therefore creates and amazingly misleading impression that the right to keep and bear arms is a traditional right under common law of long standing; one that predates the US Constitution and therefore (echoing Rove and others arch right wing versions of history) the US Constitution and Bill of Rights must be interpreted in this light. This is a long-standing canard and one that needs to be corrected in this article. The English Bill of Rights did NOT establish a universal right to bear arms. Prior to the US Constitution the English Bill of Rights and common law was understood clearly by all (and especially by the Founders) to mean that the government had the right to reasonably control the distribution and keeping of armaments of every type. The Government had the right to restrict the ownership of arms and to reasonably regulate their use. This is the accurate historical and legal context in which the Founders drafted the militia clauses of the US Constitution and the subsequent Bill of Rights. Madison understood this clearly which is why he asked that the Second Amendment not stand alone in an appendix, but rather be incorporated into the text of Article 1, section 8 the Militia Clauses so as to avoid any confusion and make it clear that the right to keep and bear arms was only intended to be in well regulated militias. Other ownership of arms was by way of a property right and therefore subject to reasonable law and regulation.

The US Supreme Court recognized this and in his decision Justice Scalia discarded historical references to the English Bill of Rights and subsequent enforcement, treating history as he often does as a "dead hand" restricting his otherwise free-form interpretation of the Constitution and revisionist historical perspective that he is given by the Heritage Foundation. He further recognized the reality that history does not support the District decision when he, for the first time in US History, actually re-wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights by excising the preamble to the Second Amendment stating, "A well regulated militia being necessary etc.." declaring the preamble to no longer be part of the Bill of Rights. To rationalize his views, at odds with history and 235 years of legal precedent, he actually re-wrote the Bill of Rights.

Scalia's decision was not so much "original intent" (none of his decisions are) but rather a modernist reflection of the current political and emotional climate of America. His decision reflects the will of polity today and has nothing to do with history, the Bill of Rights of English Common Law.

This article should not "back project" revisionist history as a way of rationalizing the current legal status of the 2n Amendment -- Scalia didn't bother why should Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benfeing (talk • contribs) 18:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To the extent that you want to make changes to the article and back it up with reputable sources, you should do it (I'm not commenting on the merits of your assertions). One of the problems generally with the section is that some of it is sourced and some of it isn't. Still, that doesn't mean we should replace unsourced material that says x with unsourced material that says y. Better to have everything be sourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is a nightmare and lacks reliable secondary sources. Also, the article omits to mention that the Bill of Rights 1689 as an imperial statute was the law in all the American colonies.  TFD (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Benfeing says "was interpreted for almost 300 years to mean ONLY Protestants could bear arms" and repeats the allegation. I find that highly contentious. Where do you get that impression from? All I have read is ONE statement from an English lawyer in the 19th Century and host of more recent American books on the Second Amendment which seem to me have not done their research properly, and worse still, have just copied each other without checking their facts. The phrase was not "according to their station" (in life) but "suitable to their Conditions". The meaning is ambiguous. Some have implied that "their" here refers to the owners and not the arms in which case the interpretation would be "their standing in society as landowners" given earlier controls on gun ownership "for the preservation of the game". But whether or not "their" refers to the natire of the arms or the owners, this has nothing to do with religious divisions. It is simply not true that the Bill of Rights gave a right to Protestants and denied it to Catholics as many of those American authors have claimed. I doubt that you will find a serious British historian or lawyer making the same mistake but if you can find one, please let me know. As for creating an "amazingly misleading impression" I wholly disagree. The fact is that the law in England has always been one of freedoms against overwhelming use of powers by the King.. Hence Magna Carta. I am sorry if you see it otherwise. That there was in force in England at that time feudalism which did not peter out until the black death. The simple truth is that gun laws were implemented first of all to preserve the gaming rights of the landed. The situation was very different for the American settlers who took up rights of occupation to land by getting their and enforcing it with weapons. A gun was much more important to the American settlers than it was for the English for whom hunting was the prime concern rather than defence. The English Civil War made weapons rather more important for defence and offence which was the backround to numerous attempts at disarmament. The Glorious revolution changed that, and this was the context of the Bill of Rights. But it is wholly wrong to argue, as some American writers have done, that the Bill of rights granted a new right and only gave it to Protestants. They simply had not read the bill properly or learned their English history. English law is simply not founded on "rights" written into statute except in very few instances - and this is NOT one of them. The right not be imprisoned without the ability to challenge; the right to a fair trial; the right to petition... these are the fundamental rights. There is no "right" to free speech in England or a "right" to free assembly.... but there is no law banning this either. The right to free speech is, like most rights, one that has to be balanced. The important fact is that the English have WILLINGLY given up their "rights" (more properly their freedom) to keep firearms because it is for the common good. I know some Americans find that alarming but that is the simple truth. The English parliament is deemed to represnt the will of the people and is free to act and is not hide bound in relation to "gun rights" as Americans are to the constitutional nature of the Bill of Rights. I did add a passage to this effect recently but someone deleted it for lack of a source. Notwithstanding this, it is a reasonable interpretation of the the difference between English and American Law. --Hauskalainen (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is the prehistory included here?
The paragraph on English history should be referenced here, but not included. As it is too long and has little bearing on the the actual 2nd amendment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.86.7 (talk • contribs)  06:59, 11 September 2010  (UTC)

Assize of Arms
The last paragraph of the English history subsection of the Pre-Constitution background section refers to the Assize of Arms of 1181. This paragraph, IMO, is out of place. The paragraph should either be moved to the top of the subsection or, if it is not germane to the subsection, removed from the article. SMP0328. (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * American text books tend to refer to the Assize of Arms as an example of the formation of militias for the defence of the state. The link to the Second Amendment as far as I can see is zero or at best only tangential. I kept a reference to it in a citation about militias which is where I think it belongs. The Assize of Arms is not a significant piece of English history... I am a English history scholar and until I read around the issue of the American history on gun laws I had never heard of it... It seems to me that some lazy American scholars have just scoured the indices of history books on arms and happened across this decree, So it really is very obscure and not very meaningful historically .... people have clubbed together with arms for defence since time immemorial. English attempts to fight off viking invasions were not done unarmed!--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, now the Assize of Arms is in context; although I wouldn't object to its removal. SMP0328. (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Interpreted vs. Reinterpreted
Hauskalainen changed this sentence in the lead: "Two recent Supreme Court decisions, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), interpreted the Second Amendment." He changed the word "interpreted" to "reinterpreted". His original justification was that the lower courts interpreted the amendment one way, and the S. Ct. interpreted it a different way. I reverted the change because the S. Ct.'s reversal of a lower court decision doesn't constitute a reinterpretation. If the S. Ct. had interpreted the amendment in one way and then changed their minds, that might fairly be characterized as a reinterpretation, particularly if the court admits to the change (overruling, disapproving, etc.). However, a reversal of a lower court's interpretation simply means that the lower court is wrong in its interpretation. After my reversion, Hauskalainen reverted my reversion and added what he considers a source supporting his view. However, that source is a law review article that criticizes the decision in Heller. It may be the opinion of the author that Heller reinterpreted the amendment, but that kind of opinion doesn't belong in the lead of the article. If it belongs anywhere, it would be in the Notes and analysis section discussing Heller.

I don't want to get in an edit war with Hauskalainen, so I'm soliciting comments on the question.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bbb23 that the SCOTUS didn't reinterpret a previous SCOTUS interpretation. And the Winkler article, in the only paragraph which uses the word "reinterpreted," states that it was "the lower federal courts read the amendment to protect only a militia-related right"--not the SCOTUS. Since lower court decisions are covered in other sections of the article, I think the lead should go back to using "interpreted." --Hamitr (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a huge amount of respect for Hauskalainen's expertise in the areas that they have been mainly contributing on this article. But I have to disagree with them on this and the poorly chosen source on this. It's interpret, not re-interpret. North8000 (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have edited the Introduction so neither of those words is used. Now the Introduction simply says what the Supreme Court ruled in Heller and McDonald. Let each reader decide for himself if those were interpretations or reinterpretations. SMP0328. (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I appreciate your attempt to avoid the dispute by changing the wording, you inadvertently introduced an error in the sentence. I would have just fixed the error, but it's also odd now when compared to the previous version in that you summarize the rulings in the two cases in one sentence, you then elaborate on Heller (as previously), but you omit the elaboration on McDonald (as previously). I can see why you did that because the McDonald elaboration restates your summary, but it just strikes me as structurally wrong. And, honestly, I still prefer the original version.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have again edited the Introduction. This edit returns Heller and McDonald to each having separate explanations, while still not referring to the Second Amendment as being "interpreted" or "reinterpreted". SMP0328. (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked your second revision (thanks!). Hopefully, you - and others - like it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your tweak is accepted. I share your hope. SMP0328. (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Most certainly SCOTUS did not “reinterpret” a lower court’s decision, if fact they affirmed the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling in Parker v. District of Columbia that held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms.SMP0328 & Bbb23 edits are acceptableGrahamboat (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think "re-interpret" should only be used if they re-interpreted a previous SC decision, for example, if Roe v. Wade were overturned. TFD (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Further to my comment above, IMHO besides interpret being the correct word of the two, it's also to main and most common word used to describe what SCOTUS does. North8000 (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Collins dictionary http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reinterpret says it just means to "to interpret (an idea, etc.) in a new or different way". It does not say that the same person or body has to do the reinterpreting. I cannot find a single on line dictionary that says this matched my own understanding of the word. I think that these decisions were CLEARLY and almost INDISPUTABLY a reinterpretation of the law that I find it hard to believe that you are all having so much trouble accepting it. Everybody knows that the two cases have completely changed the legal landscape. See for example http://www.clevelandstatelawreview.org/57/issue3/Charles.pdf which goes into exquisite detail about Heller and why the author thinks that the decision was a complete reinterpretation of the law and a wrong one at that. He does not use the word "reinterpretation" as far as I can see, but this IS what he is saying. That HAS to be a reinterpretation. The justices decision certainly were a reinterpretation of the law as had been determined by numerous cases in the past in which the right to arms was determined to exist only in connection with the militia. I find it so astounding that you all DISAGREE with me that I make take this to some higher body for resolution. The cabal has been aroused!--Hauskalainen (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC) And I also provided a reference for "re-interpreted". . . a Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law no less. --Hauskalainen (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that it is more correct to say that the law was unsettled, because the SC had never interpreted it. No lower court decision would be binding outside its jurisdiction.  TFD (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Now now, Hauskalainen, don't have a heart attack....we need you here. :-)   Maybe we could check a couple more good refs and settle it.  North8000 (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There will never be a consensus on this issue. Both sides will be able to find numerous references supporting both views. While other cases skirted this issue, this was the first full review of the 2nd amendment. The fact that 39 states have adopted “shall issue” permits or “permit not needed” and 9 states have adopted “may issue” permit laws, shows the ruling did not completely changed the legal landscape. Gun control supporters will never accept this view but the issue is now settled and the ruling is now the law of the land. SMP0328 & Bbb23 edits present a fair compromise and neutral WP:POVGrahamboat (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

English versus American law
I added some text which details the difference that now exists between the UK law and the American law now that the Supreme Court, an unelected body, has interpreted the Second Amendment as containing a personal right. This has radically altered the basis of the law (even though the decision did not overturn much of the past legislation) which, until recently had been rather similar to that in England (though with powers being retained by State legislatures in the United States). States were not, until recently, hidebound by a "personal rights" interpretation. I can understand that some defenders of personal gun rights in the United States night not like the undemocratic nature of the twist in events being highlighted, but the fact is that the two recent decisions in the Supreme Court marks a distinct difference now between how the law is determined in the States versus the UK. Parliament is still supreme in England. The American legislatures now have to consider an enshrined "right". I think that difference needs to be highlighted. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Another editor reverted your addition, and you reverted back. I have just undone your change because it's not sourced. You say what you add is "factually accurate". If that's so, then it shouldn't be hard to provide sources for it. Your comments above, by the way, betray your POV positions on some of these issues ("an unelected body" - "radically altered" - "I think that difference needs to be highlighted"). This article is not a forum for you to express your point of view.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hauskalainen insists on injecting an anti-gun bias into this article. His “radically altered” theory was rejected in the Interpreted vs. Reinterpreted discussion. Now we are dealing with the SCOTUS decision as bring “undemocratic”. What most Americans would call an “Unalienable Right”, Hauskalainen wants to call an “enshrined right”. Certainly this is not NPOV. He seems to be implying that the United States form of government is somehow less democratic than the U.K. where, as he claims, the Parliament can, by a simple majority vote, establish laws no matter what basic rights are involved. Fortunately, the Founding Fathers saw the error of this type of thinking and established a government of checks and balances that would make changing any basic right extremely difficultGrahamboat (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

English History
The English History section of the Pre-Constitution Background appears to be exceedingly long. I propose to edit (delete about 500 words) items that are not germane to the subject; specifically:


 * 1.	The ref to Heller doesn’t belong in the first paragraph of “English History”.
 * 2.	“Both the U.S. and English texts...” - Comparisons about the 1st decade of the 21st century and the McDonald ref are not “Pre-Constitution background”
 * 3.	“Parliament though has repeatedly...” - What Parliament has done after the adoption of the 2nd A. is not relevant to “Pre-Constitution background”
 * 4.	“As England progressively...” - The UK’s Pistol Act has nothing to do with US 2nd A.

Realizing this is a controversial article, I thought it best to post on the talk page before executing my edit, so that no one would think I was trying to vandalize or impart a POV. Your comments would be appreciated. Grahamboat (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Rather than deleting that material, try finding more appropriate places within the article for each item. That way you won't change the article's content. SMP0328. (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Grahamboat to some extent about the length but not much about the content s/he would like to see dropped. The problem is that although many American writers have correctly identified the root of the 2nd Amendment in the English Bill of Rights, they have often misunderstood the Bill of Rights so that many American sources get their facts wrong. That was why Heller gets a mention because the Courts have rejected some of the American writers' claims. This is then compounded by writers mixing up rights and freedoms. A certain historian who I will not embarass has written history in a way that presents a wrong picture of English people gradually gaining "permissions" to have arms as a result of obligations and culminating in a "right" to have arms independent of any obligation, though subject to the will of Parliament to restrict it, and then culminating in the right of Americans gaining a constitional right. Such an interpretation requires a great stretch of the imagination and an ignorance of English law. The true picture is that both countries laws have been very similar. Even though American law is based on an English law tradition, English law contains very few rights because one person's rights tend to conflict with other person's freedom. There is no "right" to free speech in England. But neither is there much restriction either. One can defame someone but that is a civil matter and not a criminal one. One cannot incite murder or racial hatred without breaking the criminal code. I don't think the law is very different in America even though there are "rights" declared in the American constitution which are not in the British constitution. There was no right to bear arms in England, but people were not forbidden to have arms either. Certain arms have been the subject of restrictions for various reasons at various times and these days the restriction on firearms is quite strong. As they are or have been in certain places in the U.S. But these are matters for the parliament in England and for the state legislatures in the U.S. The fact is that English law and American Law took a radically different path after the more recent decisions of the Supreme Court and that came a lot later than "after the adoption of the second amendment. This needs to be highlighted I think and it is wrong to imply that there is no useful comparison to be made after the adoption of the second amendment. But by all means make suggestions here for how to reduce the length without cutting the content. Before and after text listed below would be useful.--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Item #1. Remove. I don't see why it has to be included elsewhere as it is already sufficiently covered in other parts of the article.


 * Item #2. Remove. Doesn't need to be covered anywhere else.


 * Item #3. Remove. Same as #2.


 * Item #4. Remove. Same as #2.


 * Comments particularly about #2-4. They're too interpretive and they are unsourced. The section will still be too long even after the removal.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to Kilty's English Statutes, 1811, which shows that the English Bill of Rights applied to the American colonies, but in Maryland at least was superceded by Declaration of Rights 1776. TFD (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Without addressing your conclusion as to what the provided link means, what exactly is your point?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Legislation affecting the Bill of Rights by the U. K. parliament after 1776 has little relevance to the article. TFD (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The English History section is part of the background to show how the English Bill of Rights 1689 influenced the 2nd Amendment at the time it was adopted. Any statements in this section that refers to the thinking after the adoption distorts the chronological order of the article. While the English Bill of Rights definitely influenced the American Bill of Rights, it was not the only factor i.e. the 1st A. Future statements belong under another heading (English versus American law? / Later commentary), if at all. I’ll wait a few days for addition comments before editing.Grahamboat (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hauskalainen’s Edit summery “Please take the paragraphs you want deleted to the TALK page and discuss with fellow editors the reasons for the proposed deletion. This is too much at once” does not make sense to me. Was it not discussed? Were not reasons illuminated? I respect Hauskalainen (s)he seems to have knowledge in English history. My contention is that the commits in question do not belong in the English history section of this article because they are contemporary, backward looking views of how modern theorists think things should have been. This section should give us a view on how the English Bill of Rights 1689 was perceived by Madison and others and to what extent they wanted to except or modify them. They certainly did not consider McDonald or Heller or what Parliament sequentially did, so why do they need to be mentioned here. We do not need to have a better understanding of the English Bill of Rights in this section; that belongs elsewhere. The only point here is what influence the English Bill of Rights had on the drafting of the 2nd A. Where am I going wrong? Grahamboat (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We discussed the changes. You said a couple days of ago you were going to make them unless there were additional comments. There weren't. You made them. The only possible challenge Hauskalainen has, in my view, is that insufficient consensus was reached, but it would have been more appropriate to make such a comment here earlier rather than revert the changes.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This article does need reduction of some of those sections which are slightly less center stage after Heller.  And the background and commentary stuff does need a lot of cleaning up, neutral vetting and organizing.   And so I would applaud efforts in those areas.  But Grahamboat's deletions don't seem to have been discussed enough / specifically enough considering how huge they are. North8000 (talk) 11:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am open to more discussion. I did post my explanation on Hauskalainen TALK. While the deletion was somewhat large, I felt the content was superfluous to the Pre-Constitution background area. I would not object if the content was placed elsewhere, Scholarly commentary or Controversy, come to mind. How much more discussion and in what time frame would you suggest we would need in order to qualify for a consensus? Grahamboat (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * To North8000: I already presented my views about the deletions, and it's not necessary to repeat them. I'll add only (1) I don't think the deletions were "huge"; (2) I have no objection to further discussion; (3) I think the deletions should remain during the discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My words, if taken exactly at face value indicate what I meant.....nothing more is implied.  It looks like we have the three top notch people here (Hauskalainen, Grahamboat and Bbb23 ) to improve and condense this area of the article.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the confusion in this debate is rooted in phraseology. The article starts, as most do, with a definition/explanation, expressed in modern terms, followed by a background analysis, “English history” and “Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution” continuing with “Drafting and adoption of the Constitution” etc etc. All of this flows in a logical sequential order. IMHO “English history” is a misnomer in the context of “Pre-Constitution background”. It is not any English history nor is it English history pertaining to firearms. It is not even the English history of the Bill of Rights 1689. The Pre-Constitution background in this section should relate to the influence the Bill of Rights 1689 (yes I know that is not the technically correct title) had on the Americans during the drafting of the 2nd Amendment. “English history as a sub-heading gives a false impression so that editors could include ideas about Heller, the UK Pistol Act etc. Heller is covered in the opening paragraphs and does not make sense in Pre-Constitution background and The UK pistol Act Is properly covered in the article Gun politics in the United Kingdom. Statements comparing UK gun law with US gun law or how Parliament modified the Bill of Rights 1689 could be in the article but do not seem logical under the Pre-Constitution background heading. They belong, IMHO, under the heading Scholarly commentary if at all. Therefore I suggest that we rename the sub-heading to “English History prior to the U.S. Constitution” or IMHO even better “The influence of the English Bill of Rights 1689”. The first suggestion would be congruent with the next section heading. The second suggestion would appear as follows:

Pre-Constitution background

The influence of the English Bill of Rights (1689)


 * TEXT

Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution


 * TEXT

I invite your comments and suggestions.Grahamboat (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As I have noted previously, the "history" and "comments" sections of this article badly need re-organizaiton and also some paring.  This looks like a good step. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If I understand properly, Graham just wants to rename the first sub-section. If so, I agree.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That is precisely what I am suggesting; just renaming the first sub-section as above. Sorry to be so longwinded.Grahamboat (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Even though I'm confused as to exactly what the change is, I still say just do it. North8000 (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Done - 20:28, 5 December 2010 Grahamboat (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One minor quibble that I should have raised but didn't notice until after your change. Do you think a shorter header would be better, say "Influence of English Bill of Rights (1689)"? I don't see why we need the definite articles in the header, and it is kinda long. It's no big deal, but I just thought I'd raise it belatedly.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree - SMP0328 beat me to it.Grahamboat (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

We're not getting very far in this. Hauskalainen has reverted the material deletions from the article. Although I have already stated my preferences for deletion, in all fairness, Hauskalainen has a point. In reviewing this thread, I don't see any real consensus for the removal of the material. Graham and I agree, but SMP0328 wanted to find other spots for at least some of the proposed deletions. North8000 wanted more discussion, and Hauskalainen expressed disapproval of the deletions.

Here's what I suggest, if Graham is willing. Why don't you put in the precise proposal for the Item #1 and let's talk about it. We can then do the same for the other three items. I personally think it's overkill and cumbersome, but I don't see how we're going to advance otherwise in the absence of additional opinions from more editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * OK let’s discuss. First of all there seems to be a consensus that this section relates to how the UK Bill of Rights influenced Madison and other drafters. Hauskalainen talks about “many American writers” and “many American sources get their facts wrong”. He does not state what writers and sources he is talking about. If they are pre-constitution then there might be a meaning, if, however, he is referring to later day commentary those comments do not belong in this section. Hauskalainen comments are too vague. What does he mean by “this is too much”? He needs to be specific. So point by point:
 * 1.	How did Heller, a 2008 SCOTUS decision, influence the Founding Fathers?
 * 2.	How can comparisons about the 1st decade of the 21st century be relevant?
 * 3.	What does “Parliament though has repeatedly increased restrictions” in later years have to do with the influence aspect?
 * 4.	What does the UK pistol Act of 1903 have to do with the Bill Of Rights influence?

So, IMHO, Hauskalainen needs to explain, point by point, how this material belongs in a discussion on the influence the Bill of Rights 1689 had on the Americans in 1789.Grahamboat (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * hey guys, I see you're discussing, which is good. I also see quite a few reverts on the article itself, which is not good. Leave the article be and figure it out here, then make the edits accordingly. It doesn't matter what version of the article is left up in the meantime.  N419 BH  07:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, but, unfortunately, the article version has become a moving target, depending on who's reverting at any given moment. Putting that problem aside, I would like to see Hauskalainen respond to each of the four items Graham listed just above. I don't see why that should be so hard. I'd also like to see other editors respond (I already agree with Graham and have said so more than once).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Lots of major changes and them getting reverted. Folks, how 'bout taking this in smaller pieces? North8000 20:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It’s not “lots of changes” it is really the same single issue. Do items 1 to 4 belong in the Pre-Constitution background section of this article or should they be placed elsewhere, if at all. I have not seen one argument supporting why 1-4 should be in this section. I agree with N419BH but my rhetorical question of how much time and consensus should be reconsidered. I wish Hauskalainen would return to answer 1-4. As I have suggested, I would be OK if 2-4 were inserted elsewhere as long as no opinions are expressed without proper references. I thought about doing it myself under “Later commentary” or “comparison of UK & US gun law after the constitution” but I am not convinced it is needed and Hauskalainen seems to be better informed on this issue. I have not made a revert without first leaving an explanation on TALK.Grahamboat (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Too many reverts - I'll leave it alone for a week and see what develops on TALKGrahamboat (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I had switched gears. Now I was just suggesting a way forward.....do one piece at time. North8000 15:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)

In this edit there was a lot removed. The main issue is that heading is wrong because the section discusses English law which influenced the Second Amendment (namely the Bill of Rights 1689) and then how the law in England and America has diverged. I therefore think that the heading needs to reflect the content and not the deletion of content to match the heading. This is what I have done. Some above have discussed that everything that happened in England that came after the U.S. Bill of Rights is irrelevant to US law, and that of course is true. But the more interesting fact is that the recent US Supreme Court decisions are what has really created the major divergence between English and American law relating to arms. There is a big issue about "rights" which is clearly very present in American discussions, but until recently the rights were vested in the States ability to form militias and personal rights were not so mch rights as allowances under law; the same position which prevailed in England for three centuries and still prevails today. It was the recent Supreme Court cases which marked a turning point against parallel English law. It is this which is important and which I think should be in this section of the article.

Point by point, here below is my argument. I am sorry if this is a bit loosely written but I am in a hurry and need to do other things..

This text was deleted.

Both the U.S. and English texts are about protecting a right to arms. In the U.S. case, until the first decade of the 21st century, it was believed to have been about solely preventing infringement by the federal government, while in the English case it protects the rights of Protestants from encroachment by the King. The English right could be modified by Parliament, and until recently it was believed the state legislatures could freely regulate firearms without any Second Amendment restrictions. However, the Supreme Court in Heller ruled that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), that protection was extended to protect against infringement by state and local governments.

My reason for reinstating: There were clear parallels in the interpretation of the meaning of the protections in both laws which were quite similar. One kept the King at bay from arms regulation and the other kept the Federal government at bay. The recent Heller and Chicago decisions took a fundamentally different interpretation than all previous decisions and it was thus revisionist. This text explains how the law in the USA has diverged markedly in terms of legal principals in the Heller and MacDonald decisions. This is a fundamentally important divergence and needs to be in the English Law section. (It is after all where the laws diverge from each other).

More text removed in a later paragraph

Parliament though has repeatedly increased restrictions on firearms and other defensive weapons to make the legal possession of them virtually impossible. These actions have generally reflected the British public's concerns over their potential misuse as offensive weapons. Heller noted that the American right is not absolute and is subject to legislative controls preventing access to firearms by felons and the mentally ill. However, the American position of a "constitutional right" rather than a "freedom" subject to regulation means that the liberty to own, hold and use a firearm in the United States for self defense cannot be amended simply by changing statutory law, as happened in Great Britain and for many years by each of the state legislatures. The newly interpreted constitutional position is also a factor.

Reason for reinstating. Although legal principles were the same until very recently, that does not mean that the laws are the same. This paragraph explains why American and British laws were so different even though the legal principles were the same. Parliament clearly has acted to restrict access to certain firearms (as it is entitled to do constitutionally) and has done so under pressure from public opinion. it has gone further than most U.S. states in restricting access to weapons because clearly public opinion is not in favor of similar gun controls in America. The more important issue is that explained at the end of the text in that because the recent Supreme Court decisions have raised the "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" text to be interpreted as creating or preserving a natural right to arms, and has decided that a gun in the home is an "American right", the laws in England and America are now fundamentally different and, what is more, needs a constitutional change in order to amend that (which is not the case in England).

And this following text was also removed.

With regard to arms rights, some American writers have ignored the evidence in the text of the bill which shows it to be a restoration of lost rights to Protestants and that Catholics already had the freedom to bear arms, preferring instead to see religious discrimination in gun rights. Others have similarly ignored the earlier game laws that had already severely restricted firearms to those with gaming rights, preferring to see it as an act of socioeconomic discrimination. The game laws had not interfered with the basic duty of certain English people to keep arms for militia service but it was the caching of large quantities of weapons by Catholics that was deemed to be potentially threatening during transition from the old militia to the new.

Reason for reinstating. Many American textbooks on this subject are clearly erroneous and this needs to be balanced out. The issue of the Bill of Rights creating a right for Protestants and not for Catholics (i.e. another piece of Anti-Catholic discrimination), which I have seen in many American texts, is a case in point. You only have to read the Bill properly in its full context (as the text in the Wikipedia article now does) which clearly shows that Catholics were left armed and it was Protestants who had complained about being disarmed and who were winning back a lost "right" (more properly a "freedom") to have arms. The Bill simply puts Protestants back in the same position as Catholics and took the right to disarm away from the monarch and left it with the Parliament. I was intrigued that American writers repeated the erroneous claim of a discriminatory law by Parliament whereas no British authors seem to do so. The Bill of Rights is certainly discriminatory against Catholics in many respects, but the issue of arms is NOT one of them. Clearly there is a habit of certain American authors putting too much faith in some of their secondary sources and not checking the primary source (or doing so scantily). Lastly on the game laws. The American settlers would have known about the English game laws which were relevant to English law on weaponry but New World settlers could safely forget about them.

All-in-all I think the deleted content does say something which is relevant to the Second Amendment and which is not really mentioned anywhere else in the same context. I have agreed that the section is too long, but maybe the solution is to move some of the detail to the footnotes. I have therefore intend to reinstate the text with a modified section header. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to address your points right now. Maybe Graham or someone else can do it later. But what comes through in your explanations above is your view of the world and your wish to set the record straight. In some of the deleted paragraphs, there were NO sources at all to even support the assertions. You changed the section header so that your views could be expressed without running afoul of what the section was supposed to be about. You have a real POV problem here that is simply not acceptable, which may be seen by some of your assertions:


 * "This is a fundamentally important divergence and needs to be in the English Law section."
 * "the recent Supreme Court decisions have raised the 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED' text to be interpreted as creating or preserving a natural right to arms, and has decided that a gun in the home is an 'American right'"
 * "Many American textbooks on this subject are clearly erroneous and this needs to be balanced out."
 * "Clearly there is a habit of certain American authors putting too much faith in some of their secondary sources and not checking the primary source (or doing so scantily)."


 * This is not a place for you to write your thesis on the Second Amendment.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not insensitive to the fact that much of what is written is not backed up by any references. I have come to this article by accident and found numerous inaccuracies in the English History section. I have tried to correct them and have provided references to primary sources when clearly so many American authors have been relying on some very dubious secondary sources. You do have the fortune of having lawyers on the Supreme Court who do look carefully at the historical background and I have to say that they have the same opinion as me and have ignored to some extend the claims made by certain American authors. I am not being "anti-" anyone here; I am just pointing out the facts. Nor am I trying to insert my POV into the article. I do think that most editors here are interested in the issues of law and its drivers. Take for example the point about the issue of the recent cases in the Supreme Court. Most commentators have noted that these were landmark decisions and marked a significant shift. I don't think it unreasonable to point out that changing that view can only happen by another Supreme Court decision the other way or a by a constitutional amendment. This is a big divergence from previous law and very different from English law which, by and large, does not grant people "rights" as there is usually a balance of rights that needs to be struck. It would be great to have a citation for these things but the absence of a citation does not mean that the statements are incorrect. If there are statement that you think are incorrect, I'll welcome any discussion here to try and get to a consensus.--Hauskalainen (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that's simply not how it works at Wikipedia. Even assuming a statement is correct, if it's not verified by a reliable source, it must be removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Have removed the uncited political commentary of Hauskalainen. This is not how Wikipedia works.  Yaf (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How so? Political? The text is surely pointing out the facts to those who may not be aware of them. I am willing to be flexible about the form of the wording, but the facts are I believe as I have stated them. What of the content do you find "political"? (by which I presume POV).  If there are references missing for factual statements it would be more helpful if you would tell us which statements you regard as suspicious. Deleting great chunks of text on a pretext is not very constructive. Please engage.--Hauskalainen (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This article is about the 2nd Amendment, it is not about the divergence of US gun law from the British law as Hauskalainen seems to want. You do not change the heading to fit political content that was inserted to make a point about legal parallels of the two countries. Hauskalainen wants the make a point about how Heller “took a fundamentally different interpretation” of the 2nd A. His premise is incorrect. It is true that SILVEIRA v. LOCKYER took the same view but US v Emerson and Parker v. District of Columbia, the by-partisan Senate COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY (1982) and thirty-nine states supported an Individual Right way before Heller. So Heller is only a landmark decision in that it was the first time SCOTUS fully reviewed the issue, not for its conclusion. While Hauskalainen will be able to find sources to support his theory they will not be mainstream as even the Brady Campaign now accepts an Individual Right take. The main point here is that none of later day commentary belongs in the background material leading up to the adoption.Grahamboat (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Folks, here's what might be the the big picture answer for this. Let's get it written and (in this area) pared down in a way that folks consensus is well written and accurate/likely-sourcable, germane and that y'all agree on, and then get it sourced. Can be tagged in the meantime, and eventually, anything that is unsourcable can be deleted. Sincerely, North8000 21:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Alert. Aside from what to do with the article, I now can't figure out the current status of the article, i.e., is it per Graham, per Hauskalainen, or some other variation? This is getting out of hand, which troubles me more than anything else. I hope someone else can retrace all the changes.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Right now it is per Grahamboat 20:04, 6 December 2010 but of course that is subject to change. I am not sure what North8000 means by pared down in a way that folks consensus is well written etc. To me it is acceptable as it is now although I would prefer paring it down further. I find Hauskalainen contribs to not be germane to this section on pre-constitutional background as I have stated and explained numerous times above. I would not object if Hauskalainen’s “divergence of US gun law from the British law” is placed elsewhere but it does not belong in pre-constitutional background. Do you want me to move it? The problem is that it reads like political commentary and is mostly unsourced.Grahamboat (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

'''Here is how Hauskalainen’s unedited contribution would appear. I am not recommending this, but would accept it in the spirit of compromise.'''

Scholarly commentary

Comparison of UK & US gun law

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court did not accept a collective right view, remarking that the English right at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights was "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms.

Both the U.S. and English texts are about protecting a right to arms. In the U.S. case, until the first decade of the 21st century, it was believed to have been about solely preventing infringement by the federal government, while in the English case it protects the rights of Protestants from encroachment by the King. The English right could be modified by Parliament, and until recently it was believed the state legislatures could freely regulate firearms without any Second Amendment restrictions. However, the Supreme Court in Heller ruled that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), that protection was extended to protect against infringement by state and local governments.

Parliament though has repeatedly increased restrictions on firearms and other defensive weapons to make the legal possession of them virtually impossible. These actions have generally reflected the British public's concerns over their potential misuse as offensive weapons. Heller noted that the American right is not absolute and is subject to legislative controls preventing access to firearms by felons and the mentally ill. However, the American position of a "constitutional right" rather than a "freedom" subject to regulation means that the liberty to own, hold and use a firearm in the United States for self defense cannot be amended simply by changing statutory law, as happened in Great Britain and for many years by each of the state legislatures.

With regard to arms rights, some American writers have ignored the evidence in the text of the bill which shows it to be a restoration of lost rights to Protestants and that Catholics already had the freedom to bear arms, preferring instead to see religious discrimination in gun rights. Others have similarly ignored the earlier game laws that had already severely restricted firearms to those with gaming rights, preferring to see it as an act of socioeconomic discrimination. The game laws had not interfered with the basic duty of certain English people to keep arms for militia service but it was the caching of large quantities of weapons by Catholics that was deemed to be potentially threatening during transition from the old militia to the new.

As England progressively transferred the right to maintain order against internal and external threats to special bodies such as the police and the armed forces, Parliament began to restrict criminals' access to guns through legislation such as the Pistols Act.

Grahamboat (talk) 05:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks pretty good. Except that I think "until the first decade of the 21st century, it was believed to have been about solely preventing infringement by the federal government" is erroneous.   The real long term debate (relative to this) was 2 overlapping questions:  Individual right vs. just for service in a militia.   And, in case it's the latter, "are everyday citizens a part of the "militia"".   Only a small group of relatively expert people even knew the "restricts federal only" question existed.  Came to the forefront a bit more in the 2-year post-Heller-pre-McDonald period. North8000 11:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the federal government issue is miscast. Once Heller interpreted the right, then the question became whether it applied only to the federal government. That is, of course, true of any right enumerated in the Bill of Rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. The proposed text is unacceptable for the simple reason that it lacks sources. In many cases, it is unsourced without a "citation needed" template, and in many other cases, it has the template. I'm not even sure why templates were inserted in certain places but not in others, but it amounts to the same thing. If there are no sources, it can't be said. Period.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Totally unacceptable.  Text is a POV commentary making many outlandish claims that are entirely unsourced.  For example, "These actions have generally reflected the British public's concerns over their potential misuse as offensive weapons.", says who? All the individuals I know who have left the UK to live in the US have stated it is not about misuse, but, rather, is about more nanny state regulations.  Hardly the same thing.  Pushing such unsourced POV commentary whilst trying to push an agenda is entirely against Wikipedia principles.  Yaf (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Folks, let's start with what you think is OK and likely to be sourcable. If you agree on that, then it will be sourcable. And then get it sourced. Otherwise this process will be gridlocked. North8000 14:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I disagree as a matter of process and as a matter of policy. You want to include something in an article, find a source first. Sometimes, when I see someone add unsourced information to an article, I go out and find a source for it rather than delete it, but that's only when (1) I have the time, (2) I find the addition to be particularly noteworthy, and (3) I believe it's a helpful addition to the article. For me, those conditions aren't met here. Therefore, the burden is on the editor who wants to include it to find reliable sources for it before s/he includes it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if someone disagrees with the content or thinks it wrong/ unsourcable, then we both end up at the same place. But otherwise we might need to agree to disagree.  What I think you are saying is to reject ideas at the talk page draft stage for not being cited, even if (AT THAT EARLY STAGE) you do not disagree with it, and think that it is sourcable. North8000 15:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your reading of what I said is not at all what I intended. To be clearer on one aspect of what I said, I don't find the addition noteworthy or useful.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I misunderstood. Sincerely, North8000 15:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Apology appreciated but unnecessary. If you misunderstood, perhaps the fault was mine, or at least perhaps others also misunderstood. Your expression of what you thought I meant permitted greater clarification, which is helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Yaf, Grahamboat, and Bbb23 that the information in question does not belong in the article (especially in the "Pre-Constitution background" section). If Hauskalainen and other editors would like to work on the text on this talk page and find sources, then that is fine. But I don't think it should be put back in the article until it is completely sourced and there is a consensus that it is germane to the article/section. --Hamitr (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Grahamboat's opinion is:
 * Paragraph #1. Heller is well cover elsewhere and is redundant here.
 * Paragraph # 2. the first sentence is not sourced and partially incorrect. The second sentence is also not sourced and partially incorrect.
 * Paragraph #3, is not sourced and is political commentary.
 * Paragraph #4, is poorly sourced and does not relate to the article
 * Paragraph #5. has no relation to the 2nd A. Grahamboat (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent)

There is truth in the statement made above that I have added text to the article as to how and why English and American law have diverged. The claim is made above that this is not relevant, but I disagree. As a reader who came to this subject knowing little about the Second Amendment but knowing quite a lot of English history, it was for me quite baffling to see that American Law had a particular paragraph in English Law as its source and yet, though neither law has been repealed, the two countries today have very different legal positions as to arms. One has elevated gun ownership and use to the exalted status of a fundamental right and the other has taken quite the opposite direction. All based on fundamentally the same legal foundation. I think that the readership deserves an explanation as to how and why this has happened. If we can agree that this is a moot point worthy of explanation then I am willing to try to discuss here how we can do so briefly and in a neutral fashion. If there are disputed "facts" then we can see how much referencing we can get to support either side of the argument. I do think the exercise is worth doing. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Before anyone gets exercised about it, I just realized that "moot point" cold mean "irrelevent" in American English and that is not my meaning at all. See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moot and http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moot_point --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Why don’t you try rewriting your vision of why the English and American law diverged using better sources and with the idea of placing it under the heading “Scholarly commentary/Comparison (or Divergence) of UK & US gun law”? It might be interesting but doesn’t belong under Pre-constitutional background. Better to place it here first.--Grahamboat (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

English vs. British
At another talk page an anon has claimed that "English" should be changed to "British", even regarding items prior to the founding of the United Kingdom, because Wales and Ireland were then part of it. Feel free to comment on this claim at this and/or the other talk page. SMP0328. (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Since the article refers to “Influence of the English Bill of Rights of 1689” I would leave it "English". Grahamboat (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * They have eternal wars going on at several articles regarding terminology for what's in the past and present UK. Sometimes people carry it to other articles by searching for uses of the involved terms. We should try to stay miles away from such arguments. North8000 (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of "Well Regulated Militia"
footnote 137, I don't even see that there is a page 361 in Merkel's book _The Militia and the Right to Arms, Or, How the Second Amendment Fell Silent_.

That said, I don't like this phrase: "The term 'regulated' means 'disciplined' or 'trained'". "Means"=true fact. Merkel's book was written in 2002, and the Heller case wasn't resolved until 2008. The Amazon writeup for Merkel's book actually uses the word "thesis".

SCOTUS did contend the disciplined/trained definition in 2008. I think this first sentence should be removed and the following sentence re: Heller should become the first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.213.140 (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Heller created the definitive answer (with respect to US law and legal) to many open questions. Much of this article has not been updated. Most importantly, the question you discuss has less relevance now because Heller said that the right is dependent on membership in a militia, whatever militia means. Not that it isn't still an important topic. North8000 (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe North8000 meant not dependent on membership in a militia. SMP0328. (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Dred Scott
Why the heck is there a section on Dred Scott in this article? Balonkey (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably needs a mention because it is a Supreme Court decision. Article needs a lot of updating.  Due to the usual reasons (like it's a lot of hard work to do it well) plus, until a few months ago, updates were blocked by a relentless POV warrior. North8000 (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I get that it's a Supreme Court decision, I just can't tell what it has to do with the Second Amendment. I'm holding out hope that maybe there is some tie in I don't see or that was once there and then edited out or who knows what.  Or maybe should just be deleted.  Also FWIW I kinda thought this page would have more warring than it seems to have.  Balonkey (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Oh wait. I didn't see that this was like the 30th archived talk page. Shows how green I am! Balonkey (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that you pointed it out, I have no idea what it is doing in here. Maybe someone else knows.   If we can't add an explanation of relevance, we should delete it. North8000 (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Although not mentioned in Heller, Dred Scott got a mention in United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Parker v. District of Columbia “Although Dred Scott is as infamous as it was erroneous in holding that African-Americans are not citizens, this passage expresses the view, albeit in passing, that the Second Amendment contains a personal right”. Grahamboat (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no good reason for it being in the article and have removed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. North8000 (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good decision too. Balonkey (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

A few questions:
- How does this affect non-firearms weapons today? Does one have a right to own a hailbried or flail?

- What does "Arms" mean when it comes to guns? the entire gun? the fireing mechanism? The bullet? 69.132.79.61 (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This Talk page is for discussing improvements to the article or problems with the article, not for asking questions about firearms. You could try asking your questions at the Reference Desk.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Had an edit conflict....my answer was similar: Good questions, but too complex to try to answer here and this is not the place. But keep asking elsewhere!   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Text section formatting
Originally, the section had cquotes, which are not permitted by WP:MOSQUOTE. I removed them, but then ran into problems with another editor over how to format it without cquotes. We reached a compromise (that I don't like - and probably the other editor doesn't like either - but that's the nature of compromises). Then, yet another editor put back the original version saying it looked better. I reverted the change, but welcome comments as to how to do this. I should add that the differences between the two texts are trivial and I don't even know why we're making a fuss out of this in the article in the first place.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Would Anastrophe's edit be permissible if it used the "quote" format, rather than "cquote"? SMP0328. (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't figure this out thoroughly, but first, if there any content question within the quote, it should simply be correct / per the source. On the punctuation, it would seem simply straight quotes around the quote is the norm. North8000 (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(moving my comment into thread) i cleaned up the text section, improving readability, and bringing it into conformance with all other bill of rights articles. Bbb23 quickly reverted it, claiming that "cquotes are not permitted per WP:MOSQUOTE". this is incorrect; it is not a rule, it is a guideline, and it's far better to conform this article the articles for the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth amendments (not to mention the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twenty-first, twenty-second, twenty-third, twenty-fifth, twenty-sixth, and twenty-seventh amendments), than to have it deviate from that pretty well established style. Anastrophe (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * the reason the differences in text are material is because they have been a matter of significant historical and legal debate over the decades. that's not my assessment, it's an assessment based on reading hundreds of sources. personally, i think only the text as codified in the extant version of the constitution on display in the national archives is wholey relevant, because all citizens have free access to it. but that's my opinion. i still maintain that using cquotes in conformance with the majority of amendment articles is preferable to divergence from that style - unless someone wants to go to the trouble of "correcting" all the other amendment articles based on a non-rule of style. Anastrophe (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

i just had a look at the discussion page for cquote, and to say that it has a long history of being reviled and defended is an understatement. while on a tenuously technical basis the individual amendments could be defined as pullquotes from the Constitution, it seems that cquotes are fundamentally a bad idea. okay, granted. the problem is - as previously mentioned - that nearly all of the amendment articles have used them, which has created a 'sub' style across them. returned to the use of cquotes here was largely to maintain conformance with the other articles (and, i do think it improves readability). but from 30,000 feet, it would seem it would be better to take on the task of conforming all those other amendment articles to a more desirable format for the text of the amendment. that, unfortunately, is not a project i'm up for at the moment! so - it boils down to this: maintain a largely uniform style between the amendment articles and keep the cquotes; drop the cquotes and be out of conformance with the substyle, but closer to conformance with the MOS; adjust all the other amendments to conform to the MOS. bottom line: i need to lay off the afternoon coffee. Anastrophe (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally, IMHO conformance with other amendment articles would not even be a consideration, much less a priority. North8000 (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the cquotes are awful. Granted it's not a policy, but a guideline, but as Anastrophe found out, it's frowned upon. As for other articles, just because many articles do something wrong doesn't justify perpetuating it. The cquotes can be removed from the other articles as editors get to it. I've been removing cquotes in other articles when I see them.


 * In response to SPM0328's question, the quote template just makes a block quote, which is what was already there. I think what Anastrophe doesn't like is the aesthetics of the bolding of the differences, which, frankly, I don't like, either, but, as I stated earlier, it was a compromise.


 * I just wanted inline quotes (because they're short) with no highlighting of the differences other than the textual description (capitalization, punctuation). I'm happy with the quote template without highlighting the differences though - it's the highlighting, in my view, that is ugly. I also think that block quotes and the "headings" (Congress and The States) Anastrophe put in would look fine.


 * I'm not sure we have any consensus on this going forward, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with the changes SMP0328 just made from an aesthetic perspective. I made a few minor changes without changing the framework. I'd also recommend capitalizing "states" but didn't make that change.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In light of the changes Bbb23 and I just made, do we now have consensus? SMP0328. (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We may have to wait for Anastrophe to recover from overcaffeination before we find out. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * i'm fine with whatever changes you guys decide(d) on. i just happen to _not_ find the cquotes particularly offensive, while finding the bolded, bracketed text ugly as heck, and hard to discern clearly - particularly when the two different sentences were streamed together within the graf... Anastrophe (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization
BTW, what do you think about capitalizing states?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I used to do that, but was told capitalizing the "s" was wrong if the word isn't starting a sentence or part of a State's full name (e.g., State of New York). SMP0328. (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure who told you that, but whether it's collective or singular, if you're referring to the governments themselves, my view is it's capitalized. Here are two examples: "By the time the States ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, public schools had become relatively common." Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393, 411 (2007). "In order to overturn Chisholm, Congress quickly passed the Eleventh Amendment and the States ratified it speedily." Federal Maritime Comm'n v. South Carolina State Ports Authority, 535 U.S. 743, 752 (2002).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I was told this about two years ago. SMP0328. (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything in that discussion that addresses this particular issue. If you agree that the State of New York is correct and the State of California is correct, then if you say that the State of California and the State of New York ratified something, it follows that saying the States ratified something should be correct because the "of California" and "of New York" are assumed. I'll go ahead and change it and we'll see if I get any flak for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you plan to change elsewhere in the article "state" to "State" when referring to one of the United States? SMP0328. (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A good question, which I wish you hadn't asked. I started looking through the article and found many instances of the word "state" or "states" (if only the article weren't so LONG). Some seemed different from the ones I just changed, not so clear-cut (at least to my eyes). Others looked closer. For reasons I don't clearly understand, I didn't feel like changing any, perhaps because, ironically and generally, I think Wikipedians overcapitalize (just as they overuse commas). So, I'll punt. Are there particular instances you believe should be changed?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If you noticed, I did make a few capitalization changes since my last post. I decided I was being too wishy-washy about the whole thing. However, SMP0328, I don't agree with your change (but I didn't revert it). In the instance you picked, the usage is about state governments generally, not about a particular state or states specifically. Therefore, it should be lower case.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How is my capitalization any different from the capitalization in the Text section? When should "state" be capitalized (other than at the beginning of a sentence)? SMP0328. (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * When you're referring to a specific state government (the state acting as a state) or a group of state governments (the states acting as states).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So if the action is by the government, use "State"; if the action is by another party, use "state"? SMP0328. (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not exactly, if the action is by a specific state government, then use "State" because it's the same thing as saying the State of New York. If the reference isn't to a specific state government, then use "state". Or maybe we should leave it inconsistent because I'm not sure that everyone would agree with me anyway. Long live chaos! :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's easier for everyone if the capitalization is consistent regarding State governments. Otherwise, all we'll have is chaos. SMP0328. (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that consistency is more desirable. The problem is that you won't have consistency on Wikipedia unless there's some clear guideline or policy on the issue, which doesn't exist and which, cynically, I don't believe is possible. At the moment, all you have is my say-so and the Supreme Court cases I cite to back me up.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Early state court decisions
I'd like to remove the section entirely and put the link to the information in the See also section. The article is too long, and the section is really unnecessary. The article is not supposed to be a historical treatise.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm kind of neutral on your proposal. On the "pro" side is the good arguments that you made.  On the "con" side, possibly a condensed version would be good to have.... due to there being so few SCOTUS cases on this in history, info on state supreme court cases might be useful. North8000 (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment, North, but I really see the state court cases as academic at best. Given your neutrality on the issue, the fact that no one has objected in almost two weeks, and the length of the article, I'll remove the section.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Cool. North8000 (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Bill Of Rights defunct in Britain
Its unreasonable to justify this Amendment as being based on the British Bill Of Rights without mentioning that the relevant part of that has been defunct for at least the last 57 years since the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. 92.29.125.152 (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This article covers the amendment, it doesn't "justify" it. But I don't think that the dependency that you are implying is even hypothesized in the article. North8000 (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with North8000. There is neither mention of “justify” nor any implication hereof. Therefore it is not relevant what happened in the UK 164 years later. Grahamboat (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

English Bill of Rights subsection
The paragraph that begins "The English Bill of Rights statement about the right to have arms...." is stating conclusions rather than describing the arguments. Phrases such as "gives the false impression", "it is clear that the bill was asserting", "reveals that Catholics ... already had the freedom to have arms", and "which both codify an existing right and do not create a new one" (from the follow-up after the blockquote) indicate that this section of text is promoting a particular POV. The only citations on it are the source for the quote, and confirmation of what the Supremes have said; they do not support these assertions as objective and self-evident facts. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the wonderful world of unsourced assertions in the English Bill of Rights section. I support almost anything that removes unsourced content from it. As I've stated before, it's not really an encyclopedic section - it's a thesis.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm all for accurate and encyclopedic. 90% of Wikipedia content doesn't have cites explicitly supporting it. I'm not for somebody selectively knocking out their choice of the 90% simply for not being explicitly sourced. I think much of this section was written by Husk.....who seems very expert on English history topics but light on using sources. We should try to figure out what it and isn't accurate/sourcable and proceed accordingly. North8000 (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but it's one thing to make commonplace assertions without sourcing them, but the statements at issue are not. And I agree with Jason that the phrasing of the assertions is POV and certainly not encyclopedic. We simply cannot rely on the supposed expertise of an editor. That's at best WP:OR.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything you said in this last post. But IMHO it did not address or refute what I said nor comment on my suggestion on how to proceed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll try to be clearer. In my view, the material challenged by Jason should be removed. If someone else wants to save it by rewording and sourcing it, that's up to them, but the section and the article are too long as it is. Much of the material is unnecessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We should agree on a deadline for finding RS for that subsection. After that deadline any material therein that's unsourced should be removed. SMP0328. (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. One week.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Does everyone else agree to a one-week deadline? SMP0328. (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the section has issues. But I'm against anything as categorical / ham-handed as the above. North8000 (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe a one-month deadline is better. That would provide sufficient time to find RS and provide a point at which Bbb23 can remove the challenged subsection. SMP0328. (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

One week is good. WikiManOne 22:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Who's looking for the sources? How about one week with an extension of time if an editor says he or she is looking? Or, if that's no good, how about two weeks? One month seems awfully long, and if no one is actually doing anything, what's the point? Oh, yes, and I think that North should get extra points for teaching me a new word (ham-handed).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Give it a week if someone is actually looking for sources, if nobody is looking for sources, just take it out. WikiManOne 23:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that Bbb23 and WikiManOne's final posts made the same suggestion, and I'm cool with that. Plus thanks to Bbb23 for the extra brownie points.
 * I think that the statement that the US Constitution affirms existing rights (vs. granting new ones) is considered a "sky is blue" statement. However, this section isn't really about that and I assume that that is covered elsewhere in the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If I understand properly, North, WikiMan, and I all agree on a week (I still would be amenable to extending if an editor says he's working on it and needs a little more time). Is that okay with you, SMP0328?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One week to begin adding sourcing. If sourcing is being added, extend to a month. SMP0328. (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK with me. North8000 (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that SMP0328 kindly volunteered me to remove the material if not sourced, in case I forget, someone please remind me.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let us know when you're going away on vacation. So we can have a wiki-meeting here while you're gone  and volunteer you for a lot of stuff.  :-) North8000 (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I support one week - assuming Bbb23 has the time he needs. Grahamboat (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(Outdent). The problem is that there are supposedly reliable sources who have written that the English Bill of Rights was discriminatory s regards "gun rights" (giving rights to Protestants only). I agree that you could get that impression IF you are ingorant of your English history and if you don't read the Bill of Rights carefully. These misimpressions of the law only come from American sources that are, frankly, obsessessed with guns and a supposed right to have guns. The text in the article is quite long because it shows IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS ITSELF (so it is not true that the material is unsourced) that Bill of rights is NOT creating a new right (it was an ancient liberty that already existed and which had been held by Catholics as well as Protestants, but had been withdrawn by the King in respect of Protestant). The Bill of rights mentions Catholics being armed (though it uses the term "papists" which is a synonym). The Bill of rights WAS discriminatory against Catholics, but not in the case of arms rights. We cannot have material in the article that ONLY declares that the Bill of righs created a right to arms and that this right was given only to Protestants. That is what the article used to say before that text was added. It is historically incorrect. And POV. Therefore there has to be text which is balanced. I am agreeable to amending the text so long as we preserve the historical truth (or at least the mainstream views of what the historical evidence tells us, as per NPOV policy).Hauskalainen (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that any changes be discussed here. I don't like the idea that there could be sweeping changes made without discussion first. We need some more precision about the changes desired. For example bringing here some before and after versions for discussion. That way we can all see what the impact is.Hauskalainen (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that we should deal with the gorilla in the living room here in a fun and friendly way. This is based on 6-7 months of observation, but too much has happened here for me to claim to for-sure know the situation, i.e. I could be all wrong.    First, IMHO good articles get written from expertise/consensus (with sourcing/sourcability in mind) and THEN sourced.  Good material does not just arise out of the random noise of sourcing, which says things that are all over the board. Such sounds un-wikipedian, but really isn't, because it ends up at the same place, which is sourced material. I think that Hauskalainen has a high level of expertise regarding stuff on the east side of the pond, especially historical. He/she could probably write stuff in that area that is more expert and reliable that many wp:"RS"s. However, he/she often writes in a professorial tone which is un-wikipedian...sort of "let me tell you how it is" vs. "here is sourced information"  Also he/she does not emphasize and end up with sufficient sourcing of material (which is where it needs to end up) If I'm not mistaken, I think that Hauskalainen wrote much of the material that we are talking about.   So what we may have is accurate material which needs to have the above items remedied, and also (due to developments in the last few years) some condensation, and keeping the above in mind might help the process. I think that we have a good team here to accomplish that. North8000 (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * For starters, I suggest removing “(which it was not), (which is false), (which arguably it did not, and certainly not a constitutional one)” as they add unnecessary double emphasis. The quote “The fifth and last auxiliary right...” is not supported by the reference; is it Blackstone’s? I do not know why the Heller reference is included in this section as it is well covered elsewhere; but I don’t strongly object. Grahamboat (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Is the discussion now closed? Grahamboat (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I got a headache and lost interest once no one reminded me to do anything. I must confess I haven't examined the changes, but I wouldn't wait for me to do that. Are you okay with the result (whatever it was)? (My apologies for being flip, but with articles like this one, humor is the only thing that helps.)--Bbb23 (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Those proposed changes in Grahamboat's Feb 15 post look good to me. North8000 (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. Grahamboat (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Later commentary/Historical models of interpretation
I propose to merge “Historical models of interpretation” into “Later commentary” as much of the content is the same. In light of Heller, I would also remove much of the “collective rights” (civic) opinions as being moot. Unnecessary political rhetoric makes this article too long. I believe in TALK before EDIT. Grahamboat (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It needs that kind of work.


 * Heller rendered many things moot which I think should still be covered to some extent, even if vastly reduced coverage. North8000 (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Since no objections have appeared in a week and the article is too long I will merge a condensed version of “Historical models of interpretation” into “Later commentary” removing any purely academic opinions. I believe “Meaning of the ‘right to bear arms’” needs the same treatment. Grahamboat (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Again many debates were rendered a moot point by Heller/MacDonald. But we should still cover them is a historical context.  Some of the points which they discussed are roots of Heller/MacDonald. North8000 (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Text should be emphasized using one of the quote templates
Considering the text of the 2nd amendment is only 1 sentence and appeared to be buried within some muddle. The short text of amendment should have some emphasis. As all other amendment in the us constitution. A user named SMP0328 removed my cquote and claimed improper use. I disagree would like to discuss what is was labeled improper use of cquote use. My argument is this article is titled Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and in fact the portion I cquote formatted is the short actual text. The rest of the article is history and a lot of political opinion. This a controversial topic, for example the Heller vs District of columbia section is rather large. This article as a whole may require a NPOV check.0pen$0urce (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:MOSQUOTE ("Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the cquote template, which are reserved for pull quotes).") almost never permits the use of cquote in articles. Unfortunately, many of the amendment articles misuse it, which is no basis for misusing it here. Even the cquote documentation, which you link to, says not to use it (in red, yet). (I don't address your completely separate NPOV argument.)--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"("Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the cquote template, which are reserved for pull quotes).")" Block quote is a long quote. This quote is used to displayed pull the actual text of the 2nd amendment from the article. Again this is a controversial topic but I have a notion there is a lack of NPOV behind some of the edits here.0pen$0urce (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert on the proper way here, but those huge quote marks, one of them detached from the end of the text which it marks look distracting. North8000 (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Open, forgive me, but your reasoning makes no sense. I'm reverting back to the way it was before you changed the quotes and before you moved the text. I strongly suggest you gain consensus on this before you do anything further. There is a lot of history, not only in this article, but also about this article.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that this is at a point where putting them in would need some type of consensus. I don't have a strong opinion, but I  tend towards avoiding the giant quote marks. North8000 (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

While I was doing something unrelated to this topic, I noticed that Open had posted a comment on SMP0328's Talk page about the cquote template. Open quoted this sentence from the template: "Pull-quotes work best when used with short quotes, and at the start or end of a section, to help emphasize the content of the section." Not sure why he (sorry if I have the gender wrong) hasn't quoted that sentence here because it's his best argument for using cquote. So, I'd like to go into my memory (not necessarily perfect) of the history of the Text section. Remember, there are two versions of the text of the amendment given in the article, so that makes it different (unique?) from the other amendment articles.

I believe when I first looked at the cquote business, the article used cquotes for both versions. I objected, not only to the use of cquotes, but even to the use of blockquotes or the normal quote template, and I edited the article to put the quotes inline with quotation marks. My change encountered a fair amount of resistance, at least by some, and, eventually, a consensus was reached as to the current version. It sets the text off by using the quote template but doesn't draw as much attention to it as a pull quote would ("distracting", as North puts it).

My main objection to using cquotes in this article is twofold. First, we have two versions of the text. If we had only one, the use of one cquote at the top of the section might not be as bad. Second, and related to the first, the section is short. The argument in the cquote template documentation about emphasis is more compelling if you have a cquote at the beginning and then a significantly longer section so you "emphasize the content of the section" by using the cquote. Indeed, this is a good reason why cquotes shouldn't be used in other amendment articles when the only thing in the section is the text itself. How much emphasis do we need?

I hope this background and analysis help explain my position on the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You provided good input, I came to look up the actual quote from the Constitution and it appears somewhat buried. The only discernible difference from the ratified (necessity unknown) and federal is capitalization. Again this is a controversial topic which I have no position on, but I also have concerns some of the edits are being made lacking NPOV. In short I made identical edit to 1st amendment and to this day it remains. So why is the text here getting so much attention, and what appears to be a de-emphasis on the main body short text. My concerns are stated. 0pen$0urce (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, the insertion of the cquote template in the first amendment article was made by another user here. You added a parameter to the template, which was reverted. As to why the template remains in that article, I can only answer for myself - I don't watch the article. However, the editor's justification (consistency) is insufficient, in my view. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. At the risk of a possible war, I mean disagreement, I will change it back to the quote template.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Nordyke citation
The citation provided in the material for Nordyke v. King is from 2009. A recent decision has been made by the Ninth Circuit in that case. So should that citation be replaced with one for the recent decision or should a new citation accompany the one from 2009? SMP0328. (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The 2009 citation is the opinion that was vacated. One of the key elements missing from the description of the Nordyke history is that the en banc panel remanded the case back to the panel "in light of McDonald v. City of Chicago." The decision that is important is the latest panel decision, which doesn't yet have an F.3d cite.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Should we remove the 2009 citation? SMP0328. (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Please answer the question." :-) Yes.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. SMP0328. (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Individual Rights
It is noteworthy, I think, that the word 'individual(s)' does not appear in the Constitution itself in reference to individual persons (it is sometimes used in reference to States). In regard to rights, the Constitution generally employs the term "the people". A careful reading, I think, makes it clear the framers intended the term "the people" in the collective sense. For example, ". . . the people's right to keep and bear arms." Wikipedia's explanations of the articles would be better served, I think, if it refrained from the use of expressions such as, "the right of individuals to bear arms." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbyall (talk • contribs) 20:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Individual" is THE question. Now it has been decided that it is individual, but even before that / in either case, we must accurately describe the question. North8000 (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk pages are not forums and this is not the place to give your "careful reading" of the constitution when it appears you're unfamiliar with it. You're right, the constitution never uses the word "individual". One possible reason for that is because the term individual is a much narrower term than "person" which the constitution uses continually. For example, when it clearly refers to individuals, such as the individual to be the president, it uses the term "person". The term "people" or "the people" is used in most of the other individual rights amendments of the Bill of Rights as well. For instance, "the people" is used in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments, as well as the 9th and 10th (although their effect is much less apparent). The 17th amendment also uses "the people" although its context is contextually quite different. "Person" is used in the Bill of Rights when its clear that only a specific person is relevant, e.g. the 5th amendment.


 * You might find it interesting that most 2nd amendment jurisprudence has had little to do with these issues, however. "Person" and "individual" are words that have specific legal meanings in all contexts, specifically though in the constitution (person is broader than individual; the former including corporate entities and other bodies, whereas individuals means a single homo sapien).


 * In any case, this isn't the place to argue your opinion. Shadowjams (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ratification debate and its purpose
The section of this article on "Ratification Debate" contains a number of unsourced assertions that may be a-historical.

For example, the article states, "Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny." This may not quite be the case. In the Federalist #25, for example, Hamilton cautions that "feeble government" is unlikely to be respected, and cites some instances where states have raised militias to quell the spirit of rebellion among the population. He writes:

"The conduct of Massachusetts affords a lesson on the same subject, though on different ground. That State (without waiting for the sanction of Congress, as the articles of the Confederation require) was compelled to raise troops to quell a domestic insurrection, and still keeps a corps in pay to prevent a revival of the spirit of revolt. The particular constitution of Massachusetts opposed no obstacle to the measure; but the instance is still of use to instruct us that cases are likely to occur under our government, as well as under those of other nations, which will sometimes render a military force in time of peace essential to the security of the society, and that it is therefore improper in this respect to control the legislative discretion. It also teaches us, in its application to the United States, how little the rights of a feeble government are likely to be respected, even by its own constituents. And it teaches us, in addition to the rest, how unequal parchment provisions are to a struggle with public necessity."

If there is an individual right to bear arms, the origin of this right likely lies elsewhere than in enabling the citizens to fight the government. It may have been so obvious to the framers that it didn't warrant much debate, but one likely reason for the second amendment was that the revolutionaries were, in casting off monarchy, also casting off the feudal system.

Under the feudal system, most nobles were knights, sworn to protect the clergy, their liege, and the peasants who lived on their land, and who were unarmed. Arming the peasants would have been seen as an important part of preventing the resurgence of a feudal society. This interpretation would agree with the prohibition against titles of nobility found in both the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation.

Inijones (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Not that this is the place for such a discussion, but one person arguing for a non-feeble government does not even address much less refute "potential check against tyranny" being one of the reasons for the 2A. North8000 (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? Alexander Hamilton is hardly "one person arguing for non-feeble government." Inijones (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Which part of that is an incorrect description of what you wrote? North8000 (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Dismissing Hamilton's writings in the Federalist as just the opinions of one person is like saying "Benjamin Franklin was just some printer" or "Constantine was just some Roman who found Jesus one day." The Federalist Papers are a record of what people thought about the Constitution at the time it was ratified. If you believe that the Constitution means what it says, and that "activist judges" are a problem, then you are obligated to consider the Federalist Papers as a record of what the Constitution meant to the people who ratified it. If you dismiss the Federalist papers, you're no better than "activist judges." Inijones (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Federalist Papers are a record of what the people who wrote the Constitution, not those who ratified it, thought it meant. SMP0328. (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hamilton played little part in the writing of the constitution, and the authors of the Federalist papers were addressing their critics as well as their supporters, and so the document is a record of what people thought about the Constitution at the time it was ratified.Inijones (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The whole article is OR, using primary sources rather than secondary sources. The right to bear arms was already recognized in the American states under the Bill of Rights 1689. TFD (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Bill of Rights 1689 is British law and so ceased to be binding in America post-independence. Such recognition by the States was under State Constitutions. SMP0328. (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, all English laws remained in force except where superceded by specific declarations or laws of the states. See for example Kilty's English Statutes, 1811 which explains which English laws continued in effect in Maryland.  TFD (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It would make sense that the colonists would follow the British tradition on this regard (the British were still "subjects" and didn't become "citizens" until 1981, and still have no single constitution), but that tradition occurred in the context of a monarchism that was as opposed to the feudal system as were the revolutionists, who forbade titles of nobility in the constitution.Inijones (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The only citations in the section in question are from the constitution and the articles of confederation, save for a quote from Patrick Henry without any context, sourced from this page:    http://www.quotes-museum.com/quote/Patrick_Henry/40613      and a quote from Sam Adams that reiterates what we all know is already in the constitution, and does nothing to clarify the terms of the historical debate.Inijones (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a clear example in the Federalist 44 of something being too obvious to warrant debate. Madison writes: "The prohibition with respect to titles of nobility is copied from the articles of Confederation and needs no comment." Constitutional constructionism requires adherents to understand the language of the constitution in terms of its meaning at the time it was written. So with historical debates like this, it is important to look at sociological evidence outside the letter of the law.Inijones (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There is yet another view of this issue at: http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/22.1/forum_konig.html      Konig writes: "Analysis brought to bear on the historical meaning of 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' has coalesced around two competing normative interpretations: either that the amendment guarantees a personal, individual right to bear arms, or that it applies only collectively to the effectiveness of the militia. It is a premise of this essay that both these models are historically unsatisfactory, the products of present-day normative agendas that have polarized the debate into two competing and largely ahistorical models—a type of historians' fallacy that David Hackett Fischer has labeled the 'fallacy of false dichotomous questions.' Fischer's description aptly describes the current controversy over the historical meaning of the Second Amendment: in addition to being 'grossly anachronistic,' its two opposing positions 'are mutually exclusive, and collectively exhaustive, so that the there is no overlap, no opening in the middle, and nothing is omitted at either end.' It is not without challenge on just these grounds, however, as a recent call for a 'new more sophisticated paradigm' attests. This essay seeks to provide that new model and to do so by grounding the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms' in eighteenth-century concepts of rights, not those of the twenty-first century, and to contextualize the right to bear arms in an eighteenth-century political struggle now largely ignored but well known to constitutional polemicists framing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights: Parliament's rebuilding of an English militia while denying the Scots the right to do so, despite Scotland's history and its claimed constitutional rights according to its coequal status in Great Britain." Some of the evidence brought to bear by Konig would be worth including in the section of the Wikipedia article that I've raised issue with.Inijones (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

In terms of Konig's argument noted above, the "right to bear arms" may have been meant to be construed in terms of a well regulated militia, specifically as an alternative to a standing army, the purpose of which was to repel foreign invasion, quell insurrection, in addition to serving as a check against tyranny (compare to Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, giving Congress the power to "raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"). To Konig, the historical understanding involved an individual right as a function of a collective duty; this was notably in the absence of a feudal system of patronage and protection.Inijones (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The importance of historical context in a constructionist (originalist) milieu is discussed in a secondary source here http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/interp.html "There are five sources that have guided interpretation of the Constitution: (1) the text and structure of the Constitution, (2) intentions of those who drafted, voted to propose, or voted to ratify the provision in question, (3) prior precedents (usually judicial), (4) the social, political, and economic consequences of alternative interpretations, and (5) natural law.  There is general agreement that the first three of these sources are appropriate guides to interpretation, but considerable disagreement as to the relative weight that should be given to the three sources when they point in different directions.  Many interpreters of the Constitution have suggested that the consequences of alternative interpretations are never relevant, even when all other considerations are evenly balanced. Natural law (higher law, God's law) is now only infrequently suggested as an interpretive guide, even though many of the framers of the Constitution recognized its appropriateness. Persons who favor heavy reliance on originalist sources (text and intentions) are commonly called 'originalists.'"Inijones (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

First Paragraph
The first paragraph of the section in question reads: "There was substantial opposition to the new Constitution, because it moved the power to arm the state militias from the states to the federal government. This created a fear that the federal government, by neglecting the upkeep of the militia, could have overwhelming military force at its disposal through its power to maintain a standing army and navy, leading to a confrontation with the states, encroaching on the states' reserved powers and even engaging in a military takeover"

None of these statements are sourced. The fears of neglecting the militia are discussed in context in the article by Konig I mentioned above, but the assertion about the federal government's ability to maintain a standing army needs clarification in light of Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution which I have cited above, giving Congress the power to "raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." Which is to say, that the framers seemed wary of standing armies, and took steps to safeguard against their establishment. At the time monarchs were disarming peasants to centralize power in armies and dismantle the feudal system. Also, standing armies were expensive and tended to bankrupt nations. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France "Under Louis XIV France achieved military supremacy over its rivals, but escalating conflicts against increasingly powerful enemy coalitions checked French ambitions and left the kingdom bankrupt at the opening of the 18th century." The origin of Swiss political neutrality had to do with the fact that their national industry was a mercenary army for hire, as if to make it known that their involvement in military affairs was a strictly commercial proposition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_mercenaries   "Until roughly 1490, the Swiss had a virtual monopoly on pike-armed mercenary service. However, after that date, the Swiss mercenaries were increasingly supplemented by imitators, chiefly the Landsknechts. Landsknechts were Germans (at first largely from Swabia) and became proficient at Swiss tactics to produce a force that filled the ranks of European armies with mercenary regiments for decades. Although the Landsknechts were never quite as redoubtable as the Swiss, they were much more readily available for hire, as after 1515 the Swiss pledged themselves to neutrality, other than regarding Swiss soldiers serving in the ranks of the Royal French army"

The Constitutional provision to maintain a Navy was primarily about commerce and piracy, as the US was largely pre-industrial. According to http://www.history.navy.mil/history/history2.htm "The Continental Congress had a very limited role in mind for the navy. It was not expected to contest British control of the seas, but rather to wage a traditional guerre de course against British trade, in conjunction with the scores of privateers outfitting in American ports. The Continental navy's ships were to raid commerce and attack the transports that supplied British forces in North America. To carry out this mission, the Continental Congress began to build up, through purchase, conversion, and new construction, a cruiser navy of small ships--frigates, brigs, sloops, and schooners. For the most part, Continental navy ships cruised independently or in pairs in search of their prey, avoiding whenever possible fights with Royal Navy men-of-war."Inijones (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Also from http://www.history.navy.mil/history/history2.htm "In Philadelphia in 1787, delegates drew up a constitution, which was adopted in 1789. As part of that debate, the Federalists, the nationalists who supported the new scheme of government, envisioned a state powerful enough to maintain a navy capable of protecting U.S. commerce. Some Federalists went even further. Alexander Hamilton argued that while the United States could not challenge Europe's principal maritime powers on the seas, in the event of a European war pitting France against Great Britain, a small fleet of American battleships would allow the United States to play the makeweight in the balance of power in the Western Hemisphere. For Hamilton and his supporters, a navy could play a broad national role in pursuit of the interests of the United States, and not just a limited role protecting the ships and cargoes of U.S. merchants." Inijones (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

New First Paragraph
I propose amending the section on "Ratification Debate" to include a new first paragraph to ground the relevance of the section.

I propose this text:

When seeking to understand or interpret provisions in the US Constitution, it is important to take historical context into consideration. In the context of originalism in particular, it is important to understand the language of the Constitution in terms of what that language meant to the people who wrote and ratified the text. Accordingly, the historical terms of debate continue to have relevance today.

Not done: is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages.--Hazel77 talk 18:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Couple quick thoughts. Sounds like giving the reader instructions rather than information. Also might be giving too much emphasis to that angle, one of many. North8000 (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It has nothing to do with the ratification debate. TFD (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. How about this:


 * Beyond historical curiosity, the Second Amendment ratification debate is of practical import, particularly to adherents of originalist and strict constructionist legal theories. In the context of such legal theories and elsewhere, it is important to understand the language of the Constitution in terms of what that language meant to the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution.


 * If North8000 doesn't like that, then I propose the whole section be removed (unless (s)he has a better reason to preserve it than what I have just identified).


 * As TFD noted in the discussion above, the section in question is substantially original research, does not meet Wikipedia standards, and contains other problems which I have outlined (with citations) in two discussion sections above.


 * I really don't see much that should be controversial about my proposed amendment to the article. Inijones (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Only Amendment to not have main text c quote format?? Why?
I went over this in the past and I an not getting it. Either all the amendment main text should be about the same format. See list of amendments here List of ratified amendments It is understood that gun laws and rights are very controversial, I have concerns this may be a very subtle NPOV issue. I came here just to simply find the actual text and had a hard time finding it and I don't quite get the necessity that slight punctuation variances need to take top billing. Again either all should have cquote or none. Lets discuss. --0pen$0urce (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This has come up several times. I really don't have an opinion (so, either way is fine with me) except to say that it should be whatever works best for this article, not be driven by what is happening in any other articles in any of the various "groups" of articles that folks may envision it being in. Also that a change should not be put in by edit warring. North8000 (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason for changing an article against guidelines. See WP:MOSQUOTE ("especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the cquote template, which are reserved for pull quotes"). If you want to override the guidelines, then you need to obtain a consensus for it here first, not implement your view of how it should be. Leave it alone until and if you've obtained that consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Disagree this is overriding guidelines. See "A pull quote (also known as a lift-out quote) is a quotation or excerpt from an article that is typically placed in a larger or distinctive typeface on the same page, serving to entice readers into an article or to highlight a key topic. I disagree that this is improper use of Cquote or again why aren't the other amendment which are very relevant allotted Cquote. Again why such aggressive policing of this amendment and not the same treatment afforded to the first and the third, fourth, fifth, sixth,...??? This isn't being decorative this is enticing the reader and drawing them to the main text as in the other amendment of the US constitution. I disagree this is for decorative reasons, it is for distinct text at the beginning of a section. So Bbb23 has one opinion my is opposing. Lets discuss with the community.--0pen$0urce (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I lean slightly towards preferring the pull quotes, but lean strongly against you edit warring in a change. Let's discuss this more thoroughly in order to thoroughly settle once and for all this matter which keeps coming up again and again. North8000 (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm through edit-warring and also through responding to Open. I've spent time on this before and it's a waste.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted Open on the change and felt that they were the one edit warring, not you. But I think that it would be good to, in some manner, place extra emphasis on the amendment itself.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As usual, your conduct is honest and professional. I'll let other editors weigh in on this issue if they wish, but it doesn't usually generate a lot of interest.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @0pen$0urce: "Enticing the reader and drawing them in" by highly selective quotation is a massive WP:NPOV problem, and one of the main reasons MOS eschews the style (I think MOS should outright ban it citing NPOV policy, but we'll see). Wikipedia is not journalism, and manipulative journo tricks like that are not appropriate in an encyclopedia, just like we do not use tantalizingly incomplete, "cliff-hanger" information in lead sections to hook readers, the way a journalistic lede does. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 09:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Should the Second Amendment main text use Cquote?
Closure: There is consensus against the use of Cquote template on this article. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  08:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

A minor disagreement has arisen regarding the use of Cquote formatting for the main text of the second amendment. A discussion is underway about if this is against guidelines.--0pen$0urce (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that there are two questions:
 * Is it against guidelines?
 * What shall we do here?
 * North8000 (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well stated, in this time I have read the guidelines a couple times, my humble interpretation is no, it does not go against guidelines. Or I wouldn't be pushing RFC to begin with.--0pen$0urce (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My opinion on #1 is that the MOS does not clearly "rule" either way on this but does seem to discourage it. It discourages it for blockquotes, and says that its main use is for pull quotes. So the question is, which situaiotn do we have here? I think it more likely to call this a block quote than a pull quote. My opinion on #2 is that I would like to find a way to further highlight what is considered to be THE the text of the amendment. We never really say that much less highlight it. The place with the text just gives two conflicting texts. But to me the cquotes are a large and outlandish-looking way of doing that. On way would be to simply put it in the lead. North8000 (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No cquote. North8000, it doesn't say its "main" use is for pull quotes, it says its use is for pull quotes. If anywhere says otherwise right this moment, it's because someone with an agenda has been altering template documentation, etc., again to favor decorative block quotes against long-standing consensus. The cquote template should not be used in articles for anything but pull quotes per MOS:QUOTE and the template's own documentation. Really, per MOS:ICONS (an applicable Manual of Style section) it probably should never be used in articles at all, because its cutesy, giant “ ” glyphs are a form of pure decoration. I've yet to ever see a legitimate, non-distracting, genuinely encyclopedic use of cquote in any Wikipedia article. Even without that template, pull quotes should virtually never be used in articles per WP:NOT – pull quotes are a journalistic, not encyclopedic style – and most importantly because they almost always violate WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE. The purpose desired here, of giving the actual text of the Second Amendment, is served with a block quotation or even a regular one (the 2A isn't long). If it's not already given in full in the article prose anyway, then it is  a pull quote, by definition (a quote pulled from the prose for special emphasis). Giving it in full in the prose serves the identified purpose, obviating any need for a pull quote, a reporter/columnist style that doesn't belong here. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 01:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * NO IMHO, cquotes have been misused in the Text section in many of the Articles and Amendments to the US Constitution. In many incidences an editor sees it used in one Article or Amendment and assumes it should be used in all others for consistency. While some articles do not have cquotes presently, they have in the past. According to WP:MOSQUOTE “Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the cquote template, which are reserved for pull quotes)”. Some editors have claimed that the text was “pulled” from the Constitution, but, in fact, the text is the Article or Amendment not a quote from it. A pull quote (also known as a lift-out quote) "is a quotation or excerpt from an article that is typically placed in a larger or distinctive typeface on the same page, serving to entice readers into an article or to highlight a key topic. The term is principally used in journalism and publishing" i.e. magazines, newspapers, and advertising. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and does not need “clowny” quotation marks to entice readers.Grahamboat (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No - I agree with everything said above, but the bigger issue is whether cquote is ever proper in Wikipedia. SMP0328. (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There have been many discussions about cquote vs. quote and why we even have a cquote template when we're not supposed to use it. There's one discussion in particular that I participated in some time ago, but I'm having trouble finding it at the moment, and it's getting late, so I have to get off. My vague recollection is there was no consensus on what should be done (big surprise).--Bbb23 (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, we've been running this for 3 1/2 weeks and it appears there is a strong consensus on question #1, that being to not use cquotes in this article. This has been a recurring question; I consider that this finally settles it unless overturned by another review of this extent. With that decided, I think there is no real remaining dispute on question #2  ("What shall we do here?")....it is just an open question,  and I'd recommend the normal talk process to work on that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, North8000, for taking the laboring oar and administrating this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. North8000 (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

NPOV in the Introduction
The article as presented takes a particular side in the gun debate, and in fact glosses over the gun debate entirely:
 * "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms . It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights."

The article introduction thus must be said to be written from a POV rather than NPOV. There are two main interpretations of the Second Amendment, and the gun debate largely stems from these interpretations. The ratified text of the Second Amendment reads:
 * "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Hence the two main interpretations are: I propose a rewrite of the article lead in keeping with NPOV, a rewrite which lays out these two general interpretations of the Second Amendment. While the information about recent court cases is interesting, I do not support bolstering the pro-gun side in this article, by referencing only recent court cases, and failing to reference the debate, its long history, and that debates' continued relevance. Instead of promoting one interpretation up front, we must first present the text of the Second Amendment, and afterwards we may then break down the two basic interpretations. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 18:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) There is a stated "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" that exists independently of all other principles and concepts.
 * 2) The stated "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" falls entirely within the concept of keeping "a well regulated Militia," a Militia that is "necessary" for keeping "the security of a free state."
 * Read District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. Chicago and this talk page's archives. This article reflects the current Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment, just like other Constitutional amendment articles reflect current Supreme Court interpretations of those amendments. SMP0328. (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a gun debate in the United States is there not? Why then present the issue as one-sided, according to only the whims of SCOTUS interpretation? -Stevertigo (t | c) 19:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the Supreme Court's opinion is the only one that has the force of law. This article reflects the officially recognized meaning of the Second Amendment, not what others want the amendment to mean. SMP0328. (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I might add that there are articles that address the "gun debate" in the U.S. See, for example, Gun politics in the United States. And although you (Steve) may not approve of the recent Supreme Court decisions on the second amendment, I wouldn't refer to them as "whims" but as the current definitive interpretation of the amendment.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been extensively discussed. This is a legal instrument, and what the Supreme court says is by definition the legal answer to that question. The other opinions are also covered (particularly in the historical sense before it was decided). North8000 (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the idea that we here at Wikipedia respect the "force of law," and we keep articles up to date with the latest in legal opinion. But legal opinions and interpretations can and do change - what matters for us is that we write articles with a wider scope of field. Our highest principle here is NPOV, not SCOTUSPOV. Hence, the proper way to deal with SCOTUSPOV is to give it only due weight, and to put its assertions in context as: "recent Supreme Court opinions state support for the concept of a right to bear arms" etc. Even though recent SCOTUS opinion states such, in a free society we are free to look at the Constitution itself, and read for ourselves whether the Constitution actually supports such a right: According to an honest reading it may not, and according to NPOV we are obliged to represent such views in balance. Again, NPOV is our prime directive, not SCOTUSPOV. -Stevertigo (t | c) 19:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: North8000 wrote: "This is a legal instrument..." - Actually this is an encyclopedic instrument, not a legal one. -Stevertigo (t | c) 19:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * By "legal instrument" I meant the second amendment. And on a matter of law, (which this is) SCOTUS does not opine on the legal meaning, it defines it; i.e. what it says is by definition the legal meaning. North8000 (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. But I'm not talking about the Second Amendment, I'm talking about how we present it and its varied interpretations in this article. Clearly SCOTUSPOV factors in prominently. But NPOV demands we be fair to other interpretations. Same with for example, abortion - we don't write an article about abortion in the US solely deferring to Roe v. Wade: We also have to note that there are good honest people who disagree entirely with Roe v. Wade and actively seek to overturn it. -Stevertigo (t | c) 20:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But Roe V Wade did not define the meaning of an amendment. North8000 (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Second Amendment had a "meaning" when it was written did it not? And it had a "meaning" ten minutes before McDonald v Chicago, did it not? If we are to talk at all about "meaning" we must address the Second Amendment's "meaning" over its life of 200+years, not just the last three. -Stevertigo (t | c) 20:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Prior to Heller the legal meaning with respect to the question in your original post was an unresolved question, now it no longer is. North8000 (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The law is always in a state of construction and refinement. Its meaning is not as clear cut as the pro-gun lobby would like us to think. Do you no longer wish to discuss improving this article? -Stevertigo (t | c) 20:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You brought up something you felt would improve the article. Several of us have rejected your proposal and your reasoning. As an aside, there is already in the article a fair amount of history on the second amendment and its meaning by different scholars, different justices, and different cases. I see no encyclopedic basis for expanding the article (already too bloated in my view) in the way you've suggested.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It was my intent here to raise an issue of improving the article in accord with NPOV. Do you disagree with NPOV and what it means? -Stevertigo (t | c) 20:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I disagree with your claim that wp:nopv supports the changes that you prefer. North8000 (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not so respectfully, you (Steve) need to learn how to discuss issues without resorting to loaded, baseless, cross-examination-like questions.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, at the very least, the article needs to frame the recent court opinions as 'recent court opinions.' I understand that recent decisions frame the current law of the land. Still its wrong to approach a topic open to interpretation with only one interpretation. Stevertigo (t | c) 21:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that the statement that you are taking issue with is directly quoted from the amendment itself! So you are saying the exact wording of the amendment is a POV statement about what the amendment means?!?! Or, to put it another way, you are saying that the amendment directly states and supports what you are calling the position of the "gun lobby". :-) North8000 (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your question. Both interpretations 1 and 2 directly quote the amendment. One does so in limited context: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," the other does so in full context: "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: I just read your questions again. I am only taking issue with one thing - the default usage of recent Supreme Court cases to trump any issue of debate regarding the interpretation of the Second Amendment. We owe it to our readers to present a more balanced view, one which gives some regard to its long and debated history, and the two basic ways one can interpret the original text. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, what would you change in the edit, keeping in mind that you need to avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to a minority view which also breaches NPOV? This isn't the gun control debate article, this is the 2nd Amendment article, so it focuses on what that means which is determined by court rulings. Ravensfire ( talk ) 22:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict, responding only to previous post. So to briefly sum up, what I'm saying is that it's a legal instrument, and the legal meaning of that legal instrument (with respect to the debate that you are discussing) has been settled by the body with ultimate authority for determining it. Controversies should be noted, particularly in the historical sense. Take for example the nineteenth amendment giving women the right to vote. The amendment was/is claimed by some to be invalid. The article covers that claim, and how the court ruled on it. This article does the same, and gives much more space to the claims that it doesn't grant an individual right.  Despite this, it's not considered to be POV to say that the 19th amendment gave women the right to vote in the lead. North8000 (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate both of your comments and questions (Ravensfire and North8000). In short I think the best way to answer your requests is to edit the article itself to show what I think the article intro should read. In short, the article should show the actual amendment text prominently - something we can do in cases like this where the actual text (the text which is the subject of the article) is quite short and to the point.

We then move on to issues of interpretation - it is of course valid to do as in the current version to feature recent SCOTUS opinion prominently, but I think its important to put these opinions in context as "recent court opinions". The issue with featuring SCOTUS opinion upfront is that it not only trumps the issue of the gun debates, but fails to explain the context of those debates - that part of the debate flows directly from differences in the interpretation of the amendment itself. Im not clear about how to introduce the gun debate here in a way which would not solicit the ire of good folks here, particularly if those good folks for some reason think the debates are over or are else settled somehow. But what I can do is implement the first two changes noted above, leaving the interpretation context for later, and those would go a long way toward answering the needs of this article. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 20:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the better course of action for you to place your proposed material in Gun politics in the United States. This article meant to show the amendment's official meaning. The official meaning of any Constitutional provision is determined by SCOTUS, even though SCOTUS may change that meaning occasionally. SMP0328. (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I also think that if Steve wants to make any changes along the lines he's suggesting to this article, he should put them on the Talk page first because it's highly likely they will be reverted if put in the article itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I have edited the article in accord with the plan I have laid out above, and the edited version can be seen here. PS: Here is the diff. Note that per the BRD concept, I understood that I would probably be reverted and that we would naturally discuss my edits here.

As an aside, when I first came here to this article, I realized that it would naturally attract a strong following from editors with pro-gun and gun rights views, and that it may be difficult to separate them from an indeliberate agenda to render the article in accord with pro-gun concepts. However I am also been editing here for about a decade, and I know that even the most entrenched POV editors can come around, given a good faith approach that respects the intelligence of all involved. In the case that I am in fact dealing with pro-gun editors here, I would encourage these editors to separate their activism from their editing. NPOV is our highest principle - not a particular political agenda. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand that you want to drastically reduce the article, but you pulled out a dull machete, not a sharp knife. Your edit, frankly, left the page in an awful state that looks terrible.  References.  Categories.  Inter-wiki links.  See also.  Chopped.  For that reason alone I reverted your edits.  You might consider working in a user sandbox rather than here, especially given you know what the reaction would be.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 22:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm assuming he's screwing up the article inadvertently, but doesn't he even look at the article after his edit? He keeps doing it, too. Now, I'm just using rollback rather than undoing with an explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * {{WP:NPOV|neutrality]] does not require us to reflect to accept the majority decision of the SCOTUS as definitive. Why not just state what the amendment says?  TFD (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but I don't understand what you're saying.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He's agreeing with me in principle that we give due weight, not undue weight to current SCOTUS opinion. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Note I apologise for the errors visible in this edit, I did not intend to cut large sections from the article. Either this happened as a result of an error in the cut and paste function, or as a problem with my wifi. Regards - Stevertigo (t | c) 22:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Stevertigo, please refrain from making personal attacks. The articles related to gun poliitics have many interested editors, some of whom may hold strong personal opinions on either extreme, but all of whom are assumed to be able to set their views aside for the purpose of improving the article.
 * As far as I can see, no one has disagreed with you based on POV; they have tried to explain that, in the United States, the Supreme Court is the body which interprets the constitution. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms. I think it is important to capture the different viewpoints which existed before and even after that decision, but those viewpoints should have very little weight compared to the Supreme Court decision. At most, we should add a mention of the earlier debate to the end of the lede. Celestra (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) In no way can my comments be interpreted or characterized as a "personal attack." 2) How little weight is very little? 3) It seems at least you agree that some mention of the gun debate belongs in the lede. -Stevertigo (t | c) 07:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It is difficult to see how they might be interpreted otherwise; you accused your fellow editors, en masse, of being "POV editors" and having agendas. Please assume that all of the editors are interested in producing the best article possible and merely disagree with you on how to accomplish that. Celestra (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes
The link to my proposed edit is here and the diff is here, and the full text with changes underlined is below. As part of the BRD cycle my changes to the article were reverted, thus bringing us to the discussion stage. The edited version reads:


 * The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that deals with the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The full text of the amendment as passed by Congress reads:
 * "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


 * In the United States there has been an ongoing debate on the issue of firearms, and there has been a historical debate over the way the Second Amendment has been interpreted —either the Second Amendment asserts an unqualified and unlimited right to bear arms, or else the above stated right to bear arms exists only in the context of a regulated militia that serves to ensure national security. Gun rights advocates have naturally promoted the first view, while gun control advocates have promoted the second.

Regards to all, -Stevertigo (t | c) 07:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Explanation of the above edits:
 * 1) To say that the provision protects the right to bear arms is presumptuous, given that support for this view cites Supreme Court opinions only 4 and 2 years old, almost 250 years after the Second Amendment was crafted. It may be fair to say that the issue is 'finally settled', but we don't write articles that ignore nearly 250 years of interpretation and legal debate. The NPOV way to deal with these kinds of introductions is simply to state that the amendment 'deals with' or 'pertains to' the issue of gun rights, etc.
 * 2) Including the full text of the Second Amendment in the lede only makes sense. Why keep the current version, which jumps over even the actual amendment text, to mention tediously recent court opinion?
 * 3) Including a short treatment of the role of the Second Amendment in the overall gun debate only makes sense. It may be that the version we agree on will put this treatment after the part dealing with recent court opinion, but it is clear I think that some treatment of the gun debate is necessary.


 * Several different people have tried to explain the role of the Supreme Court. The fact that the Supreme Court made those interpretations recently does not remove the history, but it does determine the actual meaning today. I feel the article's lede is better, and more neutral, if we state that up front rather than using weasel words to obscure the fact. Examine the ledes of the other articles in the Bil of Rights, you will find assertions of "protect" and "prohibit" in most.
 * While you are examining those ledes, you will find no cases where the text is included. The lede is the place to tell the reader what the article is about, not to present raw data.
 * I think it inappropriate to drag the larger debate into the lede. The Second Amendment had been a factor in those ongoing debates, not the other way around. Mentioning the fact that people disagreed about the meaning prior to the decisions is different than rehashing the larger debate here, especially in the lede.
 * Regards, Celestra (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Celestra, I'm fine with stating the recent SCOTUS interpretation upfront, but does it really have to be first thing one sees after the introductory sentence? And on the matter of putting things upfront, why not put the actual amendment text upfront, where the reader can quickly see for themselves what the subject is about? The amendment is rather nice and short, and given its longevity, we might even regard it as well-written! I'm a firm believer in putting our best upfront and forward. Just because other amendment articles do not do this (this amendment is rather nice and short) there is no rule saying that we shouldn't put the actual text upfront. What's more is this article has had some notably long history of differing interpretation, I think pro-gun editors here tend toward wanting to make an end-run around these prominent differences and debates. Its not an NPOV way of approaching a subject of controversy.
 * In your previous comment you supported the idea of including some kind of treatment of the gun debate, at least toward the end of the lede. This is something we appeared to agree on. Are you reconsidering this view? You say now: "I think it inappropriate to drag the larger debate into the lede. The Second Amendment had been a factor in those ongoing debates, not the other way around." This actually doesn't appear to make sense: Just because the debates came second doesnt mean that we don't state here how seminal and fundamental the amendment text has been to the resulting long-standing debates. Its like pro-gun editors here want us to believe these debates are now long-resolved, just months after the recent published opinions. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Stevertigo, I make a distinction between remarking on the disagreement about the meaning of this amendment and discussing the broader gun rights/gun control debate. We have sections devoted to the disagreement, so it is not unreasonable to mention in the lede. We do not have sections devoted to "role of the Second Amendment in the overall gun debate." I do not feel that would be appropriate.
 * You continue to present the problem as one of a NPOV editor trying to correct for the undue bias pro-gun editors have injected, but I think that is not a fair assessment of the current lede. It would be distorting the facts to the benefit of the gun control POV to obscure the basic fact that the amendment means what the branch of the government enpowered to interpret it says it means. We should not include assertions that try to extend that interpretation, nor should we try to make it seem less. In my opinion, the lede begins with the correct generalization and includes text that some log-standing restrictions were not unconstitutional. That seems neutral to me.
 * The "let's just put the raw data out there and let the reader decide for themselves" approach is not an NPOV approach. It is weighted against the conventional interpretation by elevating the reader's interpretation above that of the mainstream. We should not do that. If you'd like to propose some text to add to the end of the lede, we can discuss that, but I think there is a total lack of consensus for either softening reality in the first sentence or inserting the text into the lede. Celestra (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The actual amendment text is not "raw data" - it is clearly and eloquently written language, which according to one view states explicitly that there is a right to bear arms. It is the actual text, roughly 250 years old, which millions of people down the generations have read since our country was founded. Its also blessedly short, and supposedly speaks for itself. So its rather unlikely that people should find it unpalatable to feature it prominently here. (We can talk about the other issues after we deal with this one). It is an NPOV approach, and your comment that the straight shooter approach..
 * "is weighted against the conventional interpretation by elevating the reader's interpretation above that of the mainstream"
 * ..can only be called "silly" - your view seeks to promote a particular interpretation which you fear the reader might not get from the actual Constitutional amendment text. -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Half right; I am afraid that we would mislead the reader if we were to do as you suggest. Celestra (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For several reasons, I don't think the full text belongs in the lead. First is sheer consistency - all of the other Bill of Rights articles have the text as the first section after the lead. Second is the purpose of the lead. It should provide an introduction to the topic. That doesn't need nor is improved by the full text. Put a basic, straight-forward language description of the amendment then explain the major supreme court decisions interpreting the amendment. It's consistent with the other BoR amendment articles and very straight forward. Ravensfire ( talk ) 04:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * How then to deal with the fact that this amendment's meaning, according to editors above, has been in a state of flux until only a couple years ago? Its also not unlikely that if the 5-4 balance in the Supreme Court is overturned, the recent SCOTUS opinions might be overturned as well, hence would we write the article in accord with the gun control perspective, ignoring the long history of gun rights support? -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If the SC decision is overturned, the article gets edited, just like every other article. The history goes in the body. We write the article, like every other article, in accord with the current view. Here, that means the current prevailing SC decision(s). We don't pull out the WP:CRYSTALBALL and guess the future. Say here's what it is and where it came from. Ravensfire ( talk ) 05:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The Amendment that gave women the right to vote was challenged as being invalid, and SCOTUS ruled that it was valid. By the reasoning of the proposal, we should note the alternate view (that it is invalid and women don't have the right to vote) in the lead of the article on that amendment! North8000 (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The lead is NPOV as is. Adding “Gun rights advocates promote unqualified and unlimited right to bear arms” is POV. In light of Heller, the “ongoing debate” issue has been relegated to inconsequential status, since SCOTUS interpreted the meaning of the second amendment, and therefore does not belong in the lead. Grahamboat (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Along with North8000's excellent example, there's the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments. There are editors who would add claims to the former article that the amendment's ratification was invalid, but, since those claims have been resolved by the federal courts (including SCOTUS) as being invalid, the latter article was created so those claims could be expressed in the proper context. In this case, Gun politics in the United States in the proper article for Stevertigo. SMP0328. (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent addition & deletion regarding dicta
This involves the following statement; the part before the comma as in the article, the part after the comma was added and reverted:


 * "Additionally, the Court enumerated several longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession that it found were consistent with the Second Amendment, however these were in the form of non binding dicta."

I believe that I wrote the part before the comma. It is possible that my "found" is an overreach, and that the reverted addition merely took the edge off of my overreach. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Many lower federal courts treat that part of Heller as binding. It's reasonable to consider it dicta, but it's OR to have an editor declare it to be dicta. SMP0328. (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For reference, SMP0328. wrote most of that, although Bbb23 changed SMP's "felt" to a more judicial sounding, if less accurate, "found". Celestra (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should switch back to "felt" or "noted"? North8000 (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How about just saying "Additionally, the Court enumerated several longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession which are consistent with the Second Amendment." Celestra (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that what actually happened was them signalling or indicating that the Heller decision should not be construed as categorically invalidating all restrictions, and particularly so for the enumerated examples. North8000 (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's truly dicta, certainly some citable source, such as a law review article, has made the point. If not, we have no business characterizing it as dicta. Don't we have any law student editors with free access to Lexis or Westlaw who can check it out? TJRC (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The cited source says it's dicta. Isn't that good enough? Also, the source says "stated" rather than "found" ("felt" is not something we should use). But I'd avoid that and just say: "Additionally, the Court enumerated several longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession that were consistent with the Second Amendment, although in dicta." "Non-binding" is redundant. "In the form of" is unnecessarily wordy.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out a source for "dicta". As for what to put in the Introduction, here's my proposal: In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment. SMP0328. (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. SMP0328. (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I hate to quibble, but they didn't say that. They said that this decision should not be construed as being against such provisions, I don't think that they made a statement about their overall compliance with 2A. North8000 (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What would Wikipedia be without quibbling? :-) Who's "they"? Are you talking about the cited source for the material, or are you talking about the court opinion?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I wrote the above before I looked at the recent changes to the article. I don't agree with the language now in the article. The "unaffected by the Court's decision" is truly odd, but more important, it is not source-compliant. The source says "However, the Court specifically stated (albeit in dicta) that the Second Amendment did not limit prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, penalties for carrying firearms in schools and government buildings, or laws regulating the sales of guns." That's the source's interpretation of a finding by the court, even if it was an unnecessary finding (dicta). If we're going to argue the cited source is incorrect based on the decision itself (which I haven't revisited), then we have to do this in a different way, but we can't make an assertion, cite a source, and then distort what the source says based on our interpretation of the decision itself. That's clearly OR and also a misuse of primary sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I clarified that sentence so now it expressly states that Heller did not affect the "constitutionality" of those restrictions and prohibitions. SMP0328. (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought your original wording was better, but your latest change is at least more acceptable than the version before it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Y'all have a wikipoint. We have a source which is a primary source, but actually is more than that because it is definitive and creates the reality which the others are talking about. And regarding that, it says (only) that nothing in this ruling affects those enumerated prohibitions. And we have a high quality secondary source which says that their dicta was that those enumerated provision are consistent with the 2A. I think that by wiki-rules the secondary source should prevail, even though it makes a statement that IMHO is in error. So I will revert myself in that area unless / until we find more sourcing to clear it up. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yet one more example of North8000's graciousness. Much appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks North8000. Hopefully, this issue is now resolved. SMP0328. (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we're settled. Long term I plan to keep my eyes open for more material regarding this.  North8000 (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Note on Precedent
Because the article leads with recent rulings, I would like to provide some additional context. I propose the following text:

These 21st Century decisions represent a departure from established precedent, and were the first major rulings on the 2nd Amendment since the Supreme Court held that a sawed-off shotgun did not qualify as a militia weapon.

When I added this text, North8000 reverted the edit, saying: "Numeorus problems. Implausible opinion stated as fact in the voice of wikipedia. Unsourced....source merely said that some had that opinion. Also, such would be undue for the lead.)" This is both incorrect and baseless opinion.

The addition is 1) not unsourced 2) not implausible opinion and 3) arguably quite relevant for the lead as it is additional detail directly relevant to material already in the lead, but not overly verbose. The addition is sourced to the dissenting opinion from the 5-4 supreme court ruling, quoted in the new york times, and to a pulitzer-prize winning historian. Inijones (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The citations I provided contained the following quotations:

[1] "In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens took vigorous issue with Justice Scalia’s assertion that it was the Second Amendment that had enshrined the individual right to own a gun. Rather, it was 'today’s law-changing decision' that bestowed the right and created 'a dramatic upheaval in the law,' Justice Stevens said in a dissent joined by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer. Justice Breyer, also speaking for the others, filed a separate dissenting opinion... Justice Stevens said the majority opinion was based on 'a strained and unpersuasive reading' of the text and history of the Second Amendment..." from: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotuscnd.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp&adxnnlx=1214566644-y9NRsbBuErVCPyegbU0ryg

and

[2]

"There has been only one significant Second Amendment case decided by the Supreme Court -- United States v. Miller, in 1939, where the National Firearms Act was upheld against a man who claimed that the amendment allowed him to keep and bear a sawed-off shotgun. The Court declared that a sawed-off shotgun is not a militia weapon."Inijones (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

from :Garry Wills, A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government, Simon and Schuster, 1999, page 252


 * Trying to put all of the issues into an edit summary can make some of them unclear. To expand and clarify a bit:


 * The "represent a departure from established precedent" has many significant problems. First there is no sourcing that indicates that even the minority dissenting opinion said that (that doesn't come from "law-changing" which is what the Supreme court rulings routinely do.) Second, that mis-summarization was put in as fact in the voice of Wikipedia.  Even if the material were modified so as to be an accurate summarization of the minority opinion, it would need to be stated as such, not as fact. If all of the above were fixed, it would still be questionable (but debatable) whether or not including a dissenting opinion for a Supreme Court decision is undue for the lead of the top level 2A article.


 * Regarding sourcing, the core statement misses by the same two points plus a third which the others render temporarily moot. The summary does not match the source even on what the minority opinion was, and even if it did, the source merely says what the minority opinion was, not that such is fact. If it did attempt that, (which it didn't) such would be a very implausible assertion and certainly not sufficient sourcing for putting such an implausible assertion in as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with North8000. I would also add that this looks like a backdoor attempt to criticize the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment and has no place in the lead.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The entire second paragraph is about these 21st century rulings. The dissenting opinion is part of these rulings. Perhaps the entire second paragraph should be moved somewhere else, perhaps given its own section, such that the note about the dissenting opinion can be included (though I think such a decision would be somewhat extreme, given that it is simpler to include my proposed addition). Given that the ruling was 5-4, the dissenting opinion is not a marginal view. "All published opinions except Per Curiam decisions may be used as precedent in future litigation" http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_types_of_written_opinions_may_the_US_Supreme_Court_issue
 * The New York Times Article I cites continues: "For decades, the overwhelming majority of courts and commentators regarded the Miller decision as having rejected the individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment. That understanding of the 'virtually unreasoned case' was mistaken, Justice Scalia said Thursday. He said the Miller decision meant 'only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.' Justice Stevens said the majority’s understanding of the Miller decision was not only 'simply wrong,' but also reflected a lack of 'respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on the court, and for the rule of law itself.' I am not mis-representing the secondary source's characterization of the dissenting opinion. Your statement that "The summary does not match the source even on what the minority opinion was" is incorrect, just as your initial characterization of my addition as "Unsourced" was incorrect.
 * Nelson Lund of the George Mason University School of Law says of Heller that "the Justices were confronted with only one significant Supreme Court precedent, an eight page opinion in United States v. Miller." Miller is the case I cited in my second citation. Given that the Supreme Court dissenting opinion claims the Heller decision is a "law changing" "dramatic upheaval" of the "one significant...precedent" I don't think it is a stretch to make the modest claim that this decisions represents a departure from precedent. See this link for more detail http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=1235537
 * It doesn't matter whether you accept the secondary source I provided as factual. The statement is verifiable, is from a secondary source (not original research), and is not editorializing on my part. The statement also come from reliable sources. The statement meets Wikipedia guidelines. Inijones (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't care much what Wiki Answers says. A dissent is a dissent and has little if any precedential value. It can be cited and is cited, but that doesn't mean it binds anyone. If you want to add something, it would have to be added to the right section of the article, either under commentary or in a discussion of the S. Ct. cases. And, even then, it would have to be sufficiently relevant to be included. Sourcing is just the first part. It has to be appropriate for the article and for its placement in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You haven't addressed the substance of my reply; perhaps you would be amenable to the solution I proposed in point 1 above.Inijones (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm short of time at the moment but to correct one point I did not say that there was no source given, I said that the given sourcing did not substantiate the statement. And the weakest point regarding this and of the statement itself was stating a minority opinion as fact, and doing so in the voice of Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is incorrect that the given sourcing does not substantiate the claim, as the additional quotation I provided in point 2 makes more explicit. It is not my fault that you didn't read the source I provided before you rejected it. And you did say in your initial note reversing my edit that the claim was "Unsourced....source merely said that some had that opinion" Inijones (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My points were consistent, even if harder to understand in the edit summary due to being so brief. The sourcing only showed that the minority opinion was such. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As noted in point 2 above, the New York Times secondary source article I initially cited indicates that "For decades, the overwhelming majority of courts and commentators regarded the Miller decision as having rejected the individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment." This statement is not sourced to an individual justice or a specific judicial opinion, but is stated by the New York Times, a reliable source, as fact.Inijones (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That opinion does not mean that it can be stated as fact in the voice of Wikipedia, doubly so for being in the lead. Please stop trying to war it in. that way. Attributed and in the body of the article IMO would be OK. North8000 (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It is stated as fact in the New York Times article I cited above. Again, your characterization of my addition is incorrect. The addition is directly relevant to material already present in that paragraph; as I noted above the entire paragraph is dedicated to these 21st century rulings, and the exclusion of this one statement, which meets Wikipedia standards, is arbitrary. Perhaps you would be amenable to the solution I proposed in point 1 above, that the entire paragraph be moved elsewhere. I will be seeking outside assistance for the resolution of this dispute.Inijones (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Putting the newspaper's assertion into the body of the article with attribution (e.g. according to xxxx of the New York Times, xxxxxxxxxxxxx) with more specifics is about all that would be appropriate. North8000 talk) 16:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You are trying to elevate a highly controversial opinion by a newspaper inappropriately at least two levels above what it is due:
 * First by stating it as fact in the voice of Wikipedia.
 * Second by trying to put in the lead of the top level 2nd amendment article. One newspaper's opinion about one (key) court decision regarding the amendment does not belong in the lead. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have corroborated the newspaper's statement with a pulitzer prize winning historian in my original edit and with a law professor from george mason university in point 3 above. The dissenting judges in the split decision also hold that view. I'm sorry you don't accept this as fact, but on Wikipedia, your personal preference isn't the criterion for including a statement.
 * If it is appropriate to emphasize these rulings in the lead, why should this facet of the rulings be omitted? If this facet of the ruling does not belong in the lead, it calls into question whether the entire paragraph belongs in the lead. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to move the entire paragraph elsewhere into the body, as I suggested in point 1 above, which I reiterated to user Bbb23 above, and which I again suggested to you just above at 15:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC).


 * My alternative suggestion has not been addressed and I have demonstrated most of your objections to be mistaken (statement was not unsourced, it was not true that the source does not substantiate the claim, and your characterization of the statement as "One newspaper's opinion about one (key) court decision regarding the amendment" is an inaccurate characterization of the position, as I have demonstrated).Inijones (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There are zillions of published opinions regarding the Supreme Court ruling. It does not follow that putting the Supreme Court ruling into the lead means that one of those many published opinions about it (selected by you) should be in the lead. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with North & Bbb - the reference to the minority opinion does not belong in the lead as it is not significant enough to warrant inclusion in the lead and seems to slant towards POV.Grahamboat (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Outdent- I believe we need a consensus before changing the lead.Grahamboat (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The hangup with my initial edit seems to be over my characterization of "precedent."


 * When I posted a modified compromise addition excluding any discussion of "precedent" my addition was rejected on the grounds that discussion of the 1939 Miller case "does not make sense in the lead and does not belong in the lead" though no reason was given for why the statement didn't make sense. As I pointed out, the second paragraph of the lead is dedicated to significant Supreme Court cases, and it is consistent to bring in mention of a third, significant case.
 * When I moved to implement my third choice, initially mentioned in point 1 above and reiterated several times without comment or objection -- moving the text in question in an unmodified form from the lead to the relevant sections, my edit was again reverted.
 * Why does it make sense to mention Heller and McDonald in the lead, but not Miller? Inijones (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's hard to have a conversation with you because there is a consistent pattern of you keep trying to hammer problematic edits into the lead to denigrate the major "individual right" decisions. And, with all due respect, your questions / comments seem somewhat manipulative trying to work towards that end. This most recent question is an example. While the question of whether anything on Miller belongs in the lead (Miller dealing with only a much narrower issue) is certainly legitimate, you are implying that it was the main question regarding your insertion, whereas IMHO your insertion was again done in a way along the lines of what I described in the first paragraph of this post, and with similar wiki-problems as the previous insertions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You characterize my edits as trying to "denigrate the major 'individual rights' decisions." That's your interpretation of what I'm doing. You are right to imply that there is controversy regarding the decision, but that controversy cuts both ways.
 * Your characterization of my insertion at the beginning of this post made the following points:
 * "First there is no sourcing that indicates that even the minority dissenting opinion said that" I believe this is inaccurate as I noted in point 2 above as well as at 03:23, 30 April 2012 above.
 * You characterize my edit as an "implausible assertion" but that is your POV. As I noted in point 5 above, I corroborated this implication from a reliable source with similar statements from other reliable sources.
 * The problems you pointed out at the top of this post do not apply to my most recent edit, as I took out the offending material under the guidance of a moderator.
 * You accuse me of being manipulative; I am just arguing for the inclusion of a single statement that meets WikiPedia guidelines and which I have modified subsequent to receiving feedback from a moderator. If the implication is that I am not acting in good faith, I would point out that I could levy the same accusation against you and your conduct. For example, when I was trying to formulate a conservative position towards the relevance of the ratification debate back in December, and I cited Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist #25, as cautioning that "feeble government" is unlikely to be respected, you dismissed Hamilton's position as being "one person arguing for a non-feeble government." That is kind of absurd. You are hard to talk to too, but I am trying to defend my simple edit methodologically and you repeatedly mis-characterize my statements and avoid addressing the substance of my claims.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&oldid=465658465#Ratification_debate_and_its_purpose
 * You acknowledge that "While the question of whether anything on Miller belongs in the lead (Miller dealing with only a much narrower issue) is certainly legitimate." Why not address the question that prompted your most recent reply:
 * The entire second paragraph is about Supreme Court cases. If Heller and McDonald fit into the lead, why doesn't Miller? If Miller should be removed, why not remove Heller and McDonald to the appropriate sections in the body of the article? (unsigned comment by Inijones)


 * I have high hopes because you exhibit much more than most of what's needed for discussion on a high plane. But you continue the same stuff.   On you point #9 you completely omitted the operative part of my statement (that it does not even address much less refute "potential check against tyranny" being one of the reasons for the 2A. )  and substituted a straw man operative statement that I never made (a gemeral denigration of Hamilton's position by me)).   North8000 (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Inijones - By moving the text in question to the District of Columbia v. Heller heading you caused McDonald v. Chicago to appear as part of the introduction. This didn’t make sense so I reverted. I think a consensus is needed before making these changes. Most of us believe Heller belongs in the lead because it defines the law – Miller does not. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Miller was ambiguous as both sides claimed victory. Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the U.S. Supreme Court so there was no counter argument. The case revolved around the weapon itself rather than an individual or collective right.Grahamboat (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I did initially move the "McDonald v. Chicago" text into the wrong header, but I corrected that before you reversed my edit. If that is your reason for reversing my edit, you are mistaken. one person arguing for a non-feeble government


 * If "Miller was ambiguous as both sides claimed victory" that seems like grounds for everybody to agree to include it.
 * So I ask again: the entire second paragraph is about Supreme Court cases. If Heller and McDonald fit into the lead, why doesn't Miller? If Miller should be removed, why not remove Heller and McDonald to the appropriate sections in the body of the article? Inijones (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph is not about Supreme Court cases per say - it is about the cases that count. Heller defines what the 2nd A. means. The fact that there were dissenting opinions bears no legal weight. Miller was a vague case, without counter argument, that did not resolve the central question of collective verses individual rights. In order to reach a consensus of the other editors here you have to present other (new) arguments than you already have. I suggest that you reread the “Outside opinion” you requested.Grahamboat (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Uninvolved editor here (saw this at Dispute resolution noticeboard). I read all of the above arguments and checked selected citations, and I am with North8000 on this one. We cannot state a minority opinion as if it was a fact, and in particular we cannot do so in the voice of Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Guy, the note about the dissenting opinion was omitted from a more recent edit under the guidance of a moderator. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&oldid=490126109
 * What I am trying to determine at this point is why two supreme court cases CAN go in the lead, but not another one. Nobody will address that clearly.  The closest I've seen is that Grahamboat says Miller doesn't "count" even though it is still in effect and I have cited numerous sources indicating it was the last significant case prior to Heller and McDonald.  If Grahamboat wants to exclude it on the grounds that it doesn't "count" that sounds like POV.  There also seems to be an underlying assumption here that doing nothing is inherently POV neutral. Inijones (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That question is on a completely different topic than what you have been trying to do in the lead, (and as such, is vague and hypothetical) yet you are implying that they are related.  You have not proposed any edits that involve merely including Miller in the lead, without the other issues of your attempted insertions.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Asked and answered three times already, and not particularly relevant to the question at hand. I see no point in answering your question a fourth time when other editors have already answered it mulltiple times. The problem is that you don't accept the answers. Asking again will not change that.
 * So I have a question for you; after many arguments posted here and at Dispute resolution noticeboard, have you been able to convince a single Wikipedia editor to support the changes you want to make to this article? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe you misunderstood my comment about Miller not “counting”. I was referring to its importance in the lead. The Miller challenge was about whether a particular type of weapon, restricted under NFA, violated 2A. As such it was a minor and somewhat narrow 2A ruling because it did not explore the broad meaning of the 2A as Heller and McDonald did. You keep bring back the same arguments and yet somehow you expect a different outcome.Grahamboat (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Court material added by Liko81 and then reverted
This was a bit hard to understand. Could someone clarify the reasons for addition or deletion? Is this good materiel for the article? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He added two cases. As my summary stated, one had no cites in support of it, and the other was a pending appeal (and also had no cites). I reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Summary of incident
INITIAL INCIDENT

I sought to contribute a statement that made two basic claims about the Supreme Court cases mentioned in the lead of the 2nd Amendment article: 1) that "These 21st Century decisions represent a departure from established precedent," and that 2) these same cases "were the first major rulings on the 2nd Amendment since the Supreme Court held that a sawed-off shotgun did not qualify as a militia weapon" [in the Miller case]. Each claim was supported by a verifiable, reliable source that substantiated the claims. The statement, however, was initially rejected as "unsourced." When I re-instated my edit, pointing out that the reason for rejecting it was incorrect, and that the statement was substantiated by the "dissenting opinion in the 5-4 ruling as quoted in the new york times, and the second cite was from a book by a pulitzer-prize winning historian," the statement was rejected again because I "didn't address the actual noted issues."

At this point, I felt my position was not adequately addressed, and would benefit from the additional perspective of a third party moderator, so, after attempting to argue my edit, I sought informal assistance.

INITIAL INTERACTIONS WITH MODERATOR

TransporterMan, the editor who first stepped in to moderate the discussion focused his assessment of the situation on my text about the dissenting opinion from Heller. I removed that under his advice. His assessment struck me as reasonable and in good faith, so I modified my edit to exclude any claim pertaining to the dissenting opinion.

I then attempted, instead, to include a factual statement indicating the year of the Miller case and the content of the finding. In his first post, TransporterMan had ALREADY said that this second half my initial edit was "relatively accurate and harmless."

I did not after that point pursue any effort to include anything about the dissenting opinion, and attempted to include only that portion of my initial edit that was assessed as "relatively accurate and harmless." My behavior was not vandalism.

ONLY OPPORTUNITY TO COMPROMISE BASED ON FEEDBACK FROM MODERATOR

Based on TransponderMan's assessment of my edit, which seemed oriented towards explaining to me the resistance I encountered with North8000, I added to the page my modified edit about the year of the Miller case and the case's finding. I made this edit as a compromise approached through informal means. The citation I provided (and, additional citations provided on the talk page) supported the claim that Miller was the most significant Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd Amendment prior to Heller and McDonald. The moderator understood this claim to be essentially "accurate." The entire second paragraph of the lead is already about Supreme court cases; there are, in fact, relatively few Second Amendment cases, and Miller is a significant one, as I have shown. I've provided several sources indicating that Miller is significant, and even the TOC of the current article seems to back up this claim. It furthermore seems that Miller is already alluded to in the existing text of the lead, where several "longstanding" restrictions on firearm ownership are mentioned.

My modified compromise edit seemed like a reasonable and uncontroversial fact to insert by way of making a more well-rounded summary of Supreme Court case law already mentioned in the lead. If this factual statement is going to be excluded, perhaps no discussion of Supreme Court law whatsoever belongs in the lead, and any indication for it should be confined to the relevant sections within the body of the article.

CIRCUMSTANCES WHEREBY COMPROMISE WAS REJECTED

When I made this "accurate" compromise edit, it was STILL rejected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=490128328&oldid=490126109

The reason provided for reverting this edit didn't seem to take into account the fact that this edit was a modified compromise position. Grahamboat indicated that mentioning Miller "didn't make sense in the lead" -- without providing any explanation as to why.

This compromise statement was rejected despite the moderator's initial view that my characterization of McDonald and Heller as "the first major rulings on the 2nd Amendment since the Supreme Court held that a sawed-off shotgun did not qualify as a militia weapon" was "relatively accurate and harmless."

My contention at this point was that if Miller is excluded from the lead, the same logic can be used to ALSO exclude Heller and McDonald from the lead. If McDonald and Heller belong in the lead, there is no good reason to exclude Miller.

I therefore moved the existing text on Heller and McDonald -- unmodified -- from the second paragraph of the lead and inserted the text in the proper two subsections of the article that were already dedicated to those individual Supreme Court cases. I had mentioned this possibility several times -- as the least preferable outcome -- and it was never objected to previously.

When this next edit was also rejected, the reason given for reverting the edit was demonstrably false. In the talk page Grahamboat said that I made an error while moving the text, and suggested that this was his real reason for rejecting my edit. I caught the error within minutes and corrected it well before Grahamboat reverted the edit. Grahamboat has not offered a more descriptive reason for why he reversed my edit, nor responded to my claim about his false characterization of my edit.

Nobody stepped in with a "consensus" reason for reverting the edit (other than to suggest that "consensus" was needed to make any change). After I pointed out (twice) that the editor's note describing why the edit was reversed was false, nobody attempted to improve my "relatively accurate and harmless" contribution. This all could have ended with TransporterMan's first post. I am not the one stirring up trouble, and my actions are not "vandalism."

ADDITIONAL VIEWS EXPRESSED ON THE NOTICE BOARD LACKING MERIT

The most recent editor to chime in, Guy, lent an initial opinion without making note of the fact that I had modified my edit to represent a compromise position; to get a more useful assessment from Guy I took the initiative to re-iterate that I was now trying to understand why my "relatively accurate and harmless" (harmless to who, or WHAT... ideology?) subsequent edits were also being blocked. When I pointed this out, Guy said that the question of why Miller should be excluded from the lead while Heller and McDonald belong in the lead had already been answered. Since I had asked the question repeatedly and would obviously seem to have been missing something, it would have been helpful to hear what Guy understood the reason to be. Guy, however, declined to make a contribution that would have clarified or substantively helped resolve the terms of the disagreement as it stood at that point.

OTHER REASONS OFFERED FOR BLOCKING EDITS REPRESENT POV

North8000 had said the matter of including such a reference to Miller as I proposed or, alternately, removing the text on McDonald and Heller is a "legitimate" issue, but declined to address the merits of the issue any further than that, even though I repeatedly asked for more detail on that very point. Guy didn't address this while dismissing my concerns.

Some of the reasons Grahamboat has given for blocking my edits seem to indicate that he is exploiting the consensus policy to block ANY edits that don't conform to his POV, such as when he justified blocking my "relatively accurate and harmless" edit on the grounds that "The second paragraph is not about Supreme Court cases per say - it is about the cases that count." If the consensus is, as Grahamboat has stated it, that only Heller and McDonald "count" -- especially in such an unqualified manner -- I'd say the consensus has a POV problem. Nobody has put forth any more robust reasoning. I was cooperating and willing to split the difference under the guidance of the initial moderator TransporterMan, who offered a well-reasoned position and who was not dismissive of my concerns. The latest editor, Guy, did not address ANY of this in rendering his passing opinion, even when I pointed out to him that his initial opinion was NOT exactly relevant and indicated to him WHY.

Grahamboat has also suggested that McDonald and Heller "define" the law (or, in this case, it would seem, the Amendment), though I do not see how Miller is substantially different in that respect, nor how that doesn't entail the POV of a specific legal theory. An "Originalist," for example, might have a slightly different attitude towards what "defines" an amendment or a law or the scope of a law. Nor do I understand even why the second paragraph of the lead ought not be modified to serve as a more well-rounded summary of significant Supreme Court case law, especially since my modified edit makes no mention of the Heller controversy (although the existing text does promote this controversial material to the lead; my revised edit is "Heller controversy neutral" and, furthermore, may help improve the second paragraph by providing additional context that makes the lead look less like an endorsement of a single POV in the controversy or, by extension, an endorsement of a single legal philosophy).

PROPOSED REMEDIES

The article has now been protected due to "vandalism" it would seem because of my efforts to include a statement in the 2nd Amendment article, which "a native Texan" moderator initially characterized as "relatively accurate and harmless." I have been experiencing unreasonable resistance to a reasonable edit. I don't think there are grounds to consider my actions "vandalism" and I think, at a bare minimum, the page should be restored to the "unprotected" status it had previous to this dispute, so that other editors can contribute to the page (that is, if they are allowed to do so). I've been working this issue out through talk pages, and I am not a "vandalism" threat to this page.

The vandalism tag does seem to be in use to exclude discussion, as, since getting page protection, these editors have, instead of compromise with me, strengthened the controversial content of the lead.

Ideally, my compromise statement about the 1939 Miller case should also be included in the lea, as it is "relatively accurate and harmless." But since the editors have since strengthened the controversial character of the lead, I think the lead would be more neutral if the discussion of Supreme Court cases were removed from the lead altogether and placed under the appropriate subheadings in the body of the article. Inijones (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In the above rather lengthy diatribe, Inijones makes several comments about me, mostly accusations that I did not respond to his arguments about the content of this page. This lack of response was purposeful, because I have zero interest in and offer no opinion regarding the underlying content dispute. My only involvement (based on a specific request for an outside opinion Inijones himself made at the dispute resolution noticeboard) has been to read the arguments and to determine that the changes Inijones wishes to make are against Wikipedia's policies on consensus. I do not care about the actual content of the page. I am leaving that in the capable hands of the editors who are working on it. My interest is in Engineering-related articles. Asking for an outside opinion does not automatically make anyone who responds a party to the dispute. Also, asking a question repeatedly does not prove that there was something wrong with the answers or that further discussion is required. In this case, the repeated questions appear to be an example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You have presented a mischaracterization of the facts by cherry picking comments that favor your position and omitting those that don’t. You start by calling the TALK discussion an “incident”. You claim Grahamboat indicated that mentioning Miller "didn't make sense in the lead" -- "without providing any explanation as to why" but omit my reply - "The Miller challenge was about whether a particular type of weapon, restricted under NFA, violated 2A. As such it was a minor and somewhat narrow 2A ruling because it did not explore the broad meaning of the 2A as Heller and McDonald did". You state Grahamboat said that I made an error while moving the text I caught the error within minutes and corrected it well before Grahamboat reverted the edit but did not bother to notice that after your second change the District of Columbia v. Heller section incorrectly read "In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions". Your use of the terms "Heller controversy" and "legal theory" indicate, to me, you are trying to disparage the SCOTUS ruling in Heller. Regarding Miller; being "relatively accurate and harmless" are not grounds for inclusion in the lead. I did not see where any editor accused you of vandalism: it is paranoid to believe editors are conspiring against you by placing a  Page Protection (which I did not notice). You obviously do not understand what Page Protection is about.


 * In summary: you keep claiming that no one is addressing your issues and questions - which is not true. It is you who have not accepted their replies. You have not presented sufficient evidence to sway enough editors to a consensus on your views.Grahamboat (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Inijones IMHO you have repetitively ignored and/or misrepresented the answers that people have given you, then repeatedly claimed that answers weren't given. Then you throw this mountain of stuff (and put a copy of the whole thing at the notices board without saying that either was a copy) which IMHO is designed to obfuscate or misrepresent the core points of the discussion. This is really bad behavior against people who have taken a lot of time to give you those answers which you have been repeatedly ignoring, misrepresenting and claiming that you never got North8000 (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC).


 * Inijones appears to be trolling Wikipedia looking for support for his position and accusing editors on the article talk page of "tag teaming" him. I thought all discussions on this topic where to take place here or other formal dispute resolution pages.|see here Grahamboat (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, after doing all of that other stuff to other people here, why not add  forum shopping and canvassing to the list.  And what the heck, while canvassing, why not completely mis-represent what has been happening here.  North8000 (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Does Miller belong in the lead?
This is somewhat a continuation of the discussions above without the dissenting opinion (Precedent) and the ridiculous “incident” report.

I tried to be open minded: reviewing the other side because a Miller reference was at least debatable. I thought having the second paragraph start out with “sawed-off shotgun” was out of place. I tried rewording the text and came up with adding “such as upholding the National Firearms Act in United States v Miller (1939)” after “prohibitions and restrictions” in the second sentence of paragraph two. After all Miller was about acceptable restrictions to 2A. On further thought, I realized Miller was just one of numerous restrictions. It dealt with the WHAT i.e. machine guns, rifles and shotguns under 18” etc. Other laws: the Gun Control Act (1968) dealt with the WHO i.e. convicted felons, under aged etc: and still other laws dealt with the WHERE i.e. courtrooms, schools etc. SCOTUS wisely choose not to enumerate all the many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms in the Heller decision. My conclusion is Heller and McDonald belong the second paragraph of the lead because they define the meaning of 2A per SCOTUS and Miller does not because it is just one of a myriad of restrictions. It is in the body where it belongs. Prohibitions and restrictions are rightly mentioned as part of the ditca.Grahamboat (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I say you should edit the page as you indicate above. I have the page on my watchlist, and I will deal with any disruptive editing by Inijones (Inijones, you are encouraged to stop your disruptive behavior and become a productive member of the Wikipedia community). I will also review your edits and let you know if I see any obvious problems. In other words, improve the article to the best of your ability and WP:IAD. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that Grahamboat was taking us through their reasoning when they decided to not modify the lead. North8000 (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Clarifying one point, I don't think that there was any sincere question raised about simply putting Miller in the lead. The only times it was brought up were when it was presented as being a (mis)characterization of the particular changes that they were trying to war in, which were certainly not just about putting Miller into the lead. . North8000 (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Responding to Grahamboat's thoughts, I agree with you, but via coming at it from a different angle. The first sentence/paragraph is the overview.  The second paragraph is IMHO the two largest and highest impact items from the article, rightly chosen.  So I'm calling these the two "tier 1" items.   IF we were to expand the lead, IMHO we should include the whole "next tier down"/ "tier 2" which could be 4-6 items. (including historical etc.)  IMHO, IF we did that, a brief mention of Miller (despite it's narrowness) could be a part of "tier 2" simply because it is a Scotus decision. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don’t think a “tier 2” is needed but, depending on what was included, I would not strongly object.Grahamboat (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That was just my vague thoughts. North8000 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi North8000 - Are you suggesting “tier 2 “ be a history showing the evolution of collective right views to individual right views starting with Miller proceeding through: Lopez/Stewart/Parker/etc ?Grahamboat (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well my vague idea was that IF we expanded it, include a whole tier 2 which might, for example, include:
 * 1 intro sentence explaining that "individual right" was a core question
 * 2 sentences on the most prominent items from history of its creation
 * One sentence on Miller
 * One sentence on the most prominent non-scotus case
 * Add 1-2 sentences on Heller/McDonald
 * Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable. Perhaps we could include in the IF, reducing the amount of material in the body. I’ve always felt that the article was too lengthily to qualify for a Good Article; I especially remember the expansion of the English History from a couple of years ago during an edit dual, but sorry I digress. Grahamboat (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Lede
I think the lede, if it notes the 2 recent decisions (which makes some sense to me), should say something about how (or even why) SCOTUS has for so many years NOT made such landmark rulings, which i believe is the case. otherwise, a reader will ask "wha hoppen?" in regards to 2+ centuries of, well, what? My bias (or belief) is that the current SCOTUS is highly ideological and is making wild political interpretations to benefit certain forces in the US to the detriment of the majority populations wishes, but if this is not consensus (which im sure its not), still, some context for this radical recent change should be noted.(mercurywoodrose) 76.254.36.244 (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Any guess as to how or why SCOTUS didn't make a certain ruling is nothing short of wild speculation. SMP0328. (talk) 03:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The basis for the ruling is in the ruling and summarized in the article. Essentially that the operative clause is the operative clause, and that the preface does not modify it or place conditions on it. North8000 (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well put North. I'd also question the claim of a "radical recent change". —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Stupid
The article should mention how stupid the US Constitution is esp. this amendment.

The so called founding fathers were idiots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.127.241 (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, we'll get right to work on the "The US Constitution is stupid" section. North8000 (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Should Herrington v. United States be in the article?
Highest court in District of Columbia ruled (Nov 4 2011) that, based on Heller, the 2A extends to the right to possess ammunition in the home. Should that be in the article? 99.142.10.228 (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This article focuses on federal court interpretations of the Second Amendment. D.C.'s courts are the equivalent of State courts. SMP0328. (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Late 20th century commentary section needs work
The Late 20th Century Commentary Section has the following paragraph:

"Under both of the collective rights models, the opening phrase was considered essential as a pre-condition for the main clause.[108] These interpretations held that this was a grammar structure that was common during that era[109] and that this grammar dictated that the Second Amendment protected a collective right to firearms to the extent necessary for militia duty.[110]"

There are several problems here. First, citation 109 (pp. 1-21 of Winterer, Caroline (2002). The Culture of Classicism: Ancient Greece and Rome in American Intellectual Life, 1780-1910. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press) is completely incorrect. There is nothing in that section of that book covering the use of this grammatical construction. Second, citation 110 is to an amicus brief ("Amicus Brief, ACRU, Case No. 03-CV-0213-EGS, Shelly Parker, et al. vs. District of Columbia, p.14") which opposes this reading. It should cite the brief that defends this reading. Dmoerner (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: "Other scholars, such as Glenn Reynolds,". Reynolds is a law professor, not an historian. His opinion is not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.226.194 (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should his being a law professor make his opinion irrelevant? SMP0328. (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Tyrannical government
I've asked for a citation in section "Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution" for the reference to "deterring tyrannical government"

We need to be accurate. Were there any such mentions of "tyrannical government", as opposed to merely "undemocratic" government. Richardb43 (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed "tyrannical" to "undemocratic", which is reliably sourced (see footnote 25). Because "undemocratic" is reliably sourced, I've removed your cite tag. SMP0328. (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Tyrannical is now sourced. Have restored "tyrannical" in place of "undemocratic". Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Criticism
The article is full of debates on the nature of this amendment and its scope, but I miss a section on criticism of this law per se. Even though they might be a minority, quite a lot of people have argued for its annulment, and I think this discussion should be referred to. Steinbach (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've seen near-zero (sourcing or activity) regarding efforts to change the constitution in this area. IMHO this is not the route taken by even the critics. But I could be wrong; if such is significantly covered, it should be proportionately covered in the article. If you know of coverage establishing that, you should present it here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is talk however about door to door gun confiscations. Perhaps North8000 knows how likely that is. TFD (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is "talk" about every imaginable thought; I don't understand what point you are making. North8000 (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "the right to bear arms" has been taken out of context without a precise definition of the following three terms: "regulated militia"; "security of a free state"; and "arms". With them well defined, only certain people under certain circumstances are allowed to carry certain types of arms.174.95.61.243 (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * How is it that the introductory paragraph jumps from the date of December 15, 1791 to 2008 and 2010 as if the 2nd Amendment was created with the Bill of Rights and all was great until the Landmark Interpretations of 2008 and 2010? Surely we cannot arbitrarily choose the modern dates without addressing truly Landmark events of 1935, 1968, the 1970's and 1993? I say either the reference to 2008 and 2010 should be removed, or include the other dates which were much more significant in interpretations of the 2nd Amendment.--75.17.207.52 (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Samuel Colt


 * I wouldn't rule out having other material in the lead. But I don't agree with the criticism. Those were the first rulings on the core issue. North8000 (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The wording could use a sentence in between explaining what the core question was. North8000 (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the wording should be changed so that it does not suggest that these are the only two significant rulings on the second amendment, but simply the most recent, and can mention that these recent (thus, more relevant) rulings have reaffirmed the acquisition and use of firearms.128.252.20.193 (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how that would be worded. It's not just that they are the newest, they are kind of stand alone in the sense of being US Supreme Court rulings of that scope on that topic.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The criticism is apt. It is wrong to pretend that there was not a century of jurisprudence prior to 2008 that restricted the Second Amendment to a well-regulated militia. Editors do not have the right to remove relevant citations to Supreme Court decisions and legal scholars that mention this prior history. The article even features a weird jump to Late 20th Century from Early Scholarly Commentary without mentioning the Miller case which held for 60 years. The claim this hotly disputed 5-4 decision overturning centuries of jurisprudence is "generally accepted" is unsourced, non-neutral, and non-verified (and untrue). Let's cite the controversy and be done with it. Or let's go to mediation. I'd be curious to hear from someone who has no POV on whether or not it is proper to insist on unsourced, unverified material in contradistinction to Supreme Court decisions and legal scholarship.GreekParadise (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is POV
The phrase "bear arms" comes from the Latin "arma ferre" which means to wield military weapons in battle ... it cannot possibly refer to an individual right to carry a gun because earlier versions of the amendment included a clause exempting conscientious objectors from bearing arms. Yet not only aren't the actual facts about the meaning of the phrase included in the article, nor the numerous statements of the founders during their debates about the amendment (as opposed to debates about ratification of the Constitution, which occurred earlier), but the very notion that the interpretation of "bear arms" as conferring an individual right is contended by scholars is omitted from the article. Bizarrely, an article by historian Garry Wills in which he vehemently argues against the 2nd amendment as an individual right is given as the citation for the definition of "the right to keep and bear arms" as an individual right in the article of that name. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 10:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you, anonymous users tend to have their voices heard less in talk forums. If you want to edit the article, please create an account. If you cannot do that, put a list of changes that you believe should be made (i.e constructive criticism).EDIT: Sorry, I didn't see that you had already added material to the article. Scratch that bit about constructive criticism. Hentheden (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with this idea as well, but there are many others who do not, so adding this as the definition of "bear arms" would also be a non-neutral point of view. Also, Wikipedia requires that any editor interesting in making such an edit cite one or more reliable sources, and avoid any form of original research, including the synthesis of information from such sources to express this point of view. Simply adding what you would like to add without doing any of these things would violate three important policies. Also, as outlined at Wikipedia's talk page guideline, talk pages are not to be used as forums. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't use it as a forum; that accusation, here and on my talk page, is absurd. My comments were quite clearly directed toward the content of the article and its possible improvement. Also absurd is your comment about violating WP policy since I didn't simply add anything to the article ... this is a talk page, for discussion that might lead to changes. Finally, you're violating policy yourself by attacking me and discouraging me from participating ... successfully (congratulations). -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Sorry, I didn't see that you had already added material to the article. " -- What the heck are you talking about? I didn't touch the article. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that 90% of the above is a call for an out-of-place debate which folks are resisting joining. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the discussion on the definition of "bear arms" (which shouldn't be on this talk page, sorry for overlooking that Redsoxfan), 96.248.226.133 does make a good point about the use of the citation of the article by Gary Wills, mentioned at the end of his post. Should something be done about this (for lack of a better formulation)? Hentheden (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no specifics in the post (nothing on which section, which specific text or which cite is involved) it seems more thrown in to bolster the "POV trash" slam (in before-rewording-title) . So I don't even know which text or cite they are talking about. I've never read Willis but heard that he goes both ways on this issue. Agree that he may not be the best source on a "individual right" statement....US Supreme court or somebody covering the decision would be a better source. North8000 (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "it seems more thrown in to bolster the "POV trash" slam" -- this is utter nonsense and is a personal attack violating an assumption of good faith. I was quite specific: I said it was a citation in the article named "the right to keep and bear arms", and it is as anyone can go see. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "I've never read Willis but heard that he goes both ways on this issue" -- You can't even be bothered to spell his name correctly when it's right in front of you. What you have "heard" would be irrelevant even if it were true (which it isn't) because, as I said, he argues vehemently against an individual right to bear arms in the article cited as support for the meaning of "the right to keep and bear arms" in the article of that name, regardless of what he may have argued somewhere else. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, this is a discussion about article content, and you still have given no specifics in your post on what specific section / text/ cite in the article that you are talking about. North8000 (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "arma ferre"? What is your proof of the meaning of this Latin phrase?  And why would you try to impose Latin on English?  Are you claiming that "bear" came from Latin instead of the Germanic branch of Indo-European?  And if you want to go Latin, are you going to claim that the phrase refers to the kinds of weapons the Romans used?  Swords, not guns?  Nonsense.  "To wield military weapons in battle"?  If that is what "bear arms" meant, then it would have meant that men should own and bear canons, Sherman tanks, F86 Sabers, hydrogen bombs, etc.; which is ridiculous.  The kind of arms which men bore at that time in history were not military weapons, but regular guns & pistols, which might be used also in an army, but were common possessions possessed by right by common persons.  The 2nd Amendment recognizes a pre-existent right, a right which is appropriate for common citizens to be able to form a militia; thus it includes such weapons as would make an effective militia (today by necessity including fully automatic rifles).  But it does not limit arms to arms typically used by military. (EnochBethany (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC))

Who the Heck is Davies?
Footnote 5 says, "Davies, pp. 209–16." This footnote is defective as there is no previous Davies note. First name of Davies, the name of the work, and date are needed. (EnochBethany (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC))

Davies has apparently been corrected, but DeConde has no previous footnote. I've marked these with citation needed tags. Two of the DeConde references have an ISBN number, so it looks like they're all most likely references to Gun Violence in America : The Struggle for Control, by Alexander Deconde, 416 Pages, Published 2001 by Northeastern, ISBN-13: 978-1-55553-486-8, ISBN: 1-55553-486-4 but I don't have a copy, so I can't verify it. Could somebody look at this?

Smith and Schmidt are ambiguous.

Some references are incomplete, like "Young, David E., The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms", Cress, Lawrence. An Armed Community: The Origins and Meaning of the Right to Bear Arms, Tench Coxe, "Remarks On The First Part Of The Amendments To The Federal Constitution", none of which have publishers or dates.—MiguelMunoz (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

District of Columbia v. Heller - documentation error
This paragraph at the end of the Notes and Analysis sub-section of District of Columbia v. Heller is presented in the main text:

"Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the District's licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumed that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and did not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

However, it's a quotation from the cited source and needs to be indented. Also, a sentence is omitted from the quotation between the first and the second sentence presented, so an ellipsis should be used. Copper Bezel (talk) 09:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I marked it with quote marks and put in the ellipsis. North8000 (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 January 2013
In Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton suggested that well-regulated refers not only to "organizing", "disciplining", and "training" the militia, but also to "arming" the militia: (however it should be noted that the federalist papers were advocating the passage of a Constitution with no bill of rights, so Hamilton could not have been talking about the second amendment.

67.249.246.183 (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 22:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, could be specific on the proposed change? I.E. exactly what text to you propose putting in, and where? North8000 (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent attempts to change the lede
If we want to add something about Miller to the lede, it should reflect what the article says about Miller, not one side of that issue. It is popular these days to portray the 2008 decision as being inconsistent with Miller, but Miller did not clearly interpret the amendment as being related to the militia, it merely questioned whether a sawed-off shotgun would be useful to a militia. The 2008 decision was the first which directly addressed the meaning of the amendment. Please stop trying to insert the POV that everyone agreed with the one interpretation before 2008. Celestra (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Celestra. The implication that it reverses a previous SCOTUS finding is unsourced and contrary to the sourced material. North8000 (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is POV to suggest that Heller did not overturn Miller. Miller said gun ownership protected under the Second Amendment has "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." If you disagree that Heller overruled Miller -- as every legal scholar I have read has found, including Jeffrey Toobin whom I cited -- then cite the controversy rather than claiming a disputed thing is true. I'll put up a POV tag until this thing is resolved.GreekParadise (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Heller rejected the type of reading of Miller you describe. It said Miller referred to the type of firearms covered by the Second Amendment Maybe it would better to put that in the article, Introduction and/or elsewhere, if it isn't already. That would better than saying Heller overruled Miller. Officially, it did not and really it is beside the point. The point is what Heller said the Second Amendment means. SMP0328. (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is a stretch to call Toobin a legal "scholar". He is a legal analyst and journalist. He refers to a scholarly paper in the Harvard Law Review, which says at one point "For many, constitutional law changed because the Court interpreted the Second Amendment in accordance with the understandings of the Americans who ratified it: Heller marks the "Triumph of Originalism." Others saw the case very differently, observing that the Court had interpreted the Second Amendment in accordance with the convictions of the twentieth-century gun-rights movement and so had demonstrated the ascendency of the living Constitution." Clearly, from that, we can see that there are two schools of thought. Failing to present one of those schools of thought as the "truth" is the opposite of POV. Please remove the POV tag from the article.
 * On the other hand, I think that we used to have text in the lede which did express that there was disagreement over the meaning of the Second Amendment prior to Heller and I think it would be good to have that or similar text return. It is part of the history the Second Amendment. Likewise, I think we should express that some scholars don't agree with the Court's interpretation, but I don't feel as strongly about that. Celestra (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

'''I support this. And I'm willing to take a stab at it if you agree. Let's present both schools of thought as part of the history of the Second Amendment and not just the pro-Heller view which was not accepted by the Supreme Court until 2008.'''GreekParadise (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tag. This dispute is about what should be said about Miller within this article. Nothing has said to suggest that the article in general is POV. SMP0328. (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See below where I describe in great detail why the historical analysis in the article is POV in its unusual depiction of pre-Heller history and law under the Second Amendment, as cited by the Library of Congress and mainstream legal historians. I have no problem with both historical views (the mainstream view and the current article's view) being represented, but every time I tried to present the mainstream view in addition to this article's view, my additions and suggestions were summarily removed. Until we resolve this by accurately showing both sides of the historical controversy, I respectfully request you put back the POV tag.GreekParadise (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"Generally accepted" that Second Amendment confers individual right is POV
The text said without citation it is "generally accepted" that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to carry a gun. Actually, as the cases and commentary I cited conclusively show, it was "generally accepted" that the Second Amendment conferred a collective right to bear arms in a well regulated militia for more than a century by both the Supreme Court and lower courts until the Heller Supreme Court decision in 2008, a hotly contested 5-4 decision that overruled this long-standing collective view that dates back to ratification. I don't dispute that there are two views or that the debate is hotly contested, but I think it is POV to say that the recent decision by the Supreme Court is "generally accepted" and particularly to do so without citation to a poll or scholarly article. The best thing is to simply state the truth, without POV, that the Second Amendment is the only Amendment to give a stated purpose (this is true and the law journal article I cited backs it up) and that the Supreme Court in Heller said that the purpose does not expand or limit the Amendment. The reason the Heller decision was a landmark decision was because it changed prior law. If it merely restated prior law, it would not be a "landmark decision" It would be ordinary. GreekParadise (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It was landmark because it was the first SCOTUS decision on the individual right question. North8000 (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It was the first case to determine that the Second Amendment confers an individual right (within limitations and restrictions). Case law prior to 2008 (see, e.g., Miller 1939) said it was a collective right relating to a milita. (See the several scholarly references I included. But you don't have to believe the scholars because that's what the Supreme Court actually said. Read Miller) What purpose does it serve (other than POV-pushing) to refuse to let the wikipedia audience know that it was the first case to determine an individual right? Heller was a landmark case because it overturned prior law, just as Brown v. Board of Education was landmark because it overturned Plessy v. Ferguson. If Heller had just restated existing law, it would not be an important case worthy of including in the introduction. I also don't see why you want to delete from the article the important mention that the Second Amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights with a stated purpose. We should state the controversy and not take sides in it. Just because someone believes some hotly contested thing to be true does not make it "generally accepted." GreekParadise (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A Supreme Court decision can be a landmark decision without overruling any earlier Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Roe v. Wade). Besides, Heller rejected reading Miller to be limiting the Second Amendment to protecting only a collective right or a militia-based individual right. This resulted in the overruling of numerous U.S. Courts of Appeals decisions dating back to the 1940s. SMP0328. (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They had to be overruled because the validity of the militia clause was the generally accepted opinion of the Courts from the 1940's to 2007 (after Miller in 1939), although the Library of Congress states the militia clause was accepted by courts as defining the Second Amendment as early as 1875. See below.GreekParadise (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Prior to Heller, reasonable people could have different opinions about the meaning of the Second Amendment because the Supreme Court had not unambiguously decided that meaning. Since the Supreme Court is the body that decides how to interpret the constitution, after Heller there can be no reasonable disagreement about the meaning, just about the decision. I don't see the problem with saying that the meaning is "now generally accepted". It gets across the recent nature of that acceptance. It does not say that everyone agrees with the interpretation, just that generally people accept that that is the official interpretation. The changes you attempted gave the impression that prior to Heller, the court had decided on the other interpretation, which is simply not true. Please remove the POV tag from that section. Celestra (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You do not have the right to claim your opinion is "generally accepted" without citing any sources. If you say the Supreme Court held it for the first time in 2008, that's fine. Would you say Roe v. Wade is "generally accepted"? You could say it only if you had a poll that showed that 90% of the people accept it. Wikipedia does not allow you to make up stuff. Please add a source or accept the removal.GreekParadise (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The meaning of the Second Amendment is not decided by a poll; it is decided by the Supreme Court. Prior to Heller, the court had not unambiguously interpreted that amendment. Now they have. Your change to that section tries to push a POV that everything was one way before the decision and another way after and that simply isn't a neutral interpretation. Please provide some reference which suggests that the interpretation made by the body which is responsible for interpreting the constitution is not generally accepted. Celestra (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If your meaning is that the Supreme Court decides the law, that's fine. That's true. But "generally accepted" to me implies public acceptance. Otherwise what does it mean?  Imprecise language should be removed.  As for public acceptance, would you be fine if I said that Roe v. Wade is generally accepted or that the case allowing the Government to use public domain for private gain is generally accepted? I would argue both decisions, although they are the law decided by the Supreme Court, have and continue to be roundly criticized by many.  Plus there is no citation for generally accepted.  Is that your opinion, Celestra, or do you have a source for it?  You know you can't post your opinion on wikipedia, of course.  So if there's no source, it has to go.  You can't even say the movie Titanic made a lot of money without a source and that's generally known. So how could you say something this controversial and make it unsourced?  Please remove the language or suggest a way to make it more precise.  You could say something like the Supreme Court decision in 2008 has made the individual rights argument the law of the land. That's true and requires no citation or subjectivity.GreekParadise (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I have changed "generally accepted" (which is vague and implies public acceptance) to "generally accepted by the courts" which is unambiguously true after Heller. That solves the problem and I have removed the POV tag.GreekParadise (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That section is talking about the models used by the court. If you want to make that more explicit without inserting your POV about the collective rights model, please suggest a wording. Clarifying that use of the phrase while adding an unsubstantiated claim of "generally accepted" for the collective model prior to 2008 is hardly reasonable. Celestra (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I plan to cite the Library of Congress article (and its bibliography of more than 30(!) scholarly books and articles) as my source. See http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php . You can't get much more reliable than that. Please review this short article.  My hope is, based on that reference, you will withdraw your objection or propose alternative language. The only reason I didn't include the Library of Congress on the main page as a footnote is I wanted to see if you would accept it before working hard to put the reference in proper form. Please understand I am not disputing that Heller is current law. The dispute is about what the law was pre-Heller. And as SMP028 points out above, Heller overruled numerous decisions dating back to the 1940's.GreekParadise (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That isn't an article, it is just an overview. The overview is written by an unnamed person, so the person's reputation for accuracy is unknown. The level of review is likewise unknown. Looking at the content, the paragraph which mentions federal court cases has no citation, but the last sentence refers the reader to a Congressional Research Service document. (That document is writtten after the oral arguments, but before the decision on Heller, so it wouldn't reflect the details of the decision, but it seems accurate as far as I know.) It has a section on US v Emerson, which the overview doesn't mention. Based on those three problems, I wouldn't use the overview as a source for this article. Izno has removed the phrase which you found to be POV and the result seems NPOV to me. It would be good if you would remove the POV tag from that section. Celestra (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Both sides of "militia" controversy should be mentioned. Strong POV problem
This article pretends that the Heller decision uncontroversially made no changes to existing law. But the Library of Congress disagrees with this article's current historical and legal account. Citing more than two dozen of the most important legal scholars in the country on the Second Amendment, the Library of Congress presents what is considered non-controversial outside of the current draft of this article: the proposition that the "militia" language in the Second Amendment modifying the "right to bear arms" language was the standard interpretation of the Second Amendment by US courts from at least 1875 until 2008. See http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php.

The Library of Congress, like most legal scholars in discussing the pre-Heller history, places great reliance on the Miller decision which unanimously found in 1939 that only weaponry with "some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" is protected under the Second Amendment. That point of view was consistently upheld by courts in the United States prior to the Heller decision in 2008.

Miller held that the "militia" language was an essential part of the Second Amendment and not mere unnecessary surplus words that the Founders could have either placed in the Amendment or taken out without changing the Amendment's meaning. Strict constitutional constructionists also believe that no words of the Constitution are mere surplusage. According to CNN's prominent senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, the militia view was clear and uncontroversial for more than 100 years, until a reconstituted NRA first argued in 1977 the "novel legal theory" that the first thirteen words of the Second Amendment are meaningless. See http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

Even conservative former Chief Justice Warren Burger rejected the individual right to bear arms theory as a crock by the NRA, saying in 1991: "[The Second Amendment] has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." And of course the four dissenting justices in Heller strongly disagree with the historical analysis of the five-vote majority (and their point of view should be mentioned as well).

I don't ask editors to take sides on this issue. Heller is obviously current law. But in an article purporting to discuss the history of the Second Amendment, the view that existed for more than a hundred years should be stated rather than jumping from "early scholarship" to the "late twentieth century". No doubt, people disagree on the history as well. Some believe Heller changed nothing. Others accept the more mainstream view cited by former Chief Justice Burger, Toobin, the Library of Congress, and many other (probably the vast majority of) legal scholars.

But an article in wikipedia cannot present one side of a hotly disputed historical and legal controversy as an unvarnished "generally accepted" truth.

If some editors wish to express the particular historical view of those that support the decision with citations from reputable legal scholars to the effect that Heller changed nothing, that is fine by me. But then they are equally obligated to report the more mainstream historical and legal view reflected in the Library of Congress, a non-partisan branch of Government that considers the current article's view so far out of the mainstream that it does not even address this point of view as a legitimate one.

The Supreme Court opinion in Heller is no more "generally accepted" than the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. True the Heller opinion, like Roe, is current law, but many Americans and many legal scholars strongly disagree with both decisions.

Perhaps it would be best to simply have two sections. "Individual rights proponents" (who argue that the militia dependent clause is irrelevant surplusage) and "Militia rights proponents (who argue that the first thirteen words of the Amendment modify and condition the remaining words)". Then both sides of the controversy could be represented fairly.GreekParadise (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * IMO there are may flaws / errors is your statements / arguments above, but there no need to worry about talk page statements.  Now, on to the content question. The SCOTUS interpretation is the binding interpretation.  Most of your content related discussion revolve around the presence of a unqualified "generally accepted" statement but that is no longer in there. Both viewpoints on the core quesiton are covered. Is there a open content question?  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, at the very time you wrote this comment, Celestra again undid my revision. So the unsourced and ambiguous "generally accepted" statement is back. I've removed it more than once but been reverted each time. I won't put it again without consensus although I will reinstate the POV tag if there is no consensus.  However, if it is now conceded that "the law" as dictated by the Supreme Court and "general public acceptance" are indeed two different concepts as I believe, and that the latter concept is inaccurate while the former description, as you say, is accurate, then, with your permission, I will again attempt to take out the improperly sourced and inaccurate language and replace it with "generally accepted by the US Courts."  Or perhaps better put "the law since 2008."  OK?  (I believe there are many open content issues, as I have described in great detail, but I agree to resolve this issue first.)

Definitely not "law since 2008". It dates back to the initial adoption of the bill of rights. 2008 was merely the authoritative interpretation of it with respect to that question. I think that "generally accepted" for that particular question is also correct, but I am neutral about whether "generally accepted" is in or out. But I'm certainly against replacing it with something that is inaccurate. North8000 (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no more reliable source on judicial interpretation of the Second Amendment than an official Congressional Research Report for Congress. According to CRS at 3, "judicial treatment of the Second Amendment for the remainder of the twentieth century [in the decades following Miller] almost summarily concluded that the Amendment conferred only a collective right to keep and bear arms." I would like to rewrite the lede based on the information in CRS. Please review it yourself:  http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf  I do not know of a single firearms statute in the country that was ever declared unconstitutional by any court in the entire United States in any year prior to 2008.  Do you?  According to CRS, the first time the individual rights interpretation is ever even mentioned in US Law is the Emerson (Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2001) and even that one did not enforce the Second Amendment to strike down a statute.GreekParadise (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As for "generally accepted", given that it is absolutely proper to say the Supreme Court in Heller accepted the individual view and established it as law, and given that that is said elsewhere, what does "generally accepted" mean to you? You mean in opinion polls?  In a poll of legal scholars?  By US courts?  It needs to be clarified. I submit that Heller has been "generally accepted" only by the Courts, who are, of course, required by law to adhere to Supreme Court decisions. Does "generally accepted" have any other meaning to you?GreekParadise (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, I said that I think that "generally accepted"is correct, but am neutral about whether or not it is used in the article. So unless it goes back in, that particular phase is a moot point.  But, as a sidebar, the reason why I consider it to be accurate is that whether they like the result or not, most are considering that aspect to be settled because SCOTUS made THE ruling on it. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On the other points I think that it is quite clear that that question was considered to be unsettled-in-the-courts prior to Heller.  Long story short IMHO your efforts to have the article imply or make it appear otherwise are efforts at spin.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed generally accepted as WP:WEASEL. If we want to talk about who accepts that interpretation (the public at large, the SCOTUS, legal scholars), then we should talk about who and provide the associated citations. --Izno (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Slave patrols
This motivation for the amendment is mentioned tangentially in the Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution section and there is one existing ref that mentions this point. Here is a more comprehensive treatment. Does the slave partols motivation deserve greater prominence in the article? -—Kvng 21:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering that that piece has about the lowest credibility regarding bias imaginable and even even they completely failed to establish the assertion of their title, such is more of an indicator that the title is wrong. Moreover the brief material in this article on that topic says the opposite, albeit possibly equally without basis.  If we could find something solid which indicates this we should put it in, if not not. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like the source for both the Truthout (above) and Mother Jones pieces is This is in the references section of the article but there is no footnote currently using it. Seems like a solid secondary source. The fact that prominent tertiary sources use it indicates that the ideas, although potentially flawed, are at least notable and probably deserve some mention. -—Kvng 21:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Its long; I just skimmed it. It kind of wandered all over the place, basically trying to refute any and all concepts that would support the 2A granting rights.   But what surprised me particularly is that while the abstract says its about purporting that the 2A is to suppress slaves, only about 10% of the article is actually about that, and even most of that 10%  was about the general conditions in the south, ...wanting to continue slavery and wanting to suppress slaves, with little about firearms.  Also that they were trying to woo the south, particularly Virginia. And then it describes who wrote it and it evolution, but I saw nothing in there directly supporting the "to suppress slaves" theory. Sort of like 1 + 1 = 10.    Again, this was just a skim. North8000 (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Concise evolution of understanding about the meaning of the Second Amendment
The CRS document which is linked from GB's LOC overview is a worthwhile read. It is brief and presents several points in the evolution of understanding of the Second Amendment which might be good to capture in the article. Celestra (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like a quality summary of the court aspects prior to Heller. North8000 (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Since we all agree this is a good reliable source, I will quote from it, add the citations to the article, and remove the POV tag.GreekParadise (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Arms policies in Europe
The wiki article contains several statements about arms policies in Europe. However, all of them erroneous. Most kingdoms of Europe let their citizens purchase, make, sell, own and use firearms and other arms freely right up until the first World War. Several countries even after that. I grew up in Norway in the 1960s and 1970s, and there any 16 year old could go to the sports-store or to the gunstore and purchase a shotgun or a rifle and ammunition, no licence needed. Handguns needed a license, but that the store owner could get you over the phone. Nowadays this is changed, to be able to buy a handgun, you must be a member of a gun club. You do need a license for all other firearms as well these days, but these licenses are formalia only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perolden (talk • contribs) 09:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

New lede
As I've discussed above, I believe the lede unfairly presents the Second Amendment as solely having one definitive interpretation from 1791 until today. That simply is not true as a matter of history or law, and I think it is our job at wikipedia to tell both sides of a complex legal history.

I propose two solutions, a long lede and a short lede. The long lede includes a fair and relatively brief history of judicial interpretations of the Second Amendment. I prefer the long lede. But if it's believed to be too long, then I am willing to go with the short lede and put the other historical information in the body of the article. Please let me know which lede you prefer. (I have not detailed the citations yet but I have provided them so you know the sources are impeccable.)

In the interests of achieving consensus, I have not yet changed the main article but instead seek comment below.

Proposed Long Lede

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is part of the United States Bill of Rights which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement and cites a prefatory reason therefor: “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” [Citation: Second Amendment] It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

For more than two centuries, Americans have disagreed on the meaning of the Second Amendment, the impact of its prefatory militia clause, whether it is an individual right to bear arms or a collective right to serve in a militia, and the extent to which the United States or State Governments were prohibited from infringing on this right. [citation: CRS article http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf]

From 1791 to 2007, no federal appeals court struck down a single gun control law on Second Amendment Grounds. [citation article by the Supreme Court Correspondent for the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0] In the Nineteenth Century, the Supreme Court limited enforcement of the Second Amendment to the Federal Government alone and thus allowed the States to enforce gun regulations. [citation Cruikshank] By the Twentieth Century, the Federal Courts had virtually summarily concluded that the Second Amendment was limited to a collective right to service in a well regulated militia and found the Government could limit any weapons not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” [citation Miller and CRS]

In the Twenty-First Century, a Federal Court first rejected the collective interpretation and held instead that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, notwithstanding lack of service in a militia. In 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States officially adopted this view, holding expressly that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court overruled its earlier decisions limiting the Second Amendment's impact to a restriction on the Federal Government and expressly found that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

Proposed Short Lede

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is part of the United States Bill of Rights which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement and cites a prefatory reason therefor: “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” [Citation: Second Amendment]. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

For more than two centuries, Americans have disagreed on the meaning of the Second Amendment, the impact of its prefatory militia clause, whether it is an individual right to bear arms or a collective right to serve in a militia, and the extent to which the United States or State Governments were prohibited from infringing on this right. [citation: CRS article http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf] From 1791 to 2007, no federal appeals court struck down a single gun control law on Second Amendment Grounds. [citation article by the Supreme Court Correspondent for the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0]

In 2008, the Supreme Court officially held for the first time that the right to bear arms is an individual right within reasonable restrictions determined by the Court and, in 2010, the Court formally found that both Federal and State Governments are restricted from infringing on that right. [Citations Heller and McDonald].GreekParadise (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don’t like either proposed lede. Where did the “For more than two centuries” come from? I would accept a short sentence “prior the Heller there were mixed views…”  added to the second paragraph.Grahamboat (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * …firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. Prior to the Heller decision there was considerable debate over whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right or a collective right (the right of a state to arm its militia). In McDonald v. Chicago…Grahamboat (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I also don't think either of GP's proposal would work. WP:NPOV guides us to mention that there is a dispute, not to engage in that dispute, but the proposals are full of qualifiers and talking points which appear to support a POV which disagrees with the Court's decision. If we look at the First Amendment, we see a neutral lede which decribes what the Amendment protect without qualification and later mentions that the right to free speech is subject to exceptions. It also deals with the incorporation issue in a more neutral way.
 * I am fine with Grahamboat's suggestion as a start. Celestra (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, which means "no" on the proposed new leads. The incorporation part is spun so heavy that it reaches the point of deception.  North8000 (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi North. Just to be clear are you saying "no" to just GP’s proposals or no to any mention of different interpretations prior to Heller in the lede? ThanksGrahamboat (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Both. The second because there was no prevailing or even majority interpretation on the core question prior to that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I’m not sure exactly what North’s point is. Why is a prevailing or majority interpretation a prerequisite to a brief mention in the lede? There was certainly a difference of opinion prior to Heller. The Fifth Circuit ruled for an individual right in Emerson (2001) and the Ninth Circuit ruling a collective right only in Silveira v. Lockyer (2002). That, IMHO, is enough to justify a mention. Celestra may agree but I think we need more editors to weigh in before reaching a consensus.Grahamboat (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree both that it deserves some mention and that we should get more editors on board before we make any change. I think that the following changes would be improvements:
 * Rework info in the second paragraph. It seemed reasonable while it was a current event, but a brief summary of federal court cases (Miller, Cases, Emerson, Sylveira v Lockyer, Parker and Heller) from the CRS paper might make for a better introduction.
 * Mention McDonald as being the decision which incorporated the Second Amendment, similar to how we treat incorporation in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
 * Mention the disagreement on how to interpret the Amendment prior to Heller.
 * I'll try to write a section summarizing the CRS paper and a suggestion for the changes to the lede this weekend. Celestra (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The weekend has passed. Not to be pushy, but I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with. If you can't come up with anything, I'm willing to do a request for comment or go to mediation.GreekParadise (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Request re Perkins
The Eighth Circuit citation is to a case that has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. U.S. v. PERKINS 526 F.3d 1107 (2008) United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted: January 14, 2008. This case concerns sentencing issues, not Second Amendment issues. Observer375 (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. It doesn't mention the Second Amendment. It doesn't even post-date Heller. I've removed it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the Supreme Court correspondent of the New York Times used frequently in wikipedia a reliable source?
Adam Liptak, the Supreme Court correspondent of the New York Times (biography here: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/bio-liptak.html and on wikipedia:  http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/bio-liptak.html  was considered a reliable source for his reporting on the McDonald decision (see footnote 4) but his front-page story (not an op-ed) was deemed unreliable by a couple of editors here for his reporting on pre-Heller case law.  I submit that Liptak IS a reliable source for all his reporting and that I may add information from his front-page story here:  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html, just as it already has been added in footnote 89 here (not by me):  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms.  Does anyone still dispute his reliability?  Presuming he is good enough (and unless someone continues to argue for the contrary), I will proceed to cite this very important article in this entry.GreekParadise (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You are mixing apples and oranges. Trying to put a far reaching assertion/opinion from an op ed in as a fact in the voice of Wikipedia IMHO misses the mark by several levels.  This is a different question from wp:rs which both his articles and most articles in NRA publications may meet.  But nobody is claiming "POV" for failure to use an NRA op ed for the lead.  North8000 (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A front page story by a reporter is not an op ed. Unless you have some source claiming it is an op-ed, I will ask you to please refrain from this characterization.  It is no more an op-ed than the article cited by the same reporter in footnote 4.GreekParadise (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't agree, but setting that aside that is only one of invalid layers in the construction needed to support what you are promoting doing. (Please take my brevity (including directness) as mere brevity, not as the roughness that it appears to be, because I do not intend the latter.) The layers are:
 * Wanting to present a broad (mis)characterization in contested area as fact in the voice of wikipedia
 * Faulty, as detailed above. Interpreting a lack of a finding of the opposite (during the period where the core question didn't matter much) as being a finding.
 * Use of a cherry picked piece
 * Use of an op ed piece
 * Wanted to put it into the lead versus the body, a direct violation of what the lead should be
 * Again, please take my brevity (including directness) as mere brevity, not as the roughness that it appears to be, because I do not intend the latter. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * North, the lede is currently cherry picked. It cites only one interpretation of the Second Amendment (the Heller case) in the lede and wants to end it there, rather than putting Heller in its historical context as the most recent interpretation of the federal courts, contrasting with the long-running contrary interpretation that existed for more than sixty years prior (and, for McDonald, more than 130 years prior). If you want to take the Heller and McDonald decisions completely out of the lede, and just have the first two sentences, ending with 1791, that is justifiable and NPOV but I believe quite sparse.  But once you put in the most recent interpretation, I think you have to briefly include the ones that existed for many decades, and as many as 130 years prior, as well. The judiciary's interpretation of the Second Amendment did not begin in 2008, and this is, after all, an entry on the Second Amendment and not on the Heller decision. In my bolded compromise, I put far more focus on Heller and McDonald then under the interpretations in the centuries precedent. All I ask is for one small sentence and one small portion of a sentence to put the Heller and McDonald decisions in their proper context.  They were landmark decisions, but they would not have been landmark if they had merely restated current law.  Again, I note that the wikipedia entry on Brown v. Board of Education mentions Plessy v. Ferguson (the case it overturned) in the second sentence of the lede. GreekParadise (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The first three paragraphs sound like an op-ed, but, if you read beyond that, you see that's not where it goes. The Times does not label it an op-ed. It cannot be discounted in this way.
 * The lead lacks any discussion of the interpretation of the Amendment prior to Heller. Introduction of a bit of this material in the lead would be very welcome. And would be in line with WP:NPOV and WP:RECENT. -—Kvng 13:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Kvng, do you support revising the lead as per what I have written in bold above (adding citations of course, including the NYT article and others I have cited, such as the Congressional Research Service and the Library of Congress, to back up every word written)? GreekParadise (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest we keep lede change discussions in the Possible revisions in lead section. Grahamboat (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I looked at that discussion only in enough detail to understand that the solution is not there yet. It looked like User:Celestra had a good plan but it hasn't been executed. I will see if I can find some time to make a more significant contribution to that discussion a little later. -—Kvng 23:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 February 2013
On the second amendment to the United States Constitution page, it was recently changed from: "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

to: The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms in order to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states [1].

With [1] pointing to http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

Reading that article, there is alot of text that the author or someone else added to the original words, as shown by brackets [] in many places of the article. To me the article is biased, just reading through it i can see how the meaning of what's being said changes from slave patrol militias being a possibility, to trying to say it definitely was a reason. This possible reason has been listed with the other purposes under "Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution" section for some time now, and i see no reason it should be specifically listed at the start of the article.

There is no reason "in order to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states" should be listed at the start of the article separate from the other 'purposes' listed later on the page. Especially not in it's current form at the start of the article worded in a fashion that attempts to positively exert it as a purpose, when it is allegedly one of the purposes early English settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important.

I hereby request the removal of "in order to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states [1]." from the first sentence, for the above reasons, and on grounds of no one particular 'purpose' should be listed separately whether alleged or positively known to be one of the 'purposes' that the "early English settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important".

Not to mention several sources that say it was a 'purpose' are not hard facts sources, hence why it is in the list with the rest of the 'purposes' lower on the page as "suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts"

XXxDSMer (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That set of edits had an immense list of problems...reverted. North8000 (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I concur with North. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

New lede
As I've discussed above, I believe the lede unfairly presents the Second Amendment as solely having one definitive interpretation from 1791 until today. That simply is not true as a matter of history or law, and I think it is our job at wikipedia to tell both sides of a complex legal history. −		 −	I propose two solutions, a long lede and a short lede. The long lede includes a fair and relatively brief history of judicial interpretations of the Second Amendment. I prefer the long lede. But if it's believed to be too long, then I am willing to go with the short lede and put the other historical information in the body of the article. Please let me know which lede you prefer. (I have not detailed the citations yet but I have provided them so you know the sources are impeccable.) −		 −	In the interests of achieving consensus, I have not yet changed the main article but instead seek comment below. −		 −	Proposed Long Lede −		 −	The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is part of the United States Bill of Rights which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement and cites a prefatory reason therefor: “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” [Citation: Second Amendment] It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. −		 −	For more than two centuries, Americans have disagreed on the meaning of the Second Amendment, the impact of its prefatory militia clause, whether it is an individual right to bear arms or a collective right to serve in a militia, and the extent to which the United States or State Governments were prohibited from infringing on this right. [citation: CRS article http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf] −		 −	From 1791 to 2007, no federal appeals court struck down a single gun control law on Second Amendment Grounds. [citation article by the Supreme Court Correspondent for the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0] In the Nineteenth Century, the Supreme Court limited enforcement of the Second Amendment to the Federal Government alone and thus allowed the States to enforce gun regulations. [citation Cruikshank] By the Twentieth Century, the Federal Courts had virtually summarily concluded that the Second Amendment was limited to a collective right to service in a well regulated militia and found the Government could limit any weapons not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” [citation Miller and CRS] −		 −	In the Twenty-First Century, a Federal Court first rejected the collective interpretation and held instead that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, notwithstanding lack of service in a militia. In 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States officially adopted this view, holding expressly that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. −		 −	In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court overruled its earlier decisions limiting the Second Amendment's impact to a restriction on the Federal Government and expressly found that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government. −		 −	Proposed Short Lede −		 −	The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is part of the United States Bill of Rights which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement and cites a prefatory reason therefor: “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” [Citation: Second Amendment]. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. −		 −	For more than two centuries, Americans have disagreed on the meaning of the Second Amendment, the impact of its prefatory militia clause, whether it is an individual right to bear arms or a collective right to serve in a militia, and the extent to which the United States or State Governments were prohibited from infringing on this right. [citation: CRS article http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf] From 1791 to 2007, no federal appeals court struck down a single gun control law on Second Amendment Grounds. [citation article by the Supreme Court Correspondent for the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0] −		 −	In 2008, the Supreme Court officially held for the first time that the right to bear arms is an individual right within reasonable restrictions determined by the Court and, in 2010, the Court formally found that both Federal and State Governments are restricted from infringing on that right. [Citations Heller and McDonald].GreekParadise (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC) −		 −
 * I don’t like either proposed lede. Where did the “For more than two centuries” come from? I would accept a short sentence “prior the Heller there were mixed views…”  added to the second paragraph.Grahamboat (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

−
 * …firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. Prior to the Heller decision there was considerable debate over whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right or a collective right (the right of a state to arm its militia). In McDonald v. Chicago…Grahamboat (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

−
 * I also don't think either of GP's proposal would work. WP:NPOV guides us to mention that there is a dispute, not to engage in that dispute, but the proposals are full of qualifiers and talking points which appear to support a POV which disagrees with the Court's decision. If we look at the First Amendment, we see a neutral lede which decribes what the Amendment protect without qualification and later mentions that the right to free speech is subject to exceptions. It also deals with the incorporation issue in a more neutral way.

−
 * I am fine with Grahamboat's suggestion as a start. Celestra (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

−
 * Agree, which means "no" on the proposed new leads. The incorporation part is spun so heavy that it reaches the point of deception.  North8000 (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

−		 −
 * Hi North. Just to be clear are you saying "no" to just GP’s proposals or no to any mention of different interpretations prior to Heller in the lede? ThanksGrahamboat (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

−
 * Both. The second because there was no prevailing or even majority interpretation on the core question prior to that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

−		 −
 * I’m not sure exactly what North’s point is. Why is a prevailing or majority interpretation a prerequisite to a brief mention in the lede? There was certainly a difference of opinion prior to Heller. The Fifth Circuit ruled for an individual right in Emerson (2001) and the Ninth Circuit ruling a collective right only in Silveira v. Lockyer (2002). That, IMHO, is enough to justify a mention. Celestra may agree but I think we need more editors to weigh in before reaching a consensus.Grahamboat (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

−		 −
 * I agree both that it deserves some mention and that we should get more editors on board before we make any change. I think that the following changes would be improvements:

−
 * Rework info in the second paragraph. It seemed reasonable while it was a current event, but a brief summary of federal court cases (Miller, Cases, Emerson, Sylveira v Lockyer, Parker and Heller) from the CRS paper might make for a better introduction.

−
 * Mention McDonald as being the decision which incorporated the Second Amendment, similar to how we treat incorporation in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

−
 * Mention the disagreement on how to interpret the Amendment prior to Heller.

−
 * I'll try to write a section summarizing the CRS paper and a suggestion for the changes to the lede this weekend. Celestra (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

−	The weekend has passed. Not to be pushy, but I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with. If you can't come up with anything, I'm willing to do a request for comment or go to mediation.GreekParadise (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Lede discussion revived from archive. Please do not archive until consensus is reached on lede
−
 * How is it that the introductory paragraph jumps from the date of December 15, 1791 to 2008 and 2010 as if the 2nd Amendment was created with the Bill of Rights and all was great until the Landmark Interpretations of 2008 and 2010? Surely we cannot arbitrarily choose the modern dates without addressing truly Landmark events of 1935, 1968, the 1970's and 1993? I say either the reference to 2008 and 2010 should be removed, or include the other dates which were much more significant in interpretations of the 2nd Amendment.--75.17.207.52 (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Samuel Colt

−		 −
 * I wouldn't rule out having other material in the lead. But I don't agree with the criticism. Those were the first rulings on the core issue. North8000 (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

−
 * The wording could use a sentence in between explaining what the core question was. North8000 (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

−		 −
 * Perhaps the wording should be changed so that it does not suggest that these are the only two significant rulings on the second amendment, but simply the most recent, and can mention that these recent (thus, more relevant) rulings have reaffirmed the acquisition and use of firearms.128.252.20.193 (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

−
 * I'm not sure how that would be worded. It's not just that they are the newest, they are kind of stand alone in the sense of being US Supreme Court rulings of that scope on that topic.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

−		 −
 * The criticism is apt. It is wrong to pretend that there was not a century of jurisprudence prior to 2008 that restricted the Second Amendment to a well-regulated militia. Editors do not have the right to remove relevant citations to Supreme Court decisions and legal scholars that mention this prior history. The article even features a weird jump to Late 20th Century from Early Scholarly Commentary without mentioning the Miller case which held for 60 years. The claim this hotly disputed 5-4 decision overturning centuries of jurisprudence is "generally accepted" is unsourced, non-neutral, and non-verified (and untrue). Let's cite the controversy and be done with it. Or let's go to mediation. I'd be curious to hear from someone who has no POV on whether or not it is proper to insist on unsourced, unverified material in contradistinction to Supreme Court decisions and legal scholarship.GreekParadise (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

−

Recent attempts to change the lede
−	If we want to add something about Miller to the lede, it should reflect what the article says about Miller, not one side of that issue. It is popular these days to portray the 2008 decision as being inconsistent with Miller, but Miller did not clearly interpret the amendment as being related to the militia, it merely questioned whether a sawed-off shotgun would be useful to a militia. The 2008 decision was the first which directly addressed the meaning of the amendment. Please stop trying to insert the POV that everyone agreed with the one interpretation before 2008. Celestra (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC) −
 * Agree with Celestra. The implication that it reverses a previous SCOTUS finding is unsourced and contrary to the sourced material. North8000 (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

−
 * It is POV to suggest that Heller did not overturn Miller. Miller said gun ownership protected under the Second Amendment has "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." If you disagree that Heller overruled Miller -- as every legal scholar I have read has found, including Jeffrey Toobin whom I cited -- then cite the controversy rather than claiming a disputed thing is true. I'll put up a POV tag until this thing is resolved.GreekParadise (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

−
 * The Heller rejected the type of reading of Miller you describe. It said Miller referred to the type of firearms covered by the Second Amendment Maybe it would better to put that in the article, Introduction and/or elsewhere, if it isn't already. That would better than saying Heller overruled Miller. Officially, it did not and really it is beside the point. The point is what Heller said the Second Amendment means. SMP0328. (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

−
 * I think it is a stretch to call Toobin a legal "scholar". He is a legal analyst and journalist. He refers to a scholarly paper in the Harvard Law Review, which says at one point "For many, constitutional law changed because the Court interpreted the Second Amendment in accordance with the understandings of the Americans who ratified it: Heller marks the "Triumph of Originalism." Others saw the case very differently, observing that the Court had interpreted the Second Amendment in accordance with the convictions of the twentieth-century gun-rights movement and so had demonstrated the ascendency of the living Constitution." Clearly, from that, we can see that there are two schools of thought. Failing to present one of those schools of thought as the "truth" is the opposite of POV. Please remove the POV tag from the article.

−
 * On the other hand, I think that we used to have text in the lede which did express that there was disagreement over the meaning of the Second Amendment prior to Heller and I think it would be good to have that or similar text return. It is part of the history the Second Amendment. Likewise, I think we should express that some scholars don't agree with the Court's interpretation, but I don't feel as strongly about that. Celestra (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

−	'''I support this. And I'm willing to take a stab at it if you agree. Let's present both schools of thought as part of the history of the Second Amendment and not just the pro-Heller view which was not accepted by the Supreme Court until 2008.'''GreekParadise (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC) −
 * I've removed the tag. This dispute is about what should be said about Miller within this article. Nothing has said to suggest that the article in general is POV. SMP0328. (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

−
 * See below where I describe in great detail why the historical analysis in the article is POV in its unusual depiction of pre-Heller history and law under the Second Amendment, as cited by the Library of Congress and mainstream legal historians. I have no problem with both historical views (the mainstream view and the current article's view) being represented, but every time I tried to present the mainstream view in addition to this article's view, my additions and suggestions were summarily removed. Until we resolve this by accurately showing both sides of the historical controversy, I respectfully request you put back the POV tag.GreekParadise (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

−		 −

"Generally accepted" that Second Amendment confers individual right is POV
−		 −	The text said without citation it is "generally accepted" that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to carry a gun. Actually, as the cases and commentary I cited conclusively show, it was "generally accepted" that the Second Amendment conferred a collective right to bear arms in a well regulated militia for more than a century by both the Supreme Court and lower courts until the Heller Supreme Court decision in 2008, a hotly contested 5-4 decision that overruled this long-standing collective view that dates back to ratification. I don't dispute that there are two views or that the debate is hotly contested, but I think it is POV to say that the recent decision by the Supreme Court is "generally accepted" and particularly to do so without citation to a poll or scholarly article. The best thing is to simply state the truth, without POV, that the Second Amendment is the only Amendment to give a stated purpose (this is true and the law journal article I cited backs it up) and that the Supreme Court in Heller said that the purpose does not expand or limit the Amendment. The reason the Heller decision was a landmark decision was because it changed prior law. If it merely restated prior law, it would not be a "landmark decision" It would be ordinary. GreekParadise (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC) −
 * It was landmark because it was the first SCOTUS decision on the individual right question. North8000 (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

−
 * Exactly. It was the first case to determine that the Second Amendment confers an individual right (within limitations and restrictions). Case law prior to 2008 (see, e.g., Miller 1939) said it was a collective right relating to a milita. (See the several scholarly references I included. But you don't have to believe the scholars because that's what the Supreme Court actually said. Read Miller) What purpose does it serve (other than POV-pushing) to refuse to let the wikipedia audience know that it was the first case to determine an individual right? Heller was a landmark case because it overturned prior law, just as Brown v. Board of Education was landmark because it overturned Plessy v. Ferguson. If Heller had just restated existing law, it would not be an important case worthy of including in the introduction. I also don't see why you want to delete from the article the important mention that the Second Amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights with a stated purpose. We should state the controversy and not take sides in it. Just because someone believes some hotly contested thing to be true does not make it "generally accepted." GreekParadise (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

−
 * A Supreme Court decision can be a landmark decision without overruling any earlier Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Roe v. Wade). Besides, Heller rejected reading Miller to be limiting the Second Amendment to protecting only a collective right or a militia-based individual right. This resulted in the overruling of numerous U.S. Courts of Appeals decisions dating back to the 1940s. SMP0328. (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

−
 * They had to be overruled because the validity of the militia clause was the generally accepted opinion of the Courts from the 1940's to 2007 (after Miller in 1939), although the Library of Congress states the militia clause was accepted by courts as defining the Second Amendment as early as 1875. See below.GreekParadise (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

−
 * Prior to Heller, reasonable people could have different opinions about the meaning of the Second Amendment because the Supreme Court had not unambiguously decided that meaning. Since the Supreme Court is the body that decides how to interpret the constitution, after Heller there can be no reasonable disagreement about the meaning, just about the decision. I don't see the problem with saying that the meaning is "now generally accepted". It gets across the recent nature of that acceptance. It does not say that everyone agrees with the interpretation, just that generally people accept that that is the official interpretation. The changes you attempted gave the impression that prior to Heller, the court had decided on the other interpretation, which is simply not true. Please remove the POV tag from that section. Celestra (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

−
 * You do not have the right to claim your opinion is "generally accepted" without citing any sources. If you say the Supreme Court held it for the first time in 2008, that's fine. Would you say Roe v. Wade is "generally accepted"? You could say it only if you had a poll that showed that 90% of the people accept it. Wikipedia does not allow you to make up stuff. Please add a source or accept the removal.GreekParadise (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

−
 * The meaning of the Second Amendment is not decided by a poll; it is decided by the Supreme Court. Prior to Heller, the court had not unambiguously interpreted that amendment. Now they have. Your change to that section tries to push a POV that everything was one way before the decision and another way after and that simply isn't a neutral interpretation. Please provide some reference which suggests that the interpretation made by the body which is responsible for interpreting the constitution is not generally accepted. Celestra (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

−
 * If your meaning is that the Supreme Court decides the law, that's fine. That's true. But "generally accepted" to me implies public acceptance. Otherwise what does it mean?  Imprecise language should be removed.  As for public acceptance, would you be fine if I said that Roe v. Wade is generally accepted or that the case allowing the Government to use public domain for private gain is generally accepted? I would argue both decisions, although they are the law decided by the Supreme Court, have and continue to be roundly criticized by many.  Plus there is no citation for generally accepted.  Is that your opinion, Celestra, or do you have a source for it?  You know you can't post your opinion on wikipedia, of course.  So if there's no source, it has to go.  You can't even say the movie Titanic made a lot of money without a source and that's generally known. So how could you say something this controversial and make it unsourced?  Please remove the language or suggest a way to make it more precise.  You could say something like the Supreme Court decision in 2008 has made the individual rights argument the law of the land. That's true and requires no citation or subjectivity.GreekParadise (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

−	I have changed "generally accepted" (which is vague and implies public acceptance) to "generally accepted by the courts" which is unambiguously true after Heller. That solves the problem and I have removed the POV tag.GreekParadise (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC) −
 * That section is talking about the models used by the court. If you want to make that more explicit without inserting your POV about the collective rights model, please suggest a wording. Clarifying that use of the phrase while adding an unsubstantiated claim of "generally accepted" for the collective model prior to 2008 is hardly reasonable. Celestra (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

−
 * I plan to cite the Library of Congress article (and its bibliography of more than 30(!) scholarly books and articles) as my source. See http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php . You can't get much more reliable than that. Please review this short article.  My hope is, based on that reference, you will withdraw your objection or propose alternative language. The only reason I didn't include the Library of Congress on the main page as a footnote is I wanted to see if you would accept it before working hard to put the reference in proper form. Please understand I am not disputing that Heller is current law. The dispute is about what the law was pre-Heller. And as SMP028 points out above, Heller overruled numerous decisions dating back to the 1940's.GreekParadise (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

−
 * That isn't an article, it is just an overview. The overview is written by an unnamed person, so the person's reputation for accuracy is unknown. The level of review is likewise unknown. Looking at the content, the paragraph which mentions federal court cases has no citation, but the last sentence refers the reader to a Congressional Research Service document. (That document is writtten after the oral arguments, but before the decision on Heller, so it wouldn't reflect the details of the decision, but it seems accurate as far as I know.) It has a section on US v Emerson, which the overview doesn't mention. Based on those three problems, I wouldn't use the overview as a source for this article. Izno has removed the phrase which you found to be POV and the result seems NPOV to me. It would be good if you would remove the POV tag from that section. Celestra (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

−		 −

Both sides of "militia" controversy should be mentioned. Strong POV problem
−		 −	This article pretends that the Heller decision uncontroversially made no changes to existing law. But the Library of Congress disagrees with this article's current historical and legal account. Citing more than two dozen of the most important legal scholars in the country on the Second Amendment, the Library of Congress presents what is considered non-controversial outside of the current draft of this article: the proposition that the "militia" language in the Second Amendment modifying the "right to bear arms" language was the standard interpretation of the Second Amendment by US courts from at least 1875 until 2008. See http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php. −		 −	The Library of Congress, like most legal scholars in discussing the pre-Heller history, places great reliance on the Miller decision which unanimously found in 1939 that only weaponry with "some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" is protected under the Second Amendment. That point of view was consistently upheld by courts in the United States prior to the Heller decision in 2008. −		 −	Miller held that the "militia" language was an essential part of the Second Amendment and not mere unnecessary surplus words that the Founders could have either placed in the Amendment or taken out without changing the Amendment's meaning. Strict constitutional constructionists also believe that no words of the Constitution are mere surplusage. According to CNN's prominent senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, the militia view was clear and uncontroversial for more than 100 years, until a reconstituted NRA first argued in 1977 the "novel legal theory" that the first thirteen words of the Second Amendment are meaningless. See http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html −		 −	Even conservative former Chief Justice Warren Burger rejected the individual right to bear arms theory as a crock by the NRA, saying in 1991: "[The Second Amendment] has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." And of course the four dissenting justices in Heller strongly disagree with the historical analysis of the five-vote majority (and their point of view should be mentioned as well). −		 −	I don't ask editors to take sides on this issue. Heller is obviously current law. But in an article purporting to discuss the history of the Second Amendment, the view that existed for more than a hundred years should be stated rather than jumping from "early scholarship" to the "late twentieth century". No doubt, people disagree on the history as well. Some believe Heller changed nothing. Others accept the more mainstream view cited by former Chief Justice Burger, Toobin, the Library of Congress, and many other (probably the vast majority of) legal scholars. −		 −	But an article in wikipedia cannot present one side of a hotly disputed historical and legal controversy as an unvarnished "generally accepted" truth. −		 −	If some editors wish to express the particular historical view of those that support the decision with citations from reputable legal scholars to the effect that Heller changed nothing, that is fine by me. But then they are equally obligated to report the more mainstream historical and legal view reflected in the Library of Congress, a non-partisan branch of Government that considers the current article's view so far out of the mainstream that it does not even address this point of view as a legitimate one. −		 −	The Supreme Court opinion in Heller is no more "generally accepted" than the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. True the Heller opinion, like Roe, is current law, but many Americans and many legal scholars strongly disagree with both decisions. −		 −	Perhaps it would be best to simply have two sections. "Individual rights proponents" (who argue that the militia dependent clause is irrelevant surplusage) and "Militia rights proponents (who argue that the first thirteen words of the Amendment modify and condition the remaining words)". Then both sides of the controversy could be represented fairly.GreekParadise (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC) −		 −
 * IMO there are may flaws / errors is your statements / arguments above, but there no need to worry about talk page statements.  Now, on to the content question. The SCOTUS interpretation is the binding interpretation.  Most of your content related discussion revolve around the presence of a unqualified "generally accepted" statement but that is no longer in there. Both viewpoints on the core quesiton are covered. Is there a open content question?  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

−
 * Unfortunately, at the very time you wrote this comment, Celestra again undid my revision. So the unsourced and ambiguous "generally accepted" statement is back. I've removed it more than once but been reverted each time. I won't put it again without consensus although I will reinstate the POV tag if there is no consensus.  However, if it is now conceded that "the law" as dictated by the Supreme Court and "general public acceptance" are indeed two different concepts as I believe, and that the latter concept is inaccurate while the former description, as you say, is accurate, then, with your permission, I will again attempt to take out the improperly sourced and inaccurate language and replace it with "generally accepted by the US Courts."  Or perhaps better put "the law since 2008."  OK?  (I believe there are many open content issues, as I have described in great detail, but I agree to resolve this issue first.)

−	Definitely not "law since 2008". It dates back to the initial adoption of the bill of rights. 2008 was merely the authoritative interpretation of it with respect to that question. I think that "generally accepted" for that particular question is also correct, but I am neutral about whether "generally accepted" is in or out. But I'm certainly against replacing it with something that is inaccurate. North8000 (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC) −
 * There is no more reliable source on judicial interpretation of the Second Amendment than an official Congressional Research Report for Congress. According to CRS at 3, "judicial treatment of the Second Amendment for the remainder of the twentieth century [in the decades following Miller] almost summarily concluded that the Amendment conferred only a collective right to keep and bear arms." I would like to rewrite the lede based on the information in CRS. Please review it yourself:  http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf  I do not know of a single firearms statute in the country that was ever declared unconstitutional by any court in the entire United States in any year prior to 2008.  Do you?  According to CRS, the first time the individual rights interpretation is ever even mentioned in US Law is the Emerson (Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2001) and even that one did not enforce the Second Amendment to strike down a statute.GreekParadise (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

−
 * As for "generally accepted", given that it is absolutely proper to say the Supreme Court in Heller accepted the individual view and established it as law, and given that that is said elsewhere, what does "generally accepted" mean to you? You mean in opinion polls?  In a poll of legal scholars?  By US courts?  It needs to be clarified. I submit that Heller has been "generally accepted" only by the Courts, who are, of course, required by law to adhere to Supreme Court decisions. Does "generally accepted" have any other meaning to you?GreekParadise (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

−
 * Again, I said that I think that "generally accepted"is correct, but am neutral about whether or not it is used in the article. So unless it goes back in, that particular phase is a moot point.  But, as a sidebar, the reason why I consider it to be accurate is that whether they like the result or not, most are considering that aspect to be settled because SCOTUS made THE ruling on it. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

−
 * On the other points I think that it is quite clear that that question was considered to be unsettled-in-the-courts prior to Heller.  Long story short IMHO your efforts to have the article imply or make it appear otherwise are efforts at spin.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

−
 * I removed generally accepted as WP:WEASEL. If we want to talk about who accepts that interpretation (the public at large, the SCOTUS, legal scholars), then we should talk about who and provide the associated citations. --Izno (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

−		 −

Concise evolution of understanding about the meaning of the Second Amendment
−	The CRS document which is linked from GB's LOC overview is a worthwhile read. It is brief and presents several points in the evolution of understanding of the Second Amendment which might be good to capture in the article. Celestra (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC) −
 * Looks like a quality summary of the court aspects prior to Heller. North8000 (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

−
 * Since we all agree this is a good reliable source, I will quote from it, add the citations to the article, and remove the POV tag.GreekParadise (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Reliable or not reliable?
The following was recently removed from the article:"Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention June 5, 1788, eloquently argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:'Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.'"

The edit summary for the removal provided lack of reliable sourcing as the reason. Is the sourcing provided reliable? If not. why not? SMP0328. (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Change the first cite so it is clear that the source is Patrick Henry's 1788 speech. Wake Forest is merely where you got it. The second source is redundant and probably fails rs, so remove it. TFD (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither source meet the requirements of WP:RS.  Belch fire - TALK 05:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the sourcing of the Patrick Henry material, per TDF's suggestion. I've also restored other recently removed material, but added cite tags to it. There should be a chance for proper sourcing to be added to that material. Only if that fails, should that material be removed. SMP0328. (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with your last sentence, but be advised: the wfu.edu source fails RS, so you might want to start searching for a replacement. The references provided at the end of the page would be a great place to start.  Belch fire - TALK 06:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The speech itself does not fail rs and that is the source, not the website. A lot of material used in Wikipedia is taken from reprints posted to websites, such as Google books. Readers and editors are able to check other copies if they choose. The link just is helpful for people who wish to read more. Where we would have problems would be if we used a an article on wfu that summarized the speech and therefore became a secondary source. TFD (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The speech is not the source; the Wakefield web page is the source. It's a secondary source, and secondary sources are not considered reliable unless they have editorial oversight. See WP:RS and WP:V.
 * The page is just somebody's user space on a university server - it might be a faithful reproduction of the speech, but there is no way to know if anybody's checked it for accuracy. It could be a work of fiction cut from whole cloth, and there's no evidence that anybody would be held accountable if that were the case.
 * In all likelihood, there's nothing wrong with that version of the speech, but that's not the point. The point is that the Wakefield source doesn't meet the requirements of Wikipedia's policy for secondary sources, and that's the actual answer to the initial question that was asked here.  Belch fire </tt>- TALK 06:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

See Primary, secondary and tertiary sources: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.... A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." Henry's speech is a primary source, while an article commenting on it is a secondary source. And we are allowed to provide external links to copies of primary sources. In fact if the cite had not mentioned where the editor found a copy of the source, you would have no cause for complaint. It seems reasonable however that the Wake Forest University copies of "primary texts", not "just somebody's user space on a university server", would be accurate. This issue comes up occasionally at RSN and the RS talk page, and you are welcome to ask again. TFD (talk) 07:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong again, even if you might be right about what kind of source it is. Look at the policy you linked: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia;" As I've already pointed out, there is nothing whatsoever to ensure that the Wakefield source is an accurate copy. It's a personal web page, not a reliably published source. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  07:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It was reliably published in the 1700s, which is why we have a record today. There are of course primary sources that have not been reliably published, for example, an account of meeting aliens on a UFO website, and of course we should exclude them. Again if you do not believe me then take it to the RS talk page. TFD (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You have a remarkable gift for missing the point. Yes, we all know the speech was published a very long time ago - the point is, how do you know you are looking at an accurate copy?  In the case of the source being used, you don't know.  We should be using a reliable source, and we have guidelines to help us identify such sources.  I've already spelled out why the current source fails, per the guidelines.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  11:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is always an issue when sourced material is inserted into an article whether it accurately reflects the source. When editors question the edit, they may compare it with the source or, if they do not have direct access, may post to Resource Request.  When editors add sources there is no requirement to state whether they were using a physical book or an on-line copy.  If you are still in doubt you should post to the RS discussion page.  A similar issue came up recently regarding Ancestry.com, a user-generated site which includes original and scanned copies of original records.  (See Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 132.)  No one questioned whether the records could be used.  Incidentally, please try to avoid personal attacks as it detracts from constructive discussion.  TFD (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be best however to identify a source where the speech was published, if the university's website is not considered a reliable source. TFD (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I removed the material. Even if the source was reliable, it doesn't say that Henry was eloquent, or that his statement was an argument "for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression." That's synthesis and it has to go. I'll take care of it.
 * I'm also going to revert the restoration of major chunks of original research. If you want to restore them, the WP:BURDEN is on you to find reliable sources first. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see any discussion about the content and whether or not it should be in the article. I'm just seeing a sidebar discussion on sourcing details. North8000 (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What else would you expect, since this is a discussion about sourcing details. Take a look at the initial post: " Is the sourcing provided reliable? If not. why not?"  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  11:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That was the reason for its removal. While it meets rs, normally we would want a secondary source that establishes its significance. OTOH it seems to be just an example of a speech made in support of ratification by a well-known legislator. Is there anything particularly unusual about Henry's comments? TFD (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be ideal but is not the standard for knocking out material. I'm not saying that it should certainly be in either, just that we should have a discussion tat doesn't sound like just wikilawyering. My first quick thought is that it should be in. These are what people prominent amongst the framers said, includes supporting historical context information, and is consistent with what they ended up with. North8000 (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have restored the removed material. It should not be removed again, unless we reach a consensus for such removal. Such a large amount of material is should not be removed without consensus. SMP0328. (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm comfortable with the quote being in there with a citation to the speech itself, but I'm not comfortable with SMP's synthesis claiming that it constitutes and eloquent argument for this or that. SMP is getting close to 3RR and should probably exercise greater restraint. — Bdb484 (talk) 08:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I took out the "eloquently". On the second point, SMP has proven themselves extensively/ over a long time to be the calm restrained editor and voice of restraint here. I have not analyzed this situation closely, but at first blush this appears to be another case of them continuing to do that. North8000 (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never worked with SMP myself, so I'll take your word for it. Given the extensive edit history, though, he should probably already know that there isn't actually a rule that requires consensus to remove the uncited material and original research that he's added. There's a guideline that notes some people prefer that, but that doesn't make it mandatory. If I'm wrong, I certainly would appreciate someone directing me to that rule.


 * I'm not going to pull it myself, as it's not worth the edit war/pissing match that I'm concerned about it turning into, but I hope that someone else will take a look and deal with it. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that I did that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You did grab the "eloquently" bit, which I appreciate. Thank you.
 * But there is still quite a bit of additional material that constitutes uncited original research. You can see the diffs from SMP's first revert here. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I found reliable sourcing here and have added it to the material. SMP0328. (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Erm. I don't think an institution whose writings are intended to perpetuate "a Biblical worldview applicable to present-day problems" constitutes a reliable source. — Bdb484 (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think a "Biblical worldview" makes a source unreliable. Also, that website allows all of the material that we have been discussing viewable together. Finally, I also provided other reliable sourcing for each part of the material that had a cite tag. SMP0328. (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Bdb484's objection reveals (1) that he hasn't read this discussion and therefore doesn't understand why the original source needed to be replaced and (2) that he doesn't understand the relevant policies. I suggest studying WP:RS and WP:SOURCES for a refresher. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK 23:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ugh. I appreciate your attempt at condescension. I really do. But if you want to prove you're smarter than everyone, you're going to need to find the nearest elementary school.
 * The initial objection to this material was in fact never about finding a source to prove that these things were said, but rather about the fact that these sources are being used to support claims that they were intended as an argument "for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression," which -- to me -- is a pretty clear case of synthesizing the material. Maybe it's accurate. But we need to find a source whose reliability is not compromised by its goal of imposing a "biblical worldview" on historical events and public policy.
 * If you disagree with the arguments I'm making, feel free to address them substantively. If you can't, feel free to brush up on WP:DICK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdb484 (talk • contribs)
 * I agree with Bdb484, you are falling into your own trap here Belchfire. While Bdb484 shouldn't have gone on the personal attack (neither of you should of), how does the biblical website constitute a better source than the university one? How can you know that either of them/both of them are showing an accurate and precise reproduction of the speech? Hentheden (talk) 10:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Since we haven't gotten anywhere recently but have probably both had enough time to cool down, I'm going to open up an RFC to see if we can get some more input. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)