Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Systemic bias

The neutrality of the article reflects the energy level of interested editors, which bias towards the pro-gun viewpoint. The NPOV policy is that the neutrality balance point should be the balance point found in the balance of reliable sourcing. Not, the balance point of the energetic editors' viewpoints. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The tone of the article is currently pro-rights, aligned with the protections provided by the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. Do you object to the Bill of Rights? Is that the problem (that you perceive) with this article? Yaf (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No. I have explained the problems I see. Your question is a straw man. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I call attention to Yaf's statement[1] "The tone of the article is currently pro-rights...". This amounts to a stipulation that the article has a pro-rights neutrality skew. With that stipulated, we can then move on to the second issue: Does a pro-gun tone in the article meet the policy of WP:NPOV? Comments please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Strawman, tin man, or lion, I don't follow what you are saying. We are not in Oz, but the language sure is starting to sound like it. The tone of the article is currently pro-rights, aligned with the protections for individuals provided by the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. Of course, states have powers, derived from the consent of the citizens, whereas individuals have rights and not powers. A "pro-rights" tone is entirely fitting for any article on any one of the Amendments which together form the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, that individually and collectively protect the rights of individuals. Not sure how "pro-rights" somehow becomes "pro-" anything else, as you evidently believe, though. Are you proposing the article should be re-written to become "anti-rights"? I don't see how this would ever be possible, in view of trying to find Reliable and Verifiable sources to support such an extremist point of view. More likely, it would be utterly impossible, considering what the Bill of Rights is. The current article is written in a neutral point of view, as found by the Good Article review that has been conducted. Changing the article to become "anti-rights" does not appear to be a viable avenue, considering the subject matter, and would destroy the neutral point of view of the article, negating the Good Article rating. This would be counter to Wikipedia goals. Yaf (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Except, that editors dispute your belief that this article presently holds a neutral point of view. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is properly cited and well-written as it presently stands. It would not have achieved Good Article status had it not been. That said, it is always possible to improve articles. Therefore, why don't you contribute to the article, with properly cited information, based on Reliable and Verifiable sources, to balance the perceived imbalances you see with the article. Considering that this is an article about an amendment that is in the Bill of Rights, protecting an individual right (per the Heller decision), it is natural that the article focuses on being "pro-right", as that is precisely what the Bill of Rights do, individually and collectively, and this focus also agrees with the Heller decision. Being focused on being "pro-right", however, is not grounds for claiming a neutrality bias exists for the article because you disagree with the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, or because you disagree with the Heller decision. As I have said before, consider this an opportunity to contribute to Wikipedia! Yaf (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The article should be reassessed as it presently fails WP:GA standards. Many editors, including Yaf and SMP0328 have all agreed that presently there is dispute about neutrality. Therefore, the neutrality should be reassessed at this time. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Systemic bias remains a major problem with this article, this deserves more attention. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Unresolved dispute about article neutrality

I don't understand why the article doesn't simply start with the actual text of the 2nd amendment, which is of course very brief, note it as ratified on 1791, followed by some equivalent to "has been recently interpreted by the supreme court" to affirm a pre-existing individual right to possess weapons... blah. Seems to me that you start with what it is, in itself, then go directly to its current interpretation. As it is, it will read as very biased to many. 69.242.38.116 (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC) random visiting reader

This article follows the same basic format as other articles on the Bill of Rights. The text of the amendment appears to be placed appropriately. --tc2011 (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I continue to dispute the neutrality of the article. I have explained this in detail above, but major elements are 1) Systemic bias. 2) Excessive use of originalism. 3) Improper mixing of the Bliss Kentucky right to bear arms, with the Federal 2A. Unfortunately, this dispute has been stonewalled for months, but it still remains unresolved. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I pointed out that YOU are the most biased person on this discussion and you deleted that.

Why?

4.156.252.142, please tone down your rhetoric. Simply state the information that should be added and provide the citations. Doing so will help improve this article. This rhetoric is not helping. Thank you. --tc2011 (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The comment you see above is in response to Salty Boars "burning" of a negative comment against him, pointing out that HE is the worst POV offender on this article. I'm sure if a poll was taken most of the people here would agree with that.

in fact lets try it out

4.156.252.35 (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights that declares a right to keep and bear arms by individuals." That is currently the opening sentence of this article, and is completely POV (not to mention blatantly false). The text of the second amendment does not, anywhere, clearly define "a right to keep and bear arms by individuals." All controversy over the amendment is specifically about whether or not there is an individual right at all. Certainly, it states that there is some fashion in which the people have a right to keep and bear arms, but nothing in the text clearly states that there is an individual right. Why not open the article with say... the amendment? Instead, I open this article and am reading opinionated statements. Now, I'm not saying it doesn't imply an individual right to bear arms, but it certainly does not state it clearly and, to open this article with such a statement seems dishonest and particularly POV.

Yesterday you would have been right. Today the Supreme Court ruled, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. SMP0328. (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The intro does need some work, though. It starts out: The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights that declares a right to keep and bear arms by individuals. It also refers to a "well regulated militia" as "being necessary to the security of a free State" and prohibits infringement of "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms." It declares a right to keep and bear arms by individuals AND prohibits infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms? The conjunctive language is confusing. PubliusFL (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right and so I have greatly condensed the Introduction. Much of the Introduction needed to be removed in light of the Heller decision. The wording of the Introduction is no longer confusing. SMP0328. (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As the amendment is still something hotly contested, can we not say that it is a amendment the Supreme Court has "ruled" to mean individual self defense or whatever it was instead of just flatly saying that "this is what it definitely means? That way, you get the best of both worlds so to speak.--66.66.212.182 (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The amendment is not "hotly contested". As Al Gore would say, "the debate is over" *waves hand*. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.51.230 (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why the entry doesn't begin with a more neutral frame. There is an ongoing debate in the historical and legal scholarship about the context and meaning of this amendment. The debate is not over. A single Supreme Court case does not end the debate any more than _Dred Scott_ or _Roe v. Wade_ settled the underlying disputes in those cases. So, why not put the supreme court in the subject position and say that it "recently ruled that..." One's current position on gun rights (I personally support gun rights) should not shape the article. This kind of blatant bias will convince no one. Please just give the information. Embededinclosure (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The article if allowed to begin with "protects the INDIVIDUAL right" does not appear neutral. This article should begin with the actual text of the second amendment and the disputes as to how to interpret the amendment should follow. You are doing Wikipedia an injustice by hi-jacking this page for your own agenda. 75.54.116.122 (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, there is WAY too much opinion in the lead-in, and it is too long. The body, with careful allowance for each of the MANY sides of the debate (Why can't I have artillery at my house? Why must I go through so many gyrations to mount a machine gun on my roof? etc.) I am NOT volunteering to rewrite the intro, though, my talk page is already spammed enough just from vandalfighting. sinneed (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "pre-existing right" leads me to wonder what pre dated the second amendment of the constitution? Please provide some reference or identify a common law that pre dates the second amendment which guarantees "the right to bear arms". If you are unable to provide that then we must agree the phrase "pre-existing right" is incorrect.

This article in order to remain un-biased should only state the facts about the second amendment. Instead it opens with quotes by one supreme court justice in a very recent ruling, Ignoring the fact that the supreme court split on the decision by a very narrow margin of 5-4. And even in that decision it was stated that the "right" to own guns can be limited. i.e. "restrictions on Military style assault rifles, Certain types of ammunition, etc.

Keep the pro/con arguments in an appropriately titled section and refrain from any misleading opening statements. 69.227.153.239 (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A provision of the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. Regarding the Second Amendment, Heller is what the Supreme Court says it means and so the article reflects that. The fact that it was a 5-4 ruling doesn't change the legitimacy of the decision. So it is perfectly legit for the Introduction to refer to that decision, just as the Introduction in Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution refers to Mapp v. Ohio. The term "pre-dating" is a reference to common law in America prior to the Constitution's adoption. That common law recognized the individual right to keep and bear arms. The article refers to this common law recognition. SMP0328. (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "pre-existing right" leads me to wonder what pre dated the second amendment of the constitution? Please provide some reference or identify a common law that pre dates the second amendment which guarantees "the right to bear arms". If you are unable to provide that then we must agree the phrase "pre-existing right" is incorrect. - - This article in order to remain un-biased should only state the facts about the second amendment. Instead it opens with quotes by one supreme court justice in a very recent ruling, Ignoring the fact that the supreme court split on the decision by a very narrow margin of 5-4. And even in that decision it was stated that the "right" to own guns can be limited. i.e. "restrictions on Military style assault rifles, Certain types of ammunition, etc. - - Keep the pro/con arguments in an appropriately titled section and refrain from any misleading opening statements. 69.227.153.239 (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC) - - - - The article if allowed to begin with "protects the INDIVIDUAL right" does not appear neutral. This article should begin with the actual text of the second amendment and the disputes as to how to interpret the amendment should follow. You are doing Wikipedia an injustice by hi-jacking this page for your own agenda75.54.116.122 (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.159.98 (talk)

Re: Pre existing rights

Under the Articles of Confederation, Article 6, it was up to the states to arm the militia.

but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

As for the individuals right to "keep" arms, it is a natural extension of the right to self defense (your property included). You CAN'T effectively defend yourself unless you have access to weapons equal to or greater then those normally found in the hands of criminals. You can of course choose NOT to defend yourself, but the right to self defense is a recognized constitutional right.

Do YOU want to bring your fists to a gunfight?

At the time of the revolutionary war, the individual could own a rifle, a weapon substantially superior to the musket, which was the common weapon of armies of the period.

Also, it is likely that just about EVERY private ship of any size was armed during that time period, for defense against pirates if nothing else. Thus, at the time of the revolutionary war, the individual could own the equivalent of a pocket warship. 4.154.232.250 (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there remain large problems with the neutrality of this article. I suggest that this be discussed and resolved on the talk page. In the mean time, I suggest that a neutrality dispute warning be added to the article, directing readers to this discussion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Without identifying specific reasons why there is a problem with neutrality, adding a neutrality tagline appears premature. As this article is presently rated as being a Good Article (GA), with no prior evidence of NPOV issues for half a year now, including through the GA review process, arbitrarily adding a neutrality tagline does not seem warranted. Yaf (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This article displays a lack of neutrality that anyone not wearing NRA blinders can see. The recent edits to the intro help a bit, but it is still heavily slanted.--Fizbin (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This article reflects the current interpretation given to the Second Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court. If you don't like that interpretation, your argument is with five of the nine Justices, not with this article. SMP0328. (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, 5-4 of the Supreme Court. And, in any case, the Supreme Court ruling is a primary document, reflecting the point of view of the slimmest majority of the justices. By your logic you assert that the SCOTUS meets WP:RS standard, then the minority opinion would carry weight too and qualify as WP:V sourcing for the article, right? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Supreme Court ruling is not a primary source regarding interpreting the 2A of the US Constitution; it is a secondary source to the US Constitution. As for giving weight to dissents in SCOTUS rulings, that is not how the SCOTUS works. 5-4 up to 9-0, the result is the same regarding the outcome. The individual interpretation of the 2A is the current "law of the land" based on the Heller decision. Yaf (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Pardon. Cherry picking out of a court ruling, in favor of one bias, is misuse of a primary source, and violates NPOV. Stick with high quality secondary sources please. I dispute neutrality. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Supreme Court ruling is clearly a secondary source relative to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Are you disputing whether or not the Supreme Court is a reliable "hiqh quality" secondary source? I don't understand your concern, here. Are you really saying that we should not abide by the Supreme Court ruling, by virtue that you believe it not to be a "high quality" secondary source? What higher quality source is there, than the Supreme Court, to interpret the US Constitution? Yaf (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem in not the source, but rather the editorial process of cherry picking selective quotes from the source. That process of picking out passages selectively is a form of original research advancing your pro-gun point of view. It is a WP:NOR policy violation. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Writings published in peer reviewed journals from well respected publishing houses are a high quality sources. Your cherry picked quotes directly from court documents reflects your pro-gun editor bias. This caused a neutrality bias skew problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to authors adding content to this article based on writings in peer-reviewed journals, as well as other reliable and verifiable secondary sources such as Supreme Court interpretations of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Yaf (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a separate issue. The neutrality problem occurs because of the biased selective quoting from primary court documents is in itself a form of original research due to 'cherry picking' selection by POV editors. Also, the prominence of this bias at the top introduction level given undue weight to that point of view at the expense of other points of view. This neutrality bias should be fixed to bring the article into compliance with WP:NPOV policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr is dead on here with regards to the lead of the article. The "facts" presented in the first paragraph of the lead are simply Scalia's opinion from the Heller decision. Clearly this view should be aired in the article, but as the court's view in this decision, not as undisputed historical fact. On the subject of the lead, the whole thing seems confusing, and does a poor job of summarizing its topic - The second and third paragraphs would be confusing to an observer who doesn't know anything about the cases involved. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I really don't feel that the article is very biased. Even if it is slightly biased I don't think it bad enough to warrant the tag. I think it should be removed SpencerVR (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The determination of neutrality should not (and is not) based on what individual editors feel. Neutrality is measured by the balance of opinions found in credible reliable sources. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

I think there should be a more general introduction... one that talks about the Amendment in more general terms rather than referring specifically to a Supreme Court interpretation. Thoughts? Quark1005 (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Insofar as Heller is the one Supreme Court ruling that defines the amendment, that Court's findings should factor prominently, if we are to remain NPOV and encyclopedic. Looking at the other Bill of Rights articles, the leads are similar in structure and detail to this article. (Which tells me this article is on the right track.) Whether editors like it or not, Heller defined the amendment the way it did, so that's what the amendment means. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia presenting facts, not the "I likes" and "I don't likes" of various editors. --tc2011 (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much all of the text related to Heller is out of place in the intro. Having a separate section related to Heller is fine, but the intro should be much more general in nature.--Fizbin (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

In any article about a Constitutional amendment, it is common for the Introduction of that article to reference at least one important Supreme Court decision interpreting that amendment. For example, see Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Why should this article be any different? SMP0328. (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The two examples you cite have no reference to court cases in the initial paragraph, whereas this page refers to Heller in the first sentence. In fact, if you remove all of the Heller stuff the intro is pretty much a blank, as if this amendment had no significance until Heller was decided a couple of years back. The intro is totally slanted - a sham, really. --Fizbin (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I've de-emphasized Heller in the lead. This article is, after all, about the amendment itself and not a particular court case, so the repetitive Heller qualifiers are unnecessary for defining the amendment. --tc2011 (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel tc2011 has found a fair compromise. The Introduction still refers to Heller, but doesn't give the impression that the individual right to keep and bear arms is solely based on Heller. Also, the Introduction is now more concise. SMP0328. (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the edits by tc2011 are a major improvement. I would add that an even more neutral intro sentence would read something like this: "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the section of the United States Bill of Rights protecting the right to own firearms." --Fizbin (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The intro places a far too heavy weight on Heller, and specifically on the 'tyranny' aspect of Heller. There is 219 years of history about the 2A, and Heller is only one year of that history. Heller was fundamentally a case about the right of firearms for self protection. The focus on the tyranny concept is a POV push and imbalance. Also, the POV position articulated in Heller that the right to firearms is limited like all rights should be given higher weight for NPOV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Heller is a landmark decision. Dismissing it as merely "one year of that history" makes as much sense as referring to Brown v. Board of Education as merely "one year of [the] history" of the Equal Protection Clause. It's place in the Introduction is proper. SMP0328. (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Per George Will, the better analogy is Roe v. Wade[2]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It still is a POV push to give the 'tyranny' hypothesis such high emphasis. Rather, the lead section should summarize the article. The effects of the Pro-Gun editors have skewed the neutrality balance point of this article. This lack of neutrality harms the reputation of Wikipedia. Knowing your history, I don't expect a neutral response from SMP0328. Consistent personal bias and refusal to stand down from a pro-gun POV push. Hopefully for Wikipedia, you might change. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I am always reasonable with my responses. You need to learn to be polite with people with whom you disagree. The Second Amendment means what the Supreme Court says it means. The Supreme Court says it protects a right to keep and bear arms which existed before the adoption of that Amendment. The reference to "tyranny" is from the Heller decision and is referenced in the body of the article. If the "tyranny" reference was removed from the Introduction, would you be satisfied with the Introduction? SMP0328. (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, per Wikipedia policy the introduction should summarize the article, not summarize the most recent Supreme Court ruling. I appreciate your conciliatory words, though your words would carry more weight if they were followed with action, such as editing out the 'tyranny' hypothesis from the introduction. I don't dispute your reasonableness, I dispute your pro-gun editorial bias, which is 'reasonable' but (seemingly unintentionally) violates the neutrality weight requirements of WP:NPOV policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You're making a distinction; splitting a Constitutional amendment from Supreme Court case law regarding that amendment. That's a false distinction, because they are one and the same. Heller is the official interpretation of the Second Amendment. The meaning of the Second Amendment is Heller. If the "tyranny" reference was removed from the Introduction, would you be satisfied with the Introduction? SMP0328. (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Official interpretation? What does that mean? The only concrete effect at the present time is in the District of Columbia. We are facing decades of litigation before we can see through the fog of what Heller truly means. The heavy emphasis on the tyranny hypothesis is just a small portion of the pro-gun bias in the article. SMP0328 show good faith by adding a POV tag to the article, and then lets discuss the fixing of the neutrality bias problem in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the fog largely lifted with the Supreme Court Heller decision. The current tone of the article, following the Supreme Court ruling, is pro-rights, supportive of the Bill of Rights, as one would tacitly assume the Supreme Court would always rule, thereby reaffirming the US Constitution. No real surprises here. Are you suggesting the article should ignore the Supreme Court ruling altogether and favor an anti-rights tone to the article? I don't understand why you believe the article should skew away from the Bill of Rights, nor why you feel the article needs to reflect a non pro-rights POV, especially without cites. I am puzzled. Yaf (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Answering your question. After reading expert opinions on the Heller decision I see it is far from definitive. Many decades of litigation will likely ensue to resolve the ambiguity of which limits on gun rights are allowed and which are not. (No surprise, I guess, considering the 5-4 court split.) We know very little about the concrete effect of Heller presently other than on one insignificant ordinance in the District of Columbia, and the definitive statement (page 53) that the Heller ruling does not prohibit the government from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. Clear as mud. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, do you dispute there is a dispute about the neutrality of this article? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Salty Boatr

Please look up the meaning of the word "infringe" before continuing the POV dispute. 4.156.78.54 (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

When I look in books I see that there is debate over the meaning of the word infringed. Per WP:Policy, we should include all credibly reliable sides in that debate in the article. Presently the article suppresses the side of the debate which is not pro-gun. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

When I look at a dictionary I can't quite find a debate on the meaning of the word. I do find the MEANING however. Why don't you start with that? 4.156.78.223 (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence of suppression of properly cited content supported by Reliable and Verifiable sources by any editors contributing to this article. As stated previously, if you feel that there are points of view that need to be added, then, by all means, add them. This is an opportunity for you to contribute to Wikipedia. Yaf (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The proper procedure is to discuss revisions, find a consensus, then add them to the article. If I were to just unilaterally add changes to this article I risk starting an edit war, which I seriously want to avoid. A key element is the discussion, are you willing to discuss? SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the reference to post-Heller litigation from the Introduction to the part of the article describing Heller. SMP0328. (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Yaf's has declared[3] "The tone of the article is currently pro-rights...". This amounts to a stipulation that the article has a pro-rights neutrality skew. I and other editors dispute[4][5][6] that the biased tone of the article is presently meets neutrality per WP:NPOV policy.

Counting Yaf, myself, and these three editors, a total of at least five editors claim the article is neutrality biased. I am adding the "POV" tag based on this fact, to alert readers that neutrality is disputed and being discussed on the talk page. The tag also says: Please do not remove the message until the dispute is resolved. Please read WP:NPOVD and respect. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed that tag and will do so everytime you, or anyone else, adds it. This article is not biased. You are a bully. Yes, that is a personal attack, but it's also accurate! Every part of the Bill of Rights protects an individual right. Even the dissenters in Heller agreed that the Second Amendment protected an individual right. The Supreme Court is the final word on what a part of the Constitution means. The Court has said the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing individual right to keep and bear arms, subject to certain conditions. This article reflects that ruling, as it should. SMP0328. (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Even SMP0328 declared on November 14 that editor(s) "...are claiming the article isn't neutral." It appears unanimous, everyone here agrees there is a neutrality dispute.

This is silly then. We dispute whether there is a dispute. I ask SMP0328, will you participate in WP:DR to resolve our dispute about whether we dispute? Please answer. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That was from Yaf's user talk page. You're like a secret police force; nobody can feel comfortable saying anything to anyone. We entered disputer resolution once and it didn't work. Why don't you add material which you feel should be in the article? That would be preferable to removing properly cited material. SMP0328. (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Is that a no answer? Would you please answer my question? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, this article is so biased that only those with NRA blinders on would miss it. SaltyBoatr is not a bully; SMP0328, on the other hand . . .--Fizbin (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I ask again, considering that we all agree that there is a dispute here about neutrality, can we agree to add the POV warning tag be added to the article directing readers to the talk page to refer to the discussion of the dispute, and to participate in the resolution of the dispute? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

How about, once it's possible, you add properly sourced material so as to fix any problems you perceive to be in the article? That way, any reader of the article can see both sides of the dispute. Wouldn't that be preferable to removing material? The answer to free speech is more free speech, not censorship. SMP0328. (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is wise to discuss changes on the talk page, reach a consensus, then make the edits into the article. That way we can avoid edit wars. That is the reason I favor adding a notice to the article, to direct readers to this talk page to participate in the discussion about fixing the neutrality balance in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Forget the tag; the article is fully protected. Do you have sourced material which you would like to add? SMP0328. (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no way this article can be described as neutral. I am far from an expert on the subject (different continent, not interested in arms control), but here are some obvious problems:

• Second Amendment to the United States Constitution#English Common Law: "The rights of British subjects to possess arms was recognized under English common law." As a summary of the following quotation ("having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law") this is incomplete to the point of being a crass misrepresentation. (Relevant definitions from the OED: condition: "state in regard to wealth, circumstances; hence, position with reference to the grades of society; social position, estate, rank"; degree: "a stage or position in the scale of dignity or rank; relative social or official rank, grade, order, estate, or station".)
• Second Amendment to the United States Constitution#Early commentary extensively discusses a text that clearly distinguishes between the individual and the collective right to keep arms, while hiding this distinction for transparent political reasons.
• In Second Amendment to the United States Constitution#Text, the misleading (from a modern point of view) comma in some versions of the amendment is given undue weight because it appears in a prominent position, while the historical context (extremely irregular comma setting at the time, which is in no way comparable to modern rules) is not even discussed.

The article needs a clear neutrality warning, and it needs cooperation of editors from a wide range of backgrounds who cooperate to make it neutral. Currently it reads like the result of tendentious editing plus a few tiny fig leaves. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is neutral. As for equating the article with "arms control", that is actually a dead giveaway of a rather extreme, non-neutral, editing bias, in and of itself, typically used for indicating a codeword for advertising one's advocacy of extinguishing individual rights protected by the US Constitution. As for using the modern day Oxford English Dictionary to "decode" legalese English from a few centuries past, that is a fool's errand. English has changed over the time frame in question. As for the comma usage, again, you are using modern day English punctuation rules, with modern eyes, to critique historical English punctuation practices that were done differently. As Mark Twain wrote in the 19th Century, it is a weak mind that can only think of one way to spell a word. By modern day rules, however, such creative spelling and punctuation commonly seen in historical English only looks alien to eyes that have only read modern day English extensively. The English Language is dynamic, changing over centuries. The US Constitution, however, is written in a language that locks into print the English practices and word usages and beliefs of an earlier time. Being a constitutional form of Government, the protections provided by the US Constitution do not change like what is seen with countries having parliamentary supremacy, under which rights are not protected in perpetuity, but under which individual rights can be extinguished by a simple edict from Parliament. This extinguishing of basic individual rights is not possible under the US Constitution. Likewise, the wording of English law from the 17th Century may look alien as well. The current article can surely benefit from adding additional points of view. There is always room for improvement. However, censorship of cited information, that is somehow "offensive" with regards to modern day views of "arms control" resulting from living under a Government in which Parliamentary Supremacy has extinguished basic human rights that formerly were the hallmark of every Englishman (including, lest we forget, the Colonists who locked the then extant rights of Englishmen into the US Constitution), such censorship is not a worthwhile path to trod. This article should not be censored. Yaf (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your problem with the Text section. Wouldn't picking only one version to be in the article be a form of bias? As for your other concerns, I'll say to what I said to SaltyBoatr: The answer to free speech is more free speech, not censorship. If you have properly sourced and germane material you want to add, do so without removing other properly sourced germane material (once the article is no longer fully protected). Let's all give the benefit of the doubt regarding what is "germane". SMP0328. (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about misrepresentations, including misrepresentation of sources. They need to be removed or replaced by neutral statements, not balanced with statements representing the opposite point of view. In a dictionary an encyclopedia (sorry, I have been looking up too much), "free speech" is no excuse for tendentiousness. And what was your argument, again, for not tagging the article as POV until the problem has been solved? --Hans Adler (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not constructive. We should work this out, rather than placing a tag. A tag many times is a way to deligitimize an article. What do you feel should be in the article. Should it say the Second Amendment protects an individual right? SMP0328. (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Constructive, absolutely, lets be constructive; separate issue. The issue at hand is simple: Is the neutrality disputed? Yes, everyone agrees there is a dispute. Then a tag is warranted. Simple. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Forget the tag; the article is fully protected. Let's fix this. How about the article giving both sides regarding the various issues covered by the article? If both sides are in the article, it should be balanced. That's easier than making each passage be balanced. SMP0328. (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

For some reason the full protection was removed, so I restored the POV tag per WP:NPOV dispute and WP:TAGGING. There isn't even disagreement as to whether we have a valid POV dispute here (we do), so the fact that POV tags are sometimes used to "delegitimise" a neutral article is not a valid argument. There is an obvious systemic bias here, with one side caring a lot more about the article than the other (or neutral editors), and so doing a lot more work.

Note that this is not about making the article "balanced". That's the easy way out chosen by journalists. If you just tell the story of two opposing viewpoints you don't have to check the details. The way we do it in Wikipedia is to get the details right and to present them appropriately, taking care to give everything its due weight. The juxtaposition of two biased parts doesn't make an NPOV article.

I would consider removing the tag without a very good reason a very unconstructive act: an attempt to "delegimitise" the dispute. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with group projects is that a small minority, even a minority of one, can gum up the works, due to being continually at odds with everyone else.

I can only repeat what I have said before, an article about a PROTECTED RIGHT is NATURALLY PRO that right. This article SHOULD sound PRO gun ownership because that is what the Second Amendment protects. If it is not then the editors are failing to do their job. 4.154.234.125 (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:DFTT --Hans Adler (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a set of trollish comments to me. Name calling good faith comments by an anonymous editor, by saying don't feed the trolls, looks like rather poor practice, in my opinion. The comments express an opinion of how the article should be written. Nothing wrong with making good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia articles, including recommendations on how best to write articles. Yaf (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Splitting hairs about what is a troll and what is not a troll doesn't help. The anon editor keeps drumming the talk page with comments like "This article SHOULD sound PRO gun ownership because that is what the Second Amendment protects." Comments like that are prime example of the systemic bias problem with this article. I invite the anon editor to understand all the credible points of view on this topic, even those that don't match his/her personal point of view. Until that happens, the anon editor seems to be hoping to engage in an argument about gun rights. Take that argument elsewhere please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Should the article about that Amendment barring the quartering of soldiers in my home include arguments supporting the quartering soldiers in my home? I would HOPE NOT! I most certainly think it would be NATURALLY biased toward NOT QUARTERING SOLDIERS IN MY HOME!

The same goes for the Second Amendment.

As to whether I understand all points of view, I understand enough to have added section of this article which are still there. It just so happens that my understanding is not to your liking.

Sorry! Can't help you there! Nor do I want to!

Unless of course you change what you like.4.154.237.179 (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If Heller is not the official (i.e., legally binding) interpretation of the Second Amendment, then should every article about a Bill of Rights amendment which has been applied to the States have material claiming that is not the case. After all, we wouldn't want to push a pro-incorporation point of view? There are many people (foolishly in my opinion) who claim the Sixteenth Amendment was not adopted, because of alleged irregularities regarding its ratification. Should such tax protesters place a POV tag on that article for having a pro-ratification bias? SMP0328. (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

SMP0328, are you willing to edit neutrally? It appears that you are only willing to edit and defend your own personal point view. The policy at Wikipedia is to set aside your personal point of view, and to try to understand opposing points of view, and then to craft an article that presents, with balance, all the credible points of view including those that are not your own. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

To Salty Boatr

It is not in the LEAST credible, to bias an article about a protected right to make it ANTI that right.

For SMP - 16th Amendment - others may wish to skip the following as it is WAAAAAAY off topic.

Researchers have found at least one state being counted as voting PRO 16th Amendment, when in fact that vote was ANTI 16th Amendment. Mentioning this type of voting irregularity in its enactment is acceptable, but reports of this type should not DOMINATE the article.

An additional concern is that the 16th Amendment was declared passed with many states not officially informing the feds of their vote. One of the arguments by which the ORIGINAL 13th Amendment was declared null and void, after being in place for some 30 years, was a failure to officially inform the feds of the various state votes.

The ORIGINAL 13th Amendment, appeared in pre-Civil War era constitutions reads

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

It should be obvious why those who lust after power and money wanted this Amendment to disappear.

Wiki has an article on this Amendment, See 'Titles of Nobility Amendment" but it is POOR at best and fails to mention that this Amendment was considered enacted till it was declared null and void by the feds some years prior to the Civil War. The declaration more then likely was a contributing factor to the Civil war, which was was NOT about slavery, but about the feds infringing on state powers. When it comes to infringing, you can't get much worse then declaring null and void a Constitutional amendment in place for 30 some years.

Fairness dictates that if one Constitutional Amendment was declared null and void due to a failure of various states to inform the feds of their votes, then another cannot be ENACTED when it suffers the same failings.

Aside from voting irregularities, it is my personal opinion that the 16th Amendment is invalid because many if not all of the states at the time of the vote, had not been granted the Constitution power to tax income by the inhabitants of those states. We the people through various contracts, those being the state Constitutions, have granted certain powers to the states. The states then SUBCONTRACTED a portion of those powers to the federal government through the US Constitution. It is a given that if a contractor has NOT BEEN GRANTED authority to take a certain action, in this case tax income, then it most certainly has no legal basis to SUBCONTRACT that authority.

Feel free to call me foolish for holding that opinion!

More on topic, fairness dictates that some sort of mention should be made of minority opinions. That does not mean that minority opinions should skew an article NATURALLY PRO something, to a neutral point, or even worse, skew it to being ANTI what is should be naturally PRO.4.156.78.195 (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Over emphasis on Heller, stop fighting.

The introduction is skewed to a pro-gun bias due to the over emphasis on Heller. While Heller uses the politically charged term "individual rights" is does very little to define what that term means. The ambiguous term "individual rights" unfortunately also serves as a pro-gun rights slogan. Is the meaning as used in the article a political slogan serving to frame the issue? The answer for most readers is a loud yes. For that reason, we need to find a more neutral way to introduce the article.

Additionally, the meaning of 'bear arms', to 'carry weapons' was advanced with Heller, but Heller did not wash away the various other significant points of views, for example the point of the that 'bear arms' implies military service, or that 'bear arms' in the 2A means militia use. The fact that the latest SCOTUS court case may have leaned 5-4 in the pro-gun direction does not mean that the alternative POV should be scrubbed out of existence in this article. The introduction gives undue weight to just one of the POV's that should be covered in this article. The article also gives undue weight to one of the POVs that should be covered in this article.

Further, I see credible expert opinion that Heller has been misconstrued by the pro-gun advocates. There is another point of view about Heller that historically it serves as a major milestone towards the legitimizing and advancement of wide spread "reasonable regulation" of firearms[7]. That point of view deserves coverage in the article, and presently it receives none.

And worse, as long as the pro-gun Wikipedians treat this article as political battlefield to advance their pet political cause, the process of achieving neutrality seems impossible. The goal here should be for editors to set aside personal points of view, and to begin to understand and edit the opposing points of view. Presently, the pro-gun editors are fighting for their personal points of view only. Show some good faith and make a few edits that emphasize the opposing point of view. Please, stop fighting. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what is ambiguous about the term "individual right". A natural reading seems to be that this is about the distinction between

• "Every citizen may have a gun, so that he may defend himself" (e.g. against a robber; individual right), and
• "The people may collectively have as many arms as are necessary to defend themselves" (e.g. against a state that has become totalitarian, or against an external aggression; collective right).

Can you explain how your and/or the pro-gun interpretation differs from mine? --Hans Adler (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You put your examples within quotations, but it is not clear who you are quoting.

An example of the ambiguity is the concept "individual right to own and use firearms, free of public regulation.", described for instance on the back cover of the Uviller and Merkel book on this subject in the quotation of Jack Rakove "...misguided view that the amendment unequivocally recognizes and protects a strong individual right to own and use firearms, free of public regulation." Yet, the Heller ruling includes blunt statements that firearms are not free from public regulation, for instance on page 53 of the ruling: That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. Yet, as Jack Rakove suggests, many pro-gun advocates equate the slogan "individual rights" with the political belief "free of public regulation". While Heller appears to state exactly the opposite. Prominent gun control spokesmen like Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to prevent Gun Violence, actually praise the Heller ruling because the SCOTUS "...made it clear that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on access to firearms" It would be most neutral to avoid the slogan in the introduction, and explain the ambiguity carefully and neutrally down in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

We are not in article space here, so I felt free to use quotation marks in what may be a slightly idosyncratic way. Think of it as somewhere between marking a made-up quotation and scare quotes.

After your explanation I don't think "individual right" is ambiguous at all. On the other hand, I agree that certain readers may be misled into thinking that the SCOTUS completely endorsed an extreme POV. Perhaps we can solve this problem by rephrasing. I will think about this. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be open to a re-phrasing option. What I want to avoid is the risk of framing the article with code language. Sort of like the words "freedom to choose" when discussing something as contentious as abortion. The English language is versatile enough that we should be able to fairly describe the Second Amendment using words that are not worn out slogans commonly used as partisan political tools for framing this issue. At least the 'individual rights' term should not be needed to be used in the article until after the term is defined. This could avoid the 'framing' and projection of appearance of of pro-gun bias. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

For instance, perhaps the term "personal firearms subject to reasonable regulation" or "right of self protection firearms" could communicate the concept without using the slogan "individual rights". Additionally, I don't see that the concept of a right of arms for collective militia use does not still exist (in addition to the self protection firearm right), but the introduction suggests otherwise. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Blogs, such as Paul Helmke's post to the huffingtonpost.com that you reference above, are not considered reliable sources, being they are self-published. With proper cites, though, I don't think any editor would object to adding additional points of view, including some points of view even such as Helmke advocates in his blog. The sources, however, would have to be reliable and verifiable. Newsgroups and Blogs do not meet acceptable inclusion criteria on Wikipedia for use in citations. Also, I object to every point of view that differs from yours being labeled with your automatic "pro-gun" label, as you are wont to do. The Second Amendment is about more than "guns", it is about the protection of the right to keep and bear arms, which includes much more than guns. Your discussion above appears to focus on your disagreement with the Supreme Court case Heller, more than with the article itself. Can we focus instead on improving the article, instead of you quoting ad nauseum from blogs and labeling everything with which you disagree "pro-gun"? This is not an advocacy blog or anti-US Constitution website, but instead is a talk page that should focus on improving the article about one of the Amendments to the US Constitution. As for equating "individual rights" with "free of public regulation", that is not what Heller says, nor is it what most reliable sources indicate Heller says. The libertarian viewpoint, believing the 2A protects a right to keep and bear arms that are concealed from being in violation with the 2A, largely ended in the 19th Century despite having been the original interpretation set forth in Bliss in Kentucky. That said, the right to carry concealed arms is still the point of view in 2 states among the 50 states even to this day, without any requirement to license a right, consistent with the original libertarian interpretation of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution that dates back to Bliss. Similarly, you are exaggerating the point of view of those with whom you disagree, in a transparent attempt to discredit all disagreeing viewpoints. This is a rather juvenile debating trick, unworthy of inclusion on this discussion. Lets focus on using Reliable and Verifiable sources, not blogs, OK? And, lets drop the automatic "pro-gun" label for everything and every editor for which, and to which, you disagree. Yaf (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The opinion of Paul Helmke, who is the most prominent spokesman for the 'gun control' point of view is definitely pertinent, regardless if that statement was issued in online media or not. Your personal smears aside, I have provided the reliable sourcing of Jack Rakove regarding the neutrality problems with the slogan "individual rights" as used in the introduction. Are you willing to work together to resolve the neutrality problem with the article? It appears that you are stonewalling this work. Instead of continuing your fight, offer some compromise. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The sourcing of Jack Rakove's opinions, from a publisher's book jacket no less, is not a high quality source. I am not even sure precisely how it relates to the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Content from an author's own words, found inside a published book, should be used to convert a point of view into a high quality source suitable for use in an article on Wikipedia. Blogs and book jackets are not high quality sources, typically having undergone much less review than is the case for actual court decisions, published books, and peer-reviewed papers, for example. Besides, book jackets are also not typically verifiable for long, book jackets typically being lost almost immediately after a book is sold. I am not stonewalling, only asking that you use high quality sources, not blogs and book jackets (poor quality online media), for any content you add to the article. The requirement for maintaining high quality standards for Wikipedia is not negotiable; rather, you will need to find high quality sources that are Reliable and Verifable, and worthy of inclusion in a Good Article on Wikipedia. Otherwise, the content will destroy the Good Article evaluation, which should not be the intent of adding content to an article. Blogs and book jackets are just not high quality sources. As I have said repeatedly, this is your opportunity to contribute to Wikipedia. Yaf (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

[outdent]
Yaf. Stop fighting. Can you not see opposing points of view? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I clearly see opposing points of view. However, it appears that you cannot, advocating in perpetuity the removal of cited information you don't like simply because it doesn't agree with your point of view, instead of just adding high quality content to the article containing additional points you feel are missing. Wikipedia is not censored. There is room for all major points of view. As I have repeatedly said, you should view this as an opportunity to add high quality content to this article. When authors complain incessantly, while never adding content, it starts to look like what Hans Adler said perhaps another point is pertinent, namely WP:DFTT. Lets not go there. Yaf (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I object strongly to being quoted out of context in this way. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Objection noted. (It was a pertinent point, though, that you had made.) Yaf (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, If you can see opposing points of view then you have a duty to advocate inclusion of opposing points of view even if you personally disagree with those points of view. You fail at this. And, I prefer to take the advice given to me that I should work out revisions to the article on the talk page before I make the edits directly in article space. This 'talk first' editing process is very slow when dealing with tendentious editors. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

And have I not advocated repeatedly the inclusion of all major points of view in this article, asking you to please contribute to Wikipedia article space on this article, instead of just complaining? Again, I state you should consider this an opportunity to contribute to Wikipedia. Please do so. Yes, I have failed to read your mind. However, I cannot read your mind to transcribe your thoughts into article content with cites. The article currently appears neutral, but more detail can always be added, with proper use of Reliable and Verifiable sources, to increase the quality of the article. But, blogs and book jackets just are not the same quality as published Supreme Court decisions, published peer-reviewed papers, and published books by well-respected academics/historians/political scientists/et al. Your preferred editing mode, of suppressing all cited content against which you disagree, despite it being well written and reliably cited, while whining about systemic bias of historical records and published material, needs to change. Yaf (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

[outdent]
Your long history of seeking to get me banned from Wikipedia for editing in article space belies the good faith of your assertions today. The 'book cover' Yaf disparages was published by Duke University Press a well respected academic publishing house. Additionally, extensive discussion of the point summarized on the book cover is found on page 80 inside the book[8]. In short, the "individual rights" slogan emphasized in this 2A article is given undue weight relative to an opposing credible point of view regarding the orthodox view of the framers regarding the legitimacy of state police power which authorizes broad governmental firearm legislation in pursuit of public health and welfare. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"Now, we are making progress, being that the book has actually been opened! I have no fundamental objections to adding additional "balancing" content that you feel is necessary. But, being this is a historical viewpoint, pre-dating the clear interpretation of the Second Amendment given by the SCOTUS in Heller, perhaps it should be added in detail under the historical commentary section, with a short summary in the lede? Would this balance the short summary of Heller, in your opinion, in the lede? Yaf (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is offensive and appears to be deliberately obtuse considering your long knowledge of our study of that Uviller and Merkel research work. And wow, clear interpretation in Heller? In fact, Heller makes extremely strong statements (see especially page 53 of that ruling) about the Constitutional legitimacy of governmental legislative bans and regulations of firearms. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Heller does make these points. As you may recall, though, I was the one who also added, "The Supreme Court stated in Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897):

“The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;..."

and Heller builds on this earlier SCOTUS history. But, what does this have to do with the summary lede? Yaf (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, and again, and again your armchair interpretations through direct readings of court documents crosses the line of original research to advance your pet political cause. This original research and POV push has no place in Wikipedia. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should be honored that you think I wrote this opinion in 1897, but I am not that old. Hence, quoting this statement is not Original Research in the Wikipedia definition of the term. Neither is it synthesis, being only a quote that is interpreting the 2A. Clearly, this statement is an interpretation of one meaning of "infringed" relative to the Second Amendment. It is also historical in its interpretation of the 2A, in that it made the case that at least some restrictions on arms did not "infringe" the right protected by the 2A. Yaf (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

So you say. Your personal opinion about the meaning of that court ruling has no weight. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Federal obligation to ARM the militia

I brought this up many months ago as a worthwhile addition to the article, and I believe discussion was dropped as nobody wanted to do any major (or even minor changes) before seeing what the Supremes would say on Heller.

Per the US Constitution, Congress is OBLIGATED to ARM the militia. This power was transferred to the feds upon the ratification of the Constitution, when previously it was a state power under the Articles of Confederation.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

I would like to see some sort of mention on this OBLIGATION.

It is clear that the power to ARM is related to the power to DIS-ARM and that the Second Amendment was a CLARIFICATION of the above power, LIMITING it sorely to the ARMING of the militia.

There is currently language in the article that the Second Amendment language was supposed to be included in the body of the Constitution and I believe that this would be a good place for a reference of this OBLIGATION to ARM. 4.154.234.125 (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This hypothesis seems like original research and might be inappropriate on that grounds, and might also be inappropriate for this article belonging more 'on topic' in Militia (United States). What reliable sourcing are you reading for this idea? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that you object to mention of the Federal OBLIGATION to ARM the militia on an article dedicated to an amendment which CLARIFIES that federal obligation? Your anti-gun bias is showing.

The second amendment clearly is related to the above referenced language and that relationship is already mentioned in the "Conflict and Compromise" section of the article. See current language below

The Bill of Rights introduced by Madison on June 8 was not composed of numbered amendments intended to be added at the end of the Constitution. Instead, the Bill of Rights was to be inserted into the existing Constitution. The sentence that became the Second Amendment was to be inserted in Article I, Section 9, between Clauses 3 and 4, which list individual rights, instead of Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16, which specify the Congress's power over the state militias.

As for original research, this quote by George Mason already appears in the article (takes a bow for a job well done) and it doesn't take ANY brains to figure out what Mr Masons concern was. He speaks quite clearly on the matter.

The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless—by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them, &c. … Should the national government wish to render the militia useless, they may neglect them, and let them perish, in order to have a pretence of establishing a standing army. … But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence,—yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed,—what chance is there for preserving freedom?

and in case you are concerned about POV bias, please note that there are STILL more quotes in the article from the Federalist camp then from the anti-Federalists camp, when in fact the anti-Federalists were the prime movers for enacting the Second Amendment. For proper POV bias the authors of the Second Amendment should have more quotes then the people opposing it.

If you wish to be a "contributor" to this article you could try finding one or two more worthwhile quotes from the anti-Federalist camp. Who knows! You might even learn something while looking.4.154.233.81 (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Reliance on snippets of quotes from the founding founders to interpret the meaning of the 2A is a valid point of view, but Originalism like that is only one point view which is presently given undue weight in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't be avoided! The Second Amendment was written over two hundred years ago so to understand it's purpose you need to know the opinions of the people who wrote it.4.154.237.179 (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your point of view, but there is also another Contextualist point of view that the Constitution should be interpreted based on modern day realities and context as times and circumstances change. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

[Personal attack from anonymous editor removed]

I actually agree with what you write about criminals and some politicians. That said, this discussion belongs somewhere else. This encyclopedia talk page is not the place to discuss foolhardy public policy, please stop. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is ACTUALLY WHY THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS ENACTED. The main concern of the anti-Federalists was that crooks would gain public office, enact laws disarming the citizenry, and then through the use of an army, seize permanent power because the citizenry could not effectively resist.

Referencing quotes from Patric Henry in support - pay particular attention to the line, will your mace bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment. In case you didn't know a mace is a glorified CLUB. Do you want to face someone armed with a gun with only a CLUB?

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. … O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; … Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? … Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?

See also the comment by George Mason regarding an untrained unarmed yeomanry resisting an army.

The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless—by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them, &c. … Should the national government wish to render the militia useless, they may neglect them, and let them perish, in order to have a pretence of establishing a standing army. … But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence,—yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed,—what chance is there for preserving freedom?

On a more personal level, are you aware that Washington DC, also known as the District of Columbia was the murder capital of the US for many many years and for all I know still is?

What is you opinion of the ability of an UNARMED common citizens ability to defend himself against an ARMED criminal? Mine is that it is somewhere around slim to none, and that slim is on vacation. The politicians of Washington DC forced that situation on the citizens that they ARE OBLIGATED TO PROTECT AND SERVE resulting in the untimely death of many of those citizens.4.154.239.26 (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

To Amatulic

This is a DISCUSSION page about the Second Amendment article and a discussion of the arguments used in the ENACTMENT of that Amendment are certainly germane to this article. I have added material to this article (and several other articles) and can therefore be classed as an editor (although I am not a REGISTERED wiki editor). Salty Boatr is a registered editor.

This article has a neutrality dispute and one of the ways that dispute can be ironed out is to convinse the one making the dispute of the error of his position. Such can only by done through a discussion of that dispute.

Please refrain from deleting any portion of those discussions.4.154.235.12 (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Argument based on one's personal opinion about history, whether that opinion is justified or not, really don't carry any weight in an encylopedia article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Quotes from two leading anti Federalist indicate THEIR opinion.

and what kind of a discussion can we have on the the reasons for the enactment of the Second Amendment, if we cannot reference the opinions of leading political figures whose concerns it was designed to satisfy?4.154.235.12 (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous user: No. Follow the talk page guidelines or recuse yourself from this page.

I will continue to delete diatribes and soapboxing, per the guidelines WP:REFACTOR and WP:SOAPBOX. This isn't a forum. Restrict your comments to improving the article, rather than debating personal interpretation and points of view about the 2nd amendment. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

NO to WHAT? Are you trying to bar me from quoting source material ALREADY IN THE ARTICLE?

I was under the impression that attempts to resolve a POV NEUTRALITY DISPUTE falls under an improvement on an article.

Do you disagree?

last I checked there are only 3 ways to resolve that type of dispute.

1) to convince one side of the error of their position

2) To change the article

or

3) a combination of the above

Do you disagree? and if you do, What is your disagreement? Is there a 4th method I don't know about?

FYI:I am engaged in method 1 above. Others are engaged in method 2 and still others in 3.

I personally find the current article quite acceptable and can therefore only honestly engage in method 1.4.154.238.222 (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

4.154.238.222 Could you please read and follow talk page Wikipedia:Etiquette? Your 1-2 method isn't working, trying following etiquette as a method 4 to get what you want. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

When I used method 2 it worked quite well thank you. It got the quotes I reference above included in the article. That is one of the reasons why I currently have no major beef with the article. The other reason is that the Supreme Court stated gun ownership is an individual right and that Supreme Court ruling is well reflected in the article

even barring your continuing attempts at revisionism.

and speaking of etiquette; I don't remember receiving any response as to why you deleted my addition to the article regarding the Cooke citation. see footnote 37. I believe I asked you for a reason half a dozen times and not one peep out of you in response. Bad etiquette on your part? or should that be lack of etiquette? Were you aware of those etiquette rules back then or is etiquette something that only other people should follow? You being too good to follow rules meant for lesser mortals.

Isn't it funny how the US Supreme Court used almost that exact same language from Cooke that I tried to add, and YOU deleted, in the Heller ruling!

Also nice to see that the Supreme Court, in Heller, used language almost exactly the same as the quote from George Mason. I was responsible for getting that quote into the article in as well.

Now back on topic, while I personally can't see method 1 working on you, that does not mean I can't try.

Now, in order to understand your beef with the article and see if it has any basis in fact, lets go back to on question you keep avoiding

What do YOU believe the Second Amendment protects?

It obviously protects SOMETHING!4.154.232.169 (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not delete your edit. My opinion of what the 2A protects is totally irrelevant here on this talk page. Quit yelling. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You did IN FACT delete my edit.

Of course that fact that you have deleted so many OTHER edits probably makes the fact that you deleted mine a bit forgettable to you.

To refresh your memory, For a month or so after that deletion, I was referring to you deletions as the BURNING of other people good faith efforts to improve this article.

Does THAT ring a bell?

Your opinion on the 2A is TOTALLY relevant to you disputing the neutrality of the article. As stated before I find this article currently quite acceptable. You obviously don't seem to.

Again: WHAT do YOU think the Second Amendment protects? It obviously protects SOMETHING!4.154.232.10 (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I strongly doubt SaltyBoatr is ever going to answer your question. If he wants to answer he will, but don't repeat the question. The repetition serves no purpose. Responding to what he has already said is more productive. SMP0328. (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

He certainly didn't answer my repeated questions as to why he deleted the Cooke reference. I mean that was only from a book in print for some 40 years.

and frankly I resent a lecture on etiquette from someone who not only crawls under a rock to hide whenever he gets called on something unethical, but lies about it to boot!4.154.232.10 (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Incorporation, uncertain?

Regarding the last sentence in the introduction: The issue of incorporation of the 2A is by all accounts something that may happen in the future. See for instance Harvard's Professor Amar discussion of this[9] where he describes the process in the future tense. Yet, the introduction of this article is vague that the issue of incorporation is somehow split, leaving the open implication that incorporation may already exist. This is a powerful pro-gun bias skew in the introduction that the issue is simply a matter of "uncertainty". No. The Second Amendment has not been incorporated. There is plenty of speculation that it should be incorporated, or will be incorporated, but it is not uncertain that it has not yet been incorporated to the states. I suggest that we strike the incorporation sentence in the introduction entirely as a step to help fix the neutrality bias problem in the article. Alternatively, that sentence can be rewritten to say that incorporation will likely happen at some point in the future, (an option which I don't like because that involves a crystal ball prediction). Comments? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the word "uncertainty" is biased, but it is vague. How about saying "since Heller, federal cases have been filed requesting the Second Amendment be made applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment"? Appropriate wikilinks and sourcing would be added. SMP0328. (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable, as it appears that it is not so much an attempt to find out whether the 2nd Amendment is incorporated, but rather a political struggle about whether to make it so. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally find the states two-faced in this matter. Many states refused to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights. By definition, when the states forced the inclusion of the Bill of Rights into the Constitution, that recognized those rights and bound themselves by the language.

The states to the feds: The people have these rights - don't mess

The states to the people on the exact same matter- You don't have these rights and we can mess.

Either the rights exist or they don't. Further a right is not a right if it can be taken away. The Bill of Rights states that these rights exist, and it is superior to state laws and Constitutions. Invoking the 14th Amendment should not be necessary. 4.154.233.81 (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

At the time, as now, each State enumerated its citizens' rights in its State Constitution. The call for a federal Bill of Rights was so those limitations would apply to the federal government. The States viewed the U.S. Constitution as simply one more Constitution. They didn't want a federal Bill of Rights to override each State's Bill of Rights. So people had rights at the State level, even though the federal Bill of Rights didn't apply at that level. SMP0328. (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The Second Amendment has not yet formally been incorporated. That said, it is impossible to know whether or not the 2A is incorporated since there is an absence of Supreme Court rulings one way or the other in the recent past to decide the matter. Short of a case coming before the SCOTUS, in which this is decided anew, we cannot say one way or the other. The original reason for the "uncertainty" wording in the last paragraph of the intro was to accommodate the ambiguity existing after Heller. That said, there is clearly Wikipedia policy against being a crystal ball regarding future events. One of the original purposes of the 14th Amendment was precisely to incorporate the 2A, to guarantee the rights of self defense to recently freed black men in the South after the Civil War, but there was a good bit of case law by Southern courts that succeeded in largely blocking this effort. The Civil Rights movement of the 1960's started the incorporation effort with regards to other rights of individuals; in many ways, the current post-Heller era appears to be headed in much the same direction with regards to the 2A as seen in the 1960's for other Civil Rights. However, it is entirely inappropriate for this article to claim the 2A is positively incorporated or not incorporated. Historically, it was not incorporated in the 19th Century, but, likewise, neither were lots of other rights incorporated back then, rights that are today considered incorporated by the SCOTUS. Yaf (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Who should we believe, you or Professor Amar? It would be helpful if you could stop your pushing of your personal agenda based on your personal beliefs. Though after knowing you for a few years, I am skeptical that you have the ability to do this. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks, such as this, unrelated to improving the article, need to stop. They serve no useful purpose. That said, are you now saying you believe the 2A has been incorporated, contrary to what I said above? Yaf (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Professor Amar describes the incorporation of the 2A using future tense language. Clearly, the incorporation has not happened yet according to that preeminent expert on this topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

SMP0328 made some changes[10] to the the 'incorporation' sentence in the introduction, which are a modest improvement. Still, the coverage of these NRA lawsuits is not mentioned anywhere in the article, so high profile inclusion in the introduction gives undue weight to these 'pro-gun' advocacy lawsuits and contributes to the overall pro-gun neutrality bias in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the reference to post-Heller litigation from the Introduction to the part of the article describing Heller. SMP0328. (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Errors in Case law section

"That the words "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State", and the words "common defense" clearly show the true intent and meaning of these Constitutions [i.e., Ark. and U.S.] and prove that it is a political and not an individual right, and, of course, that the State, in her legislative capacity, has the right to regulate and control it: This being the case, then the people, neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms."[68]

This is an incorrect interpretation, regardless of the source.

The phrase "for the common defense" is not in the US Constitution's 2nd amendment, and was explicitly rejected when proposed in the US Senate:

Journal of the First Session of the Senate of the United States 77 (Washington 1820) ("On motion to amend article the fifth, by inserting these words: 'for the common defense' next to the words 'to bear arms'; it passed in the negative."). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.149.153.82 (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

From the Case Law section:

"The Arkansas high court further declared:

"That the words "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State", and the words "common defense" clearly show the true intent and meaning of these Constitutions [i.e., Ark. and U.S.] and prove that it is a political and not an individual right, and, of course, that the State, in her legislative capacity, has the right to regulate and control it: This being the case, then the people, neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms."[68]

The Arkansas high court did not declare the above. It's from a dissenting opinion. Further, footnote 68 refers to this link: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndcourt/state/191st.htm but it does not contain the dissenting opinion (and as a result the above quote). However this link does: http://www.guncite.com/court/state/4ar18.html

I will remove the above passage next week if this talk section doesn't receive any rational response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Edited to add: Not only is the quote misleading because it is a dissenting opinion but the judge concluded his opinion with: "To forbid a citizen, under the penalty of fine and imprisonment, to carry his own private arms about his person, in any manner that he may think proper for his security or safety, is, in my opinion, an unauthorized attempt to abridge a constitutional privilege, and therefore I hold the law in question to be of no effect." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the link in footnote 68 and made a wording tweak so as to clarify that the "That the words" quote is from Justice Lacy's Buzzard dissent. SMP0328. (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That was fast! However, upon further review that commentary on Buzzard is misleading. First, why include the quote at all? As I stated above the judge further wrote: ""To forbid a citizen, under the penalty of fine and imprisonment, to carry his own private arms about his person, in any manner that he may think proper for his security or safety, is, in my opinion, an unauthorized attempt to abridge a constitutional privilege, and therefore I hold the law in question to be of no effect." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This is also misleading: "Joel Prentiss Bishop’s influential Commentaries on the Law of Statutory Crimes (1873) took Buzzard's militia-based interpretation, a view that Bishop characterized as the “Arkansas doctrine", as the orthodox view of the right to bear arms in American law.[68][69]

Modern gun rights advocates have disputed this history, claiming that the individual right was the orthodox view of the right to bear arms under state law in the 19th century"

There were two separate opinions in Buzzard. The first merely held an individual may bear arms suitable for militia use and that the carrying of concealed weapons could be regulated. This squares with some individual rights readings.

Bishop's commentary doesn't say either way whether the decision was individual or collective, but merely cites Buzzard as upholding restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons.

Therefore I'd like to remove the reference to Bishop's Commentaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Except that the "misleading" statement is cited with a Reliable and Verifiable source. Disagreeing with a cited source is common, but it is Original Research to state it is wrong without a cited reliable and verifiable source that makes an opposing claim. Bishop's commentary clearly has been interpreted by some in the way the present article has been written, as the cites clearly show. If you have another cited source that claims otherwise, then we can add that too. However, removal of "misleading" content that goes against your Original Research is not the way Wikipedia works. Reliable and Verifiable sources are the requirement on Wikipedia. Is there a source that states that the statement in the article is misleading? Yaf (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Please think of a solution other than removal. I'm not comfortable with removing that material. I think a clarification would be better, if needed. SMP0328. (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

But the citation is incorrect. Bishop's Commentary makes no mention of which interpretation the Buzzard court took. It appears to have been an "augmentation" by the author whose work was cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

@SMP --- I'll run some stuff by you later. It's possible to keep the mention of Bishop in there, but in a different fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That is the way Wikipedia works. Statements must be cited, and the author to which you object is quoted from a reliable and verifiable source. If there is another source that makes a different interpretation or claim, that is fine. But, calling the present cited wording "incorrect" is not the way Wikipedia works. It is very much correct and can be verified by the cited and reliable source. It is original research to make another claim without a cited source that is reliable and verifiable. Yaf (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to your proposed wording regarding Bishop. SMP0328. (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Before doing that, I'd like to re-visit the usage of judge Lacy's quote. It's taken out of context. That quote is actually a snippet of Lacy's interpretation of the two majority opinions. Lacy is in fact stating that the court's decision which would allow the regulation of bearing arms, eviscerates the right such that it becomes no right at all. Thus, Lucy opined that the individual citizen anytime may bear arms of any variety (see his concluding remarks that I quoted above). So if you wish to keep Lacy's remarks this needs to be explained. I think it'd be far more readable to give a sentence summarizing the three opinions and relegating the rest to a footnote at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What about this quote from Justice Lacy's dissenting opinion (in the last paragraph of that opinion):

I cannot separate the political freedom of the State from the personal rights of its citizens. They are indissolubly bound up together in the same great bond of union, and, to my mind, they are incapable of division. The distinction may be in names, but it cannot be in the nature and essence of things. SMP0328. (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you proposing to replace the Lacy quote cited in the article with this quote? The trouble is twofold. Out of context the quote could be interpreted as pro-individual or pro-collective and neither the quote from the article nor this one succinctly summarizes Lacy's dissent. I think it's pretty safe to say that most if not all readers will fail to grasp the main thrust of Lacy's dissent. The quote I provided better summarizes Lacy's dissent. So again, especially in an article of this nature, I think it'd be better to summarize the 3 opinions in a single sentence. It's easy to do and clear. Buzzard's minutiae probably should be relegated to a footnote at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The present wording in this section was the result of a lengthy arbitration involving several Admins, and numerous authors, and the locking of the article for well over a month. We must be careful in editing this section, or else we will once more become embroiled in a lengthy locking of the article and another cycle of arbitration. The last one took the better part of 6 months. Let's work carefully here, to avoid that outcome. Yaf (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet, despite all of that "lengthy arbitration" and the involvement of "several Admins, and numerous authors" it resulted in a quote that was incorrectly attributed to the majority opinion!

Did you notice that Yaf? That change has already been made. However...

The passage is clearly quoted out of context such that nobody reading the original article would have realized that the dissenting judge actually believed that the right to bear arms could not be infringed at all! The rest of the passage commenting on Buzzard is almost as equally misleading, in other words, factually incorrect.

Thanks for the warning, though. I'm only trying the get the facts straight. We'll see how far I get... (I don't plan on going any further than Buzzard and I see I may not get that far.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The material you dispute in the Case law section is properly sourced. If you could find a proper source for your reading of that quote, then your (and that source's) reading of that quote could be added to the article. Remember, it's not Wikipedia's job to determine what is correct. SMP0328. (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether something is properly sourced. It's a matter of whether material has been correctly quoted. And as mentioned the dissent's quote in Buzzard is entirely misleading and is quoted out of context. So if you don't wish that quote removed then I should be able to include a quote with clearly states the judge's actual opinion. And I do have a source for an interpretation of that judge's opinion, so if that quote can't be removed, I will add my source and the additional verbiage from the opinion stating the judge's opinion as I quoted above.

Yaf wrote:

"Except that the "misleading" statement is cited with a Reliable and Verifiable source. Disagreeing with a cited source is common, but it is Original Research to state it is wrong without a cited reliable and verifiable source that makes an opposing claim."

All one needs to do is read the original text. The original text, ie., Bishop's Commentaries does not say what the cited source claims it says.

"Is there a source that states that the statement in the article is misleading? Yaf (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)"

There is a source that claims the opposite of the cited text in the article. However, if one reads the Commentaries for oneself, it is obvious, that both sources have left something out of their "interpretations." It would be then best to put the original text in the article instead of two incomplete interpretations. However, if that is not acceptable then an interpretation from another source with a different interpretation should be allowed.... Or better yet include the original source with both interpretations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You can certainly add properly sourced material regarding Buzzard. Alternatively, you can place a proposed edit here so I can help you with it. SMP0328. (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd place it here first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Reading original text and interpreting it is considered Original Research, and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is built upon using quotes and/or citations based upon Reliable and Verifiable sources. If you can find a Reliable and Verifiable source that interprets Bishop's Commentaries the way you believe it should be interpreted, quote/cite this interpretation, and there is then no problem with having done Original Research (OR). Different reliable and verifiable sources often make different interpretations; all such major viewpoints should be included in a well-written Wikipedia article. But, one Wikipedia author's interpretation of an original source is clearly OR and is not permitted. Yaf (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case then this text that is clearly a violation of the rules according to you:

"Justice Lacy, in a dissenting opinion in Buzzard, declared:

"That the words "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State", and the words "common defense" clearly show the true intent and meaning of these Constitutions [i.e., Ark. and U.S.] and prove that it is a political and not an individual right, and, of course, that the State, in her legislative capacity, has the right to regulate and control it: This being the case, then the people, neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms."[68]

As I mentioned previously Lacy did not declare this. That is an incorrect interpretation without a source. The footnote merely refers to the opinion itself. So by your definition the above is OR. And as I've already pointed-out Lacy did not declare that. One could be a smart-ass and change "declared" to "wrote" however this is still quoting his opinion out of context such that it is misleading. Personally I don't really care. However, it is such a stunning display of ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209 (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

What does a state law case like Buzzard have to do with an article about a federal constitutional amendment? None that I see. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

All three judges seemed to assume the Second Amendment applied to the states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.16.209

[I have copied the following from another section]

All of these statements are cited and pass fact checking. Cornell's book (cited) clearly makes the case for which these statements that are here make, but to which you apparently object. However, unless there is some other interpretation, with cites, then I don't see what the issue is. You state that the interpretation by Cornell is incorrect; OK, then we need a cite for a reliable and verifiable source with a different point of view than what Cornell makes. But, removing cited information because one editor disagrees with the reliable source is Original Research and is not permitted by Wikipedia policies. All major points of view, supported by reliable and verifiable sources, should be included in articles for balance. Yaf (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, you clearly do not understand. As I have repeatedly stated, the dissent, as quoted in the main article, is not cited by Cornell nor is the paragraph that cites Cornell referring to the dissent's opinion. I will post a proposed re-write some time later in the week.Eaglecloud (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The 'early commentary in state courts' section contributes significantly to the neutrality skew. Considering that this passage is replicated almost identically over in the Right to keep and bear arms article (and belongs more appropriately there too) I suggest that we eliminate the duplicated text here in the 2A article. Any objections? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to the removal of cited information that is pertinent to the historical interpretations of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. States can and do interpret the US Constitution all the time, and such information as contained in this article is entirely appropriate to achieving neutrality for this article. The removal of 2A history regarding state interpretations, which formed the basis of the two predominant interpretations that have existed to this very day, would seriously skew the neutrality. Yaf (talk) 04:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I object as well. It's virtually self-evident that early state court decisions discussing the Second Amendment are relevant. Salty Boatr asserts, "The 'early commentary in state courts' section contributes significantly to the neutrality skew." However, the rationale given in another section is deficient. Lifted from another section:

SaltyBoatr writes:
"I call attention to a neutrality bias in the hypothesis that discussion of gun rights in state law (Buzzard, Bliss, etc.) pertains to the federal Second Amendment."
It is fact that some state courts discussed the Second Amendment.
"I don't dispute that this point of view is valid and that it exists."
It's not a "point of view." It's a fact.
"(primarily found on pro-gun blogs, too)"
Whether "anti-gun" blogs choose to ignore it, doesn't mean the presentation of such material (if it is presented objectively) is biased.
"I simply object that inclusion of the pro-gun hypothesis material skews the POV balance of the article towards a pro-gun point of view in violation of WP:NPOV."
So basically you're expressing a desire to eliminate material that favors one side because another side ignores it.

Eaglecloud (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

GA & the POV tag

SaltyBoatr, do you still believe the article is not neutral? Do you still believe the article is not a Good Article? I ask in light of the "pruning" that has recently been done to the article. SMP0328. (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

At least a half a dozen other editors complain of POV weight problems besides me. I still see a large problem with POV bias and OR in the introduction, cases where Heller is directly quoted as "historical fact" and with the overemphasis on the hypothesis of originalism, and more (see above). NPOV isn't the only disqualifying issue for GA status, Geometry Guy identified more than a dozen other problems over at the reassessment page. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned you because you were the first to raise those issues; I know there are others. SMP0328. (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I checked this morning (UTC) and of the issues I raised at the GAR, precisely zero have been addressed, so I intend to delist the article soon. Concerning the neutrality, I think the main problem is that this article is attempting to tell readers what the second amendment means. That isn't Wikipedia's job. Instead, the article should discuss what the second amendment says, why it was introduced (according to reliable secondary sources and a balance of scholarly analysis), its history (per RSS), how it has been interpreted over the years by the Supreme Court and other notable bodies; the article should also describe (not engage in) the controversies surrounding the second amendment (again using RSS). With this information, the reader can decide for themselves what it means. Geometry guy 21:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Legislation

Is firearms legislation appropriate for this article? Aside from the McClure-Volkmer Act, the amendment isn't even addressed in the legislation section. I suggest removing this section to links, except perhaps for the McClure-Volkmer and legislation that directly relates to the amendment (most of which, I'm guessing, should show up in case law). --tc2011 (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have pruned the formally named Congressional legislation section. It is now named McClure-Volkmer Act and is only about that federal law (which dealt with alleged Second Amendment violations by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives). SMP0328. (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this direction is that all the SCOTUS rulings on the 2A have to do with firearm legislation, and all the SCOTUS rulings, including Heller say that broad ranging legislative restrictions and bans on firearms are allowed. It is hard to talk about the SCOTUS rulings without also talking about the allowed legislation that the rulings rule upon. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about this more, the slant of the article should be neutral, which should include both the 'firearms' aspects and the 'miltia' aspects of the 2A. Another giant piece of 2A related legislation[11] was the Militia Act of 1903. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be the act that created the National Guard as a SELECT militia. By both US law and various state laws, the General militia is composed of all able bodied males of military age. 4.156.78.208 (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There's an entire article devoted to federal gun laws in the United States. These pieces of legislation belong there. We can include a link to that article. --tc2011 (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I've improved the "legislation" section, but the federal firearms legislation is redundant to those respective articles, and should be removed. --tc2011 (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

TC2011's recent edit[12] reveals an improper bias. The Second Amendment does not equal simply "firearm rights". Gun law does not equal second amendment law. This is a good example of the problem with gun oriented editors being drawn to this article and resultant systemic bias in the ariticle. There is good quality reliable sourcing that identify the Militia Act of 1903 as Second Amendment legislation, but TC2011 anon IP edited this out[13]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You falsely accuse me of removing the section on the Militia Act of 1903, when in fact that edit was made by 70.119.255.215. Please do not make Wikipedia such a hostile environment in which to edit. Further... The firearms legislation does not address or add to the topic of this article. To say that it does requires sourcing; to do otherwise is original research. --tc2011 (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I confused the IP edit with your edit. I consider your exaggerated 3RR warning to me[14] to be hostile. If you can't tell, I am trying to work collaboratively here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Answering your question, the relationship of firearms legislation and the Second Amendment is widely discussed in reliable sourcing, see for instance Chapter 5 of The Bill of Rights in Modern America By David J. Bodenhamer Published by Indiana University Press, 2008 ISBN 0253219914 page 100 etc.. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

To conclude that a particular piece of legislation is germane to an article on the second amendment simply because it deals with firearms is quite a stretch, absent a verifiable source indicating such. Please add specific citations and quotations. --tc2011 (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you read page 100? The Indiana University Press meets WP:V standards. What do you mean by "germane"? Do you really believe that the National Firearms Act is not germane to the 2A? It was the subject of U.S. v. Miller for gosh sakes. Incredible. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't read page 100, because I don't have ready access to that book. Please provide a quotation. If it was the subject of Miller, its mention belongs in the case law section. A link can also be included at the bottom or within the Miller discussion, because that Act does have its own article... --tc2011 (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

For those interested in what p.100 actually says, try this. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 17:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. --tc2011 (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, I encourage you to add verifiable citations to the article. --tc2011 (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This is difficult to do in a hostile editing environment. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to see verifiably-sourced and fairly represented additions to this article, no matter the editor's POV. It is your repeated false accusations[15][16] that make a hostile editing environment for others. Shall we seek dispute resolution? --tc2011 (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. As a start, would you answer questions that I ask? You pointed to two diffs[17][18] where I expressed my concerns and ask questions about trouble here, as if it is proof of hostility? What it shows is that I asked a question which you didn't answer. If WP:DR will get us to actually answer each others concerns and address each other as co-editors, I am all for it. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Saul Cornell

Found the following summary of his book disturbing. I haven't read the book, but if the summary is correct about the book, then it is more then likely a bunch of self serving ivory tower bullcrap by someone looking to make a name for himself.

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Law/ConstitutionalLaw/~~/dmlldz11c2EmY2k9OTc4MDE5NTE0Nzg2NQ==

Cornell, a leading constitutional historian, shows that the Founders understood the right to bear arms as neither an individual nor a collective right, but as a civic right--an obligation citizens owed to the state to arm themselves so that they could participate in a well regulated militia. He shows how the modern "collective right" view of the Second Amendment, the one federal courts have accepted for over a hundred years, owes more to the Anti-Federalists than the Founders. Likewise, the modern "individual right" view emerged only in the nineteenth century.

First there is no such thing as a "civic right" where one OWES something to the government! That is called a civic OBLIGATION! An obligation is most certainly NOT a right! In the same vein, you have the OBLIGATION to pay your taxes, you do not have a RIGHT to pay them. The mere thought of calling an obligation a right makes me want to puke in big chucks.

Second the book is out of date as the Supreme Court has ruled that gun ownership is an "individual right". Mr Cornell therefore got it wrong according to the Supreme Court (and according to 75% of the people, per the Brady Campaign).

Third he seems to use the term "well regulated militia" to mean the laws and regulations that call for the creation, organization and running of the militia. That term was not used in that way by the Founders. Well regulated was used to mean "well trained". At some point in this discussion page I even pointed out that Hamilton, the most pro big government of the Founding Fathers, used the term that way in the Federalist Papers.

Fourth, per the summary, he is disparaging of the Anti-Federalists, and excludes them from being Founding Fathers. Not including such notable figures as Patrick Henry and George Mason as a Founding Father is revisionist history at its worst (or best depending on your point of view). Lets not forget that many Federalists also wanted protections against abuse of powers by the Federal Government and were in favor of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment. Considering that the Second Amendment exists (as does the Bill of Rights) there can be no doubt that a MAJORITY of the Founding Fathers (whether Federalist or Anti-Federalist) were in favor of them.

As he seems to represent a small fringe group, possibly with only 1 member, I don't believe that he deserves mention in the article and references to his book should be deleted.

Again I have not read his book and the summary may be wrong. If anyone can find ONE SINGLE SOLITARY CASE where a court considered his opinions and AGREED with him, then I take back the comment that he is a fringe group so negligible that it does not deserve mention. Until that time I believe all comments to his book should be deleted as gun control POV push from a negligible fringe group.

What I think is a FREAKING HOWL, is that any court case based upon his views would FORCE a person to PURCHASE a gun if he did not already own one, and that his views is being advocated by the editors pushing gun control. By US law every able bodied male up to age 45 is a member of the militia. As members of the militia, per Cornell those people ALL NEED TO OWN A GUN!

Assuming that the summary is correct of course!4.154.232.160 (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Not beating a dead horse, just one in pain

From Federalist 29 by Hamilton - on what is a well-regulated militia

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

while browsing the web, I ran across the following quote which seems to state that the Federal Farmer, a well known Anti-Federalist writer who wrote extensively against enactment of the Constitution, was Revolutionary War hero Light Horse Harry Lee. Not asking that he be cited in the article. Just an interesting factoid for history buffs.

Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." (LIGHT HORSE HARRY) LEE, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788)

4.154.236.164 (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Above quote attributed to Light Horse Lee more then likely wrong. Wiki and another site attributes it to a relative of his by the name of Richard Henry Lee. Among other things, this Lee served as President under the Articles of Confederation. The wiki article on him shows he was the one writing as Federal Farmer. Sorry for any inconvenience to those who only want to edit the article and have no interest in history.4.154.236.164 (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The following quote has no place under the section "case law" since to my best knowledge, no court has ever considered this argument in an actual case. It is therefore untested opinion and not case law. I should therefore be deleted from the "case law" section.

According to Saul Cornell, the simplified choices of only two models was an error: "The original understanding of the Second Amendment was neither an individual right of self-defense nor a collective right of the states, but rather a civic right that guaranteed that citizens would be able to keep and bear those arms needed to meet their legal obligation to participate in a well-regulated militia."[83]

Further, with the Supreme Court ruling of Heller that the Second Amendment protects an "individal right" it will more then likely be a cold day in Hell before any US court hears a case based on this argumnet. Assuming that any editor finds such a miniscule minority opinion to be worth space in the article, he has to find a home for it in another section. I personaly think it is not worth inclusion.141.154.72.56 (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the article is now unprotected I took action and deleted the Saul Cornell Comment re: gun ownership is a "civic right" (see above for full quote). Unless that argument was heard by a judge and agreed with, it does not belong under "Case Law". Anyone wanting to include it in the article needs to find another home for it. With the Supreme Court ruling that gun owneship is an individual right, I personally don't see the need.141.154.72.56 (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional review of the article has brought up another questionable quote attributed to Saul Cornell

The individual rights viewpoint did not emerge until several decades after the Second Amendment was drafted and was later followed by the collective rights viewpoint.[41]

While this may be the authors opinion, it does not seem to agree with historcal fact. The article currently has a quote from John Adams showing that the individal rights viewpoint was current and in use as of the Revoltion. It must therefore have pre-date the Revolution. As currently reading, the article includes the following

John Adams, lead defense attorney for the British soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre, stated at the trial:

Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offence

As the Saul Cornell quote seems obviously in error, it should be deleted from the article. I will wait a week or so before doing it myself in order to give people time to muster any objections to that deletion. Hopeflly the article will not go back to being protected in that time fame.

Please do not use as an objection the lack of trials on this issue durig the early years of the United States. During those years all militia memberswere REQUIRED to own firemarms per the Second Militia Act of 1792

From wiki article on that Act

Second Militia Act of 1792 The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were required to arm themselves at their own expense with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[3] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.

From the above it can be clearly seen that gun control laws were not an issue duing those years.

The quote I wish remove should be furter replaced by somethig along the lines of, The individual rights viewpoint pre-dated the Revolutionary War and the writting of the Constitution. I cite the John Adams quote reerenced above as sufficient backing for this change.141.154.72.56 (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Let any man man who obects to the above proposed change state it now or forever hold his peace!141.154.72.56 (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted incaccurate quote from Cornell described above and and replaced it with a more historically accurate version.141.154.72.56 (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Corrected abbreviation of BATF (old abreviation) to ATF (the current abreviation).141.154.110.178 (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)