Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:26, 31 December 2008

	Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 10, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed October 14, 2008 Good article nominee Listed December 17, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Congress High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) Thing(s). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Firearms High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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 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."

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 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."

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.

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 Misplaced Pages works. Reliable and Verifiable sources are the requirement on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages policy. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages article. But, one Misplaced Pages 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 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."

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Case law section causes neutrality skew

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. I don't dispute that this point of view is valid and that it exists (primarily found on pro-gun blogs, too), 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. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no neutrality bias in the present article. The inclusion of interpretations of the Second Amendment occurring in state courts is entirely appropriate in an article on the Second Amendment, under a section detailing an historical treatment of interpretations of the 2A. This content also has nothing to do with being "pro-gun"; besides, the Arkansas Buzzard case can hardly be called a "pro-gun" position, being that it was the first militia-based interpretation of the 2A in the United States. Objecting to cited content, contrary to your independent Original Research, is irrelevant. If, on the other hand, you have material you feel is needed (to be added, for balance), then please add it, all while providing cites with reliable and verifiable sources, of course. The absence of content is not grounds for claiming a neutrality bias. Rather, it is an opportunity to contribute to Misplaced Pages! Yaf (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yafs claim above: "inclusion of the Second Amendment occurring in the state courts" is nonsensical. The 2A is federal, and the state courts were ruling on state constitutions, not the federal constitution. There has probably been 100,000 words spent on this topic already, check the talk archive. "Contribute to Misplaced Pages!" is laughable in light of Yaf's edit history here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The state courts were ruling on interpretations of the 2A, per the cites in the article. There is no nonsense here, except for the claim that such interpretations is somehow "nonsensical". Again, the problem appears to be with one editor's opinions that are contrary to the Heller decision from the SCOTUS. Yaf (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you promise not to edit war? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Now, such a question as this is nonsensical, however. Edit warring is entirely inappropriate within the Misplaced Pages community. Yaf (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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) 06:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, without discussion, has reverted this section again. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Is that anything like the deletion of Anti-Federalist quotes from the article, without discussion, over objections? Is the pot calling snow black again?4.156.78.122 (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Ditto with respect to having the section removed in the first place! There was certainly no consensus on its removal. (And Buzzard still needs work) Eaglecloud (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Pruning the Article

This article is clearly overlong, with lots of redundant and overlong historical storytelling that borders on original research. I am going to engage in some judicious pruning. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, the section on early state court law is duplicated nearly verbatim in the Right to keep and bear arms article where it is more 'on topic'. I see that entire section as a wordy contentious passage, full of synthesis and original research, not really on topic, and which is redundant in this article. Feel free to prune that entire section out, and optionally, include a link reference to the text in the other article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I just trimmed out that redundant section. SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Any deletions of quotes from anti-Federalists would result in a blatant POV bias for the article. The Second Amendment was passed to satisfy their concerns and those concerns need to be represented in the article. As it is, the Federalist, who in general opposed a Bill of Rights, still have more quotes in the article then the anti-Federalists. While the article is currently acceptable, any deletions of anti-Federalist quotes would NOT be acceptable. I do not object to deletion of Federalist quotes as they are in my opinion currently over-represented. 4.154.232.10 (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we delete both of these types of quotes, as they amount to improper synthesis, and violate WP:NOR. SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The context in which the second Amendment was written is much more relevant to the article then say a dispute on ablative absolute.

In order to properly understand the thinking of the players of the era, both for and against, you need their actual words, not the thinking of some ivory tower egghead who wasn't around at the time. Quotes do that quite nicely. 4.156.78.2 (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that "ivory tower egghead" is another term for reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Using snippets of quotes from the "founding fathers" selectively chosen to advance a point of view amounts to synthesis and original research in many cases including here. 4.156.78.2 must explain why we should not follow Misplaced Pages:Policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I would rather get my opinions directly from those who had them, in their own words, instead of regurgitated 200 years after the fact. "Ivory tower egghead" is a term used for people with more brains then common sense. Any reading of the Second Amendment in combination with the concerns of those who forced its enactment, shows that it was designed to make sure that the various state militias were not disarmed by federal fiat. The way this was done was to FORBID the feds from disarming ANYONE. That is plainly the intent of the phrase "The right to beep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Again I invite you to loom up the meaning of the word "infringed". This time use a RELIABLE reference like a DICTIONARY, not someones OPINION. As you continue to point out OPINION is NOT a reliable source.

I agree with you on using selective quotes to further an agenda is unacceptable. THAT is why I added the quotes from Patrick Henry and George Mason. Both are major anti-Federalist figures. Prior to this NO quotes had been included in the article from ANY anti-Federalist. While the anti-Federalists are still under-represented, I feel no need to "hog" the show and add more quotes. If I did they would most likely be from Patrick Henry and his views should not predominate over the views of other figures of the time.

The following Patrick Henry quotes would certainly be acceptable for the article, but would result in the over-representation of the opinions of one man

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? -- 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun. -- 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

The quotes currently referenced do not further ANY agenda, as the are in fact from major players on both sides of the Bill of Rights argument. If you feel that they are biased in some manner then feel free to add quotes that you believe are relevant and further a point of view not shown. Any deletion of anti-Federalist quotes however would be a POV and neutrality issue. Any deletion of ALL quotes would be negative to the article.

As stated previously I find the current article quite acceptable4.154.237.121 (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

4.154.234.121 Before I am willing to engage on a discussion of your quotes, we need to discuss Misplaced Pages:No original research policy. Would you please click that link, read it and then come back to discuss how your proposed edits comply with that policy? Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Already been there and done that! Quotes from a reputable source such as Elliot's Debates is considered acceptable for a wiki article. Find another tree to bark at please. Better yet, find some quotes that fill any lack you see in the article. If you can't, then don't blame me for your lack of effort. 4.156.78.222 (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the Early commentary in state courts section. Pruning, with the addition of a See also or main link, is fine, but complete removal is improper. Just because that material is relevant in another article does not make it irrelevant to this article. SMP0328. (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Why does that passage need to appear in two articles? Also, the issue of why state law discussion of various rights to bear arms is 'on topic' in a federal law article has never been addressed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

A fair compromise has been reached. Who would have thought it possible? You get to "prune" the article, but that material is still available to reader and is linked to by this article. SMP0328. (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have continued to prune the article, focusing on the historical exposition and overlong quotations which lead the article perilously close to original research. I assure all parties that I am not removing text to promote any particular point of view, and that I will axe unnecessary verbiage without regard to what view it supports. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Corrected typo in "State ratification Conventions"

from The Right to Bears arms

to The Right to Bear arms4.156.78.222 (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

further corrected to the Right to Bear Arms.4.156.78.222 (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have the right to bear arms with a bear's arms, as long as the bear consents. :) SMP0328. (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have once again removed historical fluff around the Tucker mention. I have no wish to engage in a battle over the content of the article, but tidbits about a legal expert's nickname or redundant sentences about his expertise don't add anything - Describing Tucker as a major constitutional theorist or leading legal expert gets the point across just fine. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I am about to take my axe to the state ratification section - The inclusion of a quote from five different states, each of which essentially says the state approves the right to bear arms, is highly repetitive and unnecessary - A simple comprehensive statement to this effect is more than sufficient. I am posting this comment here for a day or so before I make the cuts in case someone has a compelling argument about why one or more of these quotes should remain. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of brevity, I have removed these long and unnecessary quotes. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

In the next section, conflict and compromise, I feel that the quotations are necessary since the involve the crafting of the amendment itself. However, the first couple of paragraphs appear to give an awkward and partly unnecessary background on the politics of 1789. I propose to edit this beginning to make it both clearer and shorter. I will wait a day for comments before proceeding. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:51, 30 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 Misplaced Pages'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)

Introduction revision

The recent revision to the introduction served to improve the "Heller centric" problem in the article, thanks. Though it did not really address the problem with the introduction. In short, I think that Misplaced Pages policy is that the introduction should be a concise summary of the major issues covered in the article. Presently, the introduction does not do this, but rather it tries to make a statement about what the 2A is today. In broad terms the article includes these four major categories:

1. The precedences that lead up to the creating of the 2A.
2. The actual creation and adoption of the 2A.
3. The history of case law about the 2A
4. The history of legislation related to firearms.

I suggest that we scrap the present introduction, write four neutral paragraphs covering each of these four major issues, and use that as the introduction. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You have identified a problem with the article, not the lead. The article is about the second amendment, but the topics you list exclude the amendment's definition, i.e., what the amendment actually is. The current lead does that (in a manner nearly identical to other BoR articles), and also succinctly addresses/summarizes the article topics you list, except perhaps legislation. And some recent changes to the lead are appalling... not even complete sentences. The first paragraph of the lead is good, and the rest of the lead only needed some tweaks, at least until some more recent changes to the later paragraphs. --tc2011 (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want a short intro then the current first paragraph covers the major points. The 4th paragraph of the intro currently looks a mess. I hope that is not a final edit and that someone is working on it.

I would personally like to see the fact that while the power and obligation of arming the militia was transferred to the feds in the Constitution, as compared to the Articles of Confederation where that power was retained by the states, that the Second Amendment limited the power transferred to NOT include the power to DISARM the militia.

The article currently includes the fact that the Second Amendment was a COMPROMISE to satisfy the concerns of the anti-Federalists, but not what the compromise was. The compromise clearly was to FORBID any exercise of the power to disarm.4.154.238.146 (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

after rereading the first paragraph of the intro I see some issues

the phrase "keep and bear arms" is listed as a right when it is in fact 2 rights.

The right to keep arms for individual self defense and the right to bear arms in defense of the individual states or in defense of the US.

Please be aware that under the US Constitution the states retained the right to wage DEFENSIVE war and the states do not need a declaration of war from Congress to do so.

The following is too wordy, does not match text of footnote, and just does not read well.

since history had shown taking away the people's arms and making it an offense for people to keep them was the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents.

Something like the following reads better and is true for both Federalists and anti-Federalists. Founding Fathers therefore fits.

The Founding Fathers believed that disarming the citizenry in combination with the establishment of a standing army, allowed would be tyrants to use that army to gain and keep power without effective resistance.4.154.237.191 (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

On above, I have to admit that while I believe it refers to two rights the text of the second amendment does say right and not rights.4.154.237.191 (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the intro put in by TC2011 has several POV push problems:

Before District of Columbia v. Heller (June 26, 2008), the Supreme Court had only addressed the amendment in limited or ambiguous terms and because the amendment contains a prefatory clause, which refers to a "well regulated militia," there was disagreement as to whether it protected a collective or individual right.

1. "only addressed in limited or ambiguous terms" bluntly implies that Heller is not ambiguous or limited. WP:SYN
2. The use of the Linda Greenwood piece as a footnote misinterprets her article, the question of "individual right" is only one aspect of the Second Amendment, not the whole enchilada as the pro-gun POV would have us believe. Indeed, other aspects of the 2A have been ruled on at least five times by the SCOTUS, and these should not be suppressed.
3. The link to "prefatory" points to preamble, which is but one of the POV's about the "well regulated militia" grammar, the Latin ablative absolute grammar hypothesis is improperly suppressed.
4. "collective or individual", shouldn't this be collective and/or individual?
5. Additionally, the term "individual right" has the ambiguity problem in that it is both a legal concept and also a pro-gun slogan with separate meanings. We must parse this ambiguity.

These pro-gun POV push problems should be reworded using neutral terms. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the first paragraph, it has four footnotes, and all four point to cherry picked quotes directly from Heller giving focus to pro-gun talking points. This is WP:SYN. The 2A is much more than these four pro-gun snippets found in Heller. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

With the intention of WP:Bold I just floated as a trial balloon a go back to a relatively stable version of the introduction from earlier this year, updated to include mention of Heller. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up the wording of the revised Introduction. For example, the revised wording had referred to the Second Amendment as an amendment to the Bill of Rights. It includes references to Heller and Cruikshank, so readers will know where the amendment stands legally. I find the revised Introduction to be acceptable. SMP0328. (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The controversy surrounding this amendment is part of the story... but now the lead only addresses the controversy. I think this is a step in the wrong direction. --tc2011 (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

When I check expert opinion, I see that there is a consensus that what lies in the future, after Heller, is years of litigation to settle the confusion. There is mostly controversy in this story. See the Wilkerson article in the Virginia Law Review and George Will's opinion piece "Heller, like Roe, was disrespectful of legislative judgments, has hurled courts into a political thicket of fine-tuning policy in interminable litigation and traduced federalism. ... Now the court must slog through an utterly predictable torrent of litigation, writing, piecemeal, a federal gun code concerning the newfound individual right.". Not to mention the unsettled question of Incorporation. The introduction giving attention to the controversy about the 2A is apropos, I think. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's fine for the intro to bring up the controversy, but the amendment itself should factor more prominently. The current lead would be much more appropriate for an article on Politics of the second amendment or something. This article (and its lead), however, should focus on the amendment itself, of which the controversy is just one part. These were some awfully controversial edits, and I don't see that any consensus was reached as to their content (and one judge does not make a consensus, either). Please revert your edits so that we can work on revisions here on the talk page. --tc2011 (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Instead of reversion, simply propose an Introduction. The article is in flux, so it won't matter what the Introduction says currently. There's enough tags on this article that nobody will rely on it for anything. SMP0328. (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

making change to second paragraph of intro from

the Supreme Court overturned a Washington, D.C. ordinance that was an outright firearm ban and identified rights of personal self defense based on the Second Amendment.

to

the Supreme Court overturned a Washington, D.C. ordinance that was an outright firearm ban as contrary to the individual right of personal self defense protected by the Second Amendment.

the right is not BASED on the Amendment. It is PROTECTED by the Amendment.

Under the US system of government all power is derived from the people. The government does NOT grant us any rights, it can ONLY PROTECT those rights.

I further ask that the quotes of the Founding Fathers be reinstated into the article. Their original words were a plus and not a minus. Removing them is detrimental to the article.4.156.78.230 (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC) 4.156.78.230 (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Change the above to I TRIED to make a edit but found the article locked. I ask that a registered wiki editor make the change mentioned above4.156.78.230 (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the lede has been improved, but is still a little sloppy. Certainly the characterization of Heller is now more NPOV. I don't think using the word "protected" instead of "based" would be a problem - That change could be made. The last sentence of the lede appears unsourced and is possibly unnecessary. I'm not familiar enough with the case to offer a fair opinion on whether Cruikshank belongs in the lede. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The last sentence is well sourced and is necessary to keep clear the distinction of political agenda of unlimited rights versus limited rights provided for in Heller and prior case precedence. See this article in Legal Times. Indeed the only effect of Heller is the one gun ban law overturned. DC residents have a right to unlocked pistols inside their houses, but it remains illegal to purchase a handgun in DC except from a licensed gun dealer (and presently there are none) and it is illegal to import a handgun in DC except through a licensed gun dealer, (and presently there are none). SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The "only" effect??? I think stating that the right to own a firearm for self-defense is a Constitutionally protected RIGHT does not qualify as an "ONLY". Under US law an attempt to deprive you of your Constitutionally protected rights, or any rights protected by law for that matter, is considered CRIMINAL CONDUCT. Using Heller as case law, anyone deprived of that right can sue, with good chance of success, any government agency attempting to so deprive. Notice the number of legal cases that have sprung up due to Heller. 4.156.78.92 (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The Cruikshank mention in the introduction deserves weight because the question of Incorporation on the states is a huge issue relevant to this topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

To Counteract Salty Boatrs attempts to minimize Heller- some language from the case

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

Notice that DC MUST register his handgun and MUST issue a license to carry. Per above Supreme Court language, A failure to do so would be violation of his constitutionally protected rights. 4.156.78.92 (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

An intro should summarize the article.

Currently three quarters of the intro reads anti Second Amendment. That is most certainly POV bias and a distortion of the article. An article about a protected right should naturally be PRO that right - not neutral and certainly not about arguments contrary to that right.

Where is the BASIC fact that the Second Amendment was created as a guard against a power grab by a would be tyrant, who could easily seize and keep power through an army beholding to him (as paymaster) after the citizenry (militia to you purists) was disarmed on one pretext or another.

Looks like you guys are getting blackmailed by Salty Boatr and his ilk. Whats worse, you have given in.4.156.78.208 (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not given in, but I am outnumbered. I can't impose my will. So I maintain the article as best I can, without edit warring. SMP0328. (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion: "you have given in" => "I am outnumbered...I will maintain as best I can" is proof of the long term pro-gun systemic bias trouble of this article. These two editors are discussing their agenda of personal pro-gun POV push in this article. Instead, the agenda should be to read the reliable sourcing, and then write an article that matches the neutrality balance found in the reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You have misinterpreted my words. All I meant was that I am trying to have the article appear as I would like it to appear, while also trying to reach a consensus. Are you not doing the same? My reference to being "outnumbered" was in response to the anon's claim that I had "given in" to you and other editors. Try reading my comments with AGF in mind. SMP0328. (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I have misinterpreted you. I recall your similar effort to collude with Yaf to push a POV on November 14th. Explain what "anti Second Amendment" means? That editors like you two communicate about fixing "anti Second Amendment" wording reveals volumes about your faith. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You really have to stop seeing conspiracies everywhere. Misplaced Pages editors are suppose to reach "consensus"; that means we have to work together. Sadly, you see such cooperation as collusion. Please remember AGF. SMP0328. (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Disclose exactly what you wrote on November 14th. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Does my speaking with Yaf violate any Misplaced Pages policy? Why don't you focus on improving the article instead of making accusations? SMP0328. (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer my questions. Answering yours, yes WP:NPOV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

So you believe my speaking with Yaf is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. As I said earlier, editors are supposed to work together in order to reach consensus. My speaking with Yaf not only was not a violation of any policy, it's what Misplaced Pages desires (editors speaking to each other). SMP0328. (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not the actual act of speaking. It is the act of speaking to conspire to push a pro-gun POV that violates WP:NPOV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Editors are supposed to speak to one another regarding the content of articles. It's called reasonable consensus building, not conspiracy or collusion. SMP0328. (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro continues to be dominated by exceptions to the right to keep and bear arms. I consider this POV bias and will continue to say so. Once the article is unprotected I will delete anti-gun rhetoric there. 4.156.78.149 (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have provided neutral wording for the Introduction's reference to incorporation. It now does not refer to incorporation being "likely" or claim that Heller "reaffirmed" anti-incorporation decisions. SMP0328. (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro is now even more POV biased in favor of EXCEPTIONS to the rights protected then to a description of the rights themselves. No mention is made as to why the right deserved protection. While detailing exceptions certainly has to be included this detailing doen not belong in the intro.

Placing a secondary issue (exceptions to the right protected) in front of the rights themsleves show blatant POV bias. If people consider those exceptions so important, they should create another article for those exceptions. Hijacking this one is not acceptable.4.156.78.115 (talk) 16:26, 29 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 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 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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 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)

Militia Act of 1903

An anonymous IP editor has twice removed the passage about the Militia Act of 1903. Discussing this earlier, I pointed to many books that identify the Militia Act of 1903 as Second Amendment Legislation. One which summarized the POV issue well is Barak ISBN:9780313340406 which states(pg330):

"Supporters of gun rights believe that the Second Amendment applies to individual-level possession of firearms, whereas supporters of gun control argue that the intent was to provide for the formation and readiness of peacekeeping forces such as the Army and state militias(1). Since the federal Militia Act of 1903, individual state militias have been organized into the National Guard and have been tasked with supplementing Army units overseas and providing domestic support in relief of natural disasters."

Barak describes the two major points of view. It appears the anonymous IP editor holds just the pro-gun view, and is choosing to edit out the disagreeable point of view. To have a neutral point of view, both these views should be represented in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

So add the citation. Problem solved. --tc2011 (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You threatened to get me banned from editing yesterday for similar. Hostile environment. Is editing today safe? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I made no threat. Please assume good faith. --tc2011 (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering the history of false/exaggerated 3RR accusations, from you, and from Yaf, it is hard to assume good faith. It would be easier to assume good faith if you were to actually show good faith and make this edit yourself. An edit if I were to make, which could be misconstrued as a "revert" (as you misconstrued yesterday). You also called my revert of profane vandalism to be a 3RR violation. In light of your false/exaggerated 3RR accusation for which you show no remorse, now you invite me to assume your good faith? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Another false accusation: I did not identify that revert as a possible violation of 3RR. Please get the facts straight. --tc2011 (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Any mention of the Act must mention that it creates a SELECT militia known as the National Guard. US law and state laws continue to define the militia as all males of military age.4.156.78.208 (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

POV bias on quotes

Looks like we are down to one quote from the Founding Fathers and that is from the most pro-big government of the bunch (Hamilton). That is a POV violation as there are NOW no quotes from anti-Federalists, whose concerns the Second Amendment was designed to satisfy. I ask that the quotes from anti-Federalist Patrick Henry and George Mason and the quotes of the more "centrist" Federalists be reinstated.

Hearing the points of view of the players, in their own words, is a plus to the article and not a minus. I believe that the article has now been lessened by the removal of their words.4.156.78.92 (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I further find it grotesque that the only quote appearing is from the only one of the major Revolutionary Era figures shot to death in a duel over his HONOR.

Make that his LACK of honor. See Hamilton Burr Duel4.156.78.51 (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I am uncertain how Hamilton's duel with Burr is germane to a discussion of what quotations are included in this article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I know about the duel, but why do you feel Hamilton was without honor? To me, the lose of the duel doesn't mean Hamilton was without honor. SMP0328. (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

A sitting vice president of the US thought that the death of Hamilton was better then enjoying his high office. I'd say that is pretty indicative.

More on track, and back to quotes cited in the article, what is you opinion of retaining the most extreme position of the loosing side of the Bill of Rights/Second Amendment debate and the removal of quotes from more "centrist" Federalists and anti-Federalists?4.156.78.30 (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A man so despised by his fellow man that he is killed due to his lack of honor, is NOT someone I would want on my side of an argument. Do you admire him for some reason?

I notice EVERYBODY else's quotes got short shift at your hands. Funny how the most extreme viewpoint on the LOOSING side of the Second Amendment (and the Bill of Rights) was retained. Looks like blatant POV favoritism to me. Couldn't you have even found something by the more mainstream Madison? Did you HAVE to keep Hamilton? Are you really THAT ignorant of the positions of the Founding Fathers?4.156.78.122 (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Infringed

The meaning of "infringed" from a REALIABLE source, Marriam-Webster DICTIONARY!

For Salty Boatr, who seems to thing that meanings can be changed.

transitive verb

1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>

2 obsolete : defeat, frustrate

I would like to point out that 2 hundred years ago, the meanings that are now listed as "obsolete" were not.

The second amendment was designed to STOP those who would "defeat" and frustrate" the exercise of a right.4.156.78.149 (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Congressional legislation

There are a whole host of legislations mentioned under this section of the article (i.e., National Firearms Act, Federal Firearms Act, Post-assassination, Gun Control Act, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act), that all appear to have nothing to do with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Only the McClure-Volkmer Act has any content pertinent to the Second Amendment. I propose removing the non-pertinent sections, as including these nonpertinent acts of Congress, just because they deal with firearms legislation, is bordering on OR (conflating firearm legislation somehow with the 2A). Any objections? Yaf (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Who said "firearm legislation"? I agree that conflating just firearm legislation with this topic is POV push. The Congressional legislation is integral to this topic. Indeed, the first legislative act of Congress on this topic occurred September 21, 1789. Checking several of the major books on this topic, Gottlieb, Levensen, Kruschke, Utter, Uviller/Merkle, they all devote large passages to the history of Congressional legislation on this topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Have removed non-relevant "firearm legislation" to remove "POV push." Yaf (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As long as that section consists of only one piece of legislation, it should be named after that legislation (McClure-Volkmer Act Firearm Owners Protection Act). SMP0328. (talk) 04:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Of course, if other Congressional legislation content should be added, then the title would likely need to be changed again. But, for now, the current title is good. Yaf (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

To be clear. Yaf 'finds reasonable' to delete all reference to legislation which placed limits on firearms. And then to include only one reference to legislation, the Firearm Owners Protection Act aka the McClure-Volkmer Act. Objectively, this is a improper POV balance. The most important legislation and court case of the 20th Century was the National Firearms Act which was litigated to the Supreme Court with the case United States v. Miller. Per the vast majority of reliable sources, including Spitzer pg 35: "The most important Supreme Court case in this sequence is United States v Miller"..."The Miller case was founded on a challenge to the National Firearms Act"..."claiming that it was a violation of the Second Amendment". Emphasis on the legislation protecting firearm rights and suppression on legislation limiting firearms rights is an undue neutrality balance relative to the neutrality balance found in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of the National Firearms Act (with a wiki link to its article) properly appears under the United States v. Miller heading in the case law section. To say that the National Firearms Act is relevant to the second amendment in the same manner as McClure-Volkmer (which specifically and explicitly addresses the amendment) requires sourcing. However, the National Firearms Act's relevance to the amendment is that it was challenged in Miller... and so it is most properly discussed under Miller's heading... where it is, in fact, discussed... --tc2011 (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It still is silly to devote a whole section to the discussion of the McClure-Volkmer Act which is an amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968 while deleting the mention of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Even sillier, the obscure McClure-Volkmer Act is given higher emphasis above the National Firearms Act which is the most major piece of 20th Century 2A legislation. This is extreme POV imbalance. Yaf has a very long history of dogged pro-gun POV push and this is but one example. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act explicitly address the subject of this article. McClure-Volkmer does. If your citation identifies the National Firearms Act as the most major/important piece of second amendment legislation in the 20th century, please feel free to add that information with relevant quotations. --tc2011 (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You ignore my Spitzer reference provided above. I cannot edit the article in this hostile editing environment. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

...your reference identifies Miller as the most important court case, not the National Firearms Act as the most major/important legislation. Perhaps you have another quotation from Spitzer that identifies the National Firearms Act as the most major/important piece of second amendment legislation in the 20th century? --tc2011 (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

POV drift

The recent flurry of edits by Yaf are making the article drift yet further towards a pro-gun point of view. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The recent flurry of edits by yourself and nwlaw, due to your anti-gun POV, have resulted in a distorted intro and lessened the neutrality of the article.4.156.78.30 (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

McClure-Volkmer Act one-sided wording

The wording in the McClure-Volkmer Act section seems cut and pasted from NRA talking points. Checking reliable sourcing on this topic, there was highly notable controversy about the McClure-Volkmer Act omitted by Yaf. For instance, the Law Enforcement Steering Committee organized opposition to this bill? See pages 176-177 of the Bruce/Wilcox book. If the article is to cover McClure-Volkmer, it should do so in a neutral way, and presently is worded with heavy pro-gun bias. Indeed, it is notable in that it marked a milestone in 20th Century 2A politics where for the first time there was a widespread support for gun-control from police groups in opposition to McClure-Volkmer. This event is significant as a turning point for the radicalization of the NRA and pro-gun lobby. This important factor is totally omitted from Yaf's biased wording. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, but your paranoia hoplophobia is showing, again. The wording for the McClure-Volkmer Act section content is the same as it has been for weeks if not months. I didn't edit it during the recent set of edits I made over the last couple of days. Please stop the personal attacks. The hostile editing environment, to which you object so strongly, appears largely to be self-generated in your own mind, perhaps as a result of the personal attacks you continue to flame other editors with and the rampant hoplophobia. Lets focus on discussing the content of the article, and how to make it better, instead of spending so much time ascribing motives to other editors, and instead of labeling all edits made other than yourself as "pro-gun", OK? -- Yaf (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Your use of the term hoplophobia is pejorative, wrong and offensive. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Two versions of the text

This requires more explanation. How can there be more than one original version? You can read the correct version in the image of the Bill of Rights. If another one was written then the article should say so. Richard75 (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Have attempted to address this confusion. If there is need for additional explanation, it can certainly be added. -- Yaf (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Heller's footnote 23

Footnote 23 of the Heller decision said:

With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

The Supreme Court was saying the issue of incorporation was not before the Court (D.C. is not a State or part of a State). It was also noting that Cruikshank's holding "that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government" was "reaffirmed" in two later 19th Century Supreme Court decisions. The Court was not saying that its Heller decision was reaffirming Cruikshank. SMP0328. (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The court said "Our later decisions ... reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government." That is pretty blunt. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

SMP0238, Please self-revert your revert. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

SMP0238 is correctly quoting from the ruling in his quotation. No revert is needed. On the other hand, the bullying of other editors here, and on their talk page, needs to stop. Bullying does not help in creating an environment for editors to engage in constructive discussions necessary for improving the article.

By putting in an ellipsis into the quote, one reads more into the quotation than what is there if the quotation is read in its entirety. The SCOTUS is just giving a history of what the interpretations were at the time of Cruikshank and Presser. Nothing more. It is OR to assume that the SCOTUS is saying more than just this, with implications for what an interpretation would be for today. Yet, that is just what happens when one reads the passage without the historical perspective of the fact that what is being discussed within the ellipsis is simply an historical footnote of what the decisions were at the time of Cruikshank and Presser. Lets focus on reading what is there, not on reading more into the words through omitting words, OK? This is POV pushing at its worst, and it needs to stop. Yaf (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

What is disputed here? The SCOTUS has boldly stated that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government. Explain why that fact was reverted? SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

More clearly, the SCOTUS was stating what it had done in the 19th Century regarding the Second Amendment and incorporation. It was not, and could not (issue not before the Court), rule on incorporation in Heller. SMP0328. (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. And, the topic here is the history of the 2A not Heller. It is exactly correct and on topic what the SCOTUS wrote in footnote 23. They wrote about the fact that their multiple prior rulings reaffirm that the 2A only applies to the Federal Government. So, why did you revert this? Please undo your revert. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The part of the article describing Heller now includes the full text of footnote 23. Let each reader decide what footnote 23 means. That avoids any POV or OR problems. SMP0328. (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)'

The intro needs to describe the issue of incorporation fairly. Presently in the second paragraph it describes this issue as a "controversy". Considering that Heller footnote 23 stated flat out that the SCOTUS has reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government, it is plainly a gun rights POV push to diminish this issue as merely a controversy in the introduction. It is a settled matter in the opinion of the SCOTUS, not a controversy. Can you help propose some new wording to the second introductory sentence to phrase the issue as settled? SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There are ongoing federal lawsuits trying to get the Second Amendment incorporated. Also, as noted in footnote 23, Cruikshank "did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by ... later cases." This strongly suggests the Court will revisit this issue in a later case. So this issue should not be considered to be "settled". SMP0328. (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Strongly suggests? Which crystal ball? Read the second sentence of footnote 23 which starts with the words "Our later decisions...reaffirmed". What part of "reaffirmed" is ambiguous? What indication what-so-ever (beyond wishful thinking) is there that the SCOTUS will take any "pending" case about this in the future? Footnote 23 the SCOTUS declared they have ruled, and reaffirmed twice on this already. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Cruikshank and Presser did not deal with incorporation as it was ruled on in the 20th Century and so federal lawsuits calling for their overruling have been made. That's why there's still a controversy. SMP0328. (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You evade. The SCOTUS in 2008 stated plainly, "reaffirmed". These lawsuits you speak of have been denied, over and over and over, for more than a century. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Heller did not deal with incorporation (no State or local government was a party to the case). It's use of the word "reaffirmed" was regarding Presser. SMP0328. (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

So what? You evade with double talk. Footnote 23 of Heller declares without any ambiguity that the SCOTUS has reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government, past tense, already done. There is nothing vague about the status of the SCOTUS here. Please undo your revert. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You either don't understand, or are refusing to acknowledge, what footnote 23 said. The Supreme Court was simply saying (1) that Cruikshank and Presser had ruled against incorporating the Second Amendment, (2) those cases were decided before the formulation of the modern incorporation doctrine (e.g., Palko v. Connecticut) and (3) those cases had been overruled to the extent they dealt with the First Amendment. If the Court had said anything regarding the Second Amendment and incorporation, that part of Heller decision would have been obiter dictum and so wouldn't have been binding of any court (including the Supreme Court). So there was no way for the Court to rule on incorporation in Heller. Please don't add material to the article claiming the Supreme Court did so in Heller. SMP0328. (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why believe your WP:SYN far reaching extrapolation of what they meant? Better to believe what they wrote literally, without reading in your hopeful POV. They wrote: "Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government." SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Heller explicitly stated that the Supreme Court was not addressing the issue of incorporation (i.e., a question not presented by this case). To say that Heller reaffirmed non-incorporation when it explicitly said it wasn't even addressing the issue is a gross misrepresentation of the source. Stop the OR. --tc2011 (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

So what? Of course Heller was not addressing this, because as they said clearly, it has already been reaffirmed. No need to address it, they simply restated the reaffirmation. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The Court was stating that Cruikshank had been reaffirmed twice, even though Heller was not reaffirming or overruling that decision. The article already says this. SMP0328. (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This revert warring, yet again by SMP0238 is extreme POV pushing and must stop. This extremist position is that the 2A might apply some day (hopefully) in the future to the States. 1) It is a fringe idea. 2) It involves a crystal ball wishful prediction. The present day mainstream point of view, as reaffirmed recently by the SCOTUS is that "...the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government". Please stop the egregious POV push. The statement by the SCOTUS is important and should not be suppressed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This is embarrassing. SMP0328's recent edit revises the second paragraph to a single summary sentence, based on a citation pointing to the extremist Second Amendment Foundation website, with SMP0328 claiming his edit "Made reference to incorporation neutral". Shameless POV pushing. The Second Amendment Foundation is the "research arm" of a well known extreme pro-gun advocacy group. Appearances matter, and this important high profile introduction pointing to a pro-gun advocacy website looks like plain pro-gun POV push. And plainly, POV balance has been taken out of the second intro paragraph. The mainstream opinion is that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government. Why has that been edited out? Answers please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What's embarrassing is that you never assume good faith. That sentence now notes there's dispute over whether the Second Amendment should be incorporated, without saying it's "likely" or that anti-incorporation decisions have been "reaffirmed". That's neutral! As for the source, it's from the Yale Law Journal, not the Second Amendment Foundation. SAF is only the source for the link to the SAF's copy of the YLF article. Is that YLF article now have a "pro-gun" bias because it is on the SAF website? I will assume good faith and so will assume you simply misread that footnote. SMP0328. (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What should I make of your acceptance of pointing to the URL of an extremist POV group website from the introduction? How does your repeated edit war deletion of the mainstream POV, that the 2A applies only to the federal government show good faith? At some point assumption fails and observation takes precedence. Actually show good faith by self reverting your edit war. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of POV pushing aside. How does that 1992 Yale Law Review article describe the sentence it is citing? Which passage in that 1992 article are you referring? The current state of affairs is that the Second Amendment continues to limit only the federal government, and that presently post-Heller there is a lot of speculation that this may be reconsidered by the SCOTUS at some point in the future. In short, the second paragraph is an outdated POV pushing mess. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have now reworded that part of the Introduction so that it refers to the fact that the SCOTUS has ruled three times in the 19th Century that the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government. It also notes that there are federal lawsuits trying to get it incorporated. There is no longer a footnote for this part of the Introduction; sourcing isn't necessary for the Introduction. SMP0328. (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks SMP0328 that is an improvement. I think the fact that the SCOTUS recently reaffirmed their position about this is as important as the mention of the 19th Century. Your emphasis on the 19th Century is undue weight on the prop-gun POV. Also, I don't see why pending court cases are important enough to rate for inclusion in the introduction. All we have is wishful crystal ball reading that these cases might be granted certoriari. The could be like countless others and be denied cert too. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

An opinion that a right can be taken away by those that specifically called for its protection seems to be somewhat clouded!

Somewhat!4.156.78.115 (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions: general article guideline is that the intro should be as brief as possible, and generally, the intro is not cited (cites to the specifics in the intro to be found in the body of the article where the specifics are discussed). i would recommend removing paragraphs two and three - yes, leave it at just paragraph one - and remove the cites (as they must certainly be covered in detail in the body). none of these additional issues merit inclusion in the intro. short. to the point. the second amendment is XYZ. it remains one of the most hotly contested of the amendments. the rest goes in the body. Anastrophe (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Have attempted to address these concerns through moving details contained in intro into text of article. This also fixed the cite issue in the intro. It also looks like this edit addresses the POV concerns. Have removed the POV tagline at the beginning of the article, as it doesn't appear that the whole article should be tagged, although there may still be perceived issues with a section near the end of the article. Yaf (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The bare mention the text leans too heavily on the pro-gun originalist hypothesis. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I still have an issue with quotes. Hamilton by no means shares the general opinion of the times concerning the militia. As pointed out, many, many times already, his was the most extreme position of the LOOSING side of the Second Amendment/Bill of Rights battle.

I ask that the quotes from Madison, Webster, Henry and Mason be reinstated in full, as they were showing about a month ago.

I also noticed that the link to Elliot's Debates was screwed up (likely by newlaw) and no longer points to Elliot's Debates. I would HOPE that this was a simple error, but it is also possible that it is an underhanded move to later remove references to Patrick Henry and George Mason whose cited opinions and quotes are recorded in that document.

I can quite easily picture newlaw or Salty Boatr deleting the opinions of Patrick Henry and George Mason due to a lack of citation. If changing the link to make it nonworking was intentional I would say it falls WAY SHORT of any code of conduct for wiki editors.

To correct the link someone needs to copy a working version from a month or two ago. I would do it myself, but the article is protected.4.154.235.13 (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The Broken link is currently in footnote #43. I believe the links in 44 and 45 always pointed nowhere and never worked. They should point to the same place as link 43.4.154.235.13 (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

i've removed the citations and example from the lede. the exact sentences, and exact refs, and the exact example, all exist within the BODY of the article. MOS recommends not citing the lede. the actual content of the lede has not been modified, with the exception of removing 'has' from 'has ruled' as it's an anachronism. i'll look at refs 43/44/45. Anastrophe (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I object to Anastrophe's revert requesting discussion. I believe I did discuss this here, elaborating, the push-pull of the POV involves striking a balance between the pro-gun emphasis on outdated SCOTUS rulings (hence the 19th century emphasis) and the crystal ball problem of hopefully maybe someday the SCOTUS will overturn. I was trying to achieve balance by de-emphasizing the first, while keeping in emphasis of the second. The bottom line here is that now without any qualifications, the Second Amendment only applies to the Federal Government. The present wording of the second paragraph has too much emphasis on qualifications of that fact to be considered neutrally balanced in point of view. Anastrophe, please self revert, thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

a better compromise would be removal of the paragraph. i'm unclear what an "outdated SCOTUS ruling" is - you mean old rulings are invalid? that's a new one on me. eliminating the mention of the "outdated" scotus rulings, and the pending lawsuits attempting to get incorporation, would be more balanced, since neither requires mention in the lede. i still maintain that the first paragraph is more than adequate. the second amendment is xyz, and it is highly contested and debated. Anastrophe (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

let me amend that. the current paragraph three merits inclusion in the lede, with minor grammatical modification. paragraph two essentially dovetails into what is stated by para 3. Anastrophe (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

By outdated, I am referring to the pro-gun hypothesis that somehow these 19th Century rulings are deprecated because they preexist other incorporation rulings. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A huge misconception is that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to guns. In fact, per current SCOTUS rulings (and described concisely with footnote 23 in the Heller ruling), for the most part, it does not. Unless you live in the District of Columbia and remain inside your house with a handgun which you already own or have built from scratch: the Second Amendment does not presently do so. This is such an important fundamental point in the article that it merits attention in the intro. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is now moot. As suggested by Anastrophe, I have pruned the Introduction down to only what was its first paragraph. Any reference to footnote 23 can now only be found in the U.S. Supreme Court section. In that section, each decision refers to when it was decided and its location in the United States Reports. SMP0328. (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The recent SMP0238 intro edit, deleting mention of allowed regulation and mention of 'Federal only' drastically shifts the POV balance towards the pro-gun hypothesis. This is a major POV balance shift, seriously objectionable. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

your personal opinion that it is "A huge misconception" is interesting but not relevant to the discussion. you're attempting to frame the article in terms of your own personal opinion. its nice that you place all your personal weight upon footnote 23 of the ruling. your personal weight is immaterial - it suggests a desire to impart your own POV imbalance upon the facts. the court held in its ruling: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home". are you suggesting that the courts actual holding in the case is moot? you are of course entitled to that opinion. you are not entitled to attempt to warp this article to conform to your (incorrect) opinion. Anastrophe (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Every edit that isn't exactly as SaltyBoatr would want is accused by him of being a "pro-gun" edit. SaltyBoatr wants to own this article and refuses to respect the good faith of fellow editors. SMP0328. (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Your ad hominem logic is incorrect. The neutral balance of points of view I argue for is that found in reliable sourcing, not mine personally. The effect of systemic bias of pro-gun editors being attracted to this article in correspondence to their personal POV interest causes the tendency of my edits to appear in opposition. In reality, my edits are neutral per the balance of reliable sourcing. For instance, the point of view that the current interpretation of the Second Amendment being federal only, and being that gun regulations are allowed is a mainstream reliable point of view. Yet, your pro-gun tendency chooses to edit that POV out. It is your POV that is unfounded in the balance of reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. Any edit that doesn't perfectly fit your desires is labeled by you as "pro-gun". You don't assume good faith and you don't work toward consensus. Instead, you make demands and complain when other editors don't acquiesce to those demands. SMP0328. (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

saltyboatr, enough. your relentless, and reckless, accusations that all other editors who do not edit in conformance with your opinion are therefore "pro-gun" must stop. you toss that out at virtually every juncture; it is patently devoid of good faith - you are essentially stating in the open nearly every time you add a comment here that you will not assume good faith, not even for appearances! stop. cease and desist referring to any and all other editors who make edits you disagree with as being "pro gun". we are not. we are no more than fellow editors, and are to be referred to as same. you are making assumptions and stating them as fact - that's bad faith, pure and simple. what is pathetically amusing is that in the edit you refer to above as being due to 'pro-gun tendency' SMP0328 removed the entire section about the Firearms Owners Protection Act. Removal of that is not a "pro-gun" edit, it is merely an edit you didn't notice because your prejudice and assumption of bad faith regarding your fellow editors precludes you from even seeing it. again, i ask you to never more refer to your fellow editors as "pro-gun editors". it is offensive, just as offensive as if editors were to always refer to you as an "anti-gun editor", which by my recollection happens only rarely. stop. follow[REDACTED] policy and assume good faith. Anastrophe (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro Continues to reflect extensive anti-gun POV

an intro is supposed to cover the main points of the article. The current hijacking of the intro by those with an anti-gun POV has totally destroyed the impartiality of that intro.

The latest addition only reaffirms my point. The paragraph quoted from Cruikshank belongs under that case and not in the intro.4.154.235.197 (talk) 15:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Have attempted to address these concerns, moving the detailed Cruikshank and Heller minutia into their appropriate detailed discussion sections. Yaf (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro now even more biased to the in favor of gun control.

It seems that with every new edit, neutral or pro gun ownership language gets deleted and pro gun control language becomes more and more predominant. This REEKS of POV bias.

In order to counter this blatant POV bias, I ask that the following from Heller be added to the intro

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

The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

I repeat my previous position that such blatant POV bias is uncalled for and I will delete all anti gun rhetoric in the into once this article becomes unprotected.

I feel it is safe to say that no other wiki article on a Amendment is so ANTI the protections of that amendment.

Again: this article REEKS of POV bias.4.156.78.115 (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton quote still only quote showing - Continuing POV bias

Why does the proponent of the MOST EXTREME position of the loosing side of the Second Amendment/Bill of Rights debate continue to be the only one quoted?

His opinions are most certainly NOT the mainstream opinion of the time. If it was then there would be no Bill of Rights and no Second Amendment. Those two items CLEARLY exist and they exist because the majority of the time THOUGHT THEY WERE NEEDED. Again: Hamilton's was clearly a MINORITY opinion.

This quote from Federalist 25 shown Hamilton to be ANTI-Militia and anti-NUMEROUS state constitutions of the time, as well as Anti-Virginia Bill of Rights. This is NOT a mainstream opinion of the time.

Here I expect we shall be told that the militia of the country
is its natural bulwark, and would be at all times equal to the
national defense. This doctrine, in substance, had like to have
lost us our independence.

On another point: Hamilton's usage of the term "well regulated" conforms to the usage of the time. Well regulated being used to mean "well trained". From Federalist 29

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,4.156.78.9 (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Firearm Owners Protection Act section

The inclusion a whole section on this obscure piece of pro-gun legislation, while not mentioning the National Firearms Act, or the Gun Control Act of 1968, or the Militia Act of 1903 or the Militia Act of 1792 is very much a NPOV undue weight problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

with the exception of the characterization "obscure", i agree with this assessment. there are articles for each of the above, as well as the Firearm Owners Protection Act. the extended discussion of the FOPA as its own section in this article doesn't seem to add anything substantive to the article that isn't covered in its own article. Anastrophe (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delisted good articles
• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class law articles
• High-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• B-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of High-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class U.S. Congress articles
• High-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress things
• B-Class Firearms articles
• High-importance Firearms articles
• WikiProject Firearms articles