Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

proposed addition, moved to talk page

There is about 4,200 words just above discussing this already, and there remain significant problems still needing fixing before moving the passage into the article space. The existing article passage was established by consensus and should not be changed lightly. Pasting the proposed wording change here pending resolution:

"The US Senate on the other hand cites that document as a source document for the US Bill of Rights<ref>US Senate Publication, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms,1982, http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm, His purpose was to incorporate, not distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania minority, Sam Adams, or the New Hampshire delegates. </ref> while the US Supreme Court in Heller called it "highly influential"<ref>DC v Heller http://supreme.justia.com/us/554/07-290/opinion.html, But so was the highly influential minority proposal in Pennsylvania, </ref> "

Restating several problems from above: The Pennsylvanian minority report is already given coverage in the article with a NPOV balance point which was previously established by editor consensus work which occurred over several weeks time. Mentioning it a second time would be redundant, and would skew the consensus agreed balance point. The quote from Jon Roland's "constitution.org" website is to an abridged version of the 1982 Orin Hatch Senate report, which was selected abridged to give an skewed POV per Jon Roland's politics. The AnonIP's selective quote from the Heller primary court document comes from orbiter dictum has been truncated by the anonIP to omit the words that immediately follow which are "Other than that erroneous point..." , and those words negate the statement. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The report is given negative coverage or neutral coverage. Either the negative coverage needs to be removed, as I originally did and to which you objected, or positive coverage must be included to balance the negative coverage included, which I now did and which you now object. The quote I included is from a Senate Report and not the language of those who control the site. If you don't like the website where the report is hosted, simply pick another site more to your liking. The erroneous pointy refers to Justice Stevens "erroneous point. Justice Stevens wrote the dissent, aka he was on the loosing side, and the majority thought he made an erroneous point. The text from the Heller opinion before and after the quote is included below for clarity.

Justice Stevens thinks it significant that the Virginia, New York, and North Carolina Second Amendment proposals were “embedded … within a group of principles that are distinctly military in meaning,” such as statements about the danger of standing armies. Post, at 22. But so was the highly influential minority proposal in Pennsylvania, yet that proposal, with its reference to hunting, plainly referred to an individual right. See 2 Documentary Hist. 624. Other than that erroneous point, Justice Stevens has brought forward absolutely no evidence that those proposals conferred only a right to carry arms in a militia.

BTW: Looking at the Heller Dissent by Stevens I found the following language which is at odds with those historians who think that those proposals were never heard in the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention. It looks like Judge Stevens thinks that the points presented in the minority report were in fact presented during the convention and later incorporated into the critique.

The rejected Pennsylvania proposal, which was later incorporated into a critique of the Constitution titled “The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Pennsylvania Minority of the Convention of the State of Pennsylvania to Their Constituents (1787),” signed by a minority of the State’s delegates (those who had voted against ratification of the Constitution), id., at 628, 662,71.184.176.9 (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Still have an issue with as well - in the same problem paragraph discussed above

Just to be clear, the following currently appears in the article, which I have a problem with.

Thus, privately owned weapons were state mandated as a means of meeting one's legal obligation to contribute to public defense.

As far as I know, as of right now, by law, militia membership includes all able bodied adult males up to some age limit (I think 40). Assuming the same back then, how likely is it that an old man past 60, living in the wilderness with few close neighbors, and subject to Indian attacks, would BY LAW, be DISARMED - NOT ALLOWING HIM TO HAVE A GUN TO DEFEND HIMSELF. That is what the above quote implies.

Either that quote needs to be removed or someone needs to find a citation from a reputable source to back it up.71.184.176.9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC).

That sentence is well sourced. See footnote 111, which points to a book published by the Oxford University Press. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can stick a quote on a comment, but that does not mean that the comment accurately reflects the thoughts of the person cited. Does this author actually think that ALL people who had arms back them, had them upon permission by the government, including those people in the wilderness who may have been 1-2,000 miles, yes that is right 1-2 THOUSAND miles, from any seat of government. Look up fur trappers. Please find an actual quote by that author, stating he thinks ALL guns were kept based on the permission of some government body, and absent that permission there was no right to keep a gun. If you do find that such language, I can with 100% certainly say that he is no historian.71.184.176.9 (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Kenosis

Deletion of the Senate Report on grounds of obscurity

The report is obscure, but that does not change its validity.

Pardon me, the version of the report you are using has been abridged. It comes from the constitution.org website of a well known political extremist. Also, I view that document more as a political statement than as a scholarly publication. This encyclopedia should give preference to scholarship, and it should report on political statements as being politics, not as being fact. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have already said that if you don't like that site, feel free to pick another one where that report is hosted. As to obscurity, Merkel and Uviller are in the same ballpark per Amazon book sales rating. About as many people are interested in buying and reading that Senate report as are interested in buying and reading Merlel and Uviller's book. Since the disparaging comment I object to originates with M+U removing their comment would satisfy my last objection to this paragraph. Next to last objection actually, since it seems that duplicate citation mentioned yesterday (see below), is still in the article. Yet another example of the poor quality of this paragraph. I hope we can agree that duplicate citations is are poor editorship.

It is becoming hard to follow your talk page comments so I may be misunderstanding you, sorry, please see WP:TALK for guidance of how to use talk pages, which can help us work out our problems and disagreements. Regarding your offer that I should "feel free to pick another one", no, the burden of proof is on you. See WP:BURDEN for explanation of this policy. Regarding the 'duplicate citations', no those are simply using of reference tags with the "name" feature, see Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners#Same_reference_used_more_than_once for explanation of how this works. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

What am I supposed to prove? That it is a US Senate publication? Re: Duplicate cite. There are 5 citations grouped together in that originally piss poor (pardon the language) and now, after some correction just plain old poor, paragraph. Two of those citations are the same author, the same book and the same page number in that book. Look up cites 113 and 115. This is not a situation where the same author is used to cite different points in different parts of the article, this is the same author cited twice for the same point . I hope you can see the problem. If not then my already low opinion of your nitpicking conduct will get even lower.71.184.176.9 (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As to how obscure it is, that report was first published in 1982 and it is still in print. I will bet you anything you care to name that quite a few of the other sources cites in the article will not be in print on their 28th birthday

Checking with Amazon to see how popular it is here is what I find. The report in book form is rated pretty low in sales by Amazon.con at 1.6 million - low is good - high is bad. I'd say pretty darn unpopular.

There are five cites sources on the negative material

Cornell on cite 111, also from a book is rated at 80,000 - much better then the report Merkel and Uviller, also from a book is rated at 1.4 million - same ballpark as the report Gary wills, also from a book, is rated at 360,000 The Ravoke cite is from a law journal, which have only one print run. Do you know if it was reprinted or can we safely say it is more obscure then the senate report, which continues to be printed almost 30 years after it was first produced.

The fifth site is exactly the same as the third cite. Which supports my original thought that the whole paragraph was piss poor (pardon the language) to begin with. If it was reviewed by umpteen authors as per SB, why is one citation shown twice, including the page number of the book?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>Which needs to be corrected.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Now if the senate report in book form at 1.6 millionth on the charts and going on 30 years, is about as popular as the Merkel and Uviller book which is quite a bit younger, I'd have to say that the Senate Report has more staying power and therefore relevance then the book by Merkel and Uviller.

From the footnotes, the Merkel and Uviller citation is the source for the derogatory references and since Merkel and Uviller are in the same ballpark in popularity with the senate report, I can't see how you can include one and not the other. Per your own objection, Merkel and Uviller need to be removed.

a b Merkel, William G.; Uviller, H. Richard (2002). The militia and the right to arms, or, How the second amendment fell silent. Durham, N.C: Duke University Press. pp. 83. ISBN 0-8223-3017-2. http://books.google.com/books?ei=nSLdSo28C5v-lASs4c2QAQ&q=this+minority+report+turns+out+to+be+no+more+than+the+collected+ramblings+of+a+single+embittered+eccentric&btnG=Search+Books. Retrieved 10-19-2009. "this "minority report" turns out to be no more than the collected ramblings of a single embittered eccentric who departed the convention in disgust"

There are 3 choices, 1: keep one obscure reference while removing the other showing partiality, 2: remove both showing impartiality, and 3: include both showing impartiality. I vote for either options 2 or 3.

Please advise as to your preference.

Depending on how you respond, I may have doubts as to your good faith in this matter.71.184.176.9 (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment on the change line

which implies that the senate does NOT think the the report was a source document for the Bill of Rights. I may have misunderstood your objection, when I objected above. Here is my objection no 2.

The text of the Senate report clearly shows the Senate DOES think of that the Penn minority report was a source document for the Bill of Rights. From below it looks it was once removed from the "pamphlet" used by Madison. That pamphlet seems to have been a listing of all proposed constitutional amendments by all the states, with Penn, NH, and Massachusetts named. Sam Adams was from Massachusetts.

When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a Bill of Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison. Madison did not write upon a blank tablet. Instead, he obtained a pamphlet listing the State proposals for a bill of rights and sought to produce a briefer version incorporating all the vital proposals of these. His purpose was to incorporate, not distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania minority, Sam Adams, or the New Hampshire delegates. 71.184.176.9 (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Documents on Constitution.org dealt with already -one year ago

Due to constant nitpicking by SB I took his advise and looked up some of the old talk page history

What I found out: What goes around - keeps coming back!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/Archive_21#constitution.org

The argument over whether to use constitution.org one year ago with Ferrylodge seems to have been resolved by using a different source for that document. I have already proposed the same option several times to SB, and I gave SB the option of picking the hosting site to be cited for the document. 71.184.176.9 (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually not. Still, then and now, the version of the 'Hatch report' you propose to use remains dubiously abridged.

Regardless, let's look at the big picture here: Your agenda, yet again, seems to be to want to cast a favorable light on this so-called "Pennsylvania Minority Report". You are trying to do this by illuminating it in the light of "The Senate cites..." and "The Supreme Court calls it...", and thereby impying a favorable light on the point of view you personally favor. This is settled ground, and consensus here on the talk page from last October and November decided against doing this. It is disruptive for you to keep going against that consensus. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

My agenda, as stated before is to either get the derogatory treatment of an important historical document removed or to enter balancing positive commentary. If you don't like constitution.org, I again offer you the choice of the website hosting the Senate Report which contains some of that positive commentary. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI: I am 71.184.176.9. There was a power failure yesterday shutting down my DSL modem, which was then reset to a new IP number when power came back on.96.237.120.38 (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yet another positive view of the Penn report

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacJosephBScarnati.pdf

This is from a brief to the Supreme Court in the Heller Case, from the President of the Pennsylvania Senate, J.B. Scarnati, and at least as equal valid as the historians brief. At least, because the historians argued for the loosing side, while Mr. Scarnati argued for the winning side.

On page 27 of that Brief he states that the proposed Bill of Rights (by the Penn minority) had influence in Mass. NH, Vir, NY and NC.

I'm sure that if I look at the other pro-Heller briefs, I will find additional positive comments on that report.96.237.120.38 (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarification in "Scholarly commentary" section

For now, I've chosen to clarify the recently inserted text (here) to at least reasonably reflect the actual sources from which the assertions just added by the anon-IP are drawn. (1) What was asserted to be "The US Senate" is actually a 1982 Republican-led subcommittee the controlling majority of which happened to be advocating private gun rights, and (2) I tried to make it clear it was the "majority" in the 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Heller. Click on the link to see the changes to the article text... Kenosis (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to get partisan why not go all the way and include this snippet from Mayor Daley. PRIMO material.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/mayor-daley-threatens-to_n_584106.html

Democrat Mayor Daley of Chicago, after the US Supreme Court stated it was leaning toward ruling against gun bans, threatened to shoot a reporter.

"If I put this up your -- your butt, you'll find out how effective it is. If we put a round up your, ha ha."

Daley is a piece of work. Supposedly anti-gun, yet he wants to stick a gun up a reporters ass and blow him a bigger one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Daley is a thug and runs Chicago with an iron fist. Like any other authoritarian, he doesn't handle criticism well. His stupid and childish remark to that reporter should not be used to dirty this article or any other article. SMP0328. (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The US Senate in 1982 was Republican controlled, and the way things work, if you have an overall majority, you have control of the various commitees as well. Why not also say Rakove, a historian with ties to anti gun groups, states...96.237.120.38 (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree to you comments about Daley, and to you opinion that the comment does not deserve space in the article. You will notice that another "stupid and childish" remark is currently showing as part of the current article. See cite 112 by Merkel and Uviller which goes "this "minority report" turns out to be no more than the collected ramblings of a single embittered eccentric who departed the convention in disgust". 96.237.120.38 (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the personal attack that was quoted in footnote 112. The footnote is otherwise unaffected. The personal attack was not necessary for providing a source, the other three footnotes with which it is grouped don't have quotes and I don't believe selected quotes are helpful for any of those footnotes. SMP0328. (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the removal. If I had done it, I am 100% sure that the SB/Kenosis duo would have started yet another inane pissing match.96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help. SMP0328. (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've no inherent objections to the removal of the quoted passage from Uviller and Merkel within the footnote. Its removal was consistent with the removal of other quoted passages placed within footnotes, and IMO is a reasonable editorial judgment call. I do, though, happen to think brief relevant quotes from these various cited authors assist the reader in learning the relevant language in the source without necessarily consulting the source itself, same as was also done with the Heller opinion and the snip from the 1982 Senate subcommittee report, since removed. But either way is OK with me as long as the practice is reasonably consistent. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Rakove and Bellesiles - Is Rakove a reliable source?

A few years back, Bellesiles seems to have gotten himself a lot of grief for faking research. Rakove, who seems to be the #1 author of the historians brief, per the link below, had close ties with Bellesiles, including input into the book where that fake research was published.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/01/a-peoples-history-of-the-united-states.php

A Nov 20 Chicago Tribune article quoted Jack Rakove of Stanford as follows: “It’s clear now that his [Bellesiles] scholarship is less than acceptable,” Rakove said. “There are cautionary lessons for historians here.”

(I blinked when I read this, given that page 583 of Arming America has the following acknowledgment: “Jack Rakove kindly went through the second draft with a keen eye and improved every page he read.”)

The next day Rakove acknowledged that he was the one who had supported Michael Bellesiles Fellowship at Stanford. Which was rather prescient, since Jack Rakove was one of the Historians at Chicago Kent citing Arming America heavily to support his gun control argument.

What Jack did not note on H-OIEAHC was that Michael Bellesiles satisfied the requirement for that Fellowship –presenting his findings to the Stanford community — at a Stanford Symposium on the Second Amendment set up by …Jack Rakove.

In damage control mode

A prominent Stanford Historian, Jack Rakove, suddenly started telling the New York Times that the History Profession had a Peer Review process and that that would squeeze out the truth. As the scandal unfolded, Rakove was the spokeman cited by the newspapers re the integrity of the history profession.96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

New material

The addition of the two new sentences by AnonIP to the "meaning of bear arms" section have created new ambiguity. The first part discussed a Tench Coxe editorial in a newspaper which used the phrase "keep and bear their private arms", which has been adopted by individual rights proponents as having meaning in support of their point of view. The second part addresses the so-called minority report passage, with includes the ambiguous wording "for killing game" found in an anonymous pamphlet distributed after the Pennsylvanian convention. These are two distinct and separate incidents. But, the two added sentences (the Orin Hatches musings and the Antonin Scalia's incidental remark) only pertain to the 'for killing game' pamphlet and not the Tench Coxe editorial. The wording of the article is now ambiguous, falsely implying that Orin Hatch and Antonin Scalia also think the Tench Coxe editorial was important, when there is no evidence that is true.

And, civility on the talk page has been poisoned with acrimony, is there a way we can cooperate to fix this mess? SaltyBoatr ^getwet 20:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I made minor changes to clarify what is being referenced in the new material. Do you have additional complaints?

BTW: I did notice you attempt to downgrade an important historical document to the status of "anonymous pamphlet", a US Senate report to the status of "the musings of Orin Hatch, and Scalias opinion supported by the 4 other Supreme Court Justices signing off on the opinion, to a mere "incidental remark". 96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked up the reference to killing game and the complete comment is as follows. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game. In case you unfamiliar with the term "to bear", it means "to hold or carry". I find it perfectly understandable that ones needs "to hold" a gun in order to use it while hunting (killing game). I have trouble with the concept of going hunting by putting a gun down on the ground and expecting it to load, aim and fire itself. Even worse is the concept of going hunting by leaving a gun in a government controlled armory, where in addition to the above 3 issues, it also has to fire through the walls of the armory. Are you still confused?96.237.120.38 (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Having had my faith in you drop, drop again and then drop even more, I decided to do a bit of further checking. The Democrat and ranking minority member of the subcommittee had this to say about the report. He refers to it as excellent, fair and thorough and not the musings of Orin Hatch as you seem to believe. Unless the musings of Orin Hatch are excellent, fair and thorough.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html#h1-18

The Constitution subcommittee staff has prepared this monograph bringing together proponents of both sides of the debate over the 1968 Act. I believe that the statements contained herein present the arguments fairly and thoroughly. I commend Senator Hatch, chairman of the subcommittee, for having this excellent reference work prepared. I am sure that it will be of great assistance to the Congress as it debates the second amendment and considers legislation to amend the Gun Control Act.

Dennis Deconcini,

Ranking Minority Member,

Subcommittee On the Constitution.96.237.120.38 (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Dennis Deconcini is referring to the original version of the report, not this version of the report you have seen which was abridged. Also, I understand your personal belief that to bear means to hold and carry. Yet, with an open mind we also must see that others consider the term "keep and bear" as a conjunctive[1][2] which implies a military context. We must edit this article to respect both points of view. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There is only one version of the report. Are you stating that Deconcini did not sign off on that statement, which is a part of the report itself? As to whether or not my belief on whether "to bear" means "to hold or carry" is correct, I direct you to Websters dictionary. If you want to push the thought that Websters dictionary is in error, then your already low credibility will get even lower.96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What definition does your version of Websters give for "bear arms"? Most modern abridged dictionaries like those published by Merriam-Webster don't define all the historical usages of words in the English Language including the Eighteenth Century two word term: "bear arms". Take a look at a true unabridged historical dictionary like the Oxford English Dictionary for the 1789 definition of the meaning of "bear arms", see the entry arm, n.2 4.c. in The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. You might need to go to a library to find this. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the "Contents" listing at the top of the report. There were also statements at the hearings giving "Other Views of the second amendment" from: 1) David J. Steinberg of the National Council for a Responsible Firearms Policy. 2) Michael K. Beard, Samuel S. Fields, of the National Coalition to Ban Handguns and 3) The Association of the Bar of the city of New York. My guess is that these three items of 'gun control' balancing testimony were trimmed out from the version of the report posted on Constitution.org and Guncite.org because of their "gun rights" advocacy agenda. Interestingly, the report version posted at Constitution.org at least has the honesty to mention at the bottom that "[Other sections omitted.]"[3]. The Guncite version trims out that disclosure that "other sections are omitted". This sourcing fails WP:V policy I think. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Read the Supreme Courts opinion of that phrase, already in the article, and as an editor, something you should already be familiar with

A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter 96.237.120.38 (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

And, stating the obvious, the killing of game purpose was not put into this Second Amendment. Though the first half of the Second Amendment does mention an explicit purpose, a well regulated militia. Our job is to fairly represent all significant viewpoints, and in this case the mystery of why "killing game" was mentioned in one rogue pamphlet begs explanation because it stands out as a rare exception among hundreds of other usages of "bear arms" consistently in military contexts. Here is one detailed study[4] worth reading. There are various significant explanations found, one is that modern gun rights proponents have scoured the 18th century written record looking for material to bolster their case. They found this run-on sentence and like it because it is helpful to an individual rights modern political argument. Another reliably sourced explanation, published by Duke University Press, was that the rambling "killing game" sentence which blurs military and non-military uses was composed in haste by an eccentric person. Yet, this quote was removed[5] by SMP0328 and I think the article suffers from that deletion. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Your issue was with what "to bear" meant. The US Supreme provided the answer. On the meaning of laws, there is no more significant viewpoint. In case you are unaware of it, the Supreme Court has ruled that plain everyday meaning of the law, is the law.96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

And speaking of significant viewpoints are you aware that in the historians brief, Rakove and the other historians admitted that Pennsylvania, even during wartime refused to set up an organized militia? How they can say that the right to arms is militia based, when Pennsylvania had no militia and refused, even in wartime, to create one is a puzzlement.13:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI: I again noticed you downgrading an important historical document to the status of "a rogue pamphlet". 96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, not me personally. I am just reflecting what I read in the sources. Specifically, the U&M analysis of that pamphlet published by Duke University Press. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Your impartiality is legendary. Why not ignore the US Supreme Court, the US Senate, a leading Pennsylvania politician, in order to side with a some two bit historians. I can fully understand your reasoning.

BTW: I notice you changed the text of the article to say the right of English protestants to arms is purely defensive. Why not add the fact that they were defending themselves from an abusive monarch.96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

-Hauskalainen - use of primary documents

A few days ago you deleted some cites that referenced text from the English Bill of Rights (a primary document). I could not understand why wiki would ban the use of such documents, and from the policy page below, their use is not banned, just restricted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, as that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.

I believe my use of the English Bill of rights as a reference is allowed as I used it to support descriptive statement that an educated person can verify A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge

I stated that the majority protestants were afraid that James II and his catholic successors would eventually force the English to convert to Catholicism and citing the following section of the Bill of Rights Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom; .

While the word "extirpate" isn't much in use anymore, I hope that what passes for an educated person these days, either already knows that meaning, can infer what it means, or at worst can look it up in a dictionary.

one online dictionary gives the following meanings

1 a : to destroy completely : wipe out b  : to pull up by the root 2 : to cut out by surgery synonyms see exterminate96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Links in footnotes are messed up

Anyone know why so many of the links in the footnotes are messed up? Isn't the proper format [URL text]?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably old age. I tried one myself that looked like interesting reading, but it was a dead link. Sites come and go, they change their names, remove or move material, etc.96.237.120.38 (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There was one mismatched square bracket in one of the ref's which caused the other refs to show their square brackets. I just fixed it I think. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Good work, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Heller historians brief

Since what to me was a simple deletion of poor material has now turned into a pissing match, I thought I'd share some comments in the historians brief which I ran across.

see http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290tsajackn.rakove.pdf pages 11 and 12 for verification

The historians comment in that brief, that Pennsylvania had no militia for two decades prior to the Revolution due to "Quaker influence" and that even following a petition from "frontier counties" during the Seven Years War and Pontiac's rising of 1763, the colonial government failed to set up an organized militia. Again in 1776 Pennsylvania failed to call up an organized militia.

The historians point of view is that the Second Amendment is based on a state authorization to have arms so that one can serve in the militia. That viewpoint is incompatible with Pennsylvania's refusal to have an organized militia, even during wartime.96.237.120.38 (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Added material showing Pennsylvania had no militia and refused to organize one, based on comments in historians brief.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

English history section needs some work

There is a partial sentence backed up by citation #9 and most of the rest reads badly, probably due to numerous edits that resulted in that partial sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

After moving the partial sentence above, and some back and forth between myself and other editors on other sections of a certain paragraph, which IMO ended up looking even worse after the edits then before, I re-edited the paragraph to cover all the major points. Not to my surprise, I find the paragraph edited for what I believe is the worst.

Major points which I believe should be (in some manner) included. Below is for discussion

1) Prior to 1689, the right to arms was not a "protected" legal right, and that the 1689 English Bill of Rights made it a protected right, and even after that Bill was passed that right was of limited nature and even then only applied to protestants. Common law rights are not protected rights since common law is "unwritten" law.

(inserted comment by Hauskalainen ... I don't accept the Bill of Rights of 1689 in practice changed anything. People had a right to arms generally before its passing and had the same right afterwards. Parliament before and after was free to change the law at will and has done so in relation to certain classes of arms. People cannot claim that the rights in the Bill of Rights were protected in the same way as people in the U.S. have done so in respect to the Second Amendment. This is a misreading of English law and English history). --Hauskalainen (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

2) As to whether William and Mary gave Parliament the power to pass the bill, from my readings prior to the edit, Parliament had been dissolved prior to the Glorious Revolution, but due to the fear a being forced to turn Catholic, former members of the dissolved Parliament got together, passed a bill dethroning James II and offering the crown to William and Mary. After William and Mary took the throne they officially reinstated Parliament and the now fully official and legal Parliament passed into law the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which either resembled the bill passed by the unofficial Parliament or was the same of that bill.

Above source may be wrong, another source states that William and Mary were required to accept the bill of rights prior to their coronation. This may have been the precursor bill, or the principle of such a bill, and not the Bill of Rights itself.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

3) I can't say I would go along with a statement that Parliament was "democratic", since that would mean nobles and clergy in Parliament were elected. Commoners in the House of Commons were elected, but what we call gerrymandering Congressional districts is a pale shadow of what went in England. One of the wiki articles I references stated that prior to a redrawing of districts in the 1800's, one district was composed of 4 people and had 2 House members, while another district was a town which had fallen into the sea. I have no objections to calling Parliament "representative" since it had members from all classes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Your three comments above seem to reflect your personal beliefs because you do not mention your sourcing for your ideas. In order to proceed with your request for discussion, we need to be discussing what the reliable sourcing says, not discussing what individual editors believe. Please specifically tell us what is the secondary sourcing you are reading for your ideas. Give the exact page numbers, and/or exact URL's so we may read it too, thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Do I need to explain that "Common law" in unwritten? i.e not legislated, but evolved through many many generations of courtroom battles? If I do, then I won't bother. Your ignorance is too deep for my limited patience. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I am ignorant about a lot of things, but I think I do understand you! Except, I am not allowed to respond to you here. The way it works is that on article talk pages like this one, we are supposed to avoid talking about personal opinion. If you would like to discuss personal opinion with me, ask your questions over on my user talk page. Ask me there, and I will answer you there. Here, on article talk pages we are supposed to limit our discussion to what the reliable secondary sourcing says about the article, and to avoid talking about personal opinion. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for how this is supposed to work. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said my limited patience makes me unable to help you. Anyone who thinks you needs two citations to a certain page of a certain book to make ONE point, such as yourself, is in need of dire help, exceeding what I can provide. I am therefore cutting my losses. And as I pointed out below, primary sources are allowed by wiki policy, as long as an "intelligent" person can see the connection. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record I don't recall that you have pointed to primary sources either. (Admittedly I am not certain tracking anonymous comments.) Unless you are saying that you are pointing to "unwritten" primary sources. I don't think there is an exception in WP:V policy allowing unwritten sources, especially for contentious subjects like this. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 03:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used, but only in a very narrow way. Here's wiki-policy on the matter:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, as that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.

SMP0328. (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Already mentioned in the section below. Let me know if you think the following is an allowed use of a primary source. Can the descriptive statement be verified by an educated person, from the primary source cited text?

I stated that the majority protestants were afraid that James II and his catholic successors would eventually force the English to convert to Catholicism and citing the following section of the Bill of Rights Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom; .96.237.120.38 (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Read the policy more closely. "Any interpretation of primary source material" is disallowed. In your usage you are interpreting the majority Protestants intention. The primary source says nothing about the Protestant's intention, it just talks of what the Catholics were doing. Were Protestants "afraid"? Were Protestants seeking to avoid something James II would do? That involves your interpretation.

Fortunately, major historical events like this have plenty of excellent secondary reliable source material available. Usually it is easy to find a solid secondary source that says the exact same thing as your primary interpretation. If it isn't easy to find secondary sources confirming your ideas, maybe you need to rethink anyway. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Read the policy closely yourself. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. Unless of course you are not an educated person.96.237.120.38 (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

A descriptive statement is different than an interpretive statement. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

and what did I interpret?96.237.120.38 (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As I already said: 1) You interpreted that the Protestants were afraid. 2) You interpreted the intentions behind the Protestant Bill of Rights. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 23:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously people who REVOLT are MOST JOYOUS at who they rebel against! You are so funny! If you can't tell what people are feeling after they plainly tell you, see the meaning of "extirpate" (definition in following section) below, then as I said before, it is well beyond my limited patience to EDUCATE YOU to see what is before your face. I suggest you enroll in a community college. Start with basket weaving 101.96.237.120.38 (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Open for discussion of recent edits

AnonIP recently reverted[6] without explanation several recent well sourced edits which seem to be improvements to the article. Opening this new section in order to discuss any objections. This is preferable to making unexplained wholesale reverts. Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The material already in the article on the meaning of well regulated seem fine and even includes a cite to the US Supremes. 96.237.120.38 (talk)

I see that AnonIP has deleted[7] that there are multiple views as to the meaning of the Blackstone quotation. Did you read the paper[8] by Stephen Heyman, footnote 15? In it he states bluntly that there are multiple views among scholars about the meaning of this Blackstone quotation. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Your changes did not match the cites. I changed the material to reflect the cites.96.237.120.38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC).

Beating a dead horse - This is the Heyman cite appearing in the article "Heyman, Stephen (2000). "Natural Rights and the Second Amendment". Chicago-Kent Law Review (Chicago-Kent College of Law) 76 (237): 253-259. http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=steven_heyman. "Finally, we should note that (contrary to Kates's assertion) Blackstone nowhere suggests that the right to arms derives from "the common law." Instead, this is a right that is secured by "the constitution," and in particular by the Bill of Rights."

If you wish to continue this discussion, I can probably skin the horse, make dog food out of its flesh, grind its bones for calcium, render its fat for oil, and boil its hooves for glue.96.237.120.38 (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I see that AnonIP has made a wholesale revert[9] without discussion again. Can we talk this without silently edit warring? Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I restored well referenced material that you deleted that was already in the article. What about getting consensus to remove it? 96.237.120.38 (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you deleted rather than restored references. And, the references you removed were of very high quality from scholarly law review articles. Please explain your reasoning for these deletions. Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You deleted the original material and replaced it, I restored the original material, you then deleted it again, I then again restored it. If you want to add additional material you are free to do so. Just make sure it is well referenced.

I thought you were all about "consensus"? or are you all about "consensus" only when it suits you?96.237.120.38 (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Could we instead discuss the article? This revert[10] of yours was unexplained. Could you please explain the reasoning behind your revert? Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 02:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there some part of "I restored material which you had removed" that is difficult for you to understand? If so, then run to that community college and start with the BASIC basket weaving class.96.237.120.38 (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You deleted[11] the entire paragraph with the reference to the Lewis and Clark Law Review article by William Merkel, explain please. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 05:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I said above, if you want to add new material, you are free to do so, as long as it contains backing citations. Material already in the article, which as you previously pointed out, is there based on editorial "consensus", should be left alone.96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Trying to move this forward, AnonIP deleted the paragraph with footnote 125.  :

Version prior to AnonIP edit:

Meaning of "well regulated militia"

The meaning of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment has been interpreted two ways: One interpretation is a usage of the term "regulated" to mean "disciplined" or "trained".[124]

Another interpretation of "well regulated" is that in the eighteenth century the term regulated meant subject to rules and regulations, the same as the modern meaning, and that it did not mean trained.[125]

On what constitutes a well regulated militia, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 29: "The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.[45]"

Version after AnonIP edit

Meaning of "well regulated militia"

The term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment has been interpreted as a usage of the term "regulated" to mean "disciplined" or "trained".[124]

On what constitutes a well regulated militia, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 29: "If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security....A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.[45]"

There are a couple issues here. 1) Per reliable sourcing there are two interpretations of "well regulated", we should be describing both. And, 2) The selective quotation from Alexander Hamilton, with the ellipsis (...) amounts to improper synthesis of a primary document in attempt to bolster one of the interpretations.

That footnote 125 points to a paper in the Lewis and Clark Law Review. Could other editors, if they haven't already, please take a moment and read the paper[12], especially page 361, so we can discuss the relevance and reliability? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

A blind man can see that the quote you state I deleted was ALREADY in the article, and with my restoration, is still in the article. If that community college has Basic basket weaving for the blind, I recommend that course as the starting point for your education.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No. You deleted the paragraph starting with the words "Another interpretation of 'well regulated' is...". That paragraph was sourced to the article in the Lewis and Clark Law Review. I know your opinion that I should take a basket weaving class, you have said this many times. Instead, can we please discuss the article? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to add new material, do so as long as it is cited. Do not delete old material while you are doing so, included by "consensus" that contradicts your new material. see POV push.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This "old material" you speak of is that quote from Federalist #29, a primary document. That quote seems contrived to make a case that Alexander Hamilton was saying that "well regulated" means "trained". It achieves this by conjugating two sentences together with an ellipsis. When I checked the source I see that there are a 641 words omitted by that ellipsis. This is an excessive distortion of a primary source and violates WP:SYN policy. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 00:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

click here to view the words from the primary source omitted with the ellipsis

If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the same body, ought, as far as possible to take away the inducement and the pretext, to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies, which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter'. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence, than a thousand prohibitions upon paper. In order to cast an odium upon the power of calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, it has been remarked, that there is nowhere any provision in the proposed constitution for requiring the aid of the Posse Comitatcs, to assist the magistrate in the execution of his duty; whence it has been inferred, that military force was intended to be his only auxiliary. There is a striking incoherence in the objections which have appeared, arid sometimes even from the same quarter, not much calculated to inspire a very favorable opinion of the sincerity or fair dealing of their authors. The same persons, who tell us in one breath, that the powers of the federal government will be despotic and unlimited, inform us in the next, that it has not authority sufficient even to call out the Posse Comitatus. The latter, fortunately, is as much short of the truth as the former exceeds it. It would be as absurd to doubt, that a right to pass all laws necessary and proper to execute its declared powers, would include that of requiring the assistance of the citizens to the officers who may be entrusted with the execution of those laws; as it would be to believe, that a right to enact laws necessary and proper for the imposition and collection of taxes, would involve that of varying the rules of descent and of the alienation of lauded property, or of abolishing the trial by jury in cases relating to it. It being therefore evident, that the supposition of a want of power to require the aid of the Posse Comitatus is entirely destitute of color, it will follow, that the conclusion which has been drawn from it, in its application to the authority of the federal government over the militia, is as uncaudid as it is illogical. What reason could there be to infer, that force was intended to be the sole instrument of authority, merely be cause there is a power to make use of it when necessary ? What shall we think of the motives, which could induce men of sense to reason in this extraordinary manner ? How shall we prevent a conflict between charity and conviction ? By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government. It is observed, that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and the ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power. What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen. But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who object to select corps as dangerous, were the constitution ratified, and were I to deliver my seutiments to a member of the federal legislature on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him in substance the following discourse : "The project of disciplining all the militia of the United " States. is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable " of being carried into execution.

OK then. This is my proposal, all fully sourced.

===Meaning of "well regulated militia"===

The meaning of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment has been interpreted two ways:

One interpretation is a usage of the term "regulated" to mean "disciplined" or "trained".<ref>As noted by the U.S. Supreme Court in ''[[District of Columbia v. Heller]]'', "[T]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training." ''Heller'', majority opinion of the Court, Part II-A-2</ref>

Another interpretation of "well regulated" is that in the eighteenth century the term regulated meant subject to rules and regulations, the same as the modern meaning, and that it did not mean trained.<ref name="Merkel361" >{{cite journal|last1=Merkel|first1=William|year=2009|title=Heller and Scalia's Originalism|journal=Lewis and Clark Law Review|volume=13|issue=2|pages=361|url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1422048_code695147.pdf?abstractid=1422048&mirid=5|date=Summer 2009|quote=Well-regulated meant well trained, rather than subject to rules and regulations. (A quick look at the Oxford English Dictionary reveals that, rather unsurprisingly and contra Malcolm, in the eighteenth century, regulated actually meant regulated, much as it does today. It did not mean trained.)}}</ref>

On what constitutes a well regulated militia, Alexander Hamilton wrote in [[Federalist No. 29]]:{{quote|The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.<ref name="Fed29">Hamilton, Alexander. [http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm Federalist No. 29, "Concerning the Militia"]</ref>}}

Comments please, I will be inserting this shortly. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 00:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I recommend you wait until 24 hours have passed. If the anon doesn't respond within that time, or he agrees to your proposal, then place it into the article. Waiting will prevent your adding it, followed by his reverting that addition. SMP0328. (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I can wait until tomorrow, though AnonIP has recently said twice that his invites sourced additions saying just above "you are free to do so". SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The proposed edit deleted the portion of Hamilton quote that describes what a "well regulated" militia is, as well as a reference showing that the Supreme Court seconds, or accepts that meaning. In other words the "accepted" meaning would be deleted from the article in favor of a meaning pushed by a small number of modern historians. I won't object if SB adds material pushing that small minority opinion, but I object to replacing the accepted meaning showing in the article, with that minority opinion. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A second proposed edit: This involves the selective quote from Blackstone in the "English History" section. Firstly, understanding legal treatises is hard enough, let alone the difficulty of understanding the ones written in archaic English from 1765. This seems a violation of the primary source limitation that the usage must be understandable by normally educated people. Plainly, a practical understanding of Blackstone is limited to a few of the most expert legal historians. The easiest fix is probably to simply remove the Blackstone quote entirely. If we choose to leave it in, alternately we should shift from using the primary document and instead be using reliable secondary sourcing. I was researching this and found two papers by distinguished professors in academic journals. Take the time please and read these two; 1) Heyman, Stephen (2000).[13] "Natural Rights and the Second Amendment". Chicago-Kent Law Review (Chicago-Kent College of Law) 76 (237): 253-259. and 2) Levinson, Sanford (2009).[14] "For whom is the Heller decision important and why?". Lewis and Clark Law Review 13 (2): 315-347. Both these describe how Blackstone uses a different meaning for "natural right" when speaking of the right to have arms, and that it is more accurately called "a subordinate auxiliary right". In short, my second proposal is to remove the interpretive wikilinks from the primary document quotation, and to add ", or a subordinate auxiliary right:" to the end of the introductory sentence. That is, unless other editors agree to just eliminate the Blackstone quote entirely because it is a problematic primary document usage. Comments please, I will be doing this shortly. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

An educated person can understand what Blackstone is saying, especially with "suitable for his condition an as allowed by law" background provided within that section of the article. I personally would like to see a few of the "suitable for his condition and as allowed by law"quotes condensed into something like "a limited right". Endlessly repeating it seems excessive. I don't support changing the direct quote however. That would be unprofessional.96.237.120.38 (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the Steven Heyman paper[15] in which he examines the meaning of Blackstone? If you haven't, I ask that you do. You might find it to be an interesting paper, it also covers the topic of the Pennsylvanian minority report. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Blackstone basically said that arms are the last refuse of those who want to resist oppression. Please explain to me how the disarming of the general population, by the government, allows them to resist that government oppression through force of arms. Partial quote from Blackstone: "when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."96.237.120.38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC).

Blackstone seems pretty clear, why do I need an interpreter? http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s5.html

Review WP:NOR policy, if you want to edit, we need to be using secondary sources. The issue here is that "natural right" as described by Blackstone was a complex concept and the use of the wikilink you inserted[16] is prohibited interpretation. This is explained in the Heyman paper, did you read the Steven Heyman paper? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And, lastly, to vindicate these rights, when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and lastly to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I also have a proposed edit. In a previous section of this talk page I pointed out that in the historians brief, those historians admitted that the Pennsylvania refused, due to Quaker influence, to create an organized militia, even after petitions during wartime. If Pennsylvania did not have a militia, and refused to create one, how can the right to keep and bear arms be militia based? 96.237.120.38 (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A well regulated mansion? controlled by umpteen laws? I think not!

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/washington.htm

Custis was nineteen at the time of Washington's death. He describes the scene:

Mrs. Washington retired about the usual family hour, but becoming alarmed at not hearing the accustomed sound of the library door as it closed for the night, and gave signal for rest in the well-regulated mansion, she rose again, and continued sitting up, in much anxiety and suspense. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I accept the definition that "well regulated" means trained, because I see that reliable secondary sources say it. I also see that other reliable sources say that "well regulated" uses the word "regulated" to mean "regulated" in a modern sense. Per policy here we are to include all the significant points of views which we find in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

and now that "small minority" opinion, limited to a few historians and the people that they have deluded, is included in the article.96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that the Heller ruling has not allowed for umpteen gun requlations? Heller spoke loud and clear that nearly every gun regulation (short of a handgun at home for self-defense) is going forward deemed Constitutional, see SCOTUSblog "Heller: “…nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons… ... would have been better served if the regulations Heller addressed in dicta had been ..."]. Who knows if regulated means regulated, or trained, or both. I see it described both ways in the opinion of Antonin Scalia. Clear as mud, and the article should fairly indicate that regulated in the 2A can be read two ways. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that the "small minority" opinion that well regulate means festooned with laws and regulations is now in article.

George Washington, August 25, 1776 letter to Israel Putnam.

The distinction between a well regulated Army, and a Mob, is the good order and discipline of the first, and the licentious and disorderly behaviour of the latter96.237.120.38 (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Did Washington advise a commander to get well-law'd troops to reinforce his fortifications (works), or well-trained ones?

I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got. George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889)) 96.237.120.38 (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

SB - your enlargement of Hamiltons quote is not appropriate to the article

As it stands, it is "to the point". Your addition buries the relevant quotation in irrelevant material.

If I did not know better, I would say that having failed to get that quote removed, you are now trying to bury it in irrelevant material.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant material? Say's who? The trouble with the version of the text you prefer is that it involves selective quotations, taken out of context, and misleadingly cobbled together with an ellipsis which distort the meaning and contrives it to mean something which you wish it meant. This is a textbook case of editor synthesis of primary documents. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you dislike the ellipses I have no objection to removing the first portion of the quote. It has nothing to do with what well-regulated means and is Hamilton pushing his agenda of more federal control of the militia.

Hamilton however, accurately describes what the Founders meant by a well-regulated militia. The US Supreme Court seconds that interpretation. If you don't like that interpretation because it goes against your agenda, I can't say I feel sorry.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You wrote "is Hamilton pushing his agenda of more federal control of the militia". In other words: "is Hamilton pushing his agenda of more federal regulation of the militia". Selective quotations from Hamilton can be made to show him where regulation means regulation. Except that you don't want to do that, or do you? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The militia is a state body. Hamilton was in favor of moving control of the militia to the federal government at the expense of the states. Your points also have nothing to do with what "well-regulated" means. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, you write "control", and control is a synonym for regulation. Hamilton supported federal regulation of the militia using the literal meaning of the word. Your selective quotation of a primary document is contrived to hide this and is a policy violation. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Your points again have nothing to do with what the phrase "well-regulated" means.

Was this you who wrote this yesterday, I accept the definition that "well regulated" means trained, because I see that reliable secondary sources say it. I also see that other reliable sources say that "well regulated" uses the word "regulated" to mean "regulated" in a modern sense. Per policy here we are to include all the significant points of views which we find in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr get wet 13:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

My condolences if you suffer from a memory disorder.96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The WP:RS use the term in various ways. If we are going to quote from Federalist #29 is makes more sense to quote the opening sentence[17] which seems to better summarizes the point he is trying to make and uses "regulation" to mean "commanding its services". Instead, you want to pick out a portion of one sentence down in the middle, distorted to change Hamilton meaning to match your own. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Was this you who wrote this yesterday, I accept the definition that "well regulated" means trained, because I see that reliable secondary sources say it. I also see that other reliable sources say that "well regulated" uses the word "regulated" to mean "regulated" in a modern sense. Per policy here we are to include all the significant points of views which we find in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr get wet 13:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If not then either someone has high jacked your account, or you are engaged in puppetry of one sort or another. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I just highlighted in yellow the second half of what I wrote. My point is that there are two significant opinions here seen reliable sourcing. Not just the one opinion which you are trying to emphasize using an out of context quote from Hamilton. We must give fair coverage to both opinions, even if we don't personally agree with the opinions. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That section of the article deals with the phrase "well regulated", and not with the word "regulated". If you can find a another quote by Hamilton (or another Founding Father for that mater that shows the phrase "well regulated" means "festooned with laws", "limited by law", "regulated by law", "governed by law" or something similar, I have no objection to you including it in part 2 of that section. Otherwise please cease and desist in pushing you POV agenda to the detriment of the article.96.237.120.38 (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Federalist #29 says" "confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority"...."reserving to the states"..."the authority of training the militia". Plainly, Hamilton meant "training" when he wrote training, and he used the word "regulation" when he meant control. So, if Hamilton said "regulated" when he meant "training", then what does he mean when he wrote "of training"? My point is that it is dangerous to use snippets of primary documents when we write an encyclopedia. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And what did he mean when he said that PRACTICING (going through) "military exercises and evolutions, AS OFTEN AS MIGHT BE NECESSARY" is what gives a militia the character of a "well-regulated" militia?

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You asked me a question: "What did he mean?". My answer is: That would involve interpretation of what he said!

Per wiki it only requires that you be educated without any special knowledge. So sad!96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you check the historical usage of the term "well regulated" in the English Language, it is documented by the Oxford English Dictionary as having usage between 1709-1894, with no recorded usages in the last century. It is an antiquated English term, fallen out of use in modern English. Very few people are educated in the use of disused historical English terms like this. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

When I read Hamilton he writes suggestive that regulation = training in one place and that regulation <> training in another place. That is why we are required here at Wikipedia not do interpretations of primary documents. We should delete that selective Hamiliton quote because it is interpretive, selectively chosen to push one favorite POV. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

One minute you spout "all views must be shown" to get a minority view you support included, the next minute you want the majority view that you don't like deleted. Classic case of POV push.96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you have the "majority" "minority" reversed as to common viewpoints. Most everyone thinks "regulated" means "regulated", this is especially true when you look to historical language authority, like the Oxford English Dictionary. This is true both for their historical usage of "regulated" and for the OED record of historical usages of two-word term "well-regulated". If you get a chance, look it up in the OED and you can confirm this. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

At least 5 of 9 US Supreme Court justices think that it means "trained"96.237.120.38 (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

How do you know? It appears that you are selectively reading and interpreting primary documents again. (see next section) SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I know because the majority opinion for Heller was signed of by 5 of 9 US Supreme Court justices. BTW: That BASIC basket weaving for the blind class looks a bit too advanced for you. I now recommend the one where you learn to make mud pies.96.237.120.38 (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Academic criticism of Heller

When I read reliable secondary sourcing which has studied the Heller ruling I see that it is described as "an act of (self?)-deception or conscious fraud", "a hollow sham"[18], "patently erroneous"[19], "simply foolish"[20] and "rife with absolutist rhetoric"[21] by a string of well known and leading experts in constitutional history. This is not blog-o-sphere criticism. It comes from articles in Law Reviews & Law Journals published by major Universities. The response has been scathing dismissal of Heller as being self-absorbed "law office history"[22]. Considering the amount academic criticism of this ruling, WP:REDFLAG comes up, to be prudent we probably should take it with a grain of salt. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

and I am sure that I can call you any number of things, such as fair, evenhanded, a credit to his nation, beloved by all who know him, etc etc etc, but calling you that does not necessarily make it true.96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

@SB: I think you have it backwards. The branch of the government responsible for interpreting the constitution has made a decision with which some people (including many academics) disagree. That happens. Any source which characterizes that decision as a fraud or deception is questionable per WP:REDFLAG. Extremist rhetoric like that is the mark of an opinion piece, not a scholarly examination of an issue with many reasonable people on either side. Celestra (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Does the court have authority to decide what is or is not history? Law Office History is plainly different than WP:V history. Did you read those University Law Review articles? I doubt it, there is a lot there and I am only about half way through reading them myself. They contain some extremely well documented and compelling criticism of Scalia's opinion. Also, you suggest that there are Law Review articles on "either side" regarding Scalia's version of history, please tell me exactly which article(s) you are speaking of, I would like a chance to read them. Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Merkel (the source of the opinion piece above) has also had some "extremist rhetoric" re the Pennsylvania Minority Report. He was quoted in one cite with the following "this "minority report" turns out to be no more than the collected ramblings of a single embittered eccentric who departed the convention in disgust". This is not the treatment a true historian gives an important historical document thought by many to be the template for the US Bill of Rights. He seems to be some two bit professor trying to create waves in order to get published.96.237.120.38 (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Law review articles are opinion pieces. The fact that academics write them doesn't make them objective or neutral. Heller doesn't become wrong because of what academics say about it. If opinion pieces are reliable secondary sources, then I will add some from organizations such as the Second Amendment Foundation. SMP0328. (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't really fair to dismiss an academic article published in a University Law Review as an "opinion piece". The fact remains that the historical work written by Antonin Scalia in the Heller ruling has been subject to a very large amount of scathing academic criticism. Whether or not one agrees with that criticism, we cannot deny that the criticism exists. Therefore, WP:REDFLAG is invoked here regarding use of Scalia's writings in the Heller opinion as a source for verifying 'fact'. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

SMP0328, have you read the Law Review Articles I cited above? If yes, could we discuss specifics? Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Law review articles are well written scholarly opinion pieces. I'm not denying their criticisms exist, but I am saying they are not neutral. If you feel balance is needed regarding Scalia's opinion, add material from Steven's dissent. BTW, don't start with your reading requirement. I'm referring to law review articles in general, so it's not necessary for me to the ones to which you refer. SMP0328. (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't saying anything is neutral. I was saying that because they are vetted prior to publishing in the Law Review that they therefore likely meet a higher quality standard for reliable sourcing here. Law Office History is plainly different than WP:V history. Because of the very large amount of high quality reliably sourced criticism of the Scalia's opinion of history, WP:REDFLAG is invoked. Roughly analogical to the way we treat other discredited books around here. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If this "this "minority report" turns out to be no more than the collected ramblings of a single embittered eccentric who departed the convention in disgust" appeared in a peer review journal then the peers are all on vacation.96.237.120.38 (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no section on the Constitutional ratification process?

The fight for a bill of rights, including proposed amendments relating to the militia and arms, during the Constitutional ratifications debates, during the debates themselves, in newspapers, pamphlets and other printed matter, seems to be more important to an article on the Second Amendment, then a section on English law, common or protected. The section on "Conflict and Compromise" in Congress is nothing more then a debate on the language. The debate on whether to insert that language is missing.96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is a section covering the Constitutional ratification process. I accept that you don't like it, and I agree that there is room for improvement. Though, any improvement must satisfy WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Starting this discussion now, I ask you: Which secondary sourcing are you reading that might be useful for this improvement? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The section you are talking about is about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Not the Second Amendment itself.96.237.120.38 (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not arguing with you. The only thing preventing a compromise here is that so far you have consistently refused to use secondary sourcing as a basis of your proposed edits. Find a way to do that, and I suspect I will be able to agree with you. Keep insisting on your personal research and personal opinions, then not. Give it a try, reliable secondary sources. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I used the historians brief for at least one cite.96.237.120.38 (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I recall that one too, and yes, that was better. Do that kind of sourcing more please. Ultimately I would like to encourage you to use "most reliable" sourcing that is defined around here as being "Academic and peer-reviewed publications...university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers." See WP:SOURCES for details. Opinions vary whether amicus briefs meet this standard, but I believe that usually they do. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Amicus briefs typically are legal advocacy. They'd be a reliable source for certain chains of legal precedents. If used, an amicus brief would need to be qualified inline by a phrase such as, for example, "X argued in an amicus curiae brief that YYY". ... Kenosis (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Feudalism, fiefdom, policing laws are NOT relevant to the English Bill of Rights on which 2A is based

I deleted an entire sub-section of the English history section on the grounds that it had no direct relevance to the second amendment. Salty has added it back.

Here is what the cut section says

An obligation existed that certain English subjects keep and bear arms for military duty[7][8][9][10] which dates back to at least the 12th century with King Henry II, in the Assize of Arms. In the English feudal system of that time, there were relatively few landowners, most of whom owed their title to land through their obligations to the King who they were obliged to defend. Most of the population at that time were peasant farmers or "serfs" paying rent in the form of a share of the land granted to them to work. Serfs were thus tied labour and were not permitted to leave the service of the Lord of his manor. About ten percent of the population were "freemen", a class of person in the feudal system who were not tied to the land in the same way as the serfs and who paid rent in the form of money. The Assize of Arms obliged these "freemen" to bear arms for defense of the monarchy, thus considerably extending the numbers of persons equipped to do so. There was no universal militia in England. Later, in response to complaints that local people were reluctant to take up arms to enforce justice for strangers, The Statute of Winchester of 1285 (13 Edw. I) declared that each district or hundred would be held responsible for unsolved crimes. Each man was to keep arms to take part in the hue and cry when necessary.[11] The reason for such a requirement was that without a regular army and police force (which was not established until 1829), it was the duty of certain men to keep watch and ward at night to capture and confront suspicious persons. Every subject had an obligation to protect the king’s peace and assist in the suppression of riots.[12]

So in summary it covers the following topics (and in brackets my reasoning why this is not related)

• a law regarding an obligation to bear arms (no such obligation appears in the 2A)
• Feudalism (not in place when the English Bill of Rights was passed nor present in America)
• community policing by the populace before the establishment of professional police (not in the 2A)

Now, although these topics are often discussed in a background section on books covering the history of arms in England, they are not directly related to the 2A. As I have read about the 2A and the discussions about this, the drafters were influenced not by these elements of English history, but by the fight between parliament and the monarch which resulted, amongst other things, in the passing of the English Bill of Rights. It is the wording in the English Bill of Rights that appears (with minor changes) in the 2nd Amendment. Therefore it seems wholly relevant, when telling the English historical background to the second amendment to look at the English Bill of Rights and its background. The other stuff about feudalism, policing, and monarchical defense, is largely irrelevant in the American context. It is actually confusing to the reader to discuss these things before getting on to the real background which is the English Bill of Rights.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some of the material is of minimal relevance, but the right to arms, even if it is an individual rights, does come with some associated burdens. Defense of the community is one of those. As in England a full time police force did not come into being until the 1800's and in the US the common citizen could (and still can) arrest lawbreakers. The militia was for the longest time the main defense of the US and even in WWII the large number of guns owned by civilians in Hawaii was one of the reasons Japan chose not to invade those islands. I have no objection to the mention of armed freemen, as they were the militia of their time, while the hue and cry relates to catching criminals, something one does not want to do if the criminal is armed and you are not. Instead of a total deletion how about attempting to consolidate the material into fewer words. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, check the sourcing in the footnotes you deleted. That reliable sourcing says that this history is relevant background of the Second Amendment. Who should be believed: the cited reliable sourcing, or personal opinion? Policy is clear, we should be faithful to the reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are addressing me, I am unaware of deleting any footnotes recently. The only one I am certain of deleting is that duplicate footnote by Wills which you insisted on keeping. Over the past couple of days I added a number to satisfy your nitpicking.96.237.120.38 (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No. I think he's addressing me. The natural right to arms does NOT come with any burdens. Burdens only came when others added them, and that is an entirely separate issue. You need to be clear about which source cites a direct relevance between feudalism and its obligations and the English Bill of Rights. I see none. I do see direct relevance between the fears of a powerful ruler removing the right to arms (the background to the relevant right in the English Bill of Rights) and the similar text in the 2nd Amendment. It is not unexpected that writers and historians have looked to the English context and that they should have reviewed the rights and obligations to arms in the English context. But the simple fact is that there is NO indication that the drafters of the 2nd Amendment had in their minds anything at all concerned with the archaic and short lasting phenomenon of feudalism. It does seem to be concerned with self defense (and related concept of collective defense) which is the origin of the natural right to bear arms for defense which they wanted to preserve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Hauskalainen (talk • contribs)

Hauskalainen, lets talk not edit war.

Following the back and forth taking passages out and putting passages in, lets talk this over and find a mutually agreeable compromise instead please.

We are required by policy to be neutral giving fair treatment to all the significant POVs. One of the major POVs distinguishes between a right to arms, and a right to bear arms. "bear arms" implies (and implied) warfare, including in the earliest time dating back to the 12th Century, a duty of 'hue and cry' police service and a duty of 'milita' military service which later evolved into a right of the people to have a militia (as opposed to a standing army). "Bear arms" is different than "having arms" which covers the greater topic of arms for hunting and self defense. We must distinguish the two concepts. Can we work out language on the talk page and stop the reverts in article space? Please? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And, regarding the location of 12th Century passage. It sure seems logical to order the English History section chronologically, earliest first, latest later. Why should we order it backwards? What am I missing? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You are missing that this has NO CONNECTION to the Second Amendment!

The Second Amendment is a transplantion from the Bill of Rights with a few words changed. The English words arose arose more from fear than reality - a final stamp (as was hoped) on the elimination of papal interference in the politics of England and the right to arms of the protestants was part of that. In America, the States, which had achieved independence from a far away monarch had come together and had just created a new creature bigger than themselves. They were likewise concerned to preserve their rights through the militias they had arisen and not allow those rights to be infringed by the Federal government. In today's context this all seems a bit crazy (both the English protestants' concerns and the American states' concerns) but in their time they were thought to be of fundamental importance.

This is the English contextual background to the connection between the Second Amendment and English law. It has absolutely nothing to do with feudalism, or the obligations placed on people to defend the King. Sure, these are historical events but they have no connection to the English Bill of Rights nor the American Bill of Rights. If you want to argue this then lets do it. For the moment the text is lower down because it is just confusing to have it higher up because the main connection is to background to the English Bill of Rights and not the things that I have deleted and that you have added back.

Now, having said all that this edit by you http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=366054077&oldid=366051149 cites as the summary "In one major POV, rights about 'arms' does not equal rights about 'bearing arms'. Rem sentence of editorial per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. " I really cannot see how my text, which you deleted in that edit can possibly contain anthing contetious. It was a bald statement of pretty undeniable fact. How can you possibly think otherwise??

As to the claim (which I think came from you) that the English had no rights to arms for self preservation before the Bill of Rights (or that it needs a reference to prove it), perhaps you would like to read Thomas Hobbes on the subject of rights in this regard (Search for " Not All Rights Are Alienable " within http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm#2HCH0013) The right to life is so basic and so personal that every person has the right to exercise it and it can never be given up (in law or otherwise). --Hauskalainen (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This is getting repetitive, trying again. The issue can't be simply that you believe it doesn't have a connection. The issue is that there is reliable sourcing that says it has a connection. I have asked you many times to point to reliable secondary sourcing describing this right to arms, but you haven't done this. And, no, your pointing to a book published in 1651 by Thomas Hobbes isn't secondary sourcing, it is your primary research. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)

It is getting repetitive because you are ignoring my please for evidence. So let me help you out here and then you can perhaps tell me where I am going wrong. Let's look in more detail at the text...

An obligation existed that certain English subjects keep and bear arms for military duty[18][19][20][21] which dates back to at least the 12th century with King Henry II, in the Assize of Arms.

These facts are not doubted. but they are simply not relevant. The 2nd Amendment did not create an obligation on men to serve in the military which is what these laws did in England. It simply is not about this. Sure, it mentions the need for a military force but this is in the context of the states' rights to form such a force, a right which it says shall not be infringed. The connection is only tangential at best and certainly not of direct relevance.

In the English feudal system of that time, there were relatively few landowners, most of whom owed their title to land through their obligations to the King who they were obliged to defend. Most of the population at that time were peasant farmers or "serfs" paying rent in the form of a share of the land granted to them to work. Serfs were thus tied labour and were not permitted to leave the service of the Lord of his manor. About ten percent of the population were "freemen", a class of person in the feudal system who were not tied to the land in the same way as the serfs and who paid rent in the form of money. The Assize of Arms obliged these "freemen" to bear arms for defense of the monarchy, thus considerably extending the numbers of persons equipped to do so.

It was me that added the discussion about feudalism into the article. This was because the article originally spoke only about the right of freemen to arms (because freemen were obliged by law to retain them). To a person not realising that freemen had very specific meaning in feudalism the words the right of freemen to arms could easily be mis-interpreted, perhaps as the positive right of those not enslaved to have arms. It certainly was not that. Having cleared that up we come back to the relevance of the obligation of some to have arms created in English law to the second amendment. As this is actually the subject of the para An obligation existed that certain English subjects keep and bear arms for military duty[18][19][20][21] which dates back to at least the 12th century with King Henry II, in the Assize of Arms discussed previously I will take this matter no further for now other than to repeat that the connection is only tangential because of the word militia in the American text but the connection is highly specious because that word is not present in the related text in the English Bill of Rights. The connection is yours (or at least it is you that appears to be defending it).

Now I turn to the references in the paragraphs above:-

[18] is to a dictionary, the purpose of which is beyond my comprehension because the reference is not expanded.

[19] is to Merkel and Uvilla who argue that the right in the second amendment was personal not related to the milita (despite the wording). Well, that is a strange point of view but even so, the connection to a feudal obligation to defend a king is not made.

[20] is to page 290 of this book which can be seen here http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=290. It is concerned with the second amendment but it has nothing to do with the paragraph to which it attached (i.e. nothing to do with English law). It seems to be totally mislplaced and therefore irrelevant.

[21] The link given does not work but I have re-traced it to this link http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1995/sep/21/to-keep-and-bear-arms/ It too is about the second amendment but nothing to do with the English law as far as I can tell.

Continuing with the text...

There was no universal militia in England. Later, in response to complaints that local people were reluctant to take up arms to enforce justice for strangers, The Statute of Winchester of 1285 (13 Edw. I) declared that each district or hundred would be held responsible for unsolved crimes. Each man was to keep arms to take part in the hue and cry when necessary.[22] The reason for such a requirement was that without a regular army and police force (which was not established until 1829), it was the duty of certain men to keep watch and ward at night to capture and confront suspicious persons. Every subject had an obligation to protect the king's peace and assist in the suppression of riots.[23]

This text is about the issue of public order. I do not doubt it but it does not per se develop a connection to the Second Amendment. Now the references.

[23] is an article about policing and does not mention the second amendment at all

[24] gives us the following quote A Well-Regulated Militia, represents the latest addition to the ongoing debate over the nature of the Second Amendment and the American right to arms. Early Americans wrote of the right in light of three considerations: (1) as auxiliary to a natural right of self-defense; (2) as enabling an armed people to deter undemocratic government; and (3) as enabling the people to organize a militia system.". All well and good, but it does not establish any link to the law in England.

For all of the above reasons I am going to propose again that we delete these texts. They simply do not establish any connection between English law before the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment. The only one that I can see is the issue of militias. But this is a tangential connection. Militias had existed in America before the Second Amendment as they had existed in England before the passing of English laws. The texts may have a place in a discussion about the laws regarding militias but their connection to the Second Amendment is tendentious and not supported by ANY of the references contained in the text.--Hauskalainen (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you read the decision in the Heller case it is clear that there were earlier recognitions that there was an encient right to bear arms for a variet if reasons. J. Trusler, A Concise View of the Common Lawand Statute Law of England 270 (1781) (“if [papists] keep arms in theirhouses, such arms may be seized by a justice of the peace”); Some Considerations on the Game Laws 54 (1796) (“Who has been deprivedby [the law] of keeping arms for his own defence? What law forbids the veriest pauper, if he can raise a sum sufficient for the purchase of it, from mounting his Gun on his Chimney Piece . . . ?”); 3 B. Wilson, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson 84 (1804) (with reference to state constitutional right: “This is one of our many renewals of theSaxon regulations. ‘They were bound,’ says Mr. Selden, ‘to keep arms for the preservation of the kingdom, and of their own person’ ”); W.Duer, Outlines of the Constitutional Jurisprudence of the United States31–32 (1833) (with reference to colonists’ English rights: “The right ofevery individual to keep arms for his defence, suitable to his condition and degree; which was the public allowance, under due restrictions of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation”);(from note 7 on pages 9 and 10 of the decision http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf) The decision confirms that And, of course, what the Stuarts had tried to do to their political enemies, George III had tried to do to the colonists. In the tumultuous decades of the 1760’s and 1770’s, the Crown began to disarm the inhabitants of the most rebellious areas. That provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms. A New York article of April 1769 said that “[i]t is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence.” and later still Besides ignoring the historical reality that the SecondAmendment was not intended to lay down a “novel principl[ e]” but rather codified a right “inherited from ourEnglish ancestors,” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281 (1897), petitioners’ interpretation does not evenachieve the narrower purpose that prompted codificationof the right. And to cap it all the judgement saidPutting all ofthese textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .” with this last sentence carrying a foootnote where the justices diagreed with another of their number saying Contrary to JUSTICE STEVENS’ wholly unsupported assertion, post, at 1, 17, there was no pre-existing right in English law “to use weapons for certain military purposes” or to use arms in an organized militia

All this confirms what I have been saying. The right to arms existed BEFORE the passing of the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment and that the purpose of these enactments was not to grant a right but to prevent it from being taken away (by the King in England and by the Federal government in the United States). And the preserved right in the US context comes directly from the English Bill of Rights with both enactments intending to preserve an individual right. The decision in Heller makes it very clear that the right in England and America was personal. The decision does consider the issue of the militia context in the american text. Because it takes the right as being a personal right, it is, despite reference to militias, a personal right not connected with the militia. It therefore follows that any discussion of militias in the English context is entirely irrelevant. --Hauskalainen (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)