Talk:Gun politics in the United States

How to fix this sentence?

The following sentence needs to be "fixed," but I'm not sure how to proceed. For one, I don't own any of the sources it cites. Two, I don't want to be suspected of any POV funny-business. I think I know what the original author of this sentence was trying to say, but how to modify it? Suggestions or volunteers, please? (I wish more of the sources cited in this article were easier to access!) I WILL correct the capitalization error (second amendment s/b capitalized).

Sentence (begins 2nd graf of Second Amendment argument section): Before District of Columbia v. Heller there was a difference of opinion about whether or not the second amendment included an individual right.

Of course, even since Heller there is a difference of opinion about whether or not the 2nd included an individual right. I would be surprised if ever all Americans have the same opinion about that. And of course, the justices were split on the issue, too. So, how to fix this editorial problem? Lightbreather (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing that needs fixing. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The justices were not split on if it was an individual right. The dissent explicitly said that all justices agreed it was an individual right. The dissenting question was did the individual right extend to self defense uses of guns or not. (and again the dissent said Yes. they just thought that the "bright line" for allowable regulation was in a different spot)Gaijin42 (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

What sources do we have that support the claims that (1)the "justices were not split on if it was an individual right", (2) that the "dissent explicitly said that all justices agreed it was an individual right", (3) that the "dissenting question was did the individual right extend to self defense uses of guns or not. (and again the dissent said Yes", and (4) that the "dissenting question was did the individual right extend to self defense uses of guns or not. (and again the dissent said Yes"? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

ArtifexMayhem Anythingyouwant The dissents are very explicit on the matter of individual right. The are less so on the part of does it cover self defense. As our article text currently only mentions the unanimity of the individual rights interpretation, everything is kosher, but I do admit overstating the self-defense holding in talk previously. Questions 1-3 (the first half of 3 anyway) are very explicitly covered in unambiguous text. Question 4 as I said I overstated. Both the dissents that follow were joined by all of the dissenting judges.

he Second Amendment says that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

--- Although I adopt for present purposes the majority’s position that the Second Amendment embodies a general concern about self-defense, I shall not assume that the Amendment contains a specific untouchable right to keep guns in the house to shoot burglars. The majority, which presents evidence in favor of the former proposition, does not, because it cannot, convincingly show that the Second Amendment seeks to maintain the latter in pristine, unregulated form.

--- The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

---

Thus I here assume that one objective (but, as the majority concedes, ante, at 26, not the primary objective) of those who wrote the Second Amendment was to help assure citizens that they would have arms available for purposes of self-defense

Additionally, there are a number of secondary sources that have made this analysis for us

• (SPS, but Kopel is a known expert on gun laws, so gets the exception) http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/Collective-Right.html
• http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v102/n4/2035/LR102n4Reynolds&Denning.pdf
• (p673) http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2012/04/69.4.denning.pdf

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to modify the sentence in question, and/or replace the "citation needed" tag with one or more footnotes. Then other editors can take a look and decide if the resulting sentence is okay.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and inserted a footnote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42, the text already in our article, "The dissenting justices considered the majority had broken established precedent on the Second Amendment and reiterated the opinion that it refers to the right to maintain a militia, not an individual right"[1], is well supported by the citation provided:

In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens took vigorous issue with Justice Scalia's assertion that it was the Second Amendment that had enshrined the individual right to own a gun. Rather, it was "today's law-changing decision" that bestowed the right and created "a dramatic upheaval in the law," Justice Stevens said in a dissent joined by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer. Justice Breyer, also speaking for the others, filed a separate dissenting opinion.

— Greenhouse, Linda (June 27, 2008). "Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights". The New York Times.

It is also well supported by at least sixteen other sources (collapsed for talk page convenience)...

Extended Quote/Source List

Stevens rebutted Scalia in 46 pages of his own, and the two engaged in a line-by-line battle over the meaning of the amendment. "When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia," Stevens wrote, adding that it meant "no more than that." — Barnes, Robert (June 27, 2008). "Justices Reject D.C. Ban On Handgun Ownership". The Washington Post. Writing for the dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the debate over the Second Amendment was not whether it protected an individual or collective right but, instead, over the scope of the right to bear arms. He contended that while the Second Amendment may protect a right to use weapons to hunt and for self-defense, it did not extend to using guns to rob a bank. His argument was that nothing in the text, history, or past precedents of the Second Amendment precludes the government from regulating the civilian use of the weapons. He accused the majority of reaching a political decision, one not supported by any new scholarship. — Schultz, D. A. (2009). Encyclopedia of the United States Constitution. New York: Infobase Publishing. p. 201. ISBN 9781438126777. Four justices dissented in two separate opinions. Justice John Paul Stevens's dissent presented originalist and other evidence in an effort to demonstrate that the majority's interpretation of the amendment was simply incorrect. Justice Stephen Breyer's dissent criticized the majority opinion from a different angle, arguing among other things that it did not give sufficient weight to the government's interest in gun control and failed to provide workable rules for evaluating the constitutionality of gun control. — Blocher, J. (2012). "District of Columbia v. Heller". In Critchlow, D. T.; VanderMeer, P. R.; Boyer, P. (eds.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Political and Legal History, Volume 1. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 220. ISBN 9780199754618. In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said that the phrase in the Second Amendment—"to keep and bear arms"—referred to those serving in state militias, not to all citizens. Stevens added, "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons...I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice." — LaFeber, W.; Polenberg, R.; Woloch, N. (2013). The American Century: Volume 2: A History of the United States Since 1941 (7th ed.). Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe. p. 485. ISBN 9780765634863. The Court's political conservatives (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, joined by Kennedy) interpreted the Constitution to include an individual right to bear arms; the Court's political liberals (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer) found there to he no such constitutional right. — Trachtman, M. (2009). The Supremes' Greatest Hits: The 37 Supreme Court Cases that Most Directly Affect Your Life. New York, NY: Sterling. p. 198. ISBN 9781402768262. Writing for the dissenters, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the majority misread the amendment and disregarded precedent. He warned the ruling would lead to an "active judicial role" in gun control policies. In a separate dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer argued that the problem of urban violence justified a handgun ban even if the Second Amendment established a personal right. — Jost, K. (2012). The Supreme Court A to Z. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage. p. 30. ISBN 9781608717446. The dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens took a very different view, concluding that the amendment "protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the legislature's power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons." — Ethridge, M.; Handelman, H. (2010). Politics in a Changing World: A Comparative Introduction to Political Science (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. pp. 318–319. ISBN 9780495570486. As Justice [John Paul] Stevens aptly noted in his dissent, "the right the Court announces was not 'enshrined' in the Second Amendment by the Framers; it is the product of today's law changing decision." — Utter, G. (2010). Culture Wars in America: A Documentary and Reference Guide. Santa Barbara, Calif: Greenwood Press. p. 158. ISBN 9780313350399. More surprisingly, perhaps, writing for the four dissenters Justice Stevens also used the Originalist approach. But guess what? He found that the original understanding of the meaning of the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right of gun ownership, and so the D.C. law was not a violation of the Second Amendment. — Dahlin, D. (2012). We the People: A Brief Introduction to the Constitution and Its Interpretation. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan. p. 34. ISBN 9781137263056. In both dissents, the clear implication is that if the purpose of the Second Amendment is militia—related, it follows that the amendment does not create a legal rule that protects an individual right to possess and carry fire arms outside the context of service in a state militia. — Bennett, R.; Solum, L. (2011). Constitutional originalism : A Debate. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press. p. 29. ISBN 9780801447938. Justice Stevens's dissent stresses that for over 70 years hundreds of judges have relied upon Miller as precedent and it indeed finds the Second Amendment is all about the militia and not individual rights. — Neubauer, D.; Meinhold, S. (2012). Judicial process : Law, Courts, and Politics in the United States (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth. p. 209. ISBN 9781111357566. Dissent: (Stevens, J.) The history from the drafting era shows that the Amendment was designed to protect the right of Americans to form effective militias. Even if the evidence were close respect for precedent favoring the militia interpretation would counsel rejecting the claim. • Dissent: (Breyer, J.) Even assuming that the right at issue is an individual right the D.C. law should be upheld as a reasonable restriction on the right, given the problem of gun violence and the only slight degree to which the law restricts individuals' rights to possess guns. — Blond, N. C. (2009). Constitutional Law. Austin New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business Aspen Publishers. p. 182. ISBN 9780735586123. The implications of the majority's conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry weapons were disputed by Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer in their dissenting opinions. Justice Stevens, in particular, offered a lengthy dissent, focusing in part on the purposes that animated the Second Amendment and raising a number of arguments relevant to the original intentions of the Framers. — Solum, L. B. (2011). "What is Originalism? The Evolution of Contemporary Originalist Theory". In Huscroft, G.; Miller, B. W. (eds.). The Challenge of Originalism: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation. Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 30. ISBN 9781107013254. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) The four-Justice dissent, written by Justice Stevens and joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, questioned the majority's conclusion that the Second Amendment clearly protected individuals' rights to own guns, arguing that if that were the case, the language would have been clearer. They also found the majority's argument to be in consistent: on the one hand, arguing that all of the people had the right to bear arms, and on the other hand, limiting that right only to law-abiding ones who are not mentally ill. Justice Breyer also dissented and was joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg. Justice Breyer's argument emphasized that even if the Second Amendment was designed to protect an individual's right to self-defense, the D.C. law fulfilled that goal by taking guns out of high-crime urban areas. — Scaros, C. E. (2011). Understanding the Constitution. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. p. 393. ISBN 9780763758110. Stevens examined all of the same historical evidence canvassed by Justice Scalia, but reached almost diametrically opposite conclusions. Justice Stevens begins his opinion by conceding Justice Scalia's point that the Second Amendment right is an "individual" one, in the sense that "[s]urely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals." He concludes, however, that all of the historical context, and all of the evidence surrounding the drafting of the Second Amendment, supports the view that the Second Amendment protects only a right to keep and bear arms in the context of militia service. Because Dick Heller clearly was not claiming that he wished to use a handgun as a part of military service, for Justice Stevens this meant ipso facto that the D.C. regulation raised no serious constitutional concerns. — Bhagwat, A. (2010). The Myth of Rights: The Purposes and Limits of Constitutional Rights. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 16–17. ISBN 9780195377781. And in Lewis, Blackmun wrote on behalf of the Court that "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.'" That uncontroversial statement remained an accurate characterization of the Court's long-settled and correct understanding of the meaning of the Second Amendment up until the Court's unfortunate decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), in which the Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to keep a handgun in the home. — Stevens, J. P. (2012). Five chiefs : A Supreme Court Memoir. New York: Back Bay Books. p. 150. ISBN 9780316199797.

From the seventeen sources above it seems apparent:

1. That the Court was split on the existence of the "individual right" put forth by the majority
2. That the dissent does not explicitly state that all of the justices agreed with the majority's assertion that the Second Amendment contains such a right
3. That the dissenting question was not "did the individual right extend to self defense uses of guns or not"
4. That the dissenting justices did not "just [think] that the 'bright line' for allowable regulation was in a different spot."

It's also worth noting that none of the dissenting justices wrote opinions "agreeing in part" with the majority.
In other words, the concerns Lightbreather expressed at the top of this section should be addressed. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

ArtifexMayhem To save us both time, I am going to ask you to reform your argument to a more limited scope. Here are the assertions we either currently have, or that I could see being useful in the article

1. All judges agreed there was an individual right
2. The dissenting judges disagreed greatly as to the scope of that right
3. In particular disagreeing on if self defense was a protected right
4. and what regulations were acceptable (in particular DCs regulation at hand)

I would say virtually all of the sources you are quoting agree with these assertions. There are some that do disagree with point #1, and I would like to discuss them further with you, but I don't think its useful for us to waste time debating points that nobody is trying to include in the article. could you cull the list of sources to the ones that you think are at issue (Primarily towards point #1 I think?) so that we can discuss them further? (I could cull myself, but I want to make sure im not putting words into your mouth or interpreting sources differently than you may). Gaijin42 (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I am curious whether Artifex believes the following source is wrong: "District of Columbia v. Heller: The Individual Right to Bear Arms" (comment), Harvard Law Review, Vol. 122, pp. 141-142 (2008): "Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, agreeing with the majority that the Second Amendment confers an individual right, but disagreeing as to the scope of that right….Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined Justice Stevens’s opinion." It seems clear to me that all of the justices supported the view that the Amendment protects an individual right, but the minority thought it was just an individual right to keep and bear arms for militia service.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is a valid interpretation of the minority position. Personally I think thats a pretty tough argument to make (you have an individual right to be part of a collective), and essentially makes the individual vs collective question collective vs collective - but since its the minority dissent, I suppose its moot as to how valid of a position it is or what its deeper implications are. I would be open to updating our current "unanimous" sentence to clarify something about what the scope of the right the dissent was agreeing to (but we may run into an OR/disagreement-between-sources issue in trying to quantify/qualify that statement. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we have two contradictory sentences in the Wikipedia article, which says the minority: (1) "reiterated the opinion that it refers to the right to maintain a militia, not an individual right", and (2) "endorsed an individual rights viewpoint, but differed on the scope of that right." So some sort of clarification is needed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

good catch. Personally I think the "reiterated" version should be changed to say something about "minority dissent agreed that the 2A protects an individual right, but argued that that right was limited to keeping and bearing arms related to militia service" or something along those lines. (Or alternatively "argued that the right did not extend to protecting arms kept for self defense", since that was the core issue at hand in the case. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I have modified the sentence like this: "The dissenting justices said that the majority had broken established precedent on the Second Amendment,[223] and took the position that the Amendment refers to the right to maintain a militia, not an individual right except in the context of militia service.[117][224][225][226]" Hopefully that will suffice.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This wording is a "stretching" of what the justices actually said. The justices all agreed that the 2A refers to an individual right, but they differed only in the context of that right, with the dissenting justices furthering the context to a militia, and the majority not limiting the context to a militia. As I am sure you know, there are two militia, (i) the organized militia (which has morphed into the National Guard circa 1903, at least in many states, although some states have both an organized militia and the National Guard, and (ii) the unorganized militia which consists of nearly everyone, and which also still exists today. I have corrected the statement to what the references say, removing the misleading "right to maintain a militia" wording. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't insert the "right to maintain a militia" wording. As of now, I have no objection to the version after your edit, nor to the version before your edit.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

failure/success

The UK thing is going to be problematic. Supporters will say that it is a success that there has been only 1 mass shooting (which of course does not account for other differences such as # of large cities, other crime, population density etc that make apples to apples comparisons tough). Opposers will point to the shooting in spite of the law as a failure. In either case, we need to find sources making the success/failure claim and should not be putting that type of qualifier on the content, as that is WP:OR on our part. I am going to remove the opinion portion of the current content until it can be sourced/agreed on. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This is for the best. It is off-topic anyway, and really has no place in the article. Good call. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This should be put back, with a citation-needed or not-in-this-source tag or something along those lines. I have been told more than once you shouldn't just delete something because it needs a citation. Yes, supporters say its a success because there has been one mass shooting in Britain since 1997. How many have there been in the U.S. in that time? Britain's one case stands out to Brits because it was one. We've had so many, the average American couldn't even tell you how many. Five? A dozen? This information belongs in this article, though it needs to be updated and the wording needs to be tweeked. Now I'm going to take a moment to go find a source on how many mass shootings there have been in the U.S. since 1997... Plus I'll go out and find some sources and tweek the statement to update the information. Lightbreather (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Finding those sources and doing the comparison yourself is clear WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Find a source actually making the comparison. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

No, no, no, Gaijin. You misunderstand. I'm only finding the numbers for myself - because I don't know what the latest numbers are. Absolutely, as far as sources go for the article, I am only looking for something to bring the argument up to date... because it is indeed, as you know, still an argument in the debate (politics). Lightbreather (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a consensus to remove the material. Please stop. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

What I have found looking at the primary material on mass shootings is that definitions and thresholds change, even from the same source. In the big picture of violent crime in the US or anywhere it is also miniscule, statistically insignificant part of the violence issue. Probably the most interesting thing about them has to do with reporting and that they create a cognitive dissonance in perceptions of violent crime, with for example during the post Newton period, more people wrongly thinking gun murder was up, when it has plummeted in the past 15 years. Bloomberg actually called the his own police department's shooting of nine innocent people by police a "mass shooting" http://live.reuters.com/Event/Shooting_near_Empire_State_Building_in_New_York/40919107 . This points to the problems of using this "mass shooting" language108.18.64.127 (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

As a follow-up, I haven't forgotten about this. It's on my to-do list. Lightbreather (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Where is the usage?

Describing Robert Spitzer as an "activist" was dropped, and he is now being called an "advocate." There is no proof of this in his article or on his talk page. In fact, to the contrary. And yet someone insists that he must be called that, adding it back, again, moments ago with the edit summary: "The man's politics must be shown. I removed the word 'Activist' per consensus. 'Advocate' is the word now being used I believe, and so have replaced it." Where is this "being used"? If it's on Wikipedia, it is WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH and, more importantly, against the high-quality-source standard for material about living persons. Let the man's work speak for itself (as Cottrol's is), or find a preponderence of high-quality, reliable, verifiable sources that call this man an "advocate." Lightbreather (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

He edited his own page and left the word "Advocate" up. That's good enough for me. If not "advocate" or "activist", what word do you want to use for an intellectual who has published, spoken, and disseminated Pro Gun Control viewpoints for the last 30 years or so? Promoter? Crusader? I don't understand your exception to this, unless you are trying to paint him as some sort of neutral commentator, which he doesn't even admit to be. I admire the man for his beliefs why are you trying to water this down? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I will also add that the word "advocate" may be the best match due to his legal background, which is probably why he left it up. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you assuming that he left it up on purpose? Or that if he left it on purpose, it was because he agrees with it? (When he's an inexperienced WP editor, and kept being told that he wasn't supposed to edit his own page - which is untrue.) He's active on the page right now. He has explained the difference between himself and someone like John Lott. He wrote: "Someone in this exchange mentioned John Lott who, by way of comparison, does not have a university affiliation (although he did in the past), did have an affiliation with a political think tank (AEI), which I have never had, and has engaged in specific political advocacy. For example, he spoke at a rally of the Second Amendment Sisters (a gun rights advocacy group) on Mother's Day in 2000 in Washington, DC on behalf of their cause. He is perfectly entitled to do these things; I mention his example to clarify the difference between political advocacy and political/policy analysis."

This living person has made it clear that he should not be called an activist or an advocate, but most importantly, per WP:BLP - no preponderance of high-quality, reliable, verifiable sources call him those things. Lightbreather (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I actually do not care what word is used, so long as it accurately depicts his politics. He is far on the pro-control side, so if you want to call him an activist, advocate, promoter, proponent, etc. It's all the same to me, as long as it doesn't falsely portray him as a neutral party in these matters. That's the sort of thing that hurts Wikipedia and gives us a reputation for inaccuracy. Besides, he's the one who is allowing the word on his own page, he can take it down anytime he chooses. He has made no complaint. The only person objecting is you, Lightbreather. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I will also point out that if you look at the Wikipedia Category Structure, you will find that the word "advocate" is the word Wikipedia uses for people on BOTH sides of the issue, for example "Category:Gun Rights Advocates" or "Category:American Gun Control Advocates". There is already a wide consensus to use that particular word, so it should be the word we use. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a request for comment regarding this subject on the Robert Spitzer article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Political arguments

This edit seems to be substantially changing the structure of the "Political arguments" section. That section starts by saying that "Political arguments about gun rights primarily fall under two related questions. Does the government have the authority to impose gun regulations? If so, should the government regulate guns?[109]" Accordingly, those were basically the two main subheadings. But the new proposal is to replace those subheadings with pro and con subheadings. I do not think the new subheadings reflect the two related questions described at the beginning of the section, and am also concerned that the contents of the subsections woud have to be considerably changed to conform with the new subheadings. Accordingly, I will revert this particular edit.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I can explain every edit I have made this afternoon. Shall I start at what prompted the edit in question? It will make the reason more clear. Lightbreather (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That would be fine, but please also address the concerns I described.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I certainly shall. However, I am not always fast in my replies, so please be patient.

As you can see, my first edit here today was in the (then) Public policy arguments subsection of the Political arguments section. This was to make Firearms deaths, Logical pitfalls in the gun-violence debate, and Relationships between crime, violence, and gun ownership subsections of Gun violence. Then, I moved my attention to the top of the Political arguments section to see how the Public policy arguments subsection was summarized, along with its twin (so to speak) the (then) Rights based arguments. That's when I saw that "gun control" versus "gun rights" was what the first paragraph in the whole long Political arguments was about. I added a brief sentence explaining the heart of the debate (sourced from the latest edition of The Politics of Gun Control) - before the existing statement that named the sides. (And they are the commonly-used names.) Lightbreather (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Following are the two questions at the top of the "Political arguments" section.... Does the government have the authority to impose gun regulations? If so, should the government regulate guns? These two questions are not about "gun control" versus "gun rights" respectively. They are about how much power the government has, and how that power ought to be used, respectively (each of those two questions has an answer from gun rights activists and also a conflicting answer from gun control activists). That's my reading, anyway.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with anythingyouwant's analysis. This is a Punnett Square cartesian join of two sets of questions. I don't disagree with Spitzers point, but I think reorganizing our whole article to align with his quote is probably not appropriate. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I never heard of a Punnett Square, but I'm not gonna read about that right now. I think "reorganizing our whole article" is quite an exaggeration. Lightbreather (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Come on, guys. I asked for just a little time.  ;-) This is the rest of my reply to Anything, which I was still writing!

The next few edits (mentioned in my last post) are pretty straightforward. When I got to the "two basic questions" paragraph, what was incongruous with the latest edition of the cited source, especially the second question. It read, "If it does, is it effective public policy to regulate guns?" ("It" being the government's authority to regulate guns.) Based on what the latest edition of the cited source says, I changed it to, "If so, should the government regulate guns?" (The question in the latest edition - I don't have the 19-year-old edition - does not ask if its "effective public policy.")

Next - and here's where we get to your specific question - our article said the first category (?) is collectively known as rights-based arguments, but it didn't give a source. At first I just added a citation-needed tag, but as I continued it was clear, based on the best sources cited in that section thus far (Carter and Spitzer) that "Rights-based arguments" and "Public policy arguments" are misleading terms. Because, #1 Carter calls the political camps (so to speak) "gun control" and "gun rights" (as our existing source citation says) and because Spitzer says citizens (rights), state's power to regulate, and maintenance of public order ALL "come together under the public policy agenda." So I made the changes you've brought up based on the sources. Lightbreather (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The modified subheadings reflect how the cited sources (and a majority of sources) categorize the arguments and are not "pro" and "con" subheadings. Also, the modified subheadings work fine with the existing text. Each sub-subheading can - and should, where appropriate per all the WP policies - have "pro" and "con" material. The only subsection I want to work on right now is the Gun control arguments section, which really needs attention. Lightbreather (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, please leave the subheadings as they've been until a consensus is established to change them. As far as I can tell, you do not object to the "Political arguments" section beginning with an intro that says this: "Political arguments about gun rights primarily fall under two related questions: Does the government have the authority to impose gun regulations? If so, should the government regulate guns?[109]". Why shouldn't those two issues correspond to this section's subsections?

Moreover, you say that the subheadings "Gun rights arguments" and "Gun control arguments" are not pro and con, but a typical reader would certainly understand the first to be arguments in favor of gun rights, and the second to be arguments for gun control.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for not reverting all my edits like before. :-) No, I don't object to the questions. (Forgot to notice if my citation of the recent edition of The Politics of Gun Control stayed with them. I will check when I'm done here.) Does a preponderance of reliable, verifiable sources use the terms "rights-based arguments" and "public policy arguments"? If so, please can you please cite a half-dozen or so (pro, con, and neutral)? If not, we could certainly add a sentence (sourced, of course) to the top of the Political arguments subsection saying that gun-rights arguments are sometimes called rights-based arguments. That a compromise I could accept.

As for "a typical reader would certainly understand the first to be arguments in favor of gun rights, and the second to be arguments for gun control." That is a "pro" and "pro" presentation. (One Pro gun rights and one Pro gun control.) A pro and con presentation would be Pro gun rights and Anti gun rights, OR Pro gun control and Anti gun control. The modified, accurate subsection titles "Gun rights arguments" and "Gun control arguments" use the terms in common use, and, as I said before, they work with the existing text. Each sub-subheading can - and should, where appropriate per all the WP policies - have pro and con arguments within. Lightbreather (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I explicitly said in my edit summary that some of the edits might be okay, and the only reason I reverted to that extent was because otherwise I got a "cannot undo" message.

As to the content issue, I do not feel that you are hearing what I'm saying (or at least trying to say). You have not objected to this bit in the intro to the section on "Political arguments": "Political arguments about gun rights primarily fall under two related questions: Does the government have the authority to impose gun regulations? If so, should the government regulate guns?[109]". Neither of those two issues is pro or con whatsoever. For example, the question of governmental authority has a pro side and a con side, and both can be covered in that subsection. Likewise for the second question. But your proposed subheaders do not follow that structure, and instead they put only one side's arguments in each subsection. I don't see why we shouldn't 't follow the structure outlined in the intro to the section; otherwise, a huge amount of rewriting would have to be done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Im surprised you never heard of punnet squares. Didn't you take high school biology?

pro/con is a talk page shorthand. Its pro control vs pro gun rights or pro gun vs anti gun, or pro control vs anti control. All the same deal.

I think framing the content the way spitzer does actually causes a problem in accurately describing the pro-control side. I think a common POV on the pro control side is - even if the government DOESN'T have the authority to impose gun control, it should do so anyway (by either repealing the amendment, or pushing the boundary as much as possible and hoping to get away with it).

I think spitzer's comment is a fine addition to the article, but we should not be using it to guide the organization or structure of the content. the control/rights paradigm is much more common. Just as you can say "there is a pro/con element to the authority/aught-to arguments" one can equally say "there are authority/aught to elements to the pro/con arguments" Its just horizontal vs vertical, but either way you fill out the entire grid.

Also, I think it makes more sense to keep all of the control arguments together, and all of the (anti)control arguments together - for example, its a common pro-gun argument that it does actually serve public policy (crime reduction). However, one could also argue that putting guns cause crime vs guns prevent crime arguments together makes for a nice debate.

In the end, its probably not a huge deal either way, and I don't want to fight over it, but I think any big change has the opportunity to cause tension, which the overall topic could use less of :) Gaijin42 (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but high school biology for me was a looong time ago.  ;-)

As for the pro/con thing, no further comment from me at this time. As for your comment, "I think a common POV on the pro control side is - even if the government DOESN'T have the authority to impose gun control, it should do so anyway (by either repealing the amendment, or pushing the boundary as much as possible and hoping to get away with it)." I'm pro-rights and pro-control, and most of the people I know feel the same. In fact, I don't personally know one person who admits to being a Second Amendment absolutist (though there is one whom I expect is, and many here are WP whom I'm pretty sure are), and I don't personally know one person who wants to repeal the Second. Pushing the boundary and hoping to get away with it makes it sounds like millions of people are being devious or phony or something. Granted, there might be SOME people like that on BOTH sides of the issue, but most, IMO, are concerned citizens doing the best they can with what they've got. Lightbreather (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

So, Anythingyouwant, after reading further comments from Gainjin and follow-up comments from me, what's your thinking on the issue today? To reiterate, I am NOT suggesting re-structuring the article, I am only suggesting "Gun rights arguments" instead of "Rights-based arguments." and "Gun control arguments" instead of "Public policy arguments," for the same reasons given yesterday (22 JAN) at 22:01: "'Rights-based arguments' and 'Public policy arguments' are misleading terms. Because, #1 Carter calls the political camps (so to speak) 'gun control' and 'gun rights' (as our existing source citation says) and because Spitzer says citizens (rights), state's power to regulate, and maintenance of public order ALL 'come together under the public policy agenda.'"

The other suggestion would be to drop "Rights-based arguments" and "Public policy arguments" as subsections, and just put ALL the arguments under "Political arguments" like this:

5 Political arguments

5.1 Fundamental right arguments

5.2 Second Amendment arguments

5.3 Security against tyranny and invasion arguments

5.4 Self-defense arguments

5.5 State constitution arguments

5.6 Gun violence arguments

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to your last suggestion, except that the last item is not in alphabetical order, so I'd rewrite that subheading as something like "Violence reduction arguments". That is also better because reducing gun violence might increase, e.g., knife violence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The decision to put the Rights-based/Gun-rights arguments subsections in alphabetical order was a separate issue. Please let's not pull that into this discussion. Let's start with the one change and take it from there. The order of the arguments isn't bad right now. It was just the labels Rights-based and Public policy that were the issue. It sounds like we've found a compromise on that. Lightbreather (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Second Amendment rights

This was recently added:

“ Opponents of a restrictive (individualistic) interpretation of the Second Amendment point out that at the time of the Second Amendment in the late 18th century, the word "militia" meant all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 17 and 45. Even today, the United States Code states that the militia is all male citizens and resident aliens at least 17 up to 45 with or without military service experience, including additionally those under 64 having former military service experience, as well as including female citizens who are members of the National Guard. ”

The footnote is merely to the US Code. User:Lightbreather, in a controversial article like this one, why insert unsourced stuff like this? Moreover, I think it is 100% wrong. Supporters of an individual-rights interpretation often point out that the "militia" includes not merely an organized militia but also millions of people who are not in any organized militia (e.g. all male citizens and resident aliens at least 17 up to 45).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the article history, you will see I deleted it from the subsection that was under gun control rights entitled Importance of a militia. I originally moved it to the end of the gun control arguments section, but that was not the right place for it. It belongs in the Second Amendments arguments, so I moved it there.

I don't know about you, but it's dinner time where I live. My spouse is home and I'm calling it a night. (Well, I might check in later, but I doubt it. Probably tomorrow midday.)Lightbreather (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Whoever put it into this article shouldn't have. It's incorrect and unsourced. Later.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent null edit

User:Lightbreather recently made a null edit to the article ([2]), saying this: "null-ish edit to say material in edit Anything 'undid' was already in the article; see talk page for details". That statement is incorrect, as I will now explain.

Lightbreather began by removing this passage:[3]

“ Opponents of a restrictive interpretation of the Second Amendment point out that at the time of the Second Amendment in the late 18th century, the word "militia" meant all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 17 and 45. ”

Then Lightbreather reinserted a modified version:[4]

“ Opponents of a restrictive (individualistic) interpretation of the Second Amendment point out that at the time of the Second Amendment in the late 18th century, the word "militia" meant all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 17 and 45. ”

As anyone can see, the parenthetical was not in the first version that Lightbreather removed, and the parenthetical drastically changed the meaning. As people familiar with this subject know, the "restrictive interpretation" means the interpretation that only grants gun rights to a small set of soldiers. Lightbreather completely altered the paragraph's meaning by inserting the word "individualistic" — people familiar with the subject know that the individual rights interpretation is the one which grants rights broadly to individuals regardless of whether they are soldiers.

In any event, if the original correct version is restored, it should be done with proper sourcing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That was completely my bad and a reminder to myself that I was tired and hungry, and I should have left my computer and 30 minutes before I did. The paragraph I moved was only the first one in a sub-subsection titled (oddly) "Importance of the militia" and stuck under the gun control arguments. The second paragraph read:

"All interpretation of the Bill of Rights is to be viewed strictly in terms of Original Intent in the society the nation's founders created. For instance, the language of well-regulated in the framing era meant independent and self-regulated. The Federal Government had not yet been formed; when it was, it was a creation of the states. Regarding confusion with National Guard, America had no National Guard until 130 years later. Author John Longenecker writes that one of the best evidence facts of who militia is lies in United States Code [USC Title 10, Section 311] where the original militia within the meaning of the second amendment endures since the founding, and is officially recognized as a category of its own (specifically named the unorganized militia); these unorganized militias are subsequently recognized further in various state codes as coming under the command of the Governor as the unorganized militia's Commander-in-Chief (among other militias also defined). Until summoned, militia members acquire, own, and carry their own weapons, which are traditionally recognized but not to be provided them by their state in their readiness of being summoned in emergency. This defeats the legal argument that one must be part of a militia to own, keep and bear arms, since nearly anyone of legal age is automatically part of a [the] militia as part of an accepted, well-established, conventional readiness asset."

References

I was originally going to move the whole thing to section in question, but decided that since this one had a 9-month-old tagged source I'd just delete it and only move the other one, which, strangely, someone had placed first. I'll leave it up to y'all to decide if the true "Importance of the militia" argument that was supposedly trying to be made here should be added back as a counterpoint in the Second Amendments rights section. I don't plan on doing it. I'm sorry for the confusion, but the mistake was part of a good-faith effort. Lightbreather (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It's back - in modified form - sorry

Another editor moved the whole ball of wax back into the article and "removed the contentious material" (and the SPS flag). I have moved it into the Second Amendment section, but if you delete it... I won't mind. Lightbreather (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Virtually every bit of good-faith editing that I've done in the last 24 hours - reverted by one editor

Virtually every bit of good-faith editing I've done in the past 24 hours has been reverted by Sue Rangell. This direct undo was after a long discussion. It wipes out a compromise reached there, and introduces a whole new challenge: That the word "argument" is "too inflammatory." The word had been used in this article for ages without bringing up any issues of inflammatory-ness. Why revert everything? Why not create a discussion "Should we replace the word 'argument' with 'opinion' in this article?"

Even more disturbing is this edit, with the edit summary "Fixed Multiple issues" It's basically another reversion of my good-faith efforts, deleting some good, basic, factual material and restoring some old, dubious material as well.

I would post a "please stop" on her page, but from past experience, I know she'll either move it here or to my page. My mentor is not as available these days as she once was, plus y'all have been working with me for awhile and many know the situation. Can someone please advise me? Lightbreather (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you stop using the word "revert"? You make it sound like an edit war, when no war is happening at all. Your comments above are highly inflammatory and combative, but I will be polite anyway. My edits are good faith edits just like yours, I'm sorry you do not agree with them. Ask your mentor to help you with your article ownership issues. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Above, in discussion Political arguments (which is - and has been for quite some time - the name of an existing section of the article), Anythingyouwant, Gaijin42, and I went through a BRD and a consensus was reached on subsections:

5 Political arguments

5.1 Fundamental right arguments

5.2 Second Amendment arguments

5.3 Security against tyranny and invasion arguments

5.4 Self-defense arguments

5.5 State constitution arguments

5.6 Gun violence arguments

Where was your objection to the word "argument" during the discussion? As soon as Anything and I came to an agreement and I incorporated the agreed upon titles, you showed up (less than 15 minutes later) and you undid them. That was a revert. Otherwise, you could have simply removed the word "arguments" from the agreed upon titles, or substituted a word that seems less inflammatory to you. Lightbreather (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

2. It will take me some time to document the reverts buried in this edit, which you gave the edit summary, "Fixed Multiple issues." But I will take time from work I'd rather be doing to document it here. In this one "fix", you:

• reverted the dubious Importance of Militia subsection back into the top position of the Public policy section. I had moved it to the bottom of that section yesterday, as explained in detail in the edit summary. (I then realized that it in fact belonged under Second Amendment arguments, so I moved it there. Then, Anything and I agreed that it didn't belong in the article at all.)
• deleted a good, basic, factual statement that I'd added to the beginning of the gun violence section. Before you're "fix" it read:

"Public policy debates about gun violence include discussions about firearms deaths - including homicide, suicide, and unintentional deaths - as well as the impact of gun ownership, criminal and legal, on gun violence outcomes. Firearms death are compromised of homicides, suicides, and unintentional deaths. Homicides are made up of criminal and non-criminal killings (for example, justified self-defense by an individual or use of deadly by a police officer)."

After your "fix" it read:

"The public policy debates about gun violence include discussions about firearms deaths - including homicide, suicide, and unintentional deaths - as well as the impact of gun ownership, criminal and legal, on gun violence outcomes."

In fact, the whole thing was a revert, because that's exactly how the single-sentence paragraph read before I added the two others.

• removed copyediting and an FV tag I'd added; removed a Wikilink I'd added; and reverted a WP:SAY edit that I'd made. Lightbreather (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Since it was spawned from this discussion...

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sue Rangell reported by User:Lightbreather (Result: )]]. Thank you. —Lightbreather (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• result was No violation

...per WP:SNOW, I should think, considering how fast they threw the complaint out. Please, for the love of Pete, stop wasting everyone's time, and learn how Wikipedia works, how to work collaboratively, and particularly what a revert is. Thanx. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Having less than six months active WP editing experience, I was easily able to identify the explicit reverts - 2 - but the others? I tell you, I still don't quite get it. I'd also like to know what it means when an editor says they have a 1RR rule. Lightbreather (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Consecutive edits that are each individually reverts count only as 1 revert (As they could have been done all at once with no difference in result). SOME editors/admins even consider SOME non-consecutive reverts as a single revert, if the intermediary edits were not related to what is reverted. (IE Sue makes 4 consecutive reverts in section A. vs 2 consecutive reverts in section A, LB makes one edit in section B, sue makes 2 more reverts in A - might still be considered 1 revert for 1/3RR purposes)

Everyone has a 3rr rule on them at all times. You may not make more than 3 reverts on a particular article per day. People however are regularly blocked for making less than 3rr per day, if they are gaming the system, or its part of a sustained edit war.

Some people have 1rr placed on them by admins/arbcom. Others voluntarily act under 1rr for their own reasons. Some people even get 0RR put on them.

Technically every edit that changes existing content could be considered a revert, but for 3rr purposes only changes that either are a straight "undo" or that delete chunks of recent content are considered reverts. Deleting a paragraph from a year ago is not a revert. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I limit myself to 1 revert...because there is always going to be someone out there who find it easier to attack others editors and try to get them blocked, rather than put Wikipedia ahead of their own politics and collaborate with others. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Spitzer Again

I think we have enough references to Spitzer's works in the article. He is an advocate of Gun Control and should not be the most referenced person in the article. (He was, but I took care of that) Yes, I have all of his books, and yes I think he is right about many things, but we need to put Wikipedia first, and not ref every single paragraph with something from Spitzer. This article does not exist to boost his Google ratings. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

This comment is not for Sue, but for every other editor who is active on or watching this page. She says, "[Spitzer] is an advocate of Gun Control and should not be the most referenced person in the article." There are currently 236 numbered references in the article. Her edit deleted 11 references to Spitzer, with the edit summary, "The article does not need a million references to Spitzer's newest book, particularly when they have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Placing reference tags just to boost his Google ratings is a no-no." So that means the article had 247 references before, right? Of which Spitzer was 11. In other words, his references made up less than 5 percent of the total number of numbered references.

But here's the kicker: Of the 11 references that she deleted, only three were to his "new" book. The other eight were to his "other" book - which is simply the first edition of the same book, now in its fifth printing - that has been A SOURCE ON THIS PAGE SINCE *AT LEAST* FIVE YEARS AGO. (It was actually referenced nine times then, so one was deleted between then and today, when Sue "took care of" that basic gun-control politics reference work that is cited regularly, uniformly by people hundreds, perhaps thousands.)

"... particularly when they [references to Spitzer's book] have nothing to do with the topic at hand." A book by an American political scientist who does research on gun control and whose book is titled "The Politics of Gun Control"... is not relevant on a Wikipedia article titled "Gun politics in the United States"?

I'm trying very hard to work WITH other editors, but I'm having a very hard time understanding how those deletions improved this article. What were they really about? Anybody? Lightbreather (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Gun cultures in the USA

short article, easily mergable in the the US article (and quite a bit of it is already duplicate there anyway) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Forgive me if I don't use the correct WP terms, but you, Gaijin, are very kind in helping me in that respect. Even though we may butt heads from time to time, I do truly appreciate that you usually not only A) seem to understand what I'm trying to say, and B) help me to learn the correct term/practice. That said, for reasons given in WP:LIMIT - especially reader issues and editor issues - I think a better proposal would be to move or split (or whatever is the correct term) the Gun culture section of this article (Gun politics in the United States) into the Gun cultures in the USA article - leaving a summary and a link here, or whatever is the best practice. This article already has 240 sources, 30 of which are used in the Gun culture section. As for editorial history/provenance, the Gun culture article was started in September 2005, but that section of this article didn't get inserted until April 2007. Lightbreather (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I never understood the point of the "gun culture" article. It should be merged into this article. I do not think the topic supports having it's own article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support the only sourced information is that Hofstadter once wrote an article called "America as a gun culture." He did not even say that American had gun cultures but that it was a gun culture. Obvious POV fork with no sources backing it. TFD (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, Sue has nominated the Plan B article (proposed below) for deletion. Lightbreather (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:SUMMARY, WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT ... Don't dump more info in, move some of the larger sections out into {{main}} articles, leaving a concise summary behind. 172.129.246.164 (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Counter proposal: Summarize this article's Gun culture section into Global gun cultures

For reasons given above under my "Oppose" vote to merge Gun cultures in the USA into this article. Lightbreather (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose Lightbreather created the Global gun cultures article soon after this original proposal was made. The Global gun culture article therefor serves no purpose and should be deleted. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

As I stated above, the Gun culture in the U.S. article was started in September 2005, but the Gun culture section of this article didn't get inserted until April 2007. So the Gun culture article predates the Gun culture section of this article by a year-and-a-half. Also, that article had a fledgling (though decidedly rough) Gun cultures outside the U.S. section already outlined.

This article already has 240 sources, 30 of which are used in the Gun culture section. For reasons given in WP:LIMIT - especially reader issues and editor issues - summarizing the Gun culture section of this article (Gun politics in the United States) into the Global gun cultures article would improve both. Although there might be many arguments for going with Plan A rather than Plan B, I don't think just-because-the-latter-is-new is a good one. I think we should seriously consider the merits of both ideas. Lightbreather (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, right now there is no article in Wikipedia that gives readers a brief, top-level (not heavily politically charged) idea of how global gun cultures compare in their origins and current status. Lightbreather (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It makes no difference when the original articles were created. The point is that you for some unknown reason, hastily created a third article that is totally redundant, unecessary, and time-wasting, just because of you do not like this proposed merge. You are the only one who wants this. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment See my remarks above. I don't have a problem with the work that is already being done to improve some of the outer topics, but more of a big picture approach is needed to identify all sections that need to be tethered out into their own space. 172.129.246.164 (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Which part of this mass of edits removes/replaces what by consensus

Looking for help understanding this mass of edits. "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_politics_in_the_United_States&diff=592371501&oldid=592328877" Sue Rangell which part of it is the remove/replace by consensus? Lightbreather (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

How does removing PDF info from citations improve the article

Sue Rangell: In previous mass of edits, how does removing details from citations that inform reader that links are to a PDF files improve the article? Lightbreather (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:LINK to better understand Wikipedia's formatting preferences and policies. Thank you. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. That is new to me. I am used to using WP:CS1, and it appears the External links section of that article needs to be updated. Second question: Why not just do all those related PDF edits together with an edit summary ref to WP:LINK so that when less-experienced editors come along they understand? The added benefit would be to separate out the more material edits for other editors - regardless of experience level - too. Lightbreather (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

How does "somehow" improve this article?

Sue Rangell, you keep returning "somehow" to the last sentence of the Self-defense subsection, including in that last, massive edit. I've removed it. Gaijin42 removed it. How does adding that word to that subsection improve the article? Lightbreather (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I have better things to do than argue with you about a single word. Ask for a consensus opinion if it bothers you that much. Your pouring over all of my edits and questioning them like this will get you back on ANI again. How many trips to ANI do you think you can survive? Stop harrassing me. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not an answer. Gaijin removed it on 14 JAN 2014 saying it was POV. You restored it. Because it is without doubt WP:EDITORIALIZING and/or an expression of doubt, I deleted it. You restored it again. An anonymous user deleted it. You restored it. How does using it improve the article? Lightbreather (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, I support the following edit:

“ Robert J. Spitzer and Gregory P. Magarian argue that this final decision by the Supreme Court was somehow a misinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution. ”

Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Restoring "somehow" there is a blatant violation of NPOV. Hipocrite (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the "somehow" is inappropriate and fails NPOV. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, since we seem to have reached a consensus, the word "somehow" should remain out of the sentence. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Now, that having been said, the sentence should still indicate in some way what an extreme minority (Fringe?) viewpoint this actually is. They are in effect saying that the supreme court justices do not understand the constitution, but they do. They are basically saying that the highest law in the land is wrong and they are right. That is a mighty big boast, and so far out into pro-control territory that even pro-control advocates are left scratching our heads. This by no means any kind of mainstream opinion, for either side, and that should be made clear somehow. Perhaps the sentence could be re-worded in some way, I do not know, but as it stands the casual reader will think that all pro-control believers think this, and trust me, we do not. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Earlier I found myself debating as to whether or not the article should even mention it at all, but Gaijin made some extremely compelling statements which convinced me that it deserved a mention. Still, I think that per WP:UNDUE there should be some sort of indicator that the opinion is anything but mainstream. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Find sources for your statements. Hipocrite (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

To your edit - please assume that our readers will read what the article says, which attributes the views to the specific people who hold them. We do not denigrate views based on our own personal political expediencies, which appears to be what you propose. Hipocrite (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

THANK YOU --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. Do you have sources for your statements about what people think? Hipocrite (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the notion that that these ideas are fringe. A lot of people think that the Court messed up in its interpretation. Does that mean we can change it? No, but that doesn't mean that the debate is over in the court of public opinion. We shouldn't just write, "The Court has declared the right an individual one, so that's the end of the debate." Afterall, the Court has also held that government has a right to regulate guns, but that hasn't stopped the pro-gun from thinking or speaking disagreement.Lightbreather (talk)

John Longenecker the author

On 22 JAN 2014 I moved the Importance of militia section, which was poorly sourced. Sue has since reworked the first paragraph of that section, but I have restored the second with help from my mentor. Discussion on that section to follow, but FYI, the author cited in the second paragraph - I'm pretty sure - is NOT the same man who has a BLP here on Wikipedia. The author has a bio on Amazon.

Question. I don't want to take time right now to create a WP article for the author, but I also don't want readers to think the JL who has a BLP here is the same man. What is the preferred practice for making that clear when there is no article for disambiguation? Does one just add a statement in the BLP's article? Lightbreather (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

do you have some source that is leading you to believe they are not the same person? If so, and the new guy is not notable enough for a BLP the two options would either be - dont wikilink the guy, or create a disambig page, and link to that. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

No, but I also can't find a source that indicates that they are the same person. I wasn't planning to WL to the existing bio, but I was trying to anticipate future confusion. That seems like a kindness to other editors and to the readers, too. That's all. If they are different people, but there's not a bio for one, how does one structure the disambig page? This is just a less-experienced editor seeking the advice of more experienced editors. Lightbreather (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the gentleman should be used as a source at all if it's not possible to confirm who he even is. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I partially agree. I don't think this (Longenecker's) self-published source should be used. "Longenecker, John, Jr. (2005). Transfer of Wealth: The Case for Nationwide Concealed Carry of Handguns. AuthorHouse. pp. 8–9. ISBN 978-1-4634-5421-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)" Hipocrite agrees. As does Sue (scroll way down around line 450). See next, Importance of militia discussion, for more. Lightbreather (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Importance of militia

This section is problematic for several reasons, and it's been moved around and re-worked a bit recently, and I'd like to get a consensus on A) What its supposed to be arguing and B) Where it belongs in the overall discussion of Political arguments.

I'll start with an easy question. The first paragraph currently cites this source: "U.S. Code on General Military Law, Part I, Chapter 13.", which redirects to a generic, Browse goverment publications page. Finding the best links to code is not my strong suit. Anyone?

Second, the arguments in the section (Importance of militia) are 1. A statement about a point made by opponents of a restrictive 2A interpretation, defining what "militia" meant in the last 1800s and 2. Author John Longenecker's take on original intent in the modern era... I think.

So, again: What is this section about? That is, what is it addressing in the questions outlined at the top of the Political arguments section? Which, I hope will answer the question: Where do these "arguments" belong? Lightbreather (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikilinks not-with-standing, would a "Terminology and context" section like there is in the Gun control article be helpful? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I kinda like that idea, but would like to discuss further. Could you make it a separate discussion? Lightbreather (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"Authorhouse" is not a publisher

"John Longenecker," is not a reliable source. His books were not published by a third-party source, but rather self-published through a variety of vanity presses. How did he even get on this page - he's just a blogger. Hipocrite (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Added by an IP ages ago. Hipocrite (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Faction titles

We should normalize language. Is it Pro-rights and pro-control? Hipocrite (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a great question. I prefer pro-gun and pro-control, but I think the pro-gun crowd prefers gun rights and gun control. I don't like "gun rights" because it implies that others are anti-Second Amendment. There are some gun-control types who would like to repeal the 2nd, but from everything I've experienced and read, I think they're a tiny minority. Lightbreather (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

If the "right to bear arms" wasn't in the 2nd Amendment, we of "pro-gun crowd" probably wouldn't use the term, but it is and we do. There are credible sources (check the 2A article) that use the terms "gun rights" and "gun control" to describe the two ends of the spectrum. Its a complex issue and most people, as you've indicated via "tiny minority", don't fit nicely into a category, they are somewhere along the continuum of the issue.

My issue with the term "pro-gun" is that its misleading. The issue is not about "guns", its about self defense and protection of one's self, others, and home. I don't see how the term "pro gun" includes that. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I hear you, Scal. I was only voicing my opinion, not saying it's the "right" one. There are quite a few terms used by various sources. They're all inadequate because the groups who fall under the "two" sides vary widely in opinion. On the extreme ends are absolutists and repealers, others fall somewhere in between - and with overlap! I would wager there are way more "gun rights but for limited regulations" and "gun control but for limited rights" people combined, than the extremists put together. Though I would note that the absolutists are an extremely organized and vocal group. Hence, IMHO, the slant in a lot of WP content on the subject. I mean, I know of only one other active editor right now who claims to be pro-control, but at least a dozen who obviously defend the pro-gun POV on WP. Again, just my opinion. That's why I periodically remind others of "Don't shoot the messenger."

That said, I just took the time to count uses of the terms in THIS article, and "gun rights" and "gun control" outnumber all the rest, so probably best to stick with those. (That's kinda the WP default, right? Stick with what the editors have been using... unless there is some compelling evidence that it's just plain wrong (not factual). Lightbreather (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe "pro gun rights" and "pro gun control" are the most commonly used and most neutral terms, on Wikipedia and also in general. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Studies, debate, and opinions

Shouldn't we include a section on the lobby game played by the NRA and similar groups which in effect makes their entire repository of arguments into a charade/something that is ridiculous, to such degree that no sensible person no longer takes part in it (only those that have something to gain)?

For example, they try to put a huge part of the blame unto "violent computer games and other media", and when a public shoot out occurs, they say that having more responsible people on the streets with guns lowers/lowered the amounts of casualties.

Also, shouldn't there be an objective research posted with the results of high-school shoot out incidents in countries with the right to have a gun (no restrictions) and versus the results of high-school shoot out incidents in countries without the right to have a gun (much more restricted) ? 81.246.137.240 (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Second Amendment rights section

I think this section could use a little help. Re: this sentence:

Before District of Columbia v. Heller there was a difference of opinion about whether or not the Second Amendment included an individual right.

References

1. The way the sentence is written. Before Heller there was a difference of opinion? Although the Court has ruled that there is a (limited) right, there still is a difference of opinion (as in a notable group disagreed/disagrees with the ruling). How best - the most neutrally - to word this?

2. The sources. Three of these four sources are used no-where else in the article. Could we narrow them down to the one that IS used elsewhere in the article, plus the "best" of the other three? Gottesman - from an encyclopedia - is the most current of the three. That'd probably be my pick, but I'm persuade-able.

If no-one else will address this, I'll give it a try. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's fine as it is, leave it alone. If it works, don't fix it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• there is no difference of opinion currently. there 100% is an individual right, and that right is explicitly not tied to service in a militia. Spitzer et al may think that SCOTUS created a right rather than clarified an existing right, but nobody disagrees that heller & mcdonald are now settled law. this is already covered neutrally in the article, and further coverage here would be undue - their opinions are meaningless in the face of SCOTUS. I could possibly see additional coverage on the heller/mcdonald pages themselves as notable criticism of the rulings, but we should not be going into such detail here. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The obove being said and true, there is likely to be ongoing debate on the extent of the 2A protects the right and what types/levels of regulation are constitutional. But that is a very different matter than the "debate about individual right" mentioned above. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. I was bold and edited it thusly:

Prior to District of Columbia v. Heller, debate surrounding the question of whether or not the Second Amendment included an individual right was not accompanied by an explicit Court ruling.

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that needs a citation - I don't know the legal history, but I imagine there must have been other rulings. Hipocrite (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The source I cited later in that section, the LCPGV's Second Amendment Basics, doesn't give the specifics, but says two things re: this. 1. In Heller, the Court stated "for the first time that the Second Amendment protects a responsible, law-abiding citizen’s right to possess an operable handgun in the home for self-defense." Note that "for the first time." And 2. "Heller was unquestionably a radical decision, overturning the Court’s previous ruling that the Second Amendment was tied to state militia service." (The last ruling, prior to Heller, tied the 2nd to militia service.)

The guys here who are more hep to the cases can probably point us to which decisions are being referenced here. Lightbreather (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• That was the first SCOTUS ruling. There were many lower court rulings (some saying individual, most saying collective)
• The first point is technically true, but misleading. the (supreme) court had not been asked to previously comment on if the 2A protects an individual right to a gun for self defense, therefore yes, that was the first time the supreme court stated such. There are MANY MANY sources stating so earlier. (but obviously those dont carry the word of law as SCOTUS does)
  • Some of them were from congress though, so do carry more interpretive/legal weight.
• The "previous ruling" in question is United_States_v._Miller, and the level of POV and just plain factual wrongness in that source really makes me doubt its validity as an WP:RS
  • (Miller) "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."
  • the ruling has repeatedly and widely been described as ambiguous, and SCOTUS specifically said they were not overturning it in Heller, and clarified that Miller applied only to the type of arm (sawed off shotguns in that case) and not who the right applied to.
  • (Heller : "Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection")
  • ( Heller 2  :"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment")
  • Printz_v._United_States " In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment."

Gaijin42 (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is a much more neutral source/summary of the history of the 2a and the cases and what they mean.

• http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt2_user.html#amdt2_hd2
• http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment Gaijin42 (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Of the two, I like the second one better - and it links to the first one when you click on "a collective rights approach." I will add it. Lightbreather (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm back, and it's added. That leaves the new, Cornell citation, the LCPGV citation, and the Halbrook citation. I pulled the other, old citations to here for "archiving" so to speak... or further discussion, if anyone feels that's necessary. (As I said earlier, they're used nowhere else in the article.) 1. "Gottesman, Ronald (1999). Violence in America: An Encyclopedia. Simon and Schuster. p. 66,68." 2. "Hardy, David T. The origins and Development of the Second Amendment(1986), Blacksmith Corp., Chino Valley, Arizona, pp.64–93" and 3. "Gottlieb, Alan M.: The Rights of Gun Ownership. Green Hill, 1981". Lightbreather (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The LCPGV cite is really bad. Its not even pretending to be a neutral source. Its clearly an advocacy site asking for donations and "getting involved" , and its info reads like a press release. Its good for nothing more than the opinions of the group, we should not be using it for any sourcing of factsGaijin42 (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

How about a compromise. I'm willing to pull the LCPGV source citation from this sentence if we also pull the reference to Halbrook's "That Every Man Be Armed" - from this sentence. I'm not suggesting pull it from the article, just from this sentence. He's not what one could call neutral on the subject either, and now that the sentence itself is changed, we're not even sure that his book supports the new sentence. Lightbreather (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Im ok with dropping it for the current content, because it is not needed for the content we have currently in - but I say so without prejudice for including it in again later if there is content that it more uniquely backs.

Yes, Halbrook has a strong POV, but equating the self published advocacy site (and whos biggest text reads "Donate, Join, Volunteer, Sponsor", that gives a few short unsourced paragraphs (that contain noticeable errors) to an independently published, heavily footnoted book, by a known gun law expert who is cited multiple times by SCOTUS on the topic of gun rights and constitutional history - is a weak argument imo.

Im much more willing to put Halbrook into the same bucket as Spitzer etc - opinionated academics. safeguns.org belongs in the same bucket with the NRA, VPC, etc Gaijin42 (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Kinda like the rkba.org site that published the source behind the statement at the beginning of the Fundamental right section?

One point of view about firearms is that gun possession is a fundamental civil right, intimately related to the right to life, and so does not depend on the US Constitution."Snyder, Jeffrey R. (1993). "A Nation of Cowards". rkba.org. Retrieved January 26, 2014. rkba.org is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms website"

Says RKBA's Jeff Chan: I especially encourage you to copy and pass on this strong statement about firearms ownership to friends, colleagues, undecideds, and other firearms rights supporters. Your grassroots pamphleteering can counter the propaganda blitz now going on by introducing some reason to the debate. This essay is one of our best weapons. (my bold)

;-) Lightbreather (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, id say the sites or of equal quality, but I would note that the RKBA cite is specifically backing the concept that "X point of view exists" and not any fact. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

What is this kind of editing called in Wikipedia jargon?

Sue made a mass of edits with the edit summary "Edited for grammar and simplicity". That is NOT what the edit did. It undid or reverted past edits by myself and other editors. Specifically, it:

• reverted instances of "federal" to "Federal" against style
• reverted "gun rights" to "pro-rights"
• reverted "gun control" to "pro-ban"
• reverted agreed upon (consensus) questions at beginning of Political arguments section to her preferred wording (and, per her discredit/purge Spitzer campaign, once again deleted Spitzer as a source)
• undid two NPOV balance, sourced edits I made earlier today
• again put Spitzer and others' opposing views re: Heller in POV wording
• again changed "second category" at top of Public policy theory section to "second area" (why?)
• again removed "who?" comment in that section
• again restored self-published material to Importance of militia section
• removed who? tag from Logical pitfalls section
• returned unnecessary "federal" to in front of "Congress" in Supreme Court decisions section
• returned a not-very-relevant "wikinews" item to External links section

Could someone - maybe Gaijin42?, though I believe you all have more WP experience than I - please tell me what this kind of editing is called? Is anyone else finding it disruptive? Is this some sort of gaming of 3RR? I really want to develop my understanding of the correct WP terms for this stuff. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sue's edit was totally unacceptable. Hipocrite (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

At an absolutely bare minimum the edit summary was misleading. I would encourage both LB and sue to edit more slowly and atomically, making individual changes and seeing how they are received, and discussing changes before moving on to the next issue. Sues wholesale revert, some parts of which I agree with, and some of which I disagree with was inappropriate . Sue, I encourage you to take a step back and evaluate if you are having knee jerk responses to LBs edits, and to focus on truly problematic issues - it seems like you object to every action she takes, even the reasonable ones. . LB - I would encourage you to slow down. You have some good ideas, but your general attitude comes across as "Im am here to right the great wrongs". Are there improvements to be made? yes. But coming in and trying to fix everything all at once, especially on a controversial article, can also be disruptive. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I hear you Gaijin. I learned a lot, as you know, in my first eight weeks as an active WP editor. I want to assure you, I am here to improve the article and nothing more. A lot of my edits are simple copyediting. I try to break those out from the more material edits, and I've developed a habit of leaving detailed edit summaries, and a balance of bold v. discuss-first edits, depending on the editorial environment.

I will repeat my mantra: I come in peace, don't shoot the messenger. Lightbreather (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Stick to the message. 172.129.246.164 (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If LB could refrain from making avalanches of edits, and use the discussion page, and refrain from making edits without consensus, the process would be easier. Politically, LB and I are supposed to be on the same side, so the situation is ridiculous. I used to pick through LB's edits one by one, unfortunately that only got me pulled in front of ANI with accusations of 3RR. So now I have to do it this way. LB you bring this on yourself. When I see an avalanche of edits, and I would have reverted more than two, I have no choice but to do all of my work in a single edit to avoid 3RR. Sorry, but you are the one who did this. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 06:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to review the intermediate edits and make whatever changes are appropriate, and are rather just seeing "Someone I often disagree with edited this article, kneejerk revert," you need to stop editing. Hipocrite (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sue, you need to stop. Edits like this [5] Are exceptionally disruptive. Yo uare undoing multiple peoples work, with no discussion, and no reason and making it impossible to improve the article. If you think LB is doing something wrong, talk about it here, or take her to ANI. But done a one-woman full-protection by hand is not acceptable. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

That is not what I am doing. I am only making a single edit per day on this page. I cannot help it if SOMEBODY is flooding the article with an avalanche of edits. It makes it nearly impossible to work. What is it you want me to do exactly? Stop editing the article alltogether? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I would urge all editors to edit this controversial article incrementally. Even when making a huge amount of edits on a non-controversial article, it's often helpful to edit incrementally (i.e. small consecutive edits) so that others can easily see what's going on, so that a separate edit summary for each small edit can give more explanation, so that a small edit might be easier to revert, so that talk page discussion about a particular edit can cite a specific diff for clarity, et cetera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sue, If you are making a single edit per day, that is a personal choice you are making. That is not an excuse for being disruptive. your choice description there is even more restrictive than 1rr btw. I want you to actually evaluate the changes you are making. I want you to provide accurate edit summaries, or discussions on the talk page about why you are making your changes. I want you to stop doing mass reverts. There is no reason to undo work like the following, with no discussion and no useful edit summary [6] (both in removing valid content, and restoring almost incomprehensible content), as part of undoing 10 or 20 other changes. all at once. Yes LB needs to slow down too, but two wrongs dont make a right. At the current rate both of you need to be tossed into the current ArbCom pot, or discussed an ANI. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

As a good faith measure, I just reverted some vandalism back to Lightbreather's last edit. Hopefully LB will stop the avalanches, and we will all be able to discuss things better. I am doing the best I can here. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Split proposal

I suggest the parts of this article (notably, in Security against tyranny and invasion) that have to do with Nazi laws be split into its own article titled Nazi gun laws (or whatever the consensus might be - I'm undecided). This will cut down on the edit warring that ensues when this material is put into related articles. It is notable enough to have its own article, IMO, but not enough to give undue weight in articles like this one (Gun politics in the U.S.) In articles such as this one, there should just be a brief statement that some gun rights advocates believe that Nazi gun laws contributed significantly to the Holocaust - or something to that effect - and a Wikilink. Lightbreather (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I've invited the editors whose names were on the Gun control talk page as of one-half hour or so ago. I sent each the same message: "There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you." You can see evidence of these invitations in my contributions history for 28 JAN 2014. Lightbreather (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I also put notices on the following article talk pages: Gun Control Act of 1968, Gun laws in Germany, The Holocaust, Nazi Germany, Overview of gun laws by nation, Stephen Halbrook, and Weimar Republic. Lightbreather (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a long history in the United States of using the threat of tyranny to justify broader gun rights. Thus, we have blockquotes now in the Wikipedia article from people like Noah Webster and John Kennedy mentioning this, without referring to Nazis at all (e.g. Webster was alive 150 years before Hitler). The stuff about Nazis is only the latest manifestation of this concern. Are you suggesting to keep them together, or to split them?

If I recall correctly, there were editors at the main gun control article who were arguing that this material should go into this article rather than that one, so I'm not sure they would agree with sending it somewhere else.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I studied the page, and I only see you and User:FiachraByrne discussing how that might work. But, at any rate, I am going to invite everyone on that page to this discussion. It will take me a while, but I'm starting now. Lightbreather (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

How what might work?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

That this material might go into this article (Gun politics in the U.S.) rather than that one (Gun control). Most of the discussion about where it should go - if it belonged anywhere - was about Gun politics in Germany. But if I've misread the gun control talk page, please provide some links. Lightbreather (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

There were a lot of complaints there that an "article of supposedly global scope has been dominated by the discourse of the U.S. pro-gun lobby". If we put it into an article about Germany, then the same objection would come up, wouldn't it? In any event, I'm still unsure what you're suggesting, because most of the section is about tyranny generally, not specifically about Nazis, and I don't understand if you want to get rid of that general tyranny stuff too. If you haven't yet studied it WP:Summary style may be helpful for you, as a guide for splitting off material when an article gets too big.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I'm assuming everyone here agrees that the Nazis were tyrannous.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that statement oversimplifies "tyrannous" for this argument, so for this argument I do not agree. Lightbreather (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I appreciate the effort to find stable consensus, the proposal I'm hearing is a POV fork. I count only three sentences in that section that have anything to do with Germany, barely enough for a stub. I think the mentions of Nazi gun laws are pertinent to this subject and belong in this article. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• OPPOSE - POV fork and waste of time. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 06:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Uncertain - I'd like the subject treated academically. The Black Codes (United States) specifically forbade firearms from blacks. It seems that Nazi Germany went down the path of disarming Jews and others that were seen as problematic for the reich. Plato even writes of how tyrannies seek to limit arms from the people. There is a great article to be written here. It's not to say that's gun control leads to tyranny. It can, certainly but that's not the point. The point is that some people object to the content because it might portray gun control in a bad light....tough I say. At the same time I don't want to intonate that gun control in and of itself leads to tyranny either. That's for the reader to decide. We just provide the facts. Let me mull this over.-Justanonymous (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Justanonymous, but only the Nazi stuff and, to be clear, as a historical revisionism article that includes the criticism as well as the proponents' theories. Lightbreather (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

What historical revisionism do you see. There are documented facts. People have opinions about those facts. What is being revised? (Other than attempting to whitewash out history to say it didnt happen?) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's WP:FRINGE. Howver, I read about historical revisionism and, at least according to WP, it's not all "bad," so I chose that as a less fractious term. Lightbreather (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It's just a very politically charged issue. The actions of the Nazis are fact. The debates generally center on whether the gun control was material enough to alter the balance. Would the Warsaw Ghetto uprising have turned out differently if Jews could keep arms? What if they could keep arms together with a culture of civilian rifle marksmanship? What if? What if? To many variables. So the only thing that can be done is to leave the facts and let people make up their own minds but to me a separate article on just the Nazi materials and conjecture is probably not warranted but there is a broader article here. I worry as others have noted that it'll be a POV fork or that it'll just atrophy and die. -Justanonymous (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Park this pending the outcome of the ArbCom case on the other article. --Scolaire (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Perhaps split off some of it. I agree that the Nazi policy should be covered in full in Gun control in Germany. What is relevant to this article is that the gun lobby seems often to argue that control equals tyrannical government, and the pro-control lobby retort that that is nonsense. This argument should be covered with sources from both sides. One thing I noticed is that the situation in the UK is completely misrepresented. The Squires book does not permit the statement that this argument is used in the UK. It was raised just once by an organisation with no real public profile and was immediately slapped down as complete nonsense. Nor does the Gregg Lee Carter book support the notion that it was raised in the past in Britain, at least not on p891. (Each of the many references to this book ought to have its own page reference inline.) What Carter does say is that the American colonists defended their use of firearms against British tyranny, which is a completely different thing. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

See reply to Drmies re: the "international" implications of this stuff - at least from a WP editorial board POV. Not sure which Carter book you're referring to, but in Guns in American Society, there is a specific entry titled "Holocaust Imagery and Gun Control" that deals critically with these arguments. Wherever these Nazi arguments appear, we must ensure that such criticism, which represents a strong majority view, is given its due weight. Lightbreather (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Good reference, but, our goal on Wikipedia is not to take sides, choosing to include only the arguments that deal critically with one side's arguments, but, rather, to present all viewpoints with verifiable cites, thereby allowing a reader to make their own opinion, not just the one that you might like them to take. Again, if an article speaking in WP's voice chooses to deal critically with just one side's arguments, we have actually taken sides in an argument. That is counter to WP policy. Due weight needs to be given even to viewpoints that an editor might personally find offensive. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

So far, internal and external to Wikipedia, there seems to be an agreement that the Nazi gun law theory is the view of a tiny minority. Per WP:UNDUE: Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. Lightbreather (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears that you are equating "tiny minority" with "gun owners". But, based on the latest polling numbers, gun owners account for nearly 40% of the national population, with regional differences rising to around 60%-90% in some regions or sub-regions (i.e., the south, southwest, etc.). And, among such gun owners, there are sizable numbers of members of the NRA, JPFO, and GOA that do believe the relationship exists, and all three of these national organizations do publish articles that support belief that the relationship exists. Taking sides in the argument by suppressing one side by calling them a "tiny minority" when they clearly are not is a tactic used to suppress unpopular viewpoints. Again, we need to include the views of major national organizations (NRA, JPFO, GOA) that collectively do have millions of members, and which represent anywhere from 40% to 90% of populations (national to regional). Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone here has understood my point. I did mean Guns in American Society. Does it say anywhere that in the UK, the argument has been used that gun ownership protects a population against tyrannous government? If so, could someone present the page reference? And is Gregg Lee Carter an expert on gun politics in the UK? My general opinion is that each country's situation should be presented in the relevant article. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Agree/Support - The parts of the article dealing with Nazi gun laws ought to be split and/or eliminated from this article. Mention of "Nazism" in an article like this one is reminescent of the kinds of debates I had about gun control as a 5 year old on my kindergarden playground. Pointing to Nazism on a politically contentious articles which aren't directly linked to WWII history is just a dumb idea, likely implemented by people trying push POV. All this said, Scolaire rightly points out that there seems to be a pending Arbcom case related to this issue. Might be wise to wait.... NickCT (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Wait There is a pending Arbcom. Let's see what comes of it. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. In the grand scheme of things these laws are pretty meaningless, certainly in the narrow German context. There is no need for "Nazi gun laws"--we already have 1938 German Weapons Act (inside Gun legislation in Germany). It's pretty clear that those 1938 laws have played no historical role anywhere in the world except for in the minds of gun advocates of the Don't Tread On Me kind in the United States so it's perfectly rational to keep it in "Gun politics in the US". Drmies (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with you, Drmies, except for the "international" statement in the lead and the mention of Brazil, Australia, Canada, and the UK in the section in question - plus the sources cited with them. (Read the quotes in the footnotes.) I would bet that those "Gun politics in..." articles will be next if this stuff is allowed to stay here, starting more disruptions. Lightbreather (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

All of the most offensive and disruptive comments at Wikipedia have used vowels, so maybe we should delete them from this article? Seriously, let's cross bridges when we come to them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose mostly per Drmies Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. We should avoid POV forks, by WP policy. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Disagree that this would be a POV (content) fork. The proposal is for WP:SPINOFF, though it might be acceptable under one of the other acceptable types of forking, like WP:SUBPOV. Lightbreather (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Agree/Support/But wait... - If there is enough information to create an article about the use of gun control by governments around the world and over time, then this suggestion makes sense to me. But I would like to see the outcome of the ArbCom first. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The proposal is to do only with Nazi gun laws. (Weimar Era would need to be touched upn for context.) Lightbreather (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose As far as German law, it was the totality of the anti-Semitic laws that enabled the Holocaust. Not just taking away weapons. By the time Hitler got around to the 1938 law that forbid Jews to own weapons, the Jews had already had their businesses, homes and possessions taken away, and were already excluded from the German economy and society in general. Non-German Jews were getting expelled. Americans in the gun control debate are forgetting that the Germans didn't have a Constitution with a 2nd amendment that said they had the right to bear arms. And they are forgetting the Versailles Treaty and the German 1919 law that disarmed the citizenry because of the treaty not because the Germans wanted it. And the Germans didn't invent gun registration. See English history in 1600s and colonial America. Massachusetts militia were required to turn in a list of their weapons and equipment. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your argument, and that's where a better title would come into play, per WP:SUBPOV: Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view.

What do scholars call this this theory, these proposals, that Nazi gun laws were a significant factor in the Holocaust? Lightbreather (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I imagine they'd say they were the result of a lack of historical information. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support/Irrelevant There is nothing wrong with having an article about Nazi gun laws, and it doesn't even need agreement here, just go and make it. It's a fine topic to write an article about, regardless of what happens to this article. --GRuban (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I have no objection to an article on the nazi gun laws and the commentary thereof being created - but using such creation as a reason to remove from here I do have an objection to. Its a notable part of the US gun politics debate. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

My proposal is not to remove the Nazi gun laws arguments from Wikipedia, but to remove the undue weight of those tiny but vocal minority arguments from gun politics pages like this. As I wrote above, "In articles such as this one, there should just be a brief statement that some gun rights advocates believe that Nazi gun laws contributed significantly to the Holocaust - or something to that effect - and a Wikilink."

I'm proposing a WP peace treaty, of sorts, to cut down on future conflict. Lightbreather (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Wait. Not getting involved in any gun control related articles or debates until after the current ArbCom case. FiachraByrne (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• WaitFor the above reasons and I'm not so sure now is the time that contributers in this areas are redy to deal with another new big hot topic in this area. But it doesn't seem logical as described. Maybe both articles should exist, but I don't how anything that could be called a split would be logical. What should be on it here should be only to the extent that it is part of the US debate/politics, such does not seem appropriate for a new new article that has nothing to do with US debate/politics. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Split Nazi gun laws aren't relevant enough to the subject to have their own section. But they are certainly relevant enough for a Wikilink. Orser67 (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Waiting for results of ArbCom

Waiting for the Gun control ArbCom results before deciding what to do about the current dispute on this page (Gun politics in the U.S.) was my original thought. Others have expressed this idea, too. But I've changed my mind for two reasons. 1. ArbCom is about behaviors, not about resolving content disputes. 2. The content disputes are causing the behavioral problems. Have in the past; will in the future. Therefore, there is no reason not to seriously consider this option now. Justanonymous and Gaijin42 claim Nazi "gun control" is a fact (see comments above). Other Wikipedians obviously do, too. Rather than keep warring about this over and over, give them a forum, per WP:CONTROVERSIALFACTS. This would be a pro-active approach to the problem. Gun politics is a controversial enough topic without dragging Nazi gun control into it every time the subject is broached on a related page.

That said, I'm not in a hurry to do this, I just think it would be a good solution to a problem that is not going to go away - even if every involved party in ArbCom is banned or blocked. Lightbreather (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Jeff Snyder and the self-published book

Can I ask why sources like Jeff Snyder, "an attorney who works in Manhattan," and his book, published by "Accurate Press," which apparently publishes two ENTIRE books (seems like a POD front) getting billing in this article? If those are the best sources for something, perhaps that something isn't really all that notable? Perhaps review the right way to write an article - read the sources, then summarize what they say, as opposed to determining what you'd want to say and then googling for sources that say it? Hipocrite (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You'll have to hunt through the edit histories if you want to know how it got there. I have no idea.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It got there because Sue Rangell vouched for it when she reverted it back in. Hipocrite (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@Sue Rangell:, then. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Well done, Hipocrite. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I wonder who put it there originally. Sometimes reverts don't mean vouching for everything that's reinserted by the revert, so you'd have to ask Sue about it. I've already urged (today, above) incremental edits instead of huge ones, which might reduce that problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It did make it into this article by Anythingyouwant but it looks like that was a result of the merge from the "Political Arguments" article [7]. It was added into THAT article in 2008, by Icammd [8] Gaijin42 (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Gaijin42. Just for the record, whenever I have merged two articles, there has been no intent to vouch for anything on the part of Anythingyouwant.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not vouch for it. If I had caught it, I would have removed it. It is very difficult to make edits when we have these edit avalanches. I have complained before, but some editors apparently want to dominate the article. It makes editing difficult.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You specifically reinserted it. Why did you do that? Hipocrite (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant made a suggestion above, at the end of the What is this kind of editing called discussion. He said: "I would urge all editors to edit this controversial article incrementally. Even when making a huge amount of edits on a non-controversial article, it's often helpful to edit incrementally (i.e. small consecutive edits) so that others can easily see what's going on, so that a separate edit summary for each small edit can give more explanation, so that a small edit might be easier to revert, so that talk page discussion about a particular edit can cite a specific diff for clarity, et cetera." Lightbreather (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I think he was referring to editors that make a massive avalanche of POV edits while sprinkling in a few Gnomish ones. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

How do these edits improve the article?

Sue Rangell you made one large edit last night that included the following changes. Could you please explain how they improve the article?

• changed the title of a book from That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right to That Every Man Be Armed: the evolution of a Constitutional Right
• changed multiple references to the 2012 edition of The Politics of Gun Control to the 1995 version
• restored four sources that had been removed by agreement between myself and Gaijin42 after a discussion
• deleted a sourced paragraph about McDonald in the Second Amendment rights section
• removed a "split" notice about a proposal this is being discussed on the talk page
• changed the title of a book from Targeting Guns:Firearms and Their Control to Targeting Guns, Firearms and their Control

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather, you need to stop making the edit avalanches. If you had made these six changes one at a time, and allowed other editors (besides just you and me) time to make comments, this would not happen. SLOW THE HECK DOWN. Stop making a bazillion POV edits and sprinkling in a few gnomish ones. It's making it impossible for anyone to keep up. You need to give people a chance to offer opinions.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

• Here is the edit where I put Kleck's Targeting Guns into cite book format, and standardized the title [9]
• Here is the edit that added the McDonald statement (sourced) [10]
• Here is the edit I made in cooperation with Gaijin for the "Prior to Heller" sentence in the Second Amendment rights section [11]
• Here is the edit where I capitalized "Evolution" in the subtitle of Halbrook's That Every Man Be Armed [12]
• Here is the edit where I added a "split" proposal notice. [13]

I'm especially puzzled about why you deleted that split-proposal notice...

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

IP Vandal

I just took care of some edits that appear to be vandalism by IP 128.83.125.229. In good faith, I reverted them to Lightbreather's last edit. Now, that being done, Lightbreather, would it be too much to ask to throttle your controversial edits to one or two a day? The gnome edits are fine. But if you make an edit that you think MIGHT be contested, can you limit those please and allow us to discuss? Being bold is great, but edit avalanches make work difficult for everyone. Anyway, I reverted back to your last edit, so you don't feel like anyone is attacking you, and I hope you slow down a bit. Thanx. be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Please provide DIFFs for the "controversial edits" you are referring too. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Im assuming "gnome" means uncontroversial or typos or some such, but could someone educate me on the etymology? Gaijin42 (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

self defense section

I think needs a rewrite/gut in view of heller/mcdonald. There is no need to attribute views to "gun rights proponents" anymore when SCOTUS has explicitly ruled. Theoretically we could get rid of the entire second paragraph, and perhaps the first too and be accurate, but that would leave a WP:WEIGHT problem on the minority viewpoint I think.

Should we move the "gun rights propoenents" view point into expanding the SCOTUS ruling summary since that is pretty much straight up what Heller/McDonald said? Does it perhaps make sense to just merge this entire bit into the 2A section?

If we are going to keep SD as a separate section, i think it should also have some expansion perhaps doing a brief WP:SUMMARY of Defensive gun use Gaijin42 (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm leaving my desk for a few hours, but I definitely have some input on this. I tried to do this (or part of this) before, but it was reverted. As an aside, could you check out the second paragraph in the Second Amendment rights section. I thought you and I reached and agreement on the wording there, and the source citations, but Miguel and Sue and I are reverting on top of each other, so I think there is a misunderstanding about that. Maybe it's just unclear from our (your and my) discussion Second Amendment rights section of 27 JAN 2014. I see the old wording and old sources back in there. Lightbreather (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd definitely keep the self defense section separate, but agree it could be improved and expanded. Self defense is a rationale for opposing even some gun control laws that may be constitutional, and for supporting other gun laws. It's also got a much longer history than the Constitution. If recent SCOTUS cases are ever overturned, it may provide a rationale for amending the Constitution. Etc, etcAnythingyouwant (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I boldly proposed putting Self-defense and Security against tyranny under Second Amendment rights 19 days ago. These belong under Second Amendment rights. Constitutionally, without the Second, there is no right to bear arms at all. This one of the few edits I've made where Sue actually agreed with me, but Anything reverted it/them.

Also - this is important - since Heller concluded that individuals have a right to bear arms in defense of the home, we need to remember to keep the "home" part of the Heller decision in our statements, wherever they appear. "Home," "home, "home" is repeated over and over again in Heller. Lightbreather (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

People in the United States would be claiming a right of self defense even if the Second Amendment did not exist. So the former is not a subset of the latter. The Heller decision mentioned "guns" a lot, but surely that doesn't mean everything in this article about guns needs to be moved into the section about the Second Amendment.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The first part of the Self-defense section, that begins "The ancient Roman statesman Cicero," belongs under Fundamental right. The other two paragraphs belong under Second Amendment rights - they both reference the 2nd and Heller. As I said before, unless she's changed her mind, this is something Sue agrees with. Lightbreather (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Heller discusses self defense in the home, saying "the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute in the home", but does not directly discuss defense outside the home. SCOTUS almost never answers questions beyond the immediate issue in front of it, to avoid setting precedents. In this case, defense in the home was the issue specifically before them via the Plantiff Dick Heller. However, we also have McDonald after that, and then several circuit court rulings explicitly broadening the right past the home [14]

At the most we could say something along the lines of " the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on if the right to self defense extends outside the home. The 2nd, 4th, and 7th Circuits are the sole Circuit courts to address the issue. The 2nd and 7th ruled that the right to defense does extend outside the home. The 2nd applying intermediate scrutiny ruled that it did not. "

As this is the first circuit to deal with the issue post Heller/McDonald there is no contrary opinion/ruling to balance with. However, this is somewhat of a moot point as all 50 states have directly authorized some form of legal carry, and unless one of them tries to repeal the law, there is unlikely to be a need for it to ever go before a different circuit or the supreme court. (Illinois could always choose to appeal though I suppose, but it doesn't seem likely since they made all the law changes already) Gaijin42 (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

My bad, there have been a at least two more circuit cases.

the 2nd circuit also ruled there is a self defense right outside the home http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FCO%2020121127122.xml/KACHALSKY%20v.%20COUNTY%20OF%20WESTCHESTER.

The 4th applying intermediate scrutiny however did uphold the conviction of a guy who claimed self defense outside the home.http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17013181822166656045&hl=en&as_sdt=2,47

So there is somewhat of a circuit split that could bubble to SCOTUS

Gaijin42 (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Your statement above about the right not exiting without the 2a is wrong, and has been ruled on by SCOTUS explicitly in Cruikshank "The right to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." also in Heller " We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, 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.”" Gaijin42 (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42 I made two bold moves that, if we work together on, could satisfy your editorial need (to remove some of the leading "gun rights advocates say" language - and mine (to make it clear that the ruling in Heller supported limited individual rights) at the same time. Let's you and I and Anythingyouwant and Sue Rangell prove that we can work collaboratively! Lightbreather (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I dont object to the moves, but it doesnt resolve the core issue. gun rights supporters dont have to "believe" anything anymore. Its settled law. That part of the text is now outdated and needs to be brought up to date. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the change of header level, for the reasons described above in this section. Not sure if that was one of the "two bold moves".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's get "Prior to Heller" sentence under Second Amendment rights ironed out, please

A week ago, the second paragraph under the Second Amendment rights paragraph began:

Before District of Columbia v. Heller there was a difference of opinion about whether or not the Second Amendment included an individual right.

Then, via the discussion Second Amendment Rights section, Gaijin and I worked together and changed it to this:

Prior to District of Columbia v. Heller, debate surrounding the question of whether or not the Second Amendment included an individual right was unaccompanied by an explicit Court ruling.

Now, it's back to this:

Prior to District of Columbia v. Heller, there was a debate surrounding the question of whether or not the Second Amendment included an individual right.

References

Can we please get this straightened out, so we don't keep reverting on top of each other?

1. The sentence is virtually back to where it was before. I'm willing to consider rephrasing, but the "unaccompanied by an explicit Court ruling" part is meaningful and needs to be included.
2. Our article has 242 numbered references.
3. The Gottesman encyclopedia source is 15 years old, cited nowhere else in the article, and not easily verifiable.
4. The Gottlieb source is 33 years old, cited nowhere else in the article, and not easily verifiable.
5. The Halbrook source is 27 years old. It is cited elsewhere in article - but not easily verifiable.
6. The Hardy source is 28 years old. It is cited elsewhere in article - but not easily verifiable.
7. The Cornell LII source is current and verifiable. Gaijin and I agreed yesterday to drop the old and biased sources for this source.

Since we have a good, current source, the statement is not a direct quote, and it's not likely to be challenged, can we please restore the version Gaijin and I agreed to yesterday in the Second Amendment rights section discussion? (Gaijin, I'm really hoping you'll back me up on this.) Lightbreather (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think Im the one who changed it to not say "explicit court ruling" earlier today, so your anger is probably best directed at me :) . I thought our compromise was on the sourcing, I dont remember something specifically about this. Could you point me to the right discussion? Why is the "unacompanied by an explicit court ruling" important? There was a debate. The debate was settled by SCOTUS. Im unsure of the value of the extra clause, as it seems to be confusing and superfluous. Are you trying to reference the earlier ambiguous Miller ruling? If so I think there is probably a better (and less ambiguous) way of doing so. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Instead of angry, let's just say frustrated. As for the reason - the same that I gave as No. 1 in our discussion of the last two days (that I've given the link to), in which we came to the agreement about the statement and the source. Lightbreather (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I see the sourcing has changed back as well. I did not do that. I think the cornell reference is enough, but I dont have any explicit objections to the other sources. As the sources are being used to source history, their age is not really important, and the ease of verifiability is also not a big objection. however, in the interest of compromise, I will not object to their removal, but you will need to get some additional voices to agree first I think. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Considering that the article already numbers over 200 citations, how does keeping old sources that only tangentially support the re-worded statement (they're all from before Heller, remember), that are used nowhere else in the article - or which are not easily verifiable - and for which there is a good, current source... How does keeping those other sources for that statement improve the article? Lightbreather (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I personally don't object, but clearly someone else does because it got reverted. Need more people to weigh in. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It appears that the question is whether or not to retain possibly-excess sources? North8000 (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

How does removing sourcing improve the article? ...and why is this so important? This whole discussion is just another waste of time. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There are several issues extant here. Adding the POV phrase "unaccompanied by an explicit Court ruling" is a subtle attempt to push a POV that rights only exist when granted by Government. This is patently not what SCOTUS has ruled, in numerous cases, since the justices have stated on multiple occasions that the right to keep and bear arms predates the Constitution and that the 2A only codified recognition of a pre-existing common law right. Another issue is that many (Spitzer, et al) have either refused to recognize that the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2A protects a pre-existing individual right, or they mistakenly state that Heller was the first decision to grant an individual right in the absence of militia service. Some of the sources listed here (Hardy, Halbrook) were precisely the same sources that the SCOTUS itself referenced in their investigation into their official recognition of the longstanding individual right nature of the right to keep and bear arms, irrespective of the Constitution, and irrespective of any "granting" of rights by the Constitution, and irrespective of militia service. The two additional sources (Gottesman and Gotlieb) are sources that were added to balance the POV of just using Hardy and Halbrook, in a previous "dust-up" regarding this sentence and associated cites. To keep the POV neutral, we really need all four to document the claim that "Prior to District of Columbia v. Heller, there was a debate surrounding the question of whether or not the Second Amendment included an individual right." As for the next statement, involving Heller, having the current (modern) reference is fine. But, the modern reference does not provide an adequate and POV balanced set of sources to the first sentence. And, adding "unaccompanied by an explicit Court ruling" cannot be added if we wish to maintain a neutral POV. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Please, Miguel, don't assume what my intentions are; don't shoot the messenger. I am trying to collaborate in an environment where I'm outnumbered by gun-rights editors. It's not easy. Here's what I'm trying to do.

I'm trying to describe the WP:CONTROVERSY. "An article about a controversial person or group [or in this case, an issue] should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, 'How can this controversy best be described?' It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy." In this instance, because I am in the minority editorially, the views I am trying to describe perhaps seem "misguided or repugnant" to gun-rights types... but it is the view of a large group of people. I am trying to at least include a mention of it using the integrated approach to criticism.

Are we here to decide what's "right" or "the truth" - and defend it against all comers? Or are we here to work together to describe the viewpoints that the sides have? Also, could you provide a link to the previous "dust-up" re: this sentence? Lightbreather (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Prior to Heller/McDonald there was a debate. There is not a debate anymore. People may not like the answer to the debate, and there may be a new debate on smaller issues, but the larger issue is done. We can describe the debate in historical terms - but we don't discuss people who think we should resegregate schools now, or think that the ERA was wrongly decided. We don't go back into "Is gay sex illegal" anymore, or "should the pill be legal". We dont debate if Miranda warnings are actually required or not. We don't debate if porn is a legal expression of the 1st amendment etc. The supreme court hs ruled. That is the end of the debate. We should not be presenting "sides" at all. We can definitively state exactly what the law is.(as far as has been decided) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Not all SCOTUS precedent is settled, or even correct. That was so, for instance, with Plessy v. Ferguson. As SCOTUS has said: "[W]hen convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions."Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes SCOTUS can always overturn itself, but until that time it is settled. There is nobody else to appeal to. (Short of a constitutional amendment) Using such logic is essentially saying "no legal issue can ever be described as settled". The encyclopedia should be describing the legal situation using the most up to date information, but not using the WP:CRYSTALBALLGaijin42 (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Prior to Heller/McDonald there was a debate. There is not a debate anymore." ? The debate prior to Heller was whether or not the Second protected an individual right. The Court decided that it does. That is a fact, though some say that the Court made the wrong decision. And not a fringe, either. Well respected authorities think this. Does that change the legal outcome? No. But it's still worth mentioning. Aside from that "debate" (which will not change the outcome, but which does get mentioned over and over again in/by reliable sources), there is the new debate - a shift in debate - that has to do with scope. Did Heller rule that the individual right is an unlimited right?

"Yes SCOTUS can always overturn itself, but until that time it is settled." ? This article is about Gun politics in the United States. Are you saying that once the Court rules on something, it is no longer discussed by the governed? Are we saying to our readers: Regarding the Second Amendment, Heller says there is an individual right to own arms and that is all we have to say on the subject? What about the First Amendment? Are we telling our readers that once the Court rules on something, we quit talking about it and move on? Lightbreather (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

My general understanding is that the Constitution controls the Court and not vice versa, so I'm happy to see rational discussion and criticism of SCOTUS rulings. Anyway, I guess we have two choices here, correct?

“ A. Before District of Columbia v. Heller there was a difference of opinion about whether or not the Second Amendment included an individual right. ”

and

“ B. Prior to District of Columbia v. Heller, debate surrounding the question of whether or not the Second Amendment included an individual right was unaccompanied by an explicit Court ruling. ”

Is that the pending choice?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. And I think "B" is the choice - with the one neutral (Cornell LII) source that Gaijin provided several days ago. I have been combing the article and talk histories for the last hour and have found nothing so far that justifies using four PRE-HELLER sources to support the statement. I mean, who's challenging the statement? We all agree that the Court ruled explicitly about an individual right to bear arms. What it left up in the air is the scope of the right. That's our current editorial challenge! Lightbreather (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I recommend B., because A. erroneously implies that there was no difference of opinion after Heller.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Anything. That's all I've been saying from the start (since Jan. 9). Lightbreather (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break

No we can absolutely discuss dissenting views - but statements such as "gun rights supporters argue that there is an individual right to self defense" are out of date. THERE IS an individual right to self defense. We should be stating the current state of the law as facts, not arguments attributed to a pov. But yes, Anything is right. What is the specific need for the "unaccompanied by an explicit court ruling" ? For understandings sake, not neccesarily proposed text for the article, please rewrite that clause or expand the thought behind it so we can understand what the purpose of the statement is. Is it to say Miller was ambiguous? That the debate still continues, but now there is a court ruling? etc Gaijin42 (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Can I restore the "B" sentence? With the current, neutral source? Lightbreather (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Better to answer Gaijin42. What do you think about Miller, Lightbreather? Was it an explicit Court ruling?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

That the debate still continues, but now there is a Court ruling. Lightbreather (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Please identify a source saying that there is still a debate on if there is an individual right (Not should there be an individual right, but someone actually advancing the position that the legal right does not exist at this time.) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I just explained that a post or two ago. The debate continues in the scope of the right. Do you not agree that is true? Lightbreather (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Miller was an explicit Court ruling, as it was considered a "win" by both sides, according to many sources. "A" is the only neutral statement. And, the current sources are accurate for "A", too. There is also no difference in opinion after Heller that the 2A pertains to an individual right. After all, even the dissenting justices agreed that the 2A pertained to an individual right. And, the belief that Heller is not the law of the land is indeed fringe. Only the majority opinion of Heller matters now in the lower courts. The dissent is irrelevant relative to what the law is now. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You're talking about difference opinion among SCOTUS judges rather than difference of opinion among scholars, right Miguel? Moreover, what the SCOTUS minority meant by an "individual right" to guns is different from what many scholars mean by an "individual right" to guns, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes certainly what the minority meant by individual right was different than the majority, but Miguel is very right that the dissent is legally irrelevant. The majority ruled there is an individual right. The reaffirmed that decision in McDonald. By definition SCOTUS decides what the constitution means. There _IS_ an individual self defense right at this time, and until such time as SCOTUS reverses itself, or a constitutional amendment passes. We can discuss the dissent. We can discuss people who don't like it. But we should not be stating anything that implies the right does not actually exist. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Where, in all this discussion, has anyone said that whether or not the right exists is still debated? The only arguments I've seen are A) That there are some who argue that the Court made a bad decision and B) That the Court did not decide that the individual rights is unlimited. Lightbreather (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, dissents are legally irrelevant, but if we want to say that there is no disagreement among SCOTUS judges about something, then it is relevant to us what the dissent says.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Since Miguel objects to the word "explicit" in the proposed sentence, how about?

Prior to District of Columbia v. Heller, debate surrounding the question of whether or not the Second Amendment included an individual right was unaccompanied by an unambiguous Court ruling. Lightbreather (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"That the debate still continues, but now there is a Court ruling." As the sentence in question specifically says " debate surrounding the question of whether or not the Second Amendment included an individual right" what else would "the debate" be about? The wording clearly implies this debate is ongoing (as does your comment). If we want to talk about the later, more narrow debates that are ongoing, thats fine. If we want to discuss criticism dissent, thats fine. But there is no debate anymore on "whether or not the Second Amendment includes an individual right" and we should not imply so. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Or:

Prior to District of Columbia v. Heller, debate surrounding the question of whether or not the Second Amendment included an individual right was unaccompanied by a clear Court ruling. Lightbreather (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of a clear court ruling prior to Heller, here was a debate regarding whether or not the Second Amendment included an individual right. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The sentence now is "Prior to District of Columbia v. Heller, there was a debate surrounding the question of whether or not the Second Amendment included an individual right." It flows nicely into the next sentence: "In Heller, the Court concluded that there was indeed such a right." My suggestions closely follow the original, only adding the qualifying statement. Can't we go with that? Lightbreather (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Your wording implies the debate continues, but now has a ruling to go along. The "was" needs to stick with the debate, not debate without a ruling. Moving the clause to the front of the sentence still flows, and avoids implying that there is still an ongoing debate. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The whole thing is in the past tense. "PRIOR to District of Columbia v. Heller, debate surrounding the question of whether or not the Second Amendment included an individual right WAS unaccompanied by a clear Court ruling. In Heller, the Court CONCLUDED that there was indeed such a right." Lightbreather (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Prior to getting married, I filed my taxes and was listed as single. Does this imply that I no longer do my taxes, or just that my filing status changed? Prior to buying my new computer the games I played were slow. Prior to learning Japanese, the books I read were in English. The location of the either modifies the "debate" or the "companionship" but not both simultaneously. Moving the was implies the continuance of the debate, merely not in companionship with the decision. If you think the two wordings are equivalent, what reason do you have for avoiding my wording?

That's nonsense. Regardless of a Supreme Court decision, a debate about whether or not the Second Amendment included an individual right can continue. One side is currently in favor with the courts, but that doesn't mean the other side has dropped their arguments - you'd need a source for that. For example, you must admit there is a debate as to if there is a right to privacy enumerated in the penumbras of the constitution, but the supreme court has ruled there is such. Hipocrite (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I do not believe there is any debate about the existence of the right of privacy via the "penumbras and emenations" (certainly not one we mention in any article about the right to privacy) although there is debate about how far that right extends. There is no legal debate about if there is an individual right. There is some debate on the extent of how far that right goes. (but that is not what we are discussing in this sentence) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

SCOTUS has abandoned the "penumbras and emanations" rationale of Justice Douglas in Griswold, and instead is now relying upon "substantive due process" (rather than the "penumbras" of the Third and Fourth Amendments as Douglas argued). Certainly the Fourth Amendment guarantees some elements of privacy, but other unenumerated elements are now perpetuated regardless of alleged penumbras and emanations.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Scotus is definitive about whether the individual right legally exists or not. Just like the right to get an abortion, or for women to vote. Of course there can be and is debate on whether it should be otherwise (e.g. against the Scotus decision, or that the Constitution should be changed) , but that is a different question. North8000 (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion: "Prior to District of Columbia v. Heller, the question of whether or not the Second Amendment included an individual right, was a matter of debate. That has been settled, the Court concluded that there was indeed such a right." There is no doubt that the right exists. The highest law in the land has made it's decision, trying to qualify it or weaken it would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to WP:FRINGE ideas. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Punt! A Plan "C" proposal

First: A disclaimer. I have been sick the last couple of weeks. Was feeling better last 3 or 4 days but this p.m. I spiked a high fever. So if this proposal is hard to understand...

Let's invite Drmies to review the discussions: How to fix this sentence?, How does "somehow" improve this article?, Second Amendment rights section, self defense section, and Let's get "Prior to Heller".... And then have her edit the section in question? Lightbreather (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• She'll be happy to, but not tonight. Pete Seeger on PBS, and that's mandatory viewing for any American believing in individual as well as collective rights. Also, I'm washing (cotton) diapers and that fills up my quota of chores for the day. :) Drmies (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Cicero and Locke

The paragraph about the opposing views of Cicero and Locke has been removed, which is unfortunate because it tells the reader that this controversy has been going in for ages. The cited source is a book about gun control in the United States. One reviewer wrote:

“ A wonderful introduction to the far-reaching significance of firearms in America. This work is a very good supplement for an Introduction to American Politics class, allowing the instructor to weave a single topic through the many elements covered during such a course. The book helps the reader understand the parameters of the issue, by exploring the current structure of gun control politics and addressing the related conflict over the presentation and interpretation of information related to guns, gun safety, and crime. The author deftly handles a powerful topic, by making sound work accessible to the reader. (John M. Bruce, Dept of Political Science, University of Mississippi) ”

I will re-install the aragraph, and invite discussion here at talk. Why isn't it an excellent paragraph? Here's the paragraph, to begin the section on self defense:

“ The ancient Roman statesman Cicero said that, “if our lives are endangered by…violence or armed robbers or enemies, each and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.”[119] Yet, other great political scientists have disagreed, including John Locke.[119] In the United States, that ancient disagreement is reflected in the positions of the two major opposing interest groups: the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the National Rifle Association.[119] ”

The source is Wilson, Harry. Guns, Gun Control, and Elections: The Politics and Policy of Firearms, pp. 20-21 (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007). Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Since this article is about "Gun politics in the United States", any mention of earlier writers, including Plato, should explain how they relate to the gun politics in the U.S. TFD (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Do you think the second blockquote above explains sufficiently? The idea is that the two sides in the present controversy are each heirs to a very long tradition that pre-dates the USA.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Wilson is saying that the right to bear arms is based on the right to self-defense and that people who do not think it is an individual right do not think that there is an individual right to self-defense. I don't think we need to mention Cicero, just say that the right to bear arms rests on the right to self-defense. The mention of Locke is a problem since Wilson does not source it and Locke actually called the right of self-defense as "part of the law of nature." (Chap. XIX, Sec. 233) I do not think that we need to explain the origins of the right of self-defense in a brief article. Also, since the book is about the current political debate, it is probably not a good source for the history of the right. TFD (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You raise a very good point. Upon doing a bit of looking around, I agree with you that Wilson did not accurately describe Locke's view. Please give me a little while to sort this out. I'm curious if there's someone other than Locke who might really represent an ancient philosophical forerunner to the modern movement that supports giving the state rather than the individual the responsibility of defending lives.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I removed Locke. Thanks for helping with that. I would prefer to leave Cicero in, because we have an unequivocal quote, and I think it's useful to show how ancient the articulated idea of self-defense is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Objections to series of edits by Anything

I'm sick in bed and typing on my phone but I want to record that I object to Anything's series of edits in the past 12 hours.

First, I'd invited Drmies to come and help. Second, the Cicero stuff is back - but not the Locke. "Self-defense" was changed to "individual purposes. A "Blackstone said" statement was added.

2A, self-defense, and fundamental right arguments are repeated throughout the article giving them emphasis. Much of this material reads like an essay. Could someone please revert these changes by Anything? I'd like to give Drmies a chance to handle the mess. Lightbreather (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I've only been superficially watching. I made a fast look through the changes. AnythingYouWant, from a pure process standpoint on a contentious article, IMHO making such a large bundle of changes at once is not a good thing. Can you self revert and split these up/spread them out? In my superficial review, I did note that one glaring problem was fixed. The United States v. Cruikshank quote, taken out of context and with lack of explanation makes it appear to say the reverse of what it was actually saying. And Lightbreather, I have IMMENSE respect for Drmies, including for them being straightforward in saying that their opinions on this set of issues are clearly on one side. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, North. At doc's office, waiting. Would like if someone would please revert the lot to where we were yesterday before I called for help from Drmies. Lightbreather (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Im not sure how the cruikshank quote was out of context. It was very clear about the RTKABA being a preexisting right. The not quoted part did go on to talk about being applied only against the feds, but that is an incorporation issue (resolved by McDonald), and has no effect on the pre-existance or not of the right. I do agree that smaller changes would be better. Although I have not read through the changes super closely (an issue that would be helped by smaller changes) I did not notice anything superbad about the changes. I will read through some more. Blackstone in particular is a highly notable contemporary commentator about English and early american rights, and wrote significantly on the RTKABA. Asking for mass reverts however is just as bad as doing mass changes. Thats what you complained about Sue doing to you. We should not be playing the tit for tat game. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42, I think that you are missing my point on Cruikshank because you are viewing it as someone who already has a thorough understanding. A typical reader will read it in reverse, as a statement that the 2A does not protect a right to bear arms. North8000 (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

NOT tit for tat. I announced that I was sick and proposed bringing in Drmies to settle this 20+ days "discussion" about this material. Then a series of substantial edits were made on the material in question: fundamental right, 2A, and self defense. Lightbreather (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that some find recent edits objectionable. Part of my intent was to comply with LB's earlier request to move stuff to the 2d Amdt. subsection from the Self-defense subsection. That didn't leave much in the self-defense subsection, so I beefed it up with some history, plus a statement that self-defense was somewhat protected by recent SCOTUS decisions. The latter point seemed somewhat redundant to mentions of self-defense in the 2d Amdt. subsection so I generalized the latter to say "individual purposes" per lots of reliable sources. Anyway, I made my edits in small increments, so particular ones can be easily discussed, et cetera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, if we're having to "beef up" sections, they ought to be part of another section? Self defense, as far as Cicero goes, is not about Gun politics in the United States. It's about the related subject of self defense (which by the way, never mentions Cicero). Nor is this article about tyrants (which by the way, never mentions Hitler). If these things are related to Gun politics in the U.S., then there should be brief statements to that effect, with links to the related articles.

I think a review of this article would show that the same gun rights arguments are repeated over and over from section to section, and the gun control arguments are minimalized where they're mentioned in the top half of the article, and over "balanced" by gun rights arguments where they appear in the bottom half. Lightbreather (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Cicero is definitely about gun rights in the United States. See the cited source. We ought not present this stuff in a vacuum, and some historical background is essential. My goal in the "rights" section" is to separate things into the subsections so they are not repeated over and over.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Cicero, LB said above: "The first part of the Self-defense section, that begins 'The ancient Roman statesman Cicero,' belongs under Fundamental right." I don't think that's correct. Cicero did not mention anything about guns, but rather was speaking more broadly about self-defense in general. The stuff in the fundamental rights subsection is specifically about the RKBA, and only covers specific statements that such right is "fundamental". Cicero did not say anything about arms, or anything about "fundamental", nor did the cited source infer anything about "fundamental" from what Cicero said.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

cruikshank

Its a pretty tortured reading to get there especially considering the latter half of the quote, (nor is it in any manner dependent)(I am aware of gun control proponents using the first half of the quote out of context as an argument) - but if you think there is a concern there, surly we could address that via some prose to give some context to the meaning of the quote? I think its important to show that the pre-existing right is not something that Heller just made up (those damn right wingers!), but that it was the constitutionally accepted viewpoint for 100+ years at least.

Here are a few sources we could use to source the interpretive prose to prevent any WP:OR issues (various levels of reliability, but some are easily WP:RS).

• (Heller) explicitly explaining Cruickshank
• http://books.google.com/books?id=SFNdYJyfIqkC&pg=PR27&dq=cruikshank+pre-existing+right&hl=en&sa=X&ei=38TrUsijA8-QyQGJ54HADg&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=pre-existing%20right&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?id=DDgqDsg4EkYC&pg=PA145&dq=cruikshank+pre-existing+right&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_8jrUvayFomEygHCtYHwCQ&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=cruikshank%20pre-existing%20right&f=false
• (biased? (but correct in light of Heller and other sources)) http://books.google.com/books?id=8lXUasdMoAAC&pg=PA134&dq=cruikshank+pre-existing+right&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_8jrUvayFomEygHCtYHwCQ&ved=0CEUQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=cruikshank%20pre-existing%20right&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?id=QeGJH48PT0kC&pg=PT54&dq=cruikshank+pre-existing+right&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_8jrUvayFomEygHCtYHwCQ&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=cruikshank%20pre-existing%20right&f=false
• http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndcourt/supreme/14sup.htm
• http://www.scotusblog.com/2008/06/heller-discussion-board-miller-colt-45s-and-natural-law/#more-7597

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Instead of quoting Cruikshank directly, I would support referencing it via Heller: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right....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.” That would be a nice way to beef up the fundamental rights subsection. I don't like quoting Cruikshank directly because its meaning is disputed, it's somewhat obsolete, et cetera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Im ok with this, but I want to avoid overreliance on Heller to show the continuity of precedent/understanding - since the critics of heller claim Scalia pulled it out his ass. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's an interesting quote from Madison (1788): "What use then it may be asked can a bill of rights serve popular Governments?....The political truths declared in that solemn manner acquire by degrees the character of fundamental maxims of free Government, and as they become incorporated with the national sentiment, counteract the impulses of interest and passion."Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Nazi removal

LB, would you like me to add you to the arbcom as an involved party? You seem to be very determined to thrust yourself into this debate. Even among those who were !voting oppose in the gun control article, there was wide commentary that this argument is notable within the united states. What is your reason for removal from this article? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)