Talk:Gun politics in the United States/Archive 3

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [1]
• Here is the edit that added the McDonald statement (sourced) [2]
• Here is the edit I made in cooperation with Gaijin for the "Prior to Heller" sentence in the Second Amendment rights section [3]
• Here is the edit where I capitalized "Evolution" in the subtitle of Halbrook's That Every Man Be Armed [4]
• Here is the edit where I added a "split" proposal notice. [5]

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

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:51, 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 [6]. It was added into THAT article in 2008, by Icammd [7] 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)

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 [8] 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 [9] (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)

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 [10]

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? —Orphan text part of Gaijin42 (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC) edit

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)

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)

new gallup poll

http://www.gallup.com/poll/167135/americans-dissatisfaction-gun-laws-highest-2001.aspx

The two major points - note the increase in those dissatisfied with current gun laws since 2012, and then the lines breaking down why they are dissatisfied (5%-> 16% since 2013 wanting less strict) (although 31% (down from 38%) still want more strict, but the trend change is very interesting)

The "Implications" section from the poll by Gallup "Americans have become more dissatisfied with gun laws over the past year, but this is attributable to a greater percentage who say gun laws are too strict, rather than not being strict enough. Americans' changing views could set the course for future gun law debates and legislation.". New poll result, so not widely covered in secondary sources yet. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Secondaries

• http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/31/gun-laws-under-fire-majority-americans-condemn-2nd/
• http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/01/31/poll-more-americans-want-less-strict-gun-control-laws-n1787727
• http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/197061-dissatisfaction-with-guns-reaches-highest-since-2001
• http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/percentage-of-americans-wanting-looser-gun-laws-triples-in-2014-20140130

Gaijin42 (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Heller/Mcdonald sections

As my revert summary stated, Heller and McDonald are the most important rulings on the topic of gun politics in the US, and it is not suprising they are discussed in multiple places. They deserve their own section with a WP:SUMMARY of the rulings and dissents, and where those rulings are directly applicable to answering part of the historical or ongoing debates, they will obviously be relevant there. WP:BRD You were bold. I reverted. Lets discuss. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's identify all the places where Heller and McDonald are referenced by more than a sentence or two, and figure out how to order the material so that there's not the need to keep reiterating what's already been said. For example, the last sentence of the Jacksonian era section says:

"A debate about how to interpret the Second Amendment evolved through the decades and remained unresolved until the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller U.S. Supreme Court decision."

That's appropriately succinct for this point in the article, but the 21st century section goes into detail on Heller, the Fundamental right section goes over Heller and McDonald, ditto for the Second Amendment rights section and the Self defense section. Then, we have separate sections on Heller and McDonald. That is why I think we should cover Fundamental, Second Amendment, and self defense rights all in one section. They all use 2A Heller and McDonald for arguments, and covering them in separate sections gives each undue weight. Lightbreather (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Check it out: Here is a link to the article before Political arguments of gun politics in the United States was merged into it on Jan. 3.

Before the merge it had three explicit references to Heller: in the Jacksonian era section (1X), in the 21st century section (1X), and in the D.C. v. Heller section (1X). (Also, NO mention of Nazis in the body of the text, though twice in the references.)

After the merge it had references six times: the 3X above, plus 3X in The Second Amendment argument subsection of the Political arguments section. (Also, still NO mention of Nazis, except for the couple in the references.)

Now, it has 10 references to Heller scattered among four sections - including three subsections of the Political arguments section. (Plus, seven mentions of Nazis in the body of the article, and six Nazi references.) Lightbreather (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The topics are certainly interrelated particularly fundamental rights and self defense rights. I could see argument for merging those two sections, but it is important to separate the 2A. The Court and history are quite clear that there are in fact no rights granted by the second amendment, there is just second amendment protection of rights that are either fundamental, or pre-existing common law, etc. (Although we can certainly include dissent/criticism of that POV.

I could see trimming some of the 21st century content, particularly the quote from Scalia as content that can be better handled in the dedicated Heller section but Heller does need some mention here giving at least the core holdings. The emerson and parker bits are probably not needed at this location either. Lets see what others think. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Heller is a core point in the Gun Control debate, and it actually surprises me that it isn't mentioned more than it is. Heller is big. Heller is important. It should be expected to dominate the article somewhat. Removing important references to Heller would amount to a serious watering down of the article. This doesn't mean that some of it can't be trimmed away, but we should not be surprised to find that Heller is sprinkled all throughout the article and gun control debate in general. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

My proposal is to put fundamental right and self-defense under the 2A section. Just work them into the existing text. If we're having to quote Cicero to make an argument for fundamental right, we're stretching. Same for the self-defense stuff. It's enough to say that some founders (we could name the key proponents) believed the right to individual self-defense is a fundamental right, and that some groups (we could name key groups) agree with that today. Lightbreather (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to address the comments by Drmies, and will do so today. Then I hope we can come back to LB's proposal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

blackstone

This section from the William Blackstone article may have some content/sources for noting the relevance of the blackstone quote. I have not dug into the sources deeply to see if they specifically discuss the 2A or not, or just the general influence.

The Commentaries had a particular influence in the United States; James Iredell, an original Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States wrote that the Commentaries were "Books admirably calculated for a young Student, and indeed may instruct the most learned . . Pleasure and Instruction go hand in hand". When the Commentaries were first printed in North America, 1,400 copies were ordered for Philadelphia alone. Academics have also noted the early reliance of the Supreme Court on the Commentaries, probably due to a lack of US legal tradition at that time. Robert Ferguson notes that "all our formative documents — the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the seminal decisions of the Supreme Court under John Marshall — were drafted by attorneys steeped in Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. So much was this the case that the Commentaries rank second only to the Bible as a literary and intellectual influence on the history of American institutions". Even today, the Commentaries are cited in Supreme Court decisions between 10 and 12 times a year.

Within United States academia and practise, as well as within the judiciary, the Commentaries had a substantial impact; with the scarcity of law books on the frontier, they were "both the only law school and the only law library most American lawyers used to practise law in America for nearly a century after they were published". Blackstone had drawn up a plan for a dedicated School of Law, and submitted it to the University of Oxford; when the idea was rejected he included it in the Commentaries. It is from this plan that the modern system of American law schools comes. Subscribers to the first edition of Blackstone, and later readers who were profoundly influenced by it, include James Iredell, John Marshall, James Wilson, John Jay, John Adams, James Kent and Abraham Lincoln.

In the early 1920s the American Bar Association presented a statue of Blackstone to the English Bar Association, however, at the time, the sculpture was too tall to be placed in the Royal Courts of Justice. The sculpture, designed by Paul Wayland Bartlett was eventually cast in Europe and presented back to the United States for display. Congress approved the placement of the sculpture in Washington, D.C. on 15 March 1943, and appropriated $10,000 for the installation. The bronze statue is a nine-foot (2.7 m) standing portrait of Blackstone wearing judicial robes and a long curly wig, holding a copy of Commentaries. It is placed on a tall granite base and stands on Constitution Avenue & 3rd Street NW.

References

A few additional sources

• (Heller quotes)
• http://books.google.com/books?id=SFNdYJyfIqkC&pg=PA388&dq=blackstone+second+amendment&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sivsUrDaE9DQkQeMhYGAAw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=blackstone%20second%20amendment&f=false
• Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 83-109 (1982) [11]
• (pro control pre-heller) http://books.google.com/books?id=DOWl9hajARgC&pg=PA380&dq=blackstone+second+amendment&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CizsUq67NcK2kQfDlYDwDw&ved=0CDsQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=blackstone%20&f=false

Gaijin42 (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I hope that this edit will be sufficient to establish relevancy, but if not then the further sources could be used. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:38, 1 February 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)

• I'm not entirely sure which edit(s) is (are) deemed problematical. I'm going through the history, picking them up one at a time.
  • I agree with this edit: it's overly detailed for the lead, and citing one recent poll (even if that poll is deemed reliable) is too recentist for my taste.
  • I do not agree with this one, on Cicero (I know that there's discussion about it, but I can't look at everything at the same time--the section may be very different now); if this is to be made relevant, it should argue something like "US gun advocates [or opponents, or whatever] claim ancient precedent for their views". That is, we could cite Important Person X citing Cicero (Machiavelli, Virgil, etc), but citing them directly is OR in that it suggests that their words are directly relevant to the US. I know we like to think of ourselves as the descendants and heirs of Aeneas and Ceasar, but we shouldn't. Anythingyouwant, if "The source says it's relevant, and Cicero balances Locke", then our section should at least indicate how the source says it's relevant. A question of writing.
    • For the same reasons, the paragraphs on Plato and Aristotle need to go. They have no direct bearing on the US situation. Halbrook, note 15, may say so, but this would a. require a more neutral source, from a certified historian, and b., such statements would need to be encapsulated in the way that Cicero ought to be. The article is long enough: cut.
  • Something like this edit isn't really OK either, for similar reasons; if this paragraph were flipped around, and if it were proven and clear that Tucker's views on self-defense have a direct bearing on gun politics, that's a different matter. I don't doubt that Dizard (the source for the Blackstone quote) can make that happen, but as it is, a scholar who lived in another country and who died before the Second Amendment was adopted is not relevant.
  • These edits ("Fundamental right") look fine to me--provided that the sources bear it out of course.
  • This removal is a good editorial choice, in my opinion: whatever is said in it may well be correct, but the source cannot be assumed to give more than an opinion, even if it is one based on some expertise and practical knowledge. As an opinion ("The Law Center anticipates a substantial increase...etc"), then, it may well be valid, but whether that's worth including in this already fat article is another matter: there are lots and lots of opinions, and editorial choices should be made based on the weight and importance of the sources and what it contributes to the article. For instance, the reference is two years old, and more valuable would be a neutral assessment about whether that Law Center's predictions have come true--but again, that also doesn't necessarily mean it should be included. The article is about gun politics, not about every single legal effect of one ruling or another.
  • This edit is seriously problematic. Sure, all those references need to verify is that "there was a debate surrounding the question of whether or not the Second Amendment included an individual right", and references don't have to be neutral to verify that. But look who's cited: pro-gun activists such as David T. Hardy, Alan Gottlieb, and of course Stephen Halbrook. Ronald Gottesman's book is probably (judging from who the author is, the publisher, etc.) neutral enough, but one wonders why three pro-gun activists have to be cited (and not their opponents) when one decent newspaper article or scholarly essay will do: Gottesman, from the citations of the book I just saw in JSTOR, is reliable though I can't verify whether it sufficiently supports the statement in the article. One could easily argue that these citations lend credibility to non-neutral sources, and at any rate they're not necessary--find a better source to verify the simple and neutral statement, preferably one that's available online so there can be no dispute.
• OK, that's it for now: life is short. If there are any particular edits deemed problematic, or passages, please let me now. I don't know if this was of any use, but thank you all for allowing me to opine. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies, I'll address those points shortly (e.g. by improving or deleting or whatever).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies. Lightbreather (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding the mention of Cicero in the section about self-defense, I've revised it like this:

“ It is often pointed out that the current American discussion about a right to keep and bear arms extends back as far as the ancient Roman statesman Cicero,[1][2] who said this about the right of self-defense: “if our lives are endangered by…violence or armed robbers or enemies, each and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.”[2] ”

[1] “Gun Control". Current Issues: Macmillan Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Opposing Viewpoints in Context (Retrieved January 31, 2014).

[2] Wilson, Harry. Guns, Gun Control, and Elections: The Politics and Policy of Firearms, pp. 20-21 (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007).

I'll be addressing Drmies further comments ASAP today.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• I have no objection to deleting the paragraph following the words "described as far back as Plato and Aristotle". I didn't put that paragarph in, and it does seem excessive. But, I would keep the words I just quoted: "described as far back as Plato and Aristotle".Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Regarding Blackstone, I have inserted this phrase: "who heavily influenced the drafters of the U.S. Constitution". The ref at the end is: "Bartholomees, J. The U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Issues: National security policy and strategy, p. 267 (Strategic Studies Institute, 2010)."Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Regarding Tucker, I have added a sentence: "Beginning in the late twentieth-century, legal scholars have expressed renewed interest in Tucker's increasingly influential perspective." The footnote at the end was already in the paragraph: Vile, John. Great American Judges: An Encyclopedia, Volume 1, p. 766 (ABC-CLIO, 2003).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• I think that covers all the edits that I made recently, but I always welcome further criticism from Drmies, LB, Gaijin, Jimbo, and John Boy.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't hate me, Anything, but see my recent edits, two of which involve a certain amount of boldness: I trimmed for a couple of reasons. a. I'm not sure that such detail on Plato etc is even necessary. b. I think that to establish that the attitudes of (early) Americans (were) are formed in (large) part by the thoughts of Rome and Greece requires a much better source than Halbrook, no disrespect intended. If better sourcing is available for such attitudes then sure, but I am afraid that I can't take his word for such a broad and important set of statements about both US and classical history. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, I haven't ever edited that section of the article, as best I recall. You will have to start changing my handiwork before I can even consider disliking you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, let's get busy then. The two sources you cite above, the "Opposing Viewpoints" and the book by Harry Wilson (research author), cannot verify "the modern American discussion about a right to keep and bear arms extends back as far as the ancient Roman statesman Cicero". OV (a source that should be treated as less reliable than published books and peer-reviewed articles) says that Cicero said that possession of arms is fine and important, but does not connect that to the US--it's a general introduction to the topic of arms in relation to civil government. Wilson says the same thing, though with the extended quote. Point is, neither of them say "and this is in part where the Americans got their attitude from". So I'm sorry, but those sentences, that introduction, needs to go--unless you phrase it more or less like those two sources did, but that turns it pretty much into filler that doesn't pertain to this topic, filler that can easily be seen as an attempt at synthesis. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• I believe OV says that the Federalist Papers "echoed" Cicero. But give me a few minutes and I'll see about getting more sources. America didn't just spring up in a vacuum, and I think (as the cited authors do) that a little historical context is helpful, no? And the fact seems unequivocally true that Cicero is often mentioned in scholarly discussions about guns in America.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Similar sentiments were echoed in the Federalist Papers". So, "similar"--not, "the ideas of Cicero and Locke and Rousseau". It's in this way that these three big shots serve in that OV as an introduction to the topic, a kind of contextualization. Those OV series are written for freshman and sophomore college students, to help them set up the old comparison and contrast paper. (And it's precisely what I think is wrong with both US politics and education, that there's always an opposing viewpoint, and that there can be only two viewpoints--but that's another matter.) Drmies (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to give readers full historical context, but telling them briefly that such ancient context exists is very common in reliable sources covering US gun issues. Please tell me if this might do the trick:

“ As has often been pointed out in descriptions of the American gun controversy, that controversy exists in a historical context stretching back at least as far as the ancient Roman statesman Cicero,[1][2][3] who is often quoted as saying the following about the right of self-defense: “if our lives are endangered by…violence or armed robbers or enemies, each and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.”[1][4][5] ”

[1]Wilson, Harry. Guns, Gun Control, and Elections: The Politics and Policy of Firearms, pp. 20-21 (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007).

[2]”Gun Control". Current Issues: Macmillan Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Opposing Viewpoints in Context (Retrieved January 31, 2014).

[3]Rider, Charles. The Right Wing: The Good, the Bad, and the Crazy, p. 128 (Xlibris Corporation 2013).

[4]Sank, Diane and Caplan, David. To be a victim: encounters with crime and injustice, p. 361 (Plenum Press, 1991).

[5]Kruschke, Earl. Gun Control: A Reference Handbook, p. 9 (Abc-Clio Incorporated, 1995).

Howzabouthat?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, are you looking to verify that controversy existed way back then? Because the two sources you cited earlier don't confirm that--you just have the bare-bones statement that Cicero though owning guns was good, or words to that effect, with no connection to the US other than that the statement is placed in a discussion on US gun politics. (I doubt that there was controversy over ownership of weapons in Cicero's time.) And historical context is fine, but it has to be to the point, and ours here must be very specific. But really, ask yourself--why do we need Cicero? Plato? It is yet to be proven that their ideas on weapons or otherwise were somehow important in this colony and then republic. Why not save yourself all this work and just get to the point? "Early American colonists saw themselves as freemen, and following an English tradition they firmly believed this entailed the right to own guns. Life on the frontier and frequently the necessity of hunting added considerably to the ubiquity of guns, which were, for many colonists and later for many Americans, an integral part of life". Isn't that correct, easily sourced, and sufficient? Drmies (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The subsection here in the Wikipedia article is specifically about self-defense, and that's what this common Cicero quote is about. It's not to show that there was any controversy back then about what Cicero said. Do we need to mention every old fart who ever said anything on this subject? No. The only pre-Colombian fart who I've quoted in this Wikipedia article is Cicero, and only because he's very often mentioned nowadays in this context.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Tell ya what I'm gonna do. Let me nose around to figure out which pre-Colombian human being was the most prominent supporter of self-defense to actually directly influence Americans. Maybe it was Cicero, maybe not. This will take me a little while.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

classical greece & rome

Drmies do these suffice?

• http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=31194 (note the publication and peer review)
• http://www.historytoday.com/stuart-andrews/classicism-and-american-revolution
• http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3291341?uid=3739976&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103328605931
• http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/1285

quite a few more out there. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• http://www.gvpt.umd.edu/lpbr/subpages/reviews/bederman1108.htm
• (not itself a reliable source, but plenty of nifty quotes and sources to follow up on ) http://www.agathe.gr/democracy/democracy_from_the_past_to_the_future.html
• http://books.google.com/books?id=p6-tKuFD1KsC&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=american+revolution+classical+greece&source=bl&ots=LUoGz-p34a&sig=58xIqe4oAN2MFfBP1Ez_OrsZJPw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QmHsUt7xJ4TMsQTixYHIBw&ved=0CCYQ6AEwADgo#v=onepage&q=american%20revolution%20classical%20greece&f=false

Gaijin42 (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Gaijin, I'm sorry, but seriously? No one disputes the enormous influence that Rome and Greece had on early America--it's all over academia and literature (surely someone in this room has read the first chapters of Charles Brockden Brown's Wieland?). That's what in those references. I have JSTOR and read the third article, not just the first page. There's nothing in there about guns, and that's the issue. Halbrook argues that the Romans and Greeks had thoughts about weapons, and that the US borrowed those--but those texts, and many others, discuss such things as the influence of Cincinnatus, of gentleman farming, of Cicero's oratory, of Greek colonization policy, of Roman naval skills, of raising and training armies, of polity, democracy, education--not guns. Again, this is not something we can take Halbrook's word for. I mean, how can Aristotle advocate a well-armed middle class in a world that didn't have a middle class? Drmies (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oh, the closest you can get, as far as I know, is this book, which states that--well, you can read it for yourself, "Perhaps the strongest argument". But even there it's clear that the right to bear arms is derived from classical ideas of 'personal right and communal responsibility' in early America--not that classical ideas of ownership of arms were transported to America. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

We know little about why the Founding Fathers put in the Second Amendment. But it is more likely that they were protecting a right they enjoyed rather than a right enjoyed by Greeks and Romans. In D.C. v. Heller, Scalia said we should look at the law as it stood pre-1789 to understand what right they were protecting. TFD (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

TFD, even if that is so, there is continual debate inside and outside of state legislatures about whether to enact this or that gun-related law, and a frequent argument is about whether such law would violate basic ancient principles of western civilization, regardless of whether such law would be constitutional.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that is part of the argument. Halbrook for example claims that the right originated among Germanic tribes and was brought to England, hence it is part of the common law tradition, rather than a legacy of the Greeks and Romans. But I don't think most gun enthusiasts go back before the second amendment, and seem to ignore that the right existed in colonial times. TFD (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That's probably true of "gun enthusiasts" generally, but maybe not true of the subset that writes books, testifies to legislatures, and publishes articles. They often mention how very old the right's roots are, e.g. to enhance its prestige and scare off people who would tamper with it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

While some of them may mention the Greeks and Romans, they do not say that is how the right came to America. It was not a matter of the Founding Fathers reading the classics and deciding that the U.S. should have those rights. Rather, Halbrook et al. claimed that the right to keep and bear arms was part of the common law, which developed totally separately from Roman civil law. So they were defending an existing right. TFD (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That is mostly correct. But gun activists make a lot of arguments unrelated to how the right came to America. They argue, for example, about whether magazine size should be limited and whether bullets should have unique identifiers, but obviously we shouldn't categorically exclude such arguments from this article merely because they're unrelated to how the right came to America, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit Avalanches

Can people please stop doing this? It makes it nearly impossible to work. It forces people to either A.) Give up editing, B.)Risk 3RR, or C.) Make one huge edit that could revert the gnome edits by accident. Sprinkling in gnome edits with controversial edits is a terrible tactic anyway. PLEASE STOP both of you. (And anyone else who plans to start) Slow Down...or I will request an article lock. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Bold editing by collaborative editors is no basis for page protection. 172.129.246.164 (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

True but WP:DISRUPTive editing certainly is. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:23, 1 February 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)

And you ignored the results of your own split proposal that indicated inclusion in this article. Talk:Gun_politics_in_the_United_States#Split_proposal Gaijin42 (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

RE that (Gun control article) dispute: I voted that I was opposed to including Nazi material there. I am also opposed to including it here, and that is a separate dispute. The split proposal was whether or not the material should be split into its own article, because the material causes editorial disputes wherever it is put. (As it has on the Gun control page.) Many of the comments with the votes were "Let's wait for ArbCom results." OK. What I'm proposing here is removing results here until the related dispute is settled. (I have also made an edit request on that page to remove the material from that article until ArbCom is over.)

Anything's revert had the edit summary, "Restoring pertinent material that has been in the article for weeks. See talk, where consensus (from Drmies & others) was to keep." Which talk are you referring to? If it's the split proposal, again, if a vote was "Oppose" or "Let's wait for the ArbCom ruling," that's not the same as saying the material should stay, or commenting on whether or not it was moved into this article without consensus.

As for Drmies, if you're referring to her vote on the split, her "Oppose" was accompanied by the comment: 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.' We can ask her to clarify, but, regardless, the addition of this material - not a brief statement, but four paragraphs - came during the middle of the argument on the Gun control page and, most importantly, was not properly discussed. Lightbreather (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'll say again, if it needs saying, that we have Gun_legislation_in_Germany#The_1938_German_Weapons_Act. If 1938 is to be brought up in here it should be done only insofar as it is used as a rhetorical tool in the gun debate. That it is brought up as such is indisputable, as far as I'm concerned, but it should be handled in a way that makes it clear that it's a rhetorical tool. We've had this out elsewhere, and from what I remember it was clear in that discussion that it could not be proven that Hitler's laws had a direct bearing on US laws. And I say this not having seen yet what is currently in this article. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Drmies clarification : The "effect on US laws" I said above is different than the GCA'68 issue you were involved in before - the intended meaning above is that the meme itself has been brought up in gun control debates and therefore had an effect on gun laws (IE, not that US gun laws involved translation of nazi gun laws, but that the godwin argument itself was influential in the gun laws). Gaijin42 (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Right. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I can't really see whether there's four paragraphs dedicated to it--"Security against tyranny and invasion" is, frankly, a disorganized mess. After Harcourt we jump back to the Declaration of Independence, then Lincoln, then Jefferson? That whole section reads like a high-schooler needed to unload some primary quotes. Sorry if I offended one editor or another, but it's not good writing, and I say that as a teacher of composition... The "Historians have tended" section isn't clear as well, in part because "such arguments" has an unclear antecedent, probably because of the "however" that intervenes. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the antecedence problem just now. Earlier today, I put the Jefferson quote into a footnote since it was out of chronological order (I don't know who inserted it in the first place).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, three. These paragraphs (under Security against tyranny):

Such arguments often mention the Nazi government as a type of tyranny that purportedly could have been inhibited by an armed population, and may rely upon a counterfactual history in which the Nazis did not disarm groups like the German Jews and instead had to cope with gun-owning population they were trying to suppress. However, the anti-tyranny argument pre-dates the Nazis, extending back centuries in the United States to colonial days; even earlier in Great Britain, one finds the check-against-tyranny argument for gun rights. Historians have tended to not address such arguments, according to Robert J. Cottrol:

Could the overstretched Nazi war machine have murdered 11 million armed and resisting Europeans while also taking on the Soviet and Anglo-American armies? Could 50,000-70,000 Khmer Rouge have butchered 2-3 million armed Cambodians? These questions bear repeating. The answers are by no means clear, but it is unconscionable they are not being asked.

. . .

In response to arguments that German gun control laws were an enabling factor in The Holocaust, that prevented Jews and other victims from implementing an effective resistance, writers such as Bernard Harcourt agree that gun laws and regulations were used in the genocide of the Jews, but argue that the prior levels of gun ownership were not high enough to enable significant resistance, and that confiscation was a minor and incidental piece of the actions perpetrated by the Nazis. Gun control activists further argue that the use of Nazi allusions by gun rights activists is meant to raise undue fear about modern disarmament and "throw a scare into gun owners in order to rally them to the side of the NRA", and that use of the Holocaust in these arguments is offensive to the victims of the Nazis.

References

Also, check it out: Here is a link to the article before Political arguments of gun politics in the United States was merged into it on Jan. 3.

Before the merge it had NO mention of Nazis in the body of the text, though twice in the references.

After the merge it still had NO mention of Nazis, except for the couple in the references.

Now, it has seven mentions of Nazis in the body of the article, and six Nazi references. Lightbreather (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI, I don't claim sole authorship of the security against tyranny section. My intent was to improve that stuff, not make it FA quality. A lot of it was in the article (or an article that was merged into this one) before I ever arrived.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see Nazi additions below. Lightbreather (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Gun cultures in the USA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

NULL. Merge was pre-empted by unilateral action of editors moving "gun culture" type material out of this article, as well as the Gun cultures in the USA article, into Global gun cultures, which passed Articles for Deletion with No consensus to delete. Further concerns about the other two articles should be taken up on their talk pages. —172.162.77.52 (talk)

---

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)
• Support. 172's arguments would be valid if there were actual content in the article: there isn't. This is not an AfD discussion: we are not here to discuss deletion of a possibly viable subject, we're here to discuss merging a possibly valid (that's my take) but currently woefully underdeveloped article (whose content can always be unmerged). If this were a half-way decent article it would not just rehash what a 1970 article said, but rather outline and discuss the different gun cultures we have in the US (Western frontier culture, Southern whatever culture, automatic weaponry gang culture, got the 9 in the small of my back culture, etc), if indeed we have such a multiplicity of cultures that the plural is warranted. For now, this is next to nothing and deserves to be merged. Given the ArbCom case and given the many discussions in and on the many different articles, it is a good idea for all involved to consolidate rather than spread our attention. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Drmies. Seems like such a small article as that one can be put into this one, without a burp. However, I would like people to also consider what may well be the best solution, which is putting that stuff into Culture_of_the_United_States#Gun_culture.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:30, 2 February 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hey

If a few more people weigh in at the section "Proposed merge with Gun cultures in the USA", above, maybe that can be put to rest and the tag removed. It's a small thing, but we have too many irons in the fire here. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Related to this notice, I have copied the purely cultural parts - not the politcal parts - of the Gun culture part of this long, political article into the U.S. section of Global gun cultures. I believe removing those purely cultural parts from this article, with the exception of a summary of American gun culture, would better leave the focus of this article on politics. Lightbreather (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I boldly edited those purely cultural parts - Calamity Jane, Buffalo Bill, movies - out of this article and left a summary and purely polutical material behind. Lightbreather (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I weighed in. But I'm a lightweight. That's a good one, LB ("polutical").  :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw "polutical" after I saved it, and editing on my "smart" phone is problematic, so I let it sit. I figured everyone would understand what I meant, but it is pretty funny. Lightbreather (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hahahahahahaha. "Polutical" works for me! --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Nazi additions

Note: Dispute has been put before WP:3O. Lightbreather (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant and anyone else who's interested.

I'm not pulling this out of thin air. While the Nazi edit warring was raging on the Gun control page, beginning with RfC of 16 DEC 2013, leading to that page getting edit protected on 3 JAN 2014, and to the opening of an ArbCom on 5 JAN 2014, the disputed material was added to this page without consensus.

FACT 1. This is a link to this page on 31 DEC 2013. Mentions of Nazis? Nowhere in the text of the article, but twice in one reference in the Political arguments section.

Although gun rights supporters promote firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities, a further (and sometimes greater) motivation is fear of tyranny. The latter concern has found expression not just in the United States, but internationally (e.g. in Brazil and Australia). Such arguments often mention German oppression during World War II as a type of tyranny to be inhibited, but the anti-tyranny argument has much older roots, dating back centuries in the United States to colonial days, and even earlier in Great Britain one finds the check-against-tyranny argument.

FACT 2. On 22:33, 3 JAN 2014, it was expanded to this:

Although gun rights supporters promote firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities, a further (and sometimes greater) motivation is fear of tyranny. The latter concern has found expression not just in the United States, but internationally (e.g. in Brazil, Australia, and Canada). Such arguments often mention German oppression during World War II as a type of tyranny to be inhibited, but the anti-tyranny argument has much older roots, dating back centuries in the United States to colonial days, and even earlier in Great Britain one finds the check-against-tyranny argument.

FACT 3. At 22:50, 3 JAN 2014, Political arguments of gun politics in the United States was merged into this article.

FACT 4. Political arguments of gun politics in the United States had no mention of Nazis prior to the merge.

FACT 5. As of the last edit on this article at 20:15, 31 JAN 2014, there are seven references to Nazis in the article and numerous additional references:

Such arguments often mention the Nazi government as a type of tyranny that purportedly could have been inhibited by an armed population, and may rely upon a counterfactual history in which the Nazis did not disarm groups like the German Jews and instead had to cope with gun-owning population they were trying to suppress. However, the anti-tyranny argument pre-dates the Nazis, extending back centuries in the United States to colonial days; even earlier in Great Britain, one finds the check-against-tyranny argument for gun rights. Historians have tended to not address such arguments, according to Robert J. Cottrol:

Could the overstretched Nazi war machine have murdered 11 million armed and resisting Europeans while also taking on the Soviet and Anglo-American armies? Could 50,000-70,000 Khmer Rouge have butchered 2-3 million armed Cambodians? These questions bear repeating. The answers are by no means clear, but it is unconscionable they are not being asked.

In response to arguments that German gun control laws were an enabling factor in The Holocaust, that prevented Jews and other victims from implementing an effective resistance, writers such as Bernard Harcourt agree that gun laws and regulations were used in the genocide of the Jews, but argue that the prior levels of gun ownership were not high enough to enable significant resistance, and that confiscation was a minor and incidental piece of the actions perpetrated by the Nazis. Gun control activists further argue that the use of Nazi allusions by gun rights activists is meant to raise undue fear about modern disarmament and "throw a scare into gun owners in order to rally them to the side of the NRA", and that use of the Holocaust in these arguments is offensive to the victims of the Nazis.

References

So who DID add this stuff?

--Lightbreather (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

As you must know, I added much of it, without any objection at the time, as I recall, and it has existed in a fairly stable manner since then. Various discussions have been had about it, without any groundswell to remove it, AFAIK.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Archive 2 shows that I raised objections on Jan. 6 and again on Jan. 8. Both discussions start with "POV shift." You and I had discussions both times. There was no groundswell to keep it. You and Gaijin and Sue Rangell outvoted me. That's not consensus. I asked to have it removed it until the ArbCom about behaviors re: this material on Gun control is concluded and it's been properly discussed here. I'm asking again for you to do that now. Lightbreather (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry LB, but telling me you were out-!voted three to one does not persuade me to adopt your position, which I still don't think conforms with Wikipedia policy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, per WP:CONS, consensus is not a vote. And when it comes to NAZI material - that is being disputed on a related page? And two of the four votes for the material are by parties involved in the Arbcom on that dispute? And one is by an editor who has been warned by an admin to stop calling me an SPA? Would you please remove the material until the ArbCom is over and this has been properly dicussed? Lightbreather (talk) 05:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that most (if not all) of the material was added before the ArbCom case was opened. We should wait and see what happens with that case, IMO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Does doing the merge and adding the Nazi material before the ArbCom was opened make it okay? The merge and the addition of all the Nazi material happened between 15:43, 3 Jan 2014 - when the Gun control page was edit protected - and 11:44, 5 Jan 2014 - when the ArbCom was opened. And my objections were dismissed by three less-than-neutral editors, as I stated before. Lightbreather (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant: Last night, as an effort at compromise, I bold edited to reduce WP:UNDUE weight of disputed Nazi content. You restored it. Therefore, I have added this dispute to WP:3O active disagreements. Lightbreather (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather, make sure to let them know that you are the only one disagreeing. Oh and by the way, If more than two editors are involved, 3O is not appropriate. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Sue, please stand back. This dispute is a very specific one between me and Anything. Lightbreather (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't. I disagree with you too. In fact I am of the opinion that the consensus disagrees with you. You are the only one pushing this. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The 3O request has been removed. If by "this" you mean removal of the Nazi material (that was added to this article between 3 Jan 2014 and 6 Jan 2014) until after ArbCom and a proper discussion, then please provide the DIFFs that show an explicit, clear consensus of disagreement. Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

3O is an inappropriate venue, as there are more than 2 people involved. DR or RFC are the next steps, except there is an ongoing ArbCom already on the topic of the Nazi material. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I agreee it's not appropriate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Consider this paragraph in this Wikipedia article:

“ In response to arguments that German gun control laws were an enabling factor in The Holocaust, that prevented Jews and other victims from implementing an effective resistance,[133][134][135] writers such as Bernard Harcourt agree that gun laws and regulations were used in the genocide of the Jews,[136] but argue that the prior levels of gun ownership were not high enough to enable significant resistance,[137][138] and that confiscation was a minor and incidental piece of the actions perpetrated by the Nazis. Gun control activists further argue that the use of Nazi allusions by gun rights activists is meant to raise undue fear about modern disarmament and "throw a scare into gun owners in order to rally them to the side of the NRA", and that use of the Holocaust in these arguments is offensive to the victims of the Nazis.[139] ”

I am not opposed in principle to moving this out to another Wikipedia article. But which one? Just deleting the material seems contrary to WP:Preserve. Moving it to the main gun control article would have to await the arbcom case. Moving it to a Wikipedia article about Nazis would just incur the wrath of those who have said that this Nazi dispute is US-centric. So maybe it's just best to wait a while. This may turn out to be the least objectionable place for it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

For the time being, I have moved the quoted paragraph down to a note.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

My mentor has asked me to stop editing until she has a chance to review my edits of the last couple of weeks. In honor of that request, I have stopped making substantial edits to articles and limited myself to talk-page comments. So, re: "preserving" the disputed material, WP:PRESERVE says to "Preserve appropriate content." There is debate about whether or not this Nazi stuff is appropriate (part of why the ArbCom was started). WP:PRESERVE also says "preserve any reasonable content on the article's talk page." WP:PRESERVE also says there are "situations when it might be more appropriate to remove information from an article rather than to preserve it." These include contentious material from questionable sources.

I will not make these changes myself because of my promise to my mentor, but I will ask you to please restore the bold edit that I made early Feb. 1 (plus the two related edits I made immediately after here and here) and preserve your other Nazi information sources on this talk page until the ArbCom is decided. Considering the subject matter (Nazis), the situation (at Gun control and on ArbCom), and the advice at WP:PRESERVE just cited, I think that's is a reasonable request. Lightbreather (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Everytime I get into a debate with a gun-toter, they bring up the disarmament of either the Jews or the slaves. They speak of defense against tyranny. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but the fact is that pro-gun people believe it, and that's what matters. That's why I think it belongs in the article. We have to put Wikipedia ahead of our politics, Lightbreather. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Responding to Lightbreather, the material in question is a relatively small part of one subsection about tyranny in this Wikipedia article. As I've said before, I hate Nazis just as much as the next person, and would be delighted to stamp them out, but that is not the same thing as stamping out all discussion of them. Now, most editors here have seemed comfortable with having at least some mention of the Nazis, and I concur. Also, editors elsewhere have suggested that this article mention Nazis. So we mention Nazis. If consensus changes, then I'll be the first one to remove it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Since you've provided a link to a comment by an editor in a discussion on the Gun control talk page, I think she (FiachraByrne) should be made aware of this discussion, which I am doing with this comment. Lightbreather (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I pinged her today at your ArbCom request.[12]Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Puhleeze

This kind of edit is seriously disruptive: Sue_Rangell, you are getting ahead of yourself. Also disruptive is this, the restoration of content much of which has nothing whatsoever to do with "politics" (or "polutics"). It is, of course, the revert of this edit by Lightbreather, whose edit summary makes perfect sense to me. Calamity Jane and the sportsman spirit and the symbol of power and masculinity and Buffalo Bill and James Fenimore Cooper and gangster films--seriously? Sue Rangell, I was hoping that the ArbCom case would inspire editors to improve articles. This is not an improvement, and I offer you the following: I am going to redo Lightbreather's edit, and you may, if you like, tinker with it. I suppose you didn't even notice that this has already been tinkered with, and that various editors have seen the changes--and that you, in your restoration, have duplicated a section I revised a couple of days ago. In other words, it's not just disruptive and unhelpful (in its continued conflation of culture--even popular culture--and politics), it's also poor editing. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• And I'll accept, on good faith, that this reinsertion of cultural information in a political article was not a kind of underhanded attempt to bolster the case for deleting Global gun cultures or for merging Gun cultures in the USA. You said, in the merge discussion, "I never understood the point of the "gun culture" article"--that's not my problem: you're just going to have to try harder to understand the difference between politics and culture, though there may well be overlap. Politics: Harcourt and Plato. Culture: Calamity Jane (Plato, maybe--not proven yet). For example. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought the edits were reasonable because deleting 10k info seems excessive to me. But feel free to do so, and discuss, per BRD. I just saw a huge block of text removed without discussion, so...let's discuss! :) No worries. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I just did. Culture, not politics, besides other things. Indicative of the atmosphere in these articles is this, even though it's a minor point: so some bit of information wasn't in the article--why would that be a "POV correction"? Is everything supposed to be political? (As if the content was deliberately left out?) But I kept Calamity Jane in, as a frontierswoman: it seems clear that "frontier spirit" (something that can be put succinctly, as it is now, in a paragraph or two) was of direct influence in the shaping of gun politics and legislation in the US. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It's all good, either way is fine with me. I was just a bit astonished at the sheer amount of material that was deleted. (moved) that's all. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Preface to Cottrol quote

The preface to the Cottrol quote was problematic, because it left out that he's a historian due to conflict between other editors involving whether we should describe people like Spitzer and Cottrol.[13] So I sort of ignored the problem, but now realize that we can get around the problem by inserting a further footnote (to Harcourt's "Call to Historians"), plus changing the colon to a semicolon. So it now says: "Historians have tended to not address modern anti-tyranny arguments for gun rights;[119] according to Robert J. Cottrol:[120]...." This matter was raised (I think for the first time) at the ArbCom workshop today.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm just following for the time being, but you give no links. A link please to where "this matter" (whatever "this matter" is) is raised at ArbCom? Maybe others know, but I don't. Lightbreather (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

[14]Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. That doesn't help me. I'll wait, and maybe another editor will make clear the connection between that diff and the Cottrol quote. Lightbreather (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It would probably be easiest for us to just edit the article as we normally would, to try to make it NPOV, verifiable, and the rest. My understanding of Harcourt is that he was calling for historians to address the matter because historians were staying away from it, so footnoting Harcourt in this sentence seems apt. And then Cottrol confirms that these questions were not being asked (presumably at least within his profession as a legal historian).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

interesting study

Interesting paper on how support for gun control changes over time, and as a result of shootings. Reason.com provides a handy summary, but if used I would suggest we go straight to the study and skip reason.

• http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/12/why-mass-shootings-havent-ushered-in-a-n
• http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2375010

Gaijin42 (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It is a primary study and therefore not useful to the article. Conceivably someone else could conduct a similar study and come to opposite conclusions. Over time, as scholars weigh the various studies, check their methodologies and attempt to replicate their results, we will be able to assess the degree of acceptance the study has received. I would suggest too that reading the NR and similar publications is really only helpful when working on right-wing ideology in the U.S. rather than general topics on social sciences. TFD (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:SCIRS specifically excludes this type of study, and this article and the main GC article are massively full of primary studies on both sides of the debate. As I stated in my post above, I wasn't suggesting we use reason.com as a source, it was just a summary for those that didn't want to read the study itself. From Scirs : "This page does not address reliability in context of the social sciences, biographical detail, social or political impact or controversy, or related non-scientific issues, even when these are presented in the context of a natural science article" Gaijin42 (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Big CA (9th circuit) ruling for carry

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/13/ninth-circuit-strikes-californias-restrictive-rule-against-licensed-carry-of-handguns/ Gaijin42 (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

News sources and reliable blog posts by recognized legal experts would probably be better sources than the case itself, and in the blog situation we would probably need to give explicit attribution in the main text of the Wikipedia article. Moreover, per WP:Recentism, it might be best to wait and see if this particular holding withstands en banc consideration. Additionally, this info would only be useful in the context of other court decisions regarding the same issue, in other circuits. Thanks for mentioning the case (nothing wrong with that), but I wouldn't insert it into the article just yet.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a number of appeals to go. En banc, SCOTUS. but at this moment 9th circuit law is changed. This makes some information we have in our articles factually incorrect, where we are specifically saying that California requires "good cause" etc. (The various concealed/open carry tables, and prose that goes along with them for example) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way to deal with the factual incorrectness would be ambiguation rather than updating. That is, just removing incorrect info without necessarily including the new info. Though I suppose there's probably a Wikipedia article (not this one) that is so specifically directed to gun cases in the Ninth Circuit, or gun cases about carrying, that a specific update might be apt. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:53, 13 February 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)

Ntngywnt, ncl fnd, bt yr strtchng t. I do agree that we don't need to do prophecies here. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thx mch.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:43, 1 February 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)
• Agree/Support/Split - Nazi gun laws should only be mentioned briefly in this article with a Wikilink to another article that deals with the topic in depth. 174.63.103.38 (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
• Cancel or Re-start – The discussion is stale. It got off track from the get go. A fresh (better worded) proposal would be needed, but seriously, most of the viewpoints expressed above do not seem overwhelmingly enthusiastic. ...172.162.77.52 (talk) 00:42, 16 February 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)

Nazi argument - if any - that belongs in this article

It was said yesterday on the Gun control talk page, "I'm glad that everyone agrees the argument is notable within the US." This was toward the end of another long discussion about Nazi material.

I want to start a discussion here in anticipation of the ArbCom conclusion, and I want to start it by saying that I have seen no agreement on what - if anything - should be said about the Nazi argument in this or any other gun related article. I've seen lots of arguments, lots of suggestions, but no agreement on anything. Lightbreather (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer to wait at least a day or two, given the imminence of the ArbCom conclusion. For now at least, the horse seems dead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Per a request at my user talk page, I'm glad to clarify that the immediately preceding comment was in response to Lightbreather's comment of 15:38, 21 February 2014, and that it refers to anyone who does not want to wait a day or two for the ArbCom decision before re-starting this particular discussion. The link is meant to be lighthearted rather than insulting, and it is often linked during similar Wikipedia discussions.[15]Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've never seen it used in a lighthearted fashion. I am a joker myself, but I've found jokes don't translate well in forums such as these, so I mostly try to keep it professional. And when I do mean for something I say to be lighthearted, I used the good ol' smiley or winky emoticons - just to be sure. :-) Lightbreather (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

That's where WP:AGF comes in.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

May be, but on Feb. 1 I asked you to stop editing and wait for ArbCom results:

Archive 2 shows that I raised objections on Jan. 6 and again on Jan. 8. Both discussions start with "POV shift." You and I had discussions both times. There was no groundswell to keep it. You and **** and **** outvoted me. That's not consensus. I asked to have it removed it until the ArbCom about behaviors re: this material on Gun control is concluded and it's been properly discussed here. I'm asking again for you to do that now. Lightbreather (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Others have advised this, too. Feb. 1 is the last time I edited this article. You've made at least 50 edits since then. Lightbreather (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You just wrote: "You and Gaijin and Sue Rangell outvoted me. That's not consensus." You're correct that consensus does not mean votes, but that 3-1 !vote was backed up by policy arguments, and many other editors have considered the same issue too. You raised this exact question (i.e. whether there was consensus) at ArbCom, so let's let them answer. I don't feel that going through the same process over and over again at this talk page will be helpful, because it will just lead to some editors saying there's consensus and another editor saying there's no consensus. After the ArbCom decision, which seems imminent, then we can take a fresh look at the matter, and maybe use a different process to resolve the matter. There has been peace and quiet here at this talk page for weeks, and I don't see a need to restart now when the decision is imminent. I would add that you have a very good chance to prevail at ArbCom, given that you are not an involved party (and given my own cynicism about that committee).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You wrote, "but that 3-1 !vote was backed up by policy arguments, and many other editors have considered the same issue too."

1. I went back and read the related discussions. I see NO policy arguments. Which discussion and policy arguments are you referring to? I do see a mention of WP:PRESERVE, which is meant to preserve appropriate content, and which gives ways to preserve besides simply keeping (controversial, debated, questionable) material in the article.

2. I agree that others have considered the same issue - and not come to a consensus. I believe that was part of what brought about the ArbCom. Lightbreather (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You're asking me to investigate and provide links to what was said on January 6 and January 8. My response to you is that on those dates only a small part of the discussion took place. It's been going on for many weeks, both here, and at Talk:Gun control, and at ArbCom. I don't see any need for me to provide diffs to you for only those two dates that you have selected, and not for all the others. I already said to ArbCom: "On January 6, 2014 Lightbreather wrote: 'I propose we let this article sit for a week (with the exception of removing material added to the lead) or two while all parties digest how to make this newly merged article NPOV.'[16] At that time, the article contained considerable material about the Nazi argument.[17]" In other words, you asked on January 6 for people to meditate for a week or two, and now you're asking me for diffs from only two particular dates before that period was through.

I would prefer not to argue with you now about whether certain points were previously argued adequately on certain specified dates. You've had ample opportunity to present evidence against me at ArbCom, and I addressed your arguments there as well as I could. Generally speaking, the material in question is sourced to reliable sources, and it is presented in a neutral manner. See WP:NPOV and WP:RS.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

All I'm asking is for others not to say things that aren't backed up by evidence. I looked at all the related discussions - not just Jan. 6 and Jan. 8 - and I don't see evidence of consensus, backed by policy or otherwise, for the material. Again, that's why there's an ArbCom, IMO. As for "sit for a week," that was before I had any experience with ArbCom and how long it can take. ;-) Lightbreather (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

So, in all the discussions thus far about the Nazi material, you see no policies cited for inclusion? That's extremely, extremely incorrect. For example, during your survey regarding splitting off the material, various policies were cited (including explicit wikilinks to WP:SS and WP:POVFORK).[18] You may not think the Nazis were tyrants,[19] or think that other editors have been trying to follow policy, but it's just not true. I have tried very hard to present this sensitive material per WP:NPOV, and have worked very hard to provide reliable sources per WP:RS, including external links in the footnotes for easy verification. In order to address concerns about WP:Undue, I moved a bunch of material from the main text to a note, completely removed reference to JPFO, and have otherwise tried very hard to follow policy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The only reason I brought this up was because you wrote: "You're correct that consensus does not mean votes, but that 3-1 vote was backed up by policy arguments." I saw no consensus backed up by policy arguments. When the Nazi material was added to this article (and Gun control, for that matter) there was no consensus backed up by policy arguments.

Also, please don't misrepresent my opinions about Nazis. In fact, please strike that comment. It was uncivil and uncalled for. Lightbreather (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The section where you say you were outvoted appears to be here. Those who disagreed with you cited policies including WP:REDFLAG, WP:FRINGE, and WP:CRUSH. As for me, I said (in that section) that I did not feel safe conversing with you, because you incorrectly stated that I had introduced the Nazi material using the edit summary "Canada" when in fact there was already Nazi material in the Wikipedia article.

Regarding allegedly misrepresenting your opinion, I initially said: "I'm assuming everyone here agrees that the Nazis were tyrannous." Amazingly, you denied it: "I think that statement oversimplifies 'tyrannous' for this argument, so for this argument I do not agree." Feel free to retract, but I did not misrepresent anything. These quotes are typical of the difficulty of reaching agreement with you about anything here at this talk page, even the most obvious possible historical fact in the universe.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are misrepresenting my opinion. What's more, it is unnecessary for this discussion - so why did you include it, and why are you insisting on including it? There is zero good faith to be gleaned from its mention or inclusion. I am asking you a second time: Please remove it. Lightbreather (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I quoted you verbatim. I mentioned it because it is an amazing thing you said, and is something that I also pointed out to ArbCom explicitly in the evidence I presented. Moreover, it goes to the relevance of including Nazi material in the tyranny section. You disagreed when I said "I'm assuming everyone here agrees that the Nazis were tyrannous." If you would like to continue this discussion at your user talk page or mine, feel free, but I don't think this is a good conversation to continue here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Since you can't seem to imagine a way that you might be misrepresenting me, consider the paragraph before your ridiculous "PS." You wrote:

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....

P.S. I'm assuming everyone here agrees that the Nazis were tyrannous.

You were lumping together general tyranny and what the Nazis did! They're not even comparable! Your "PS" was false logic, and I wasn't agreeing with that. You're suggesting my refusal to agree with your PS BS was something that it is not. Now, I'm asking you a third and final time to remove the Nazi comments you've directed at me and my character. After you've done so, I will remove my objections to them, and my requests to remove them. Lightbreather (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

My PS was emphatically not BS, and no one should disagree (as you did) that the Nazis were tyrannous. Feel free to retract. Anyway, I have other places to be now than this talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI thread

I have restored the comments of mine that Lightbreather has deleted. I also started an ANI thread about it. And once again, I urge Lightbreather to acknowledge that the Nazis were tyrants. This is very relevant to whether they ought to be included in the subsection on tyranny. That they were tyrants seems like a very obvious fact, but I can provide plenty of references if necessary. Just like Stalin and Mao and many others through the ages, Hitler was a mass-murdering tyrant, and I don't see any valid reason to deny that plain fact. I do not think for a moment that Lightbreather has any sympathy for such tyrants, but I do think that characterizing the Nazis as other-than-tyrants is an extremely poor justification for excluding them from the subsection on tyranny.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Since you insist on keeping your misrepresentation of what I said three weeks ago, I am presenting the facts again, here, for the record.

1. In a Split proposal I started here on 29 JAN 2014 you (Anythingyouwant) said: "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....[20] P.S. I'm assuming everyone here agrees that the Nazis were tyrannous."[21] To which I replied: "I think that statement oversimplifies 'tyrannous' for this argument, so for this argument I do not agree." No one else said anything about your comment or about mine.

2. You felt my comment was worth mentioning in the ArbCom about Gun control, where you wrote on 3 FEB 2014, "During the discussion about that split proposal, Lightbreather explicitly disagreed that the Nazis were tyrannous." It was a misrepresentation, but I figured the ArbCom admins would figure that out, so I decided not to make a big deal about.

3. The reason that I started the Nazi-argument-if-any-that-belongs-in-this-article discussion (above) two days ago? Because the preceding day it was said on the Gun control talk page, "I'm glad that everyone agrees the [Nazi material] argument is notable within the US." In reply, in this discussion, you chose to write, "You may not think the Nazis were tyrants," and to link to the diff for my 3-week-old comment in the split discussion. Of course, I asked you to remove the unnecessary and, IMO, misrepresented reference. You refused - three times. Your final comment included this gem: "... no one should disagree (as you did) that the Nazis were tyrannous. Feel free to retract." So I deleted the uncivil portion of your comments myself, per WP:WIAPA and WP:RPA.

4. You started an ANI and accused me of vandalism. What's more, you said that you were "surprised" by my original statement, that it was "weird," and possibly done "to gain advantage in a content dispute." Each time (three times) linking to my 29 JAN comment again - even after three explanations by me and one by an admin, you still didn't seem to get it. So I wrote:

Were the Nazis tyrants? They were sick, twisted mass-murderers, and to lump what they did in with the "general tyranny" (his words, not mine) of King George's taxation without representation or current attempts to pass stronger gun regulations is beyond inappropriate.

Based on the opinion of another editor who is an involved party in the ArbCom, you restored your comments here. I'm not going to remove them again. But I am leaving this detailed reply because I think those comments - not neener-neeners, but Nazi allusions - were unnecessary to the discussion and uncivil.

Finally, in this ANI thread subsection, you write, "Hitler was a mass-murdering tyrant." Bingo. If your original question had been, "PS: I think all here agree that Hitler was a mass-murdering tyrant," that would not have received the reply that your original question did. What the Nazis did was so awful we had to create a new word for it: genocide. We had to convene a world court to try the crazy bastards.

Read the WP article tyrant. Any mention of Hitler or Nazis? How about the WP article Hitler or Nazism. Any mention of tyranny? That's because calling Hitler or Nazis tyrants is like calling Al Capone and the mafia bullies. You just can't put Nazis in the same category as King George or Dianne Feinstein. Lightbreather (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather, I thought User:Beeblebrox had some very good advice about letting this matter rest for a little while.[22] However, I do not want to be seen as disrespectful to you, by not responding to you now. Sad to say, there have been many Genocides in history, long before the Nazis. Are you aware of those tyrants?

I previously said that I assumed everyone agrees that Hitler was a tyrant. You explicitly disagreed. If I misunderstood you, that misunderstanding certainly was not intentional. Your response still dumbfounds me. I do not see any way that a knowledgeable person would disagree in the way that you did, and in the way that you still do. Your more recent comments about it indicate that you are willing to classify Hitler as a “mass-murdering tyrant” but not as simply a “tyrant”. Please correct me if I am wrong. Therefore, in response to that apparent position of yours, I respectfully offer a few reliable sources, and would be happy to offer hundreds more if you would like, to justify including mention of the Nazis in our article section about “tyranny”:

• Pick, Daniel. The Pursuit of the Nazi Mind: Hitler, Hess, and the Analysts (Oxford University Press, 2012): “The question of whether it was better to mollify or confront the Nazi tyrant divided public and parliamentary opinion in European capitals and in Washington.”
• Chirot, Daniel. Modern Tyrants: The Power and Prevalence of Evil in Our Age (Princeton University Press, 1996): “The suffering they imposed is sufficient to make us accept the idea that Hitler and Stalin were tyrants.”
• McKale, Donald. Nazis After Hitler: How Perpetrators of the Holocaust Cheated Justice and Truth (Rowman & Littlefield, 2012): "Hitler's second book, a sequel to Mein Kampf dictated by the tyrant in 1928 but never published by him, revealed the Nazi leader's belief even before he seized power in Germany in 'the necessity of a future major conflict with the United States….'"
• Hershman, D. Jablow. A Brotherhood of Tyrants: Manic Depression and Absolute Power (Prometheus Books, 1994): “Not only is the tyrant the sole significant human being in his mental universe, his is the only will. Speaking to the Nazi Party, Hitler said: ‘Nothing happens in this movement except what I wish’”

Moreover, I would like to respectfully point out to you that there have been many “mass-murdering tyrants” both before and after Hitler. For example, Stalin caused a famine that killed between two and eight million people (1932-1933). The Khmer Rouge (mentioned in this Wikipedia article) killed between one and three million people (1975-1979). There were fewer people in the world, and less technology, before the twentieth century, so the tyrants accomplished less killing. The extermination of the Dzungars resulted in half a million deaths, from 1755 to 1758. The Circassian Genocide caused between 400,000 and 1.5 million deaths from 1817 to 1864. British General Jeffrey Amherst and Colonel Henry Bouquet explicitly advocated using smallpox-infested blankets to kill native Americans at the Siege of Fort Pitt. Alas, I could go on and on.

In summary, I still do not agree with you that mentioning the Nazis in the tyranny section is the least bit inaccurate, inappropriate, or against policy. But ArbCom will weigh in soon, and then perhaps you will be left to edit this article as you wish.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, you "do not want to be seen as disrespectful to [me], by not responding to [me] now"? If this stuff you just wrote was meant to be a sign of respect... well, I disagree, and I'll say no more. Lightbreather (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

LB, Do you realize that you are making a case to have a special section just about the Nazis? I don't think that would be productive. I think it's best to simply give them a mention in a "tyranny" section. Genocide and "ethnic cleansing" have been practiced all throughout history, and sadly, continues to this very day. Hitler was no more evil than Napoleon, Ghengis Khan, Vlad Dracula, or Alexander the so-called great. They all tried to take over the world while bathing in the blood of their victims. Hitler is just the most recent in memory, and even that memory is quickly and sadly slipping into the annals of ancient history. In one or two hundred years Hitler will be remembered as just another in a long list of tyrants. Just my opinion. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Close, Sue. Very close. But based on the dirth of reliable, verifiable, high-quality sources presenting this as a real, significant example of "gun control" as "tyranny," no. My opinion is still what it was when I started the Split proposal as a way to end this edit warring:

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.

There is already a Wikilink to Halbrook's book, Gun Control in the Third Reich. Since he is basically the gun-rights champion who started this theory, perhaps "Gun control in the Third Reich" would be the appropriate (companion) article. (Rather than "Nazi gun laws," as I originally suggested. It would also probably help with Halbrook's book's sales ;-) Lightbreather (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is enough material in the main text of this article about Nazis to justify a separate section, and adding more about them would violate WP:Undue.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The amount in this article is already UNDUE, which is why I proposed a split three weeks ago. (See reply just made to Sue). Lightbreather (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is the relevant material in the main text of the Wikipedia article:

“ Modern proponents of that viewpoint often claim that the Nazi government was a type of tyranny that purportedly could have been inhibited by an armed population (that claim is controversiala[›]), and they often discuss a counterfactual history in which the Nazis did not disarm groups like the German Jews but instead had to cope with gun ownership among suppressed populations.[118][119][120] However, the anti-tyranny argument pre-dates the Nazis....Historians have tended to not address gun regulation under the Nazis, and its significance is disputed;[122] according to Robert J. Cottrol:[123]

Could the overstretched Nazi war machine have murdered 11 million armed and resisting Europeans while also taking on the Soviet and Anglo-American armies?....

”

I don't think this is enough for a separate article, per WP:Summary style. If there were a separate article , this would be a good length for a summary. We've been through this before. Why can't we now enjoy our weekends and await the ArbCom decision? Incidentally, Halbrook didn't start the thing. John Dingell and others were discussing it decades earlier.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You've only included part of the Nazi material you've added to the article - like the undue "international" concerns - not to mention the sources you and others have brought up before claiming that it's notable. It's notable for its own article on a controversial therory. Here? "Some gun rights advocates believe that Nazi gun laws contributed significantly to the Holocaust" - plus a Wikilink. That's all there should be, at most, IMO. Lightbreather (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Where are Nazis mentioned elsewhere in the main text of the article?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I have just shortened the Nazi material further, so this is all there is in the main text:

“ Modern proponents of that viewpoint often claim that the Nazi tyranny could have been inhibited by a more well-armed population (that claim is controversiala[›]), and they often discuss a counterfactual history in which the Nazis did not disarm groups like the German Jews and other suppressed populations.[118][119][120][121] ....Historians have tended to not address gun regulation under the Nazis, and its significance is disputed;[122] according to Robert Cottrol:[123] Could the overstretched Nazi war machine have murdered 11 million armed and resisting Europeans while also taking on the Soviet and Anglo-American armies?.... ”

I also added a footnote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)