Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: July 10, 2006
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6
Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9


Contents

[edit] Requested quote from source for Bliss passage

In the 'State courts' section, my request for a quote from the source has gone ignored for about two weeks now. Please provide a more full quotation from that 1967 document, indicating who is speaking, indicating what question they were answering, and giving more context. All I can see is a partial sentence fragment, and I would like to see a few paragraphs please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Have included a more complete quote, and removed the quote request tagline. If you want to see a few pages for the complete context, please go look it up in any large library. The complete cite is in the article, making it easy to find at the library. Yaf (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edit ignored my question. Please answer the two questions highlighted in yellow above. You inserted the this passage in the article, you have the burden of proof. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Your refusal to verify a cite ignored my response. You can verify the quote here: Anti-Crime Program. Hearings Before Ninetieth Congress, First Session. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off, 1967, p. 246. You can also verify that the cite is valid with this courtesy link here. I am not going to type page after page, while you forever demand more and more "context", and refuse to accept what the quote says, just because it goes counter to your personal POV. Look it up yourself. Yaf (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The federal government's obligation to arm the militia

per the body of the Constitution, Congress is obligated to ARM the militia

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia,

per the body of the US Constitution the states retain the right to wage defensive war

No State shall, ..... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

per the preamble to the Bill of Rights

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:

The second amendment PLAINLY contains BOTH a declaration and a restriction.

As the power to ARM is related to the power to DISARM the second amendment makes it clear that the related power to DISARM has NOT BEEN GRANTED to the feds by the states. The preamble PLAINLY states that the purpose of the Bill of Right is to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. 4.156.27.155 (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with the text of the article? This is a talk page. That means it's about this article, not the Second Amendment in general. Limit your comments to the content of the article, or what should be in the article, not what you think is the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all I have posted the above several times here in the hopes that when you people stop bickering I can get the fact that the second amendment protects the rights of the states to wage defensive war included as a part of the article. Don't act surprised.

To clarify yet again, this has to do with a point of view MISSING from the article which I want included. Namely that the second amendment lists a PROHIBITED action on the federal government designed to preserve the state right to wage defensive war. If you read your history, you will find that the Founders considered the possibility that the states would at some point have to wage defensive war against the federal government. If you don't think that has ever happened, you can tell me what you think of the Civil War or as some like to call it, the War of Northern Aggression.

The following is from the Federalist papers. It makes fun of the point of view that the Federal government would abuse its powers in order to subdue the various states by force of arms. FYI the Federalist papers were written BEFORE the Bill of Rights was written and in fact were a direct response to those OPPOSED to the Constitution. It is a historical fact that without the Bill of Rights the Constitution would not have been accepted by the States.

A to whether the author (I believe Alexander Hamilton) was right or wrong to make fun of this point if view, was not the militia of Massachusetss called up to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians during the Civil War?

Why I do believe it was!

From the Federalist Papers

In reading many of the publications against the Constitution, a man is apt to imagine that he is perusing some ill-written tale or romance, which instead of natural and agreeable images, exhibits to the mind nothing but frightful and distorted shapes discoloring and disfiguring whatever it represents, and transforming everything it touches into a monster.

A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths? 4.156.27.66 (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If there is information specifically relevant to the Second Amendment that you can add to the article, provided it is presented from a neutral point of view, backed by verifiable sources, and does not constitute original research, by all means contribute it. --tc2011 (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I recommend that 4.156.27.66 wait until the Supreme Court hands down its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. That decision will determine to what extent 4.156.27.66's proposed material will be germane to the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm willing to bet that SCOTUS won't even address most of what 4.156.27.66 is saying, and consequently won't confirm or refute it. But we'll have their ruling soon, so I guess we'll find out. --tc2011 (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
You are probably right, but the Court is expected to declare that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. If that occurs, then any discussion of militias will likely be irrelevant regarding the Second Amendment. --SMP0328. (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


The fact that the second amendment protects the state right to wage defensive war by barring the feds from disarming "the people", many of whom are members of "the militia" is much more "on topic" then many items already in the article.

To quote the Preamble to the Bill of Rights

The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers,

The second amendment does in fact deal with the militia, and does in fact PROHIBIT the federal government from disarming "the people" of whom "the militia" is a subset.

To confirm that, all you have to do is read it.

4.156.252.86 (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


Hey Salty Boatr

I added substantially the above to the article, as well as some comments by Patrick Henry for background and you deleted my addition, stating that it was original research.

WHAT part of my addition was original research?

If you can't answer I will undo your deletion. If you delete it again I want an unbiased referee. From my reading of this discussion board over the past few months, you seem to have a problem understanding PLAIN ENGLISH. 4.156.111.31 (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

When I check policy, see WP:NOR andWP:RS, I see that your quotation of those primary documents seems to violate WP:PSTS and WP:SYN. Per policy, edits to Wikipedia should be based on published reliable third party sources, and your edit made no reference to published reliable third party sources. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
SaltyBoatr is right. You make an interesting argument, but Wikipedia is not the place to present interesting arguments. What you say puts together multiple sections of primary sources in order to draw conclusions in a way that really has to be cited to a published source in order to include it in a Wikipedia article. PubliusFL (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I again ask

WHAT part of my addition is original research?

4.156.27.173 (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to consider that Wiki has the following to say about Patrick Henry and ask why his opinions, per wiki INSTRUMENTAL IN FORCING THE ADOPTION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, should be disregarded

wiki on Patrick Henry - notice he held HIGH political office

During the war, he served as the first post-colonial Governor of Virginia, from 1776-79, an office he held again from 1784-86.

After the Revolution, Henry was an outspoken critic of the United States Constitution and urged against its adoption, arguing it gave the federal government too much power. As a leading Antifederalist, he was instrumental in forcing the adoption of the Bill of Rights to amend the new Constitution.

This quote of his is MOST CERTAINLY related to the Second Amendment

Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the_real_object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

This quote gives some background on his thinking

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!

and I COULD have added the following as well, but I figured it would probably give you a heart attack. Salt IS bad for the blood pressure. So respecting you probable high blood pressure, I didn't.

The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun. 4.156.27.173 (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Original research" cites primary sources to make a point. Even if the point is maddeningly obvious or self-evident, Wikipedia policy is that statements (especially in controversial articles such as this) be cited to verifiable secondary sources. Basically, if you know of an author (of a book, journal article, etc.) that says what you are saying, you are welcome to cite that author and add his or her interpretation of the issue. As contributors to Wikipedia, we're not writing journal articles or books, but simply presenting in simplified form what such authors are writing. If you would like to contribute to this article, you can take a look at the existing secondary sources for additional information, or, even better, bring additional secondary sources into the discussion. I hope this helps. --tc2011 (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I stated at the beginning of my addition that what I was adding was little discussed these days and it frankly is. However ALL of my addition is FACT not original research.

The FACT the the states RATAINED the power to wage defensive war is FACT, not original research. Read the Constitution.

The FACT that the states are barred from having an army or navy is FACT not original research. READ the Constitution

The FACT that that CONGRESS is supposed to ARM the militia is FACT not original research, Read the Constitution.

The FACT that many thought that with Congress having control of the army ,the navy, and the arming of the militia, way too much power was concentrated in the hands of the federal government is also FACT not original research and the quotes from Patrick Henry demonstrate that. So does the EXISTANCE of the Second Amendment which per the preamble of the Bill of Right is designed to LIMIT federal powers.

More from Patrick Henry from his speech Shall Liberty or Empire be Sought of 1788 where he speaks of a possible takeover BY the feds and the futility of resistance when the feds control all the guns.I repeat the enemy discussed is the federal government. It doesn't take many brain cells to connect the last two sentences to the prohibition of the Second Amendment.

A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? In what situation are we to be? The clause before you gives a power of direct taxation, unbounded and unlimited--an exclusive power of legislation, in all cases whatsoever, for ten miles square, and over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, etc. What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness. You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies; their garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan; they will therefore act as they think proper; all power will be in their own possession. You can not force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the State? For, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them.


Yet again I ask

WHAT PART of my addition is original research.

4.156.252.77 (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not necessarily reflect reality, rather, it reflects what secondary sources say about reality. Since you're not citing secondary sources, and are instead presenting an argument based on primary sources, what you're doing is technically original research. Your energies would probably be put to better use by preparing a research paper to be submitted for publication in a scholarly journal or similar medium. Or, you could take citations from secondary sources (being sure to avoid WP:SYN) and add those to this article.
Perhaps you could register for a Wikipedia account? I'd be happy to help point you in the direction of secondary sources appropriate for this article. --tc2011 (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I did not say your edit was original research, I said your edit appears to be original research. You have the burden of proof to specifically identify citations to reliable published secondary sourcing for your edits, and you have not yet done so. Additionally, the article needs to meet policy regarding neutrality, and presently the article relies too heavily on the theory of Constitutional interpretation of Originalism, and your addition of even more quotes from the founding fathers would skew the balance even farther off balance. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


yet again

What part of my addition APPEARED to be original research.

and what part of

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, do you find difficult to understand?

4.156.111.241 (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just get some citations for verifiable secondary sources. --tc2011 (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

FOR WHAT????

I have continually asked WHAT part is original research

NOBODY has answered. 4.156.27.87 (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Source of quotes used now referenced. Although I didn't include the second one in my addition as I was considering Salty Boars blood pressure.

Again wiki has the following to say about Patrick Henry, As a leading Antifederalist, he was instrumental in forcing the adoption of the Bill of Rights to amend the new Constitution.

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

   * "The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
     -- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

   * "O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."
     -- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms

4.156.27.87 (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Since we obviously can't be trusted to understand the written word in the PLAIN ENGLISH it is written, and need someone to interpret it for us, here is an interpreter.

In his book A Detailed Analysis of the Constitution, Edward F. Cooke states about the Second Amendment

This is another protection against a possible abuse by Congress. The right protected is really the right of a state to maintain an armed militia

Additionally he states

In the eighteenth century people feared that Congress might, by passing a law, prohibit the states from arming their citizens. Then having all the armed strength at its command, the national government could overwhelm the states.

Are there any more objections? 4.156.252.95 (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


for verification purposes

Per Amazon books, there are 7 editions of this book with the last published in 2002. I seem to have run across what is probably the first one published in 1958. I frankly have no idea if the following 6 editions contain the same text. 4.156.252.95 (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read up on the difference between secondary and primary sources.--tc2011 (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to provide a secondary source. I believe I have done so.

Are you trying to imply that a book called A Detailed Analysis of the Constitution, that has had 7 editions and who knows how many printings of each edition, over a period of time in EXCESS OF 40 YEARS is NOT an Acceptable secondary source?

As to the quotes attributed Patrick Henry, they can be confirmed by looking at Elliots Debates per above. Further numerous quotes are uses throughout wiki from ORIGINAL sources. Why is Patrick Henry different, when wiki itself states he was instrumental in forcing the adoption of the Bill of Rights to amend the new Constitution. and his opinions certainly are relevant to the article. Why are quotes by FEDERALISTS like James Madison and Noah Webster allowed onto the article yet quotes by ANTI FEDEARALISTS are not allowed, when it is historical fact that the ANTI FEDERALISTS and NOT the FEDERALISTS were responsible for the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment?

WHY are the AUTHORS of the Second Amendment being SILENCED?

Why does this policy look like blatant two faced favoritism to support an agenda? Said agenda being support of gun control?

and yet again

WHAT about my addition is original research?

Despite repeated requests I have yet to see an answer.

4.156.252.70 (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


I personally believe that the only bias here is yours.

and yet again

WHAT part of my addition do you believe APPEARED to be original research?

4.156.252.70 (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You have not mentioned any reliable sourcing what so ever, so all of it. Plus, the discussion of Article 1 of the Constitution appears off topic here, and rather it might be on topic in another article. You make a big presumption, using what seems like original research that Patrick Henry is discussing the Second Amendment. You also seem to be using synthesis with this direct quote to make a personal point of view statement. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


Why do you say a book on the Constitution with 7 editions and an unknown number of printings of those editions running over a span of time in excess of 40 YEARS as not a reliable source. The author of that book was (and might still be) a professor of political science at a major university. I frankly can't see why you object to this source.

Please expand on you objection to this source.

Do you consider Elliot's Debates (a 5 VOLUME set of books recording the debates that led to the signing of the C0onstitition) as an unreliable source and if so WHY?

Please expand on you objection to this source.


THERE is no discussion of of Aticle 1. The Second Amendment is a AMENDMENT. I added WHAT it AMENDS and WHY. It Amends section 1 in order to PREVENT the feds from disarming the State militias in support of the retained power of a State to wage defensive war through the use of that State militia.

You know the militia don't you? It's that there thingie that the Second Amendment calls necessary to the security of a free State.

Further I did not state that the Patrick Henry quotes were on the Second Amendment. I said they were "on the right to "KEEP ARMS AND THE REASON FOR IT". My addition stetes Patrick Henry, an opponent of the Constitution, speaking on the right to keep arms and the reason for it wrote'

Why are you distorting/misrepresenting my position?

There is NO assumption made that the following quotes were objections to the Constitution BEFORE its ratification during debate on that ratification from someone that wiki calls one of those RESPONSIBLE for the Bill of Rights. There is also no ASSUMPTION made that those quotes were made because Patrick Henry believed that the Constitution granted too much power to Congress.

The quotes in question were made PRIOR to the Second Amendment, and LED to the Second Amendment. They therefore have a place in the ORIGIN section of this article and THAT is where I placed them.

The quotes are below. Watch your blood pressure.

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun.

Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ...

Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms

If you believe that the words of Patrick Henry do not conform to his thinking please provide proof of that assertion. 4.156.252.142 (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, those are primary sources. So far as Wikipedia is concerned, primary sources are mostly meaningless. You have to use secondary sources. --tc2011 (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Per wiki

Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event.[3] Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims.

The book referenced is in fact a GENERAL OVERVIEW of the Constitution and per wiki it is therefore a secondary source. As for the Patrick Henry quotes they are in fact primary sources. That is what a QUOTE IS!

again WHY are FEDERALISTS allowed to be quoted in this article while the ANTI FEDERALISTS who are in fact the AUTHORS of the Second Amendment, NOT ALLOWED to be quoted.

Why are the AUTHORS of the Second Amendment SILENCED by Salty Boar and his ilk? What reason is there besides "book burning"?

Book burning being the INTENTIONAL destruction of the printed word with the objection being to SILENCE those not in agreement with the "burner".

Over the many months I have followed this discussion board, I have yet to see Salty Boar add anything to this article. His only reason for existence seems to be to "burn" the work of those not in agreement with his position. 4.156.252.3 (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Does the book provide analysis or "make a point" in its general overview, or does it simply record the text of the debates? If it does more than just transmit the text of the debates, then I guess it sounds like a usable secondary source. So, just be sure to avoid WP:SYN. If there's a point to be made about the primary texts, use the author's (Elliot) words as far as possible. If Elliot quotes Patrick Henry to make a point, then it's fine to quote Elliot quoting Patrick Henry to communicate Elliot's point. Also use the book citation template to include a proper citation. If you avoid original research and properly use a true secondary source (avoiding WP:SYN), you might think about reporting editors that inappropriately revert edits per WP:3RR. Also, it'd be helpful if you were to register for a Wikipedia account. --tc2011 (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A Detailed Analysis of the Constitution by Edward F. Cooke is the general overview and not Elliot's Debates. On the Second Amendment Cooke states

This is another protection against a possible abuse by Congress. The right protected is really the right of a state to maintain an armed militia

Additionally Cooke states

In the eighteenth century people feared that Congress might, by passing a law, prohibit the states from arming their citizens. Then having all the armed strength at its command, the national government could overwhelm the states.

Elliots Debates are the source of the quotes for Patrick Henry and is not a general overview. This 5 volume set is a record of the debates and the source of Patrick Henry's comments.

Since you now accept that a general overview of the Constitution is an acceptable secondary source, I will use it.

As to the quotes from Patrick Henry I will refrain from adding them for NOW.

BUT

The exclusion of his quotes in in FACT POV bias and needs to be corrected.

For Proof of that bias

My addition was to the Origin section of the article. That section has FIVE quotes by Federalists, the OPPONENTS to the Bill of rights, yet not one single quote by an anti Federalist. Two quotes are from a secondary figure like Noah Webster. Why are those responsible for the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, like Patrick Henry, not allowed onto this section when fairness would dictate that they should be the ones quoted and not those who lost the fight. Why are the LOSERS of this fight the ONLY ones allowed to be quoted?

This not only smacks of POV. It is in FACT POV.

Anything LESS then equal time for those responsible for the Bill of Rights compared to the opponents of the Bill of Rights is BLATANT POV bias!

The two quotes I added are from LEADING anti-Federalist Patrick Henry, and were made during the Virginia debates to ratify the Constitution. While they are not enough to bring this section into POV balance, it is certainly a start.

Tell me if you AGREE or DISAGREE and why? 4.156.252.50 (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Edward F. Cooke is an appropriate source to use for Wikipedia articles. Regarding the "Origin" section, you raise valid concerns. --tc2011 (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
4.156.252.50, would you kindly add a reference for the Cooke source using the book citation template? If you are not familiar with the format of that template, please just fill in the applicable info:
  • |last=[author's last name]
  • |first=[author's first name]
  • |title=
  • |origdate=
  • |edition=
  • |series=
  • |volume=
  • |date=
  • |publisher=
  • |location=
  • |isbn=
  • |pages=
  • |quote=
And would you please consider registering for an user account? Thanks. --tc2011 (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


  • |last=Cooke
  • |first=Edward F.
  • |title= A Detailed Analysis of the Constitution
  • |origdate=1958
  • |edition=1st
  • |series=The New Littlefield College Outlines
  • |volume=
  • |date=1958
  • |publisher=Littlefield, Adams & Co
  • |location= Ames, Iowa
  • |isbn=????
  • |pages= 144 , quote is page 96
  • |quote=In the eighteenth century people feared that Congress might, by passing a law, prohibit the states from arming their citizens. Then having all the armed strength at its command, the national government could overwhelm the states.

There is only 1 volume and the Book itself does not have an ISBN mumber, so I don't know how to help you there.

Considering it is part of the "New Littlefield College Outlines" and has been in print (7 editions) for over 40 years, I strongly suspect that this book was used in introductory political science course all over the country for decades. 4.156.252.194 (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --tc2011 (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding getting an account

I have the STRONG urge to call a Jackass a Jackass and would probably get kicked out is short order for using "inappropriate" language after the whining Jackass in question kisses someones ass.

So I will pass for now.

Regarding the LACK of Quotes from Anti Federalist

that is MORE then a Concern, it is BLATANT POV bias. Do you know of ANY reason why Quotes cannot be added to the Origin section from anti Federalists?

17:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you continue to be hostile, I'm guessing your IP will be banned, anyhow. Since you clearly have valuable contributions to make to Wikipedia, the project would benefit from your input in that regard. I hope you reconsider your hostility and instead continue to provide verifiable sources for inclusion in Wikipedia. --tc2011 (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering what it took to get a simple point onto this article, wiki is not worth the effort. Let me know when you get rid of the self appointed censors and I will reconsider.

Still waiting for a clear answer on the POV issue. That "it is of concern" is not a clear answer.

I firmly believe that having quotes ONLY those who were opposed to the Second Amendment is BLATANT POV that needs to be corrected. Do you agree or disagree? 4.156.252.35 (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you would, please propose specific edits that you believe match the present content (which I assume follows WP policy) in sourcing depth and quality. Maybe start a new section for each proposed edit, because this section's getting long... --tc2011 (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

I would like the bold portions added. The rest is for context. I don't expect ALL the following bold quotes to be used and obviously, I am a fan of Patrick Henry. I have no objection to quotes from other anti-Federalist, but Patrick Henry is undoubtedly the most famous person in that group and his opinions should be well represented.

Opening remarks from the Virginia Ratification Convention Elliot's Debates, Volume 3, pages 45 and 46 showing the belief of Patrick Henry that arms are needed to secure rights and liberties from those who wish to take them away and his distrust of the Constitution and preference for the Confederation.

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. I am answered by gentlemen, that, though I might speak of terrors, yet the fact was, that we were surrounded by none of the dangers I apprehended. I conceive this new government to be one of those dangers: it has produced those horrors which distress many of our best citizens. We are come hither to preserve the poor commonwealth of Virginia, if it can be possibly done: something must be done to preserve your liberty and mine. The Confederation, this same despised government, merits, in my opinion, the highest encomium: it carried us through a long and dangerous war; it rendered us victorious in that bloody conflict with a powerful nation; it has secured us a territory greater than any European monarch possesses:

Patrick Henry continues with

The honorable gentleman who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America. A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?

Comments from Mr. George Mason during the Virgina Constitutional Ratification Debates, Elliot's Debates, Volume 3, page 379 and 380 discussing the disarming of the militia and the futility of an unarmed people resisting a standing professional army intent on depriving then of the rights and freedoms.

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


James Madison countered with (page 382)

I cannot conceive that this Constitution, by giving the general government the power of arming the militia, takes it away from the state governments. The power is concurrent, and not exclusive.

Patric Henry in response to James Madison (pages 385 and 386)

The militia, sir, is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it. ... he says that the power of arming and organizing the militia is concurrent, and to be equally exercised by the general and state governments. I am sure, and I trust in the candor of that gentleman, that he will recede from that opinion, When his recollection will be called to the particular clause which relates to it.

As my worthy friend said, there is a positive partition of power between the two governments. To Congress is given the power of "arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States." To the state legislatures is given the power of appointing the officers, and training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." I observed before, that, if the power be concurrent as to arming them, it is concurrent in other respects. If the states have the right of arming them, &c., concurrently, Congress, has a concurrent power of appointing the officers, and training the militia. If Congress have that power, it is absurd. To admit this mutual concurrence of powers will carry on into endless absurdity--that Congress has nothing exclusive on the one hand, nor the states on the other. The rational explanation is, that Congress shall have exclusive power of arming them, &c., and that the State governments shall have exclusive power of appointing the officers, &c.

I did not see any indication that Mr Madison retracted his statement that the arming of the militia is a concurrent or SHARED power. 4.156.27.206 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unresolved dispute about article neutrality.

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

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

Why?

Was that your SS training showing or are you a paid "book burner" on this issue? 4.156.252.142 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

in fact lets try it out

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

[edit] Informal Poll

To all regulars of this discussion board

Please vote on who is the worst POV offender on the Second Amendment article

I vote Salty Boar. 4.156.252.35 (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather than posting informal polls, if you truly believe an editor is disrupting Wikipedia with their POV, it would be more appropriate to follow procedures outlined for disruptive editing. Just a suggestion. --tc2011 (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


Please review the comment by other posters to the "burning" of their work. I am disgusted with him after only a few months of OBSERVING this board. I'd hate to think of having to actually have to deal with him for an extended period of time. I would most likely walk and I am sure made people with no ax to grind have already walked away from this board out of sheer disgust.

A comment that should start alarm bells in your head is the following made just last week when Salty Boar "burned" yet another persons hard work.

  1. 00:25, 7 June 2008 Hamitr (Talk | contribs) m (112,671 bytes) (SaltyBoatr, please don't start this again.) (undo)
  2. (cur) (last) 22:33, 6 June 2008 SaltyBoatr (Talk | contribs) (112,679 bytes) (Article relies too heavily on the theory of originalism, also the Bliss passage is POV push, see talk.) (undo)

Let's not even get into the fact that when he "burned" my addition it took something like 10 tries over a period of a week to find out his objection. Aren't you supposed to KNOW the reason WHEN you "burn" something, instead of having to make it up a week later? 4.156.27.206 (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revert of Cooke citation

Unless someone can legitimately validate this revert of the Cooke source, it should be restored. Simply removing verifiable citations of reliable sources because they do not adhere to a particular POV is unacceptable. If the Cooke information is brought up elsewhere in the article, this citation should at most be relocated to that place. Removing reliable sources to advance a POV is detrimental to Wikipedia. --tc2011 (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)