Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:04, 23 February 2014

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Firearms High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Government Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

The contents of the Political arguments of gun politics in the United States page were merged into Gun politics in the United States on 2014-01-04. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Gun politics in the United States was copied or moved into Global gun cultures with this edit on 20:04, 1 February 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gun politics in the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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

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, ISBN 0-941540-13-8
3. ^ Halbrook, Stephen P. That Every Man be Armed—The Evolution of a Constitutional Right(1987), The University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico, pp.55-87, ISBN 0-8263-0868-6
4. Gottlieb, Alan M.: The Rights of Gun Ownership. Green Hill, 1981
5. "Legal Information Institute (LII): Second Amendment". law.cornell.edu. Cornell University Law School. January 26, 2014. Retrieved January 27, 2014.
6. Hardy, David T. The origins and Development of the Second Amendment(1986), Blacksmith Corp., Chino Valley, Arizona, pp.64–93, ISBN 0-941540-13-8
7. Gottlieb, Alan M.: The Rights of Gun Ownership. Green Hill, 1981

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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: "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?

and

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Objections to series of edits by Anything

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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 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:

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

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:

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

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

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

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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), “his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” That would be a nice way to beef up the fundamental rights subsection. I don't like quoting Cruikshank directly because its meaning is disputed, it's somewhat obsolete, et cetera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Nazi removal

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

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

1. Springwood, Charles. Open Fire, Understanding Global Gun Cultures, pp. 37-38 (Berg 2007):

   he individual items of NRA-sponsored propaganda collectively worked to further the cause of pro-gun activists both abroad and at home. Consider, for instance, a pamphlet distributed by the pro-gun lobby in Brazil, which featured an image of Hitler giving a Nazi salute. The choice of image was clearly meant to suggest a parallel between the dangers of disarmament and the dangers of Nazism.

2. Chapman, Simon. Over Our Dead Bodies: Port Arthur and Australia's Fight for Gun Control, p. 221 (Sydney University Press, 2013): "Internationally, the gun lobby is fond of comparing gun control agenda with that of Hitler in pre-World War II Germany."
3. Brown, R. Arming and Disarming: A History of Gun Control in Canada, p. 218 (University of Toronto Press, 2012): "As had occurred in the 1970s, organizations representing firearm owners made analogies between modern arms control and the policies of Nazi Germans and Stalinist Russia."
4. Squires, Peter. Gun Culture or Gun Control?: Firearms and Violence: Safety and Society, p. 230 (Routledge, 2012): "Comparing British gun control policies with Nazi rule prompted a wide spectrum of commentators to criticize the SRA."
5. Gregg Lee Carter (2012). Guns in American Society. ABC-CLIO. pp. 411–415. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1.
6. Halbrook, Stephen. Gun Control in the Third Reich (The Independent Institute 2013).
7. Guns in American Society, pp. 169, 305, 306, 312, 358, 361-362, 454, 455, 458, 467, 575, 576, 738, 812, 846 ("check against tyranny"), 891 (edited by Gregg Lee Carter, ABC-CLIO 2012).
8. Cottrol, Robert. “The Last Line of Defense” (op-ed), Los Angeles Times (November 7, 1999).
9. Halbrook, Stephen (2000). "NAZI FIREARMS LAW AND THE DISARMING OF THE GERMAN JEWS" (PDF). Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law. 17: 484.
10. Halbrook, Stephen. "NAZISM, THE SECOND AMENDMENT, AND THE NRA: A REPLY TO PROFESSOR HARCOURT". Texas Review of Law & Politics. 11.
11. LaPierre, Wayne. Guns, Crime, and Freedom. pp. 88–87, 167–168.
12. Harcourt, Bernard. "On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians)". Fordham Law Review: 670, 676. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) "To be sure, the Nazis were intent on killing Jewish persons and used the gun laws and regulations to further the genocide."
13. "Was Hitler Really a Fan of Gun Control?". Mother Jones.
14. "Stop Talking About Hitler". Salon.
15. Frank, Monte. "The Holocaust taken in vain to promote gun rights", The Guardian (July 13, 2013).

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)

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)

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)

new gallup poll

http://www.gallup.com/poll/167135/americans-dissatisfaction-gun-laws-highest-2001.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines

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)

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

1. Bader (1995) p. 7
2. Bader (1995) p. 6
3. Bader (1995) p. 8
4. ^ Miles (2000) p. 57
5. Alschuler (1994) p. 898
6. Miles (2000) p. 56
7. Alschuler (1994) p. 897
8. Smithsonian (1993). "Sir William Blackstone, (sculpture)". Save Outdoor Sculpture. Smithsonian.
9. Holdsworth (1928) p. 163

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)
• (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)

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)

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

1. ^ Mackey, David and Levan, Kristine. Crime Prevention, pp. 95-96 (Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2011):

   The greatest fear for those ascribing to the pro-gun culture would be an attempt by the government to collectively disarm all the country’s citizens, rendering them helpless against tyranny.... They promote the use of firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities, and also promote firearm safety.

2. ^ Chapman, Simon. Over Our Dead Bodies: Port Arthur and Australia's Fight for Gun Control, p. 221 (Sydney University Press, 2013): "Internationally, the gun lobby is fond of comparing gun control agenda with that of Hitler in pre-World War II Germany." Cite error: The named reference "Chapman" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
3. ^ Springwood, Charles. Open Fire, Understanding Global Gun Cultures, pp. 37-38 (Berg 2007):

   he individual items of NRA-sponsored propaganda collectively worked to further the cause of pro-gun activists both abroad and at home. Consider, for instance, a pamphlet distributed by the pro-gun lobby in Brazil, which featured an image of Hitler giving a Nazi salute. The choice of image was clearly meant to suggest a parallel between the dangers of disarmament and the dangers of Nazism.

   Cite error: The named reference "Springwood" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
4. ^ Gregg Lee Carter (2012). Guns in American Society. ABC-CLIO. pp. 411–415. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1.
5. ^ Brown, R. Arming and Disarming: A History of Gun Control in Canada, p. 218 (University of Toronto Press, 2012): "As had occurred b the 1970s, organizations representing firearm owners made analogies between modern arms control and the policies of Nazi Germans and Stalinist Russia.' Cite error: The named reference "Brown" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
6. Guns in American Society, pp. 169, 305, 306, 312, 358, 361-362, 454, 455, 458, 467, 575, 576, 738, 812, 846 ("check against tyranny"), 891 (edited by Gregg Lee Carter, ABC-CLIO 2012).
7. Squires, Peter. Gun Culture or Gun Control?: Firearms and Violence: Safety and Society, p. 230 (Routledge, 2012): "Comparing British gun control policies with Nazi rule prompted a wide spectrum of commentators to criticize the SRA."
8. Halbrook, Stephen. Gun Control in the Third Reich (The Independent Institute 2013).
9. Guns in American Society, pp. 169, 305, 306, 312, 358, 361-362, 454, 455, 458, 467, 575, 576, 738, 812, 846 ("check against tyranny"), 891 (edited by Gregg Lee Carter, ABC-CLIO 2012).
10. Cottrol, Robert. “The Last Line of Defense” (op-ed), Los Angeles Times (November 7, 1999).
11. Halbrook, Stephen (2000). "NAZI FIREARMS LAW AND THE DISARMING OF THE GERMAN JEWS" (PDF). Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law. 17: 484.
12. Halbrook, Stephen. "NAZISM, THE SECOND AMENDMENT, AND THE NRA: A REPLY TO PROFESSOR HARCOURT". Texas Review of Law & Politics. 11.
13. LaPierre, Wayne. Guns, Crime, and Freedom. pp. 88–87, 167–168.
14. Harcourt, Bernard. "On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians)". Fordham Law Review: 670, 676. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) "To be sure, the Nazis were intent on killing Jewish persons and used the gun laws and regulations to further the genocide."
15. "Was Hitler Really a Fan of Gun Control?". Mother Jones.
16. "Stop Talking About Hitler". Salon.
17. Frank, Monte. "The Holocaust taken in vain to promote gun rights", The Guardian (July 13, 2013).

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages article:

I am not opposed in principle to moving this out to another Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

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. 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; according to Robert J. Cottrol:...." 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages discussions.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.' At that time, the article contained considerable material about the Nazi argument." 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). You may not think the Nazis were tyrants, 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 Misplaced Pages 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.... P.S. I'm assuming everyone here agrees that the Nazis were tyrannous." 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 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. 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 on 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership info - for if/when it comes up again

I am glad that Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) is currently NOT in this arcticle, but if/when it comes up again, here is some fairly current info about its size.

Its IRS EIN is 39-1732344. Its 2012 Form 990-EZ PDF is available at guidestar.org. (You need an account, but there is a free version.) That report shows Program service revenue of almost $127,000. (Zip for Grants and contributions.) At $25 annual membership, and assuming all its income is membership fees, that makes a little over 5,000 members. (The weird thing, they don't list the income as membership dues.)

From my experience with nonprofits, there are probably members who give more than $25/year (and probably some lifetime members who aren't required to give annually), and there are probably other sources of income, so I'd be surprised if they actually have 5, 000 active members. By comparison NRA Program service revenue for 2011 (latest report available on Guidestar) was almost $110 million, and Grants and contributions revenue was almost $60 million. Lightbreather (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it would be best to not mention JPFO in this article with regard to tyranny or Nazis, for three reasons. First, it is relatively small and unknown. Second, if we mention it then we would have to explain that not all its members are Jews, which would take up even more undue space in this article. Third, a more acceptable option would be, e.g., to simply wlink JPFO in the "See also" section. That's why I removed JPFO. I would not say that the editor (not me) who inserted it was misbehaving or anything like that, but the better choice would be to omit it. That information could go at the article about the JPFO, however.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that info should go into the JPFO article. I only shared it here because how "big" (or not) the org is was an issue in a recent discussion on the Gun control talk page, so I expect it will come up again here, too. Lightbreather (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

My understanding was that it was the third largest such group in the US. Where did that original figure come from? It seems to me that something should be placed into the article (it doesn't matter what, it doesn't have to be the JPFO) A) that balances out the "All Jews are offended" content within the Nazi material, or B) Remove the material claiming such, or C) Remove the Nazi material altogether. Playing the "Jew Card" is as offensive as playing the "Nazi card". The entire thing is offensive to me. We don't need to fight WWII again, follow? What I would REALLY like to see, if I were to rewrite the whole thing myself, would be to have a section on totalitarianism, with the Nazi material given a mention, along with others who used gun control to further their oppression, rather than simply keep the streets safe. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• B-Class Firearms articles
• High-importance Firearms articles
• WikiProject Firearms articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Top-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed United States Government articles
• Unknown-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• C-Class United States Government articles
• Low-importance United States Government articles