Talk:Right to keep and bear arms/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Incorrect

In the section regarding UK law, this paragraph is inaccurate:

Provisions in the Bill of Rights of 1689 (and the similar Claim of Right in Scotland) regarding rights to arms have been overruled by the doctrine of implied repeal and the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

It has been ruled that acts of the constitution are exempt from the doctrine of implied repeal (in the Metric Martyrs case by Lord Justice Laws in 2002) so this section should be reworded or removed. Ramore 04:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramore (talk • contribs)

Why does the United States section need a litany of opinions ?

Opinions of historians and writers do not actually affect the right to bear arms in the United States. This section has a boring list of opinions that have no actual bearing on the actual right to keep and bear arms. Similarly the distinction between civilian and military rights applies in every country but gets undue weight in the United States section. The historic judgements and opinions in the courts that convey nothing of the actual right as it exists in the U.S. today. Editors here have supported the pruning down of the UK section (too much in my opinion) so now they should engage their attentions to the overly large US section.

I suggest that we can cut this section down to a short section describing the dispute about the meaning of the relevant sentence in the Second Amendment and the current status of this dispute. Two or three sentences should be enough, as there is adequate discussion of the issue in the article Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. A little extra text should show how the regulations of the individual states sits alongside Federal law to define how rights vary across the states. This could be done in a few sentences. We should aim to get the US section down to about the same size as the UK section or at least no more than twice that size.

Any material removed can be placed a new article, History of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the United Sates.

Support --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

you appear to be attempting to make a WP:POINT. your attempt is noted, but everything you write above is completely contrary to wikipedia's policy and purpose, which is to be an encyclopedia - rather than a platform for your personal opinions.

that said, i agree that the US section is significantly larger than the other sections. but that's all i agree to stipulate. that the right to keep and bear arms is one of the most contested rights in the US, is without contrary opinion. the volume of the material is in proportion to its importance in US political and scholarly opinion. that the right to (keep and) bear arms is not particularly interesting or contested in other countries does not somehow magically mean that there should then be less coverage of the US issue. there is no policy basis for insisting that one section of a global article be the same size as others, nor is it supported by NPOV.

the issue to hand is the relevance of your darling litany of gun and ammonia control laws to the topic of this article. none of the material shows relevance, you are merely claiming relevance without any reliable sourcing that supports its relevance. the US section covers a history that is significant and broad, and provides reliable sourcing to opinions and decisions that have directly discussed the RKBA. your list of laws does not. so, that said, i'll play along:

Do Not Support Anastrophe (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the volume of the writing on this subject in the US is great. This is why it should probably be moved to its own article. WP:Undue does mean that one section of this article should not dominate the entire article, so there is definitely a basis for giving national sections relatively equal weight. Oh, and of course the material you deleted from the UK section was neither un-sourced nor off-topic as you claim. --Hauskalainen (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Support I agree that the this global article suffers seriously from a USA centric bias, and that a heavy trimming of the obscure and overly detailed coverage of 19th Century US legal history could be a great improvement. This trimmed material could be moved in a new article Right to keep and bear arms (United States). Then this article should be renamed back to the [[Right to bear arms]] to best reflect the global scope of the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Do not support -- The right to keep and bear arms is largely reduced to just the US at the present time. It is therefore natural that there is more content related to the US in this article. Yaf (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Just curious. Is the "largely reduced to just the US at the present time" your US-centric personal opinion, or is this idea sourced? SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It is sourced, as constitutional protections to a RKBA is largely reduced to just the US. This factor has resulted in most countries banning the RKBA that pre-existed. Yaf (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I need a licence to own a long bore shot gun in some* (changed from 'many' as per the request from Anastrophe below) states in the US as I would do in England or Finland or France or Canada. I don't see the difference. I can carry a knife in Finland without a licence and I can do that in America. I am sure the same is true of many countries. Your argument simply does not stand up to scrutiny.--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

where do you come up with this nonsense? please provide a source for your (fictional) contention that you need a license to own a long bore shotgun in many* states in the US. Anastrophe (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. The answer is that I don't know how many, because I haven't counted but I happened to look at one. Massachusets for example one is just the first I looked at. http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/education/hed/hed_gun_laws.htm. The Massachusets rule on undertaking a course is I think not something that is required in English law. In that sense MA seems stricted than Enngland. It is nonsense to imply that there is a uniform right across the states. It just isn't true. Its controlled by law as it is in the UK and elsewhere.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

i'll save you the trouble: http://www.statemaster.com/graph/gov_gun_law_per-government-gun-laws-permits . i look forward to your withdrawing your fictional claim of fact. thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed* as per request. But most states require a permit to carry if the gun is concealed. That means carrying pistols in a handbag is a privilige and not a right in most states. It reinforces my point that to understand the "Right to bear arms" you must understand the law.--Hauskalainen (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

as usual, you synthesize. what reliable source are you referencing for your claim that it is a privilege? and what reliable sourcing in the material you've been pushing into this article has to do with understanding the law? none that i can see. it's merely a recitation of laws, primary sources, which the reader is expected to interpret him/herself. that's not how wikipedia works. clearly, as you've expressed, you wish that wikipedia worked differently. noted. until such time as the policies are changed to accomodate your desires, this litany of laws has no place in this article. Anastrophe (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Do Not Support. Real quick, as far as I know, or at least in my home state of Texas, you can buy any kind of rifle or shotgun (with the exception of automatic or suppressed weapons) at 18 years of age without any kind of license. As far as the weight of US centered material, I would simply bring up Communism. Using your logic (Hauskalein and SaltyBoatr), one could argue that the article lends too much weight to Marxism, while having comparatively small sections on other facets of Communism. I could say that "the article is about Communism, not Marxism, so the section on Marxism should be shortened so that it is equal with the others". That being said, RKBA has large roots and is much more prevalent an issue in the US than in other countries, which, according to you do not even recognize keeping and bearing arms as a right.Prussian725 (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed the issue about my use of the word most*(*see starred items in the paragraphs above. But your point about automatic weapons for example enforces my general point about local laws). Your discussion about communism and marxism is frankly irrelevant. Coming to this article , all I want to see is a fair representation of the RKBA as it exists in the world. That right to bear arms is covered by the law of the land and it varies from place to place according to local law. We should not have such a long section on the legal situation in one country because that is then unbalanced. I have suggested that we move most of the U.S. content to History of the right to keep and bear arms in the United Sates. What is wrong with that? This is a global article and should reflect a global perspective and WP:Balance. --Hauskalainen (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

once again, you discuss how you wish wikipedia works, rather than conforming to how wikipedia actually does work. "We should not have such a long section on the legal situation in one country because that is then unbalanced." completely unsupported by policy or even rational thought. NPOV does not mean that each section in this article should have the same amount of content. there are countries that have no laws about firearms, and countries that ban them altogether. if the issue is not contentious in that country, then there will be little sourced material regarding the issue. thus a brief section is entirely NPOV. in the US, this issue is exceedingly contentious, and has a very long history in public discourse, law, and the courts. NPOV coverage thus supports that it will have significantly more coverage than other countries where the matter is not contended.

this article certainly reflects a global perspective in a balanced manner. Anastrophe (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This article certainly does not reflect a global perspective in a balance manner. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

then improve the coverage of other countries. NPOV is not a license for deletion, per policy. it is a license to expand coverage where coverage should be expanded. Anastrophe (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Catch 22. My attempts to include a {{globalize}} info box on the article (to encourage improvement of coverage of other countries) have been edit warred. Attempts to improve the coverage for the UK have been subject to repeated edit war reverts. My attempt to start a stub section on Sharia was repeatedly deleted. Sorry, I see US centric systemic bias here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

sorry, but "attempts to 'improve' the coverage for the UK have been subject to repeated edit war reverts" is a canard. adding bare restatements of a country's firearm and ammonia control laws is not an "improvement", nor is it even supported by policy, since - similar to the bare homicide statistics that were also being POV pushed into the article - they attempt to lead the reader to draw a conclusion without providing any reliable sourcing connecting them to this article. this is an encyclopedia, and this article is about the right to (keep and) bear arms; it is not a manual of UK ammonia and gravity knife control laws. we are expected to assume that the use of ammonia as a weapon has some connection to the right to bear arms. that's not how wikipedia works. Anastrophe (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Explain why you revert 100% then? Over and over and over, stonewalling. If there are truly problems with the quality of the material, making constructive suggestions and incremental revisions would make more sense. But you edit war with 100% reverts and then make loud diversionary complaints on the talk page. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

please avoid words like "stonewalling", which implies motive. assume good faith. the material was dumped in the article with zero references showing their relationship to this article. of course it was 100% reverted, as it had no content establishing its relationship to the topic "the right to keep and bear arms". as such, they constitute a POV push, since all we have is the editor's stated belief that the gun laws 'prove' something or other about the right to keep and bear arms. not to mention an apparently belief that increasing the raw number of words in a section will somehow provide "balance".

while we're at it, please explain precisely what is "diversionary" in my commentary. i have explained over and over again the rationale, which is firmly rooted in policy. what is your rationale for inclusion of unannotated, bare readings of laws - primary sourced material that makes no mention of the right to keep and bear arms? if a law against using ammonia as a weapon has a bearing on the right to keep and bear arms, it should be easy to find a reliable source that makes such a connection. where are your sources to back this up assertion -- which was left wholey implied by the material, rather than expressed (and thus synthesis)? Anastrophe (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is getting circular. You assert: "it had no content establishing its relationship to the topic "the right to keep and bear arms", yet your assertion appears founded on nothing more than your personal opinion of what limits the scope of the concept "the right to keep and bear arms". It appears that your personal narrow scope is no more than a reflection of your unique personal world view. Perhaps not, but lacking an explanation from you, we must guess. Just exactly what are you reading that forms the basis of this opinion of yours? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

the only circularity is being tendered by you. this is too easy: the burden of proof rests with those wishing to include the material. i've read the material, have you? can you show where in the content there is any reliable sourcing that discusses its relationship to the topic of this article? once more, with feeling: inclusion of bare recitations of law - primary sources - without any reliable source secondary or tertiary analysis or commentary connecting it to the topic of this article, is synthesis. that's not my opinion, it's wikipedia policy. shall i repeat the policy for you - and other confused editors? why not:

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.. show me how a primary source recitation of laws contains reliable sourcing that is directly related to the topic of this article (which, for those who may be further confused, is not Gun politics, or Weapon, Gun Laws in the UK, etc). Anastrophe (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Trying to find a way out of this circle. Our disagreement revolves around the definition of "this topic". Can we try to define that definition? I have explained the reliable sourcing I have read that forms the basis of the definition I am using. You doggedly refuse to explain the basis of your definition. How can we break out of this circle? The impasse is that it doesn't meet your definition, yet you refuse to explain your definition. Looks like a stonewall to me, no way out, impossible to meet your personal (and unexplained) narrow definition of the topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

this is absurd, and approaching badgering. the burden of proof is upon you or any editor who wishes to include this material. i'm not going to keep repeating the policies involved simply because you don't like them. i've quoted policy not my own personal definitions. the definition of "this topic" is right in front of your face, in the form of the article title, and suggesting that we don't know what the topic is constitutes badgering. the material that was added had no reliable sources included with it that connects it to this article. it is not for you or me to assume that readers see a connection. the material must include reliable sources that make that connection. it does not.Anastrophe (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"definition of "this topic" is right in front of your face...and suggesting that we don't know what the topic is..." We don't agree on the meaning of the title, and therefore, the topic of this article. You act as if your view of the topic is the universal view. A egomaniacal usage of the word "we". Wake up. Your view of the world cannot be fairly considered using the universal word "we". To move out of this impasse we must resolve the difference. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)please avoid attacking the editor, and attack the argument instead. "a(sic) egomaniacal usage of the word we" is a personal attack. please avoid personal attacks. you are badgering at this point. if you wish to include these bare recitations of laws (primary sources), you'll have to find some sources that connect them to the article, and include them with the material. the ball is in your court. post the material you propose here, with your improvements, then we can discuss it and perhaps find consensus. until then, your personal attacks accomplish nothing. Anastrophe (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Because even your information on other countries still involved the US. Crime statistics are not relavent to RKBA, PERIOD. Add information that is relevant to the section, source it, and it will not be contested. That is WP. You hurl accusations that we are pushing a US-based agenda here when not two weeks ago you pushed for content that glorified gun control and demonized US gun policy.Prussian725 (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

When I check reliable sourcing I see that the issue of crime, the politics, crime statistics, gun violence, and especially the issue of a right to bear arms in self protection from criminals, is tightly associated in context with the RTKBA. This article should mirror context of coverage found in reliable sourcing. While discussion of the RTKBA devoid of this context is reliable sourcing is not found. What is your complaint? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Care to name any of those sources?Prussian725 (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a partial list of my sourcing:

• To Keep and Bear Arms By Joyce Lee Malcolm ISBN 9780674893061
• Whose Right to Bear Arms Did the Second Amendment Protect? By Saul Cornell, Robert E. Shalhope ISBN 9780312240608
• The Bill of Rights in modern America By David J. Bodenhamer, James W. Ely ISBN 9780253351593
• The Right to Bear Arms By Robert J. Spitzer ISBN 9781576073476
• Right to Keep and Bear Arms, U.S. Senate. 1982 US Government Printing Office
• A necessary evil By Garry Wills ISBN 9780684844893
• Gun control By Earl Roger Kruschke ISBN 9780874366952
• The militia and the right to arms, By H. Richard Uviller, William G. Merkel ISBN 9780822330318
• The Embarrassing Second Amendment By Sanford Levinson OCLC 48664187
• The Politics of Gun Control By Robert J. Spitzer ISBN 9781566430227
• More Guns, Less Crime By John R. Lott, Jr. ISBN 9780226493640
• Gun culture or gun control? By Peter Squires ISBN 0415170877
• The changing politics of gun control By John M. Bruce, Clyde Wilcox ISBN 9780847686148
• Disarmed By Kristin A. Goss ISBN 9780691124247
• A well-regulated militia By Saul Cornell ISBN 9780195147865
• The Terrorist Next Door By Daniel Levitas ISBN 9780312291051
• Negro militia and reconstruction By Otis A. Singletary OCLC 5934970
• A Well Regulated Militia By William Weir ISBN 0208024239
• Private Guns Public Health By David Hemenway ISBN 0472114050
• Ricochet By Richard Feldman ISBN 9780471679288
• Evaluating Gun Policy By Jen Ludwig and Philip J. Cook ISBN 0815753128
• Searching for A Demon By Steven M. Chermak ISBN 1555535410
• Arming America By Michael A. Bellesiles ISBN 0375701982
• Point blank By Gary Kleck ISBN 9780202307626

I have probably forgotten to list a few others. Will you please name your sources too? SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Prussian725 and others always engage in the same tactic. I and others have added statistics about violence with a gun and violence with a knife and we get the retort that "Crime statistics are not relavent to RKBA". The answer is not a clear no and not a clear yes, but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence to indicate that the link to weapon ownership or availability is there. Many DO make the link between the easy availability of certain types of weapon and the violence associated with those weapons and the call for controls which DOES afect the RKBA. You cannot dismiss such claims so easily. Nevertheless the main thrust of this discussion should be the overwhelming bias towards U.S. law in this article. That content should belong in its own U.S. based article, not in a global article. I have seen no go reason why I should not move it to one as yet and therefore may do so. We need to get some balance into this article. --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

doing so would be in contravention of both consensus and policy. as has been pointed out to you before, you do not own this article. quite a number of good reasons for not doing so have been tendered. policy based reasons. please don't subvert policy. Anastrophe (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I see only two reasons given. And both are weak. The first is that more is written in the US than anywhere else and secondly that the RKBA only exists in the USA. The first may be true but that is not a reason for making a global article dominated by the arguments heard in one country and the second is just factually wrong.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really. The article at present clearly represents a global perspective, having content on many national jurisdictions contained in the article. That said, adding content to the article should be only on the basis of attaching cited sources to the content that actually verify the article text with clear connections established by the cites to the topic of the article. Putting in content simply because "everyone" thinks there might be a circumstantial relationship, in the absence of any cites showing a direct connection, is just a form of synthesis. Such content doesn't belong in an article. As for the percentage of content focused on the US vs. elsewhere in this particular article, it is largely a matter of giving due weight per reliable sources. The RKBA is a major topic in the US, but is not so much of interest elsewhere, where, for example, handguns are mostly prohibited.

Writing an article on car ownership, an article certainly would not contain much content from countries where car ownership is a rarity or where car ownership is mostly prohibited. Much the same for the RKBA.

From this viewpoint, the RBKA largely exists only in the US, having been extinguished elsewhere either through parliamentary supremacy in most cases, or by dictator edict in a few other cases.

Complaining about the focus where the article is placed could be seen as a form of anti-US bias. Such anti-US bias doesn't belong here.

As for needing a permit to buy or own a long gun in the US, this is not the case in most states in the US. If a person is age 16 or 18 (depending on the state), a person can legally purchase a long gun in most states. If a person is 18 or 21 (depending on the state), he can legally purchase a handgun in most states. If a person is 18 in the states where handgun purchases are legal at age 18, a person is restricted to buying a handgun in a private sale, federal law requiring a person to be age 21 to purchase a handgun from a Federal Firearms License seller. But, this is not an impediment to purchasing or acquiring a handgun legally at age 18 in the states where such is legal, either through a private sale, or through a gift from an older relative. In two states, anyone (resident or non-resident) can carry a concealed firearm, no permit being required. In about 38 states, anyone over the age of 21 can apply for and receive a "must issue" concealed weapon license, in the absence of any criminal records, with a minimal of hassle.

All these topics are germane to understanding the RKBA in the US, to establish that gun ownership (long guns and handguns) is extremely common in the US and further enhanced through the right to keep and bear arms being further protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Complaining that other countries lack an equivalent to the Second Amendment and are not being given fair coverage in an article that largely doesn't apply to them is not a valid complaint. Due weight is based on the preponderance of reliable sources; it is definitely hard to find reliable sources when they don't exist due to the Right to Keep and Bear arms not being permitted in some countries through law, in the absence of a constitution that protects the right.

If additional content on other countries is added with proper reliable and verifiable sources, there is no problem with that. Meanwhile, there doesn't appear to be much issue with this article as it exists with regards to due weight, the article clearly giving a proponderance of coverage to article text cited with reliable and verifiable sources. Yaf (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What screams out here is that there are editors who "know" what the RTBA topic means, and have not identified the reliable sourcing forming the basis for their personal opinion as to what is "germane" (to their personal viewpoint). This results in US centric bias reflecting the personal bias of those editors. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It certainly does scream out that "certain" editors know what the RTBA means, being that this is an article on the right to keep and bear arms. Some editors do truly seem to focus only on the "bear arms" militia-only interpretation of the RKBA, while attacking individual right content. Reliable sourcing, however, does show an individual interpretation exists, as well as a militia/collective interpretation, such as was stated in the Heller decision in the Supreme Court of the United States. There is more reliable sourcing than just what the anti-gun rights lobby puts on their websites. Yaf (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

having been on the receiving end of editor saltyboatr's persistent and relentless attempts to personalize the discourse here - a la his constant implication that POV's expressed on these pages are from 'pro gun advocacy blogs' among other things - one might expect that i'd relish having a dose of the same medicine directed at saltyboatr. but i don't. i would really like to see the level of discourse here rise at least above personalized characterizations, or even implied personalized characterizations. whether you agree with SB's focus or not, i don't think anyone can in good faith suggest that he is relying upon anti-gun rights lobby websites for his opinions. to wit his list of reference materials just a few lines up. similarly i don't think an honest editor could suggest that editor yaf relies on pro-gun websites for his opinions. fundamentally, where an editor derives their opinions is irrelevant on talk pages. what is posted in article space on the other hand must be backed by reliable sources, and if it's not, it's scrubbed, rightfully so. i'd like to ask all editors to focus on an editor's arguments, not on the editor him/herself. commentary directed at the editor for the most part falls under no personal attacks, and is sanctionable if persistent. let's avoid them altogether, okay? Anastrophe (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yaf, you seem to have presented a perfect arguement for this page being retitled Right to keep and bear arms in the United States and removing all references outside of that jurisdiction! It seems to me that the inherent problem is a cabal of American or Ameri-centric editors who believe that the only possible interpretation of "the right to keep and bear arms," is the American model and that it relates to civilian use of firearms, and that elsewhere anything the same or similar has either never existed or did once but does no longer, and that either way they therefore shouldn't be covered in any meaningful depth here. Objectively, however, it is clear that barring a few totalitarian examples where all private civilian ownership of firearms in banned, there is a broad spectrum of ways in which private civilian ownership is legally allowed, and even in the United States there is no universal free-for-all where private citizens can own whatever they want with impunity.

It seems to me that United Kingdom section exists for no other purpose than to state what the "country" has lost, implied as being to its detriment. Of course I could make the observation that I (a Catholic, I might add for versimilitude) do legally own a "weapon" in the form of a CO₂ cartridge air pistol, the restrictions on the sale of which in the UK are (ISTM) far less onerous than those on certain types of firearms in the United States. If the argument in the UK section on this page really is that a common law right exists where "no law (forbids)" something, then there is still a "right" to keep and - subject to provisions - bear some types of weapons here. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I support the article rename. The global content can be moved to a global article about this topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Do not support article rename. -- Because of the issue of WP:POVFORK, which generally prohibits the creation of multiple articles created solely to address differences in perceptions of what constitutes NPOV in an article. As for conflating CO₂ cartridge air pistols with arms that would generally be suitable for use under a right to keep and bear arms, in most cases they certainly wouldn't be my personal choice. But, YMMV. Yaf (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Which, to be honest, does nothing but prove the suspected "we know what RTKBA means, and nobody else does" attitude. The bottom line, Yaf, if that this page has been appropriated by the American perspective on the issue to a degree that nobody else can get a word in edgeways. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I see SB and Haus complaining about the small size of the UK section. If you want to beef up the section, what's stopping you? That is of course you provide material relevant to the article and material that is properly sourced. I have said it before and I'll say it again, if you meet those criteria, then we won't have a problem. Otherwise, don't attack the US section just because it is larger (in whatever degree) than the UK section.Prussian725 (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidently attempts have been made to expand the UK section, but they have been arbitrarily shouted down. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrarily? --Hamitr (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you questioning the meaning or the use of the word? Nick Cooper (talk) 09:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

the use. --Hamitr (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Which I stand by as being appropriate. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Prussian725 asked why haven't the editors just beefed up the UK section? Look in the page history and you see wholesale edit warring of attempts to add global material. By wholesale I mean that the revert warring has not been with much attempt to try to improve defects, but rather it has been a 100% revert edit warring of newly added global content. Also, I have been paying attention and it is my observation that certain WP:OWN editors know what the "Right to bear arms" means, and their opinion is US centric. These editors typically have a hard time pointing to their sourcing of their opinion of what the "Right to bear arms" means. (Also, notice that on April 1st Prussian725 asked me for my sources and I answered. In kind I asked Prussian725 for his/her sources and received no answer.) This WP:OWN problem was heightened in the run up to the US v. Heller SCOTUS decision and was paramount in the editorial battle that resulted in the rename of this article from the global "Right to bear arms" to be the USA centric "Right to keep and bear arms". As a first step to fix the USA centric bias problem in the article I suggest we rename the article back to the global title "Right to bear arms". SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Right to bear arms already exists, as a means to disambiguate between heraldry usages and right to keep and bear arms usages. This was the reason that the name was settled on as "Right to keep and bear arms", being that it would not be confused with heraldry. The present naming has no such confusion. It should stay. As for adding new article text, provided there is no synthesis and the sources verify the proposed text, there would be no problem in adding signficant content to the UK section. However, in the absence of providing cites to verify proposed article text, it is no wonder than uncited POV commentary is immediately removed from an article as controversial as this one. The key to avoiding such issues is to make sure that all article text is properly cited with reliable and verifiable sources, with no synthesis. Basing proposed text on "everyone knows that..." type constructs is doomed to fail. Uncited POV commentary built upon such constructs is not likely to stand for long. Yaf (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)That's all I was trying to say. For what it's worth, I find no significant problem at the moment with the added material.Prussian725 (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't care to comment on the content debate, but I have observed two things here, which are not helpful. First, there is an emerging consensus that the statistics are not relevant. Second, Hauskalainen has refused to accept this and continues to dispute, flooding this talk page with volumes of argument. Hauskalainen, you may well be right, but there is not a consensus for your opinion. You cannot browbeat wikipedia into coming around to your point of view, no matter how right you think you are, and no matter how right you may actually be. It doesn't matter. This is encyclopedia-by-consensus. Your persisitent intransigence is disruptive and will not lead to acceptance of your position. A civilized editor must sometimes swallow his pride and accept the lack of consensus for his position. Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I am baffled by the last comment. This section of the discussion was intended to point out that the US section is overly long has a very high volume of legal/constitutional material relating to small points of law which should be moved to its own article. And what statistics are you referring to? I am puzzled that you should think that I have flooded this talk page with argument. Others seem to be much more active in that regard than me. I still think that minute arguments about one country's legal position is overdone and is too focussed on firearms. What about controls on the production and use of chemical and biological weapons? The UK section has information covering how the right to produce and carry such arms is restricted but the US section does not. --Hauskalainen (talk) 09:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not a constructive reply. Feigning ignornace serves only to annoy readers. The history of this tp speaks for itself. You can't isolate one proposal. Bottom line: you have contributed hundres of kilobytes of dialogue, trying to defend your edits to the article, which a consensus have found to be unacceptable. This talk page is basically "the Hauskalainen one-man show." I'm not going to comment on any content matters about this article. Non Curat Lex (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I dispute that 'a consensus has been found' and the "one-man show' characterization. I agree with Hauskalainen summary of the problem just above at 09:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC). Non Curat Lex seems far off base with this accusation. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I asked a straight question to a straight allegation and all I get is a twisted reply. I think your false allegation requires an apology. A brief glance back shows that I have actually contributed very little to this dialogue. Not just in this section but also if we take the current talk page. The article has been largely been constructed by editors other than me. The only major contributions I have made to the article are to improve the section on English law and the application of laws of the United Kingdom to the legal position on the right to bear arms there.--Hauskalainen (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think SB has it well-handled and I will defer. Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I will take that as an apology. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Now lets get back to the issue I raised in the first place. The US section is too long and most of the content should be moved to a nationally based article.--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

implied repeal of the English Bill of Rights?

Some anonymous editors have been implying that recent judgments in the English courts have questioned parliament's right under English law to repeal earlier laws. I have reverted both edits. The reason is simple. The issue is in the cases quoted in both issues relate to the hierarchy of laws and in one case the UK parliament's right to legislate over and above EU law (in which it confirmed that EU law predominates in areas where UK law has already passed competance at the EU level) and the second where a judge decided that there exists two kinds of laws in the UK (constitutional and legislative) and that parliament cannot "accidentally" overrule constitutional laws in other legislation and that constitutional law must be amended specifically. The act would need to be written in a way that implied that parliament was knowingly changing a long standing consitutional rule). That is simple enough. The issue here though is that some editors have implied that these rulings mean that the provisions in the English Bill of Rights concerning rights to arms cannot be implicitly repealed by later legislation. However, the English Bill of Rights is considered as significantly constitionally because of the relationship it established between the Monarch and Parliament. Other clauses concerning rights to weapons are not really in the same class. (What does and what does not constiute Constiutional Law in England is not something clear cut.) Any such attempt to claim that the right to arms in the Bill of Rights is constitutional and not repealed by later Acts is unlikely to succeed. I have not heard it claimed in any reputable British legal source. The courts have never in recent times upheld any such claim. Hence I have had no hesitation in deleting those claims that the provisions concerning arms may not have been repealed by later legislation. This is because later parliaments have expressly changed the law relating to arms and it cannot be argued that they did this accidentally as appears to have happened in the Factorame case.--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

However, the statement I made that appears to have been deleted actually stated that acts of the constitution were exempt from the doctrine of implied repeal in reference to the statement on the page that said the right to bear arms in English law had been repealed under implied repeal, which they clearly had not, having been repealed by specific acts, as you also stated above. Ramore (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a global article about the global right to bear arms

Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. There is a serious USA centric bias problem with this article. The Second Amendment's "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" has scope limited to just one country. There are a couple hundred other countries that do not have this same right as the USA but rather have different forms of a right to bear arms ranging across a wide spectrum. Why does this article confuse the USA right with the various other national rights globally? And, what can we do to fix this confused mess? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Is the right to survive limited only to the USA? Are only U.S. citizens to be considered human beings, with rights inalienable by virtue of simply being human and therefore having not only unique individual value but also moral agency? In speaking of ethical conduct in the context of civil society, the critical negative rights of the individual to life, to liberty, and to property are universal. Can they be otherwise?
  How can a person be said to have a right to his own person - to live unmolested by violent aggressors - if he has no necessarily corollary right to resist violent force with violent retaliation? And what better "force multiplier" can there be for the private citizen (remember, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away") than a simple, easily operated, convenient-to-carry item of personal property with which that private individual can effectively and immediately enforce his rights?
  People who scorn the "USA centric" concept embodied in the Second Amendment - which only recognizes an existing and universal right, and was embodied in the U.S. Constitution only for the purpose of explicitly holding the officers of America's federal government to refrain from the criminal infringement of the private citizen's absolute and undeniable right to keep and bear arms - are a bloody peculiar breed.
  Obviously enough, they hate the idea of human rights. All human rights.

This would seem to be a valid point. The Second Amendment is unique even among industrialized democracies, much less all the nations of the world. Given that there appears to now be a U.S.-specific article on this topic, it seems odd to include language throughout this article that is specific only to the U.S. experience (and even then in a highly contentious atmosphere as to its actual meaning). Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like part of the problem of USA centric bias at this article comes from a USA centric title. I suggest that we change the title of the article to be "Right to arms", which is the most general, therefore the most global article title that comes to mind. Any thoughts on this from other editors? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello all. I've been off WP for about three and a half months. Now, I'm not trying to start a war again, (SB and HK, please don't take this that way) but I am curious as to where SBs comment on "Right to Arms" term being the most global, comes from. I'm just wondering in which and how many countries the term is broadly used.Prussian725 (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I see three possibilities. 1) Right to Keep and Bear Arms. 2) Right to Bear Arms. and 3) Right to Arms. The first comes from the USA Bill of Rights, and is representative of one country. Number 2 is more broad but the third appears most broad, including the wording usage found in the British Bill of Rights affecting more than a dozen countries in the Commonwealth Realms, and other countries. In any case, number three covers multiple countries and number one (the existing article title) covers just one country. The best choice to reflect the global concept is the most broad and general, which is number three. The first really implies a USA centric, (Second Amendment), form of the right which is not global. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I guess I don't see a problem, but I do wonder what kinds of changes would the article undergo. I mean, since we are changing the title/terminology the content of the article will undoubtedly have to be altered, to one degree or another. This should probably be given some thought and preparation before we go through with the change. Thoughts?Prussian725 (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think huge changes are necessary, just a general shift towards a global perspective appropriate for a global encyclopedia. If you look above, a recurring criticism of the article is that it is USA centric and that it does not give balanced coverage to the the remainder of the world. The article already has the basic structure reflecting the four major global legal systems, common law, civil law, religious law and Asian law. The first is well covered, the later three need expansion for balance. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with SalyBoatr. I definitely think there is a balance issue here. If this article is purporting to be global in coverage, the content should reflect that. That can be done without too much trouble. I also find the argument of "The Right to Arms" as the best title for this article to be persuasive. It is certainly the most general of the choices, and the most applicable to the nations of the world as a whole. Forward Thinkers (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to move. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Right to keep and bear arms → Right to arms — Per consensus (see talk above), to give the article a title which is more applicable to the world as a whole to reflect the global scope of the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Comment the authority to have personal access to and permission for storage of arms is a privilege and not a right. The current title is US biased, the suggested title is still biased in favour of jurisdictions where there is a right to arms, which is not the case in many places. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 04:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose suggest Privilege of access to arms instead. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 04:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose — This is an article about one cultural aspect of US gun control. The "worldwide view" should certainly be covered, but re-factoring this article is not the means to do that. Edit Gun control instead, and or create Gun control in the United Kingdom, the Right to bear arms article, or something similar. This movereq appears to be nothing more then tendentious POV pushing.
  — V = I * R (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• well... now that I look at the article more closely I can at least see where this movereq is coming from, and it's not as tendentious as I thought. This article is a mess... I still don't support renaming it though, as the "provide a worldwide view" within this article is a mistake. As I mentioned above there are plenty of articles that can and should provide a worldwide view of Gun control issues, but the subject of this article is a US centric subject and should be re-factored in order to be presented as such. Rather then worrying about the name just get to work copy editing the article. — V = I * R (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  You seem to be arguing that there should be an article split, one article for the global and a split out article for the USA centric views. Right? If so, the problem still remains that the title of the global half of the split should have a global viewpoint. And, the "keep and" portion of the article title (taken from the US Bill of Rights) is decidedly USA centric. Explain how "keep and" is global. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  Or perhaps the article could take an approach as describing purely the concept of RKBA, and maybe the cultures and/nations where it exists, and other subjects as necessary (although I suspect the same debates will come up in those areas). Perhaps altering the general approach and method of the article could be an alternative to renaming/moving it. I'd be willing to give it a shot if everyone else would.Prussian725 (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  You touch on "where the culture exists". Objectively, it has common British origins, dating especially to their Bill of Rights of 1689 where they used the wording: "Freedom for Protestants to bear arms for their own defense, as suitable to their class and as allowed by law." That would suggest the title "Right to bear arms" as being most general article title. I find it hard to parse Ohms Law's comments, but I think he supported the 'right to bear arms' title as an option. The other independent origin is in Islamic law, though a relative tiny amount has been written about this, a very huge portion of the world is governed by this law, and while "keep and bear" has zero meaning in the Islamic global context, they do use the term "bear arms". That logic supports the page move to "Right to bear arms" as an appropriate global title. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  There is already an article on Gun politics which does have, and should have, a worldwide view. Currently, this article seems to be some sort of long standing content fork of that one. So, no split is really needed, just some content editing and at least one {{Otheruses}} hatnote, which everyone here seems to agree with to at least some degree.
  — V = I * R (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  How does "keep and" apply to British and Sharia jurisdictions? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  I assume that you're talking about "The right to keep and bear arms"? The simple answer is that it doesn't. What I'm saying is that the idea that this article should have a worldwide view is ludicrous. That's like saying that the articles on United States of America or France need to have a worldwide view.
  — V = I * R (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for being clear. Our disagreement is whether this should be a global article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  right... and, it shouldn't be. There's already an article about the global issue at Gun politics (which has a redirect from Gun control, incidentally).
  — V = I * R (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you appear arbitrary. Clearly there is a global topic, "right to arms" or "right to bear arms", that justifies an article, about the 'right' as distinct from gun control law. You oppose, per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it seems. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I tend to agree more with SB, and here is my humble reasoning: The US does seem to be one of the few, if not the only one, countries that recognizes keeping arms as going hand-in-hand with bearing arms. That being said, the "Right to Bear Arms" does lend more weight to being a broader topic, since it can be found in more countries/cultures than RKBA. And further, I can strongly guess that in the portion of the article that describes "Right to Bear Arms" throughout the world, the section on the US will undoubtedly make mention of RBA as it is seen and viewed in the US. What does everyone think?Prussian725 (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm (very!) willing to bend my reasoning. Honestly, I think that this movereq is more "arbitrary" then the position that I've been attempting to support, but I'm not about to get into an actual heated argument over it. Clearly there is a case to be made that there are some similar, global aspects to the political positions which are being discussed in this article. I don't see why this article couldn't be split either to a third article or split/merged into Gun politics, is all. The fact is that there are two similar terms, but the more specific term "Right to keep and bear arms" is a decidedly American term, and the similar "Right to Bear Arms" is more about Gun control policies elsewhere in the world.
— V = I * R (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Outdated Michael Dorf 'Emerson' footnote 53

Kenosis's recent revert of the unsourced editorial calls attention to the Michael Dorf October 2001 reference (presently footnote 53), which is seriously out of date and obsolete. The Emerson case to which Professor Dorf refers was simply Judge Cummings non binding dictum commentary associated with a case that was remanded for retrial, and the next year Dr. Emerson was retried and found guilty on the charges at retrial, appealed to the SCOTUS and cert denied. While in 2001, this raised a hoopla (including the famous Ashcroft memo), but in 2009 considering the 2002 retrial, it is plainly out of date and inappropriately used as a footnote for that passage now. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that Dorf's article is out of date for the reasons you mention, SB. It could definitely use a more current RS. Although, the point in the article that there are three basic "models" of the Second Amendment, cited to Dorf, is a more basic outline of standard ways it's viewed by scholars and legal analysts. For example, doesn't the following statement in the article still more-or-less hold today?: "The third model, the Individual Rights Model, holds that a right of individuals is to own and possess firearms, much as the First Amendment protects a right of individuals to engage in free speech." Of course, the statement relating the District of Columbia v. Heller decision so strongly to this model is WP:OR/ WP:SYNTHESIS, and would need a reliable source in support of this direct a link between the "individual rights model" and the Heller decision-- AFAIK the Supreme Court didn't go anywhere near that far in its decision. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC) ...
..... I copyedited the sentence relating Heller to the individual rights model here. I removed the citation request in the following edit upon realizing that it's supported by current footnote 54. Still, I agree with SaltyBoatr that the citations can and should be improved. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Listing countries by type of jurisdiction is illogical

Why are the countries listed by type of jurstiction? It makes no sense to me. I am inclined to change it. The organization of the legal system does not affect how laws emerge. We only have to look at the first section where the UK has very strict controls on the right to bear arms and the U.S. which regards it as somehow constitutional.--Hauskalainen (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree pretty strongly. The problem is that 'bearing arms' doesn't equate directly to gun controls, which might be source of your confusion. Bearing arms has more to do historically with the relationship of the citizen to the community and national defense. The difference in the UK versus the USA has been traced in reliable sourcing to the divergence in gun culture. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

And I disgree with you equally strongly. The right to keep and bear arms is primarily an issue of the presence or absence of controls. I don't see how you can possibly think otherwise. You have not addressed the issue of the meaningfulness of the type of legal jurisdiction. Don't you think that the people in France or Finland which do not have a common law jurisdiction have had a civíl responsibility to defend the nation? Or before the development of the concept of nation to their local communities? These obligations and any controls around the holding of arms are not different according to the civil law structure. The source of law has nothing to do with it! Legal traditions add sources of law are merely historically incidental to the shaping of the rights in any given nation. They are not generally formative.

Also, even if you were right, which I am sure you are not, the fact that many countries today have similar controls but have very different legal traditions (which is exactly the case) makes the division by legal tradition meaningless to the reader of this article. I fear you are seeing this issue through your own national lens. --Hauskalainen (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoa. No need to get personal. Let's try to separate this from a battle between personal opinions, and instead focus on what we read in reliable sourcing. You have not mentioned any reliable sources which you are readubg forming the basis of your opinion about the international differences between the various rights to bear arms. Could you please do so now? That way we can avoid arguing "I believe this, and you obviously are wrong." Lets instead read and use what the various reliable sources are saying. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if you were offended. I was just stressing that I strongly disagreed with you. It is the way the article is currently written that draws the distinction between various kinds of legal systems. I don't see anything in the article that supports any logic for grouping countries by legal traditions. Why is this important? In American law, the right to keep and bear arms is in part of Federal constitional law and in part by State statute law. In Britain, there is no single written constitution and the right to keep and bear arms is regulated by statute. Courts in these countries have interpreted their respective laws to form case law. the UK the right is defined wholly within statute law and is not based on common law either. Both countries have a common law tradition but the outcomes regarding rights and controls on the right to bear arms are very different. So where is the logic in grouping the two nations together this way? I therefore think it is incumbent upon you to get reliable sourcing for maintaining the sequencing of the international section by sources of law. Wikipedia prefers listing alphabetically unless another sequence is more logical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lists#Organization The way it is right now is not logical. --Hauskalainen (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You evaded my question. Again, what reliable sourcing are you reading? This conversation is pointless and a waste of time when editors are left guessing whether your opinion is entirely personal. Is the structure of the article you prefer drawn from reliable sources? Do tell. I would like a chance to read the sources which you have read. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not evading anything! You said " You have not mentioned any reliable sources which you are readubg (sic, which I take to mean reading) forming the basis of your opinion about the international differences between the various rights to bear arms". But my argument is that there is NO basis for the international differences in the rights in different countries. Thats why an alphabetical list is preferable. You are arguing that the source of law is meaningful but there are no sources to back this up. Sure there are sources that say American law was based originally on English law but that just explains a little bit about American history and its nothing to be surprised at. That does not mean that all around the world the law regarding rights to keep and bear arms are related to the type of legal system which formed them. You need to make that argument. Not me that they are not related.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The article as it stands is pretty well cited to reliable sources, sourced which do put an emphasis on legal origins of the right. You have mentioned nothing but your contrary personal opinion. Personal opinion carry's very little weight at Wikipedia. One extremely reliable source that holds a contrary opinion to yours is the book by Professor Malcolm, ISBN 9780674893078. Editors are not compelled to argue with your personal opinion. Again, tell me what reliable sourcing you are reading which forms the basis of your opinion so I may read it too. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That reference applies only to the United States referencing its rights back to English Law. Well that is hardly controversial. Many of the colonists originated from England and borrowed that law tradition. That does not mean that we have to assume that the rest of the world derives its laws regarding right to arms differently according to the particular type of law applying in that country. Sure, the law is totally relevant, but not the TYPE of law. You have not established that this is significant in a global context. --Hauskalainen (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you read that book? It certainly discusses the right to bear arms from a comparative basis, founded on root legal traditions relative to international contexts. Again, this conversation is pointless when you refuse to disclose the basis of your opinion by pointing to reliable sourcing. It appears your opinion is entirely personal, and as such, has near zero relevance here. This conversation could potentially be productive if we were to discuss the Malcolm book, again, if have you read it, and if you have, lets talk details relative to this article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) No, I have not read the book. But if you have, perhaps you can summarise for us what it tells us about how the fundamental structures of the law in Kenya caused the law relating to the right to bear arms evolved there relative to that in China where the legal tradition is very different. I suspect you can tell that I am a sceptic about the relevance of this book to this discussion and the structure of the international section of this article.--Hauskalainen (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. Then, what have you read? SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You are avoiding the issue. I am sceptical because I have read nothing that indicates that a country's legal system per se affects the right to bear arms so that countries with common legal systems will have a common basis to the right to bear arms. You claim to have read something that does. Because I do not have access to Malcolm's book I have asked you to summarise Malolm's arguments and give us her sources. That is not much to ask. I am inclined to think that Malcolm was referring to the right in the USA and perhaps an historic right back to earlier English law. That is, after all, her area of expertise.--Hauskalainen (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That book is easily readable online, both at Amazon at Google books. There is no way that I can summarize it better than simply reading the original. It is maddening that you refuse to disclose what you are reading which forms the basis of your opinions. And, no, editors are not compelled to argue your personal opinion with you here on this talk page. We should discuss what we read in reliable sources. And, your failure to read the important book To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right on this topic written by Joyce Lee Malcolm explains why your impression of this book is so wrong. The book goes into length discussing the Anglo-American origins of the right being "a direct legacy of English law." SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Precisely my point. I have no doubt that American law was influenced by British law. But that does not follow that the law relating to every or even most countries laws regarding RTKBA will vary according to the source of that right. That British and American laws are founded on the same legal system and yet have very different RTKBA demonstrates that the organization of the countries in the list by legal systems is illogical. Your attitude to the article is entirely dictated by what you have read about the origin of the US law. It is not an internationally applicable view. You have not demonstrated that JLM has attempted to argue that the form a nations laws take (irrespective of the nation) is determined by its legal tradition.--Hauskalainen (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what your personal opinion sees to be "illogical", please disclose the sourcing of your personal opinion about this. And, actually I have indeed demonstrated that per that reliable sourcing the rights to bear arms in these countries are "a direct legacy" of their Common Law origins. Just read the book. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Without taking sides on the above here are some observations:

1: SaltyBoatr (when operating under his previous username) was the initial author of this article and the one who gave it the initial organization by source of jurisdiction format which it still roughly has (see diffs).

2: This article is currently somewhat without focus because there has been some push-and-pull over its history as to what exactly the subject should be. Some would argue that the term "bear arms" is a term of art that has a specific meaning from the tradition of English common law. This definition would suggest that this article should focus on the history of arms in English common law alone. Yet the article attempts to provide a survey of the right to arms from an international perspective.

3: I agree with SaltyBoatr that the right to arms in the United States developed as an offshoot of the historical right to arms under English common law. However, that does not dictate that this article should be organized as it currently is (common law / civil law / Asian law / religious law). If the topic of this article was more clearly defined then perhaps the most logical organization would be more obvious.

The following observation incorporates more of my personal opinion:

This article could be greatly improved if the editors involved could agree on what exactly the subject of this article actually is. Currently about 70% of this article is devoted to the right to bear arms in the United States. Yet this topic is already covered extensively on many other wikipedia pages 1 2 3. I would argue that the content on this page regarding the United States adds little to Wikipedia that isn't already covered elsewhere. About 22% of this article covers topics specific to England, but much of that content is already covered at Gun politics in the United Kingdom. The remaining 8% briefly covers the right to arms from outside the perspective of common law, but again I find that much of that is covered (or should be covered) at Gun politics. So what exactly is the subject of this article? If the subject is the right to arms in the United States then perhaps this article would be better off as a redirect elsewhere. If the subject is the right to arms under the tradition of common law then perhaps the non-common law countries should just be dropped and the article's contents should stop in the 17th or 18th century, when the British Empire began to contract and the colonies' legal traditions began to diverge from English Law. Alternatively, if this is truly meant to be a survey of the right to arms around the world then perhaps it should reorganized into an order that more logically covers that topic, as well as go through a significant pruning to remove the common-law-centric POV from an international article. - Hoplon (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. As I see it, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms varies from country to country and will be set according to the desires of lawmakers in each country. There is no Godly reason why it has to be organized according to Salty's reading of how one country's law evolved from another's. There is no reason to believe that the law system itself defines how all countries derive the form of this right. That this happened in the U.S. is an accident of history. This does not have general applicabilty and contrary to Salty's insistence to the countrary it is up to him to show that it has worldwide applicability.

As to the other suggestion, I see no benefit in defining this article as "The right to Keep and Bear Arms until the 17th (or 18th) century." That would be totally arbitrary and again seem to be adapting the article to a particular national view of the subject. The UK section was enlarged mostly by me to demonstrate that there is a clearly restricted right to bear arms in the UK and it applies to most kinds of weapons of offence and not just firearms. That the UK law is so very different to US law only goes to highlight the meaningless of organizing the international perspective according to English Common Law, Napoleonic law and Sharia. For the record, I have grave doubts about the claims made about Sharia but only because I cannot find any other sources to back up the one source that is there. Íf anyonbe has the original source at home it would be very good to know where the author of that piece got his information! Hopefully other editors with an interest in this subject will be able to expand how the RKBA is determined in other countries. --Hauskalainen (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hoplon didn't agree with you. He suggested that we prune "the common-law-centric from an international article". He asks the question which is the elephant in the room here: Is this article about the US centric Right to Keep and Bear Arms, or is this article about the various global rights to bear arms. It is noticeable that at no time did Hoplon above use the US centric term "keep and", though he mentioned "right to arms" and "right to bear arms" many times. There is plenty of coverage elsewhere in Wikipedia of the USA centric "keep and", and this article seems best suited for the global coverage of the right(s) "to arms" and "to bear arms". Also, see above, I have shown reliable sourcing that shows the "direct legacy" of the right within the several countries that share a Common Law heritage which justifies the grouping. So, per reliable sourcing at least there should at least be a dichotomy of Common Law and otherwise. It is unfortunate that there is relatively little global sourcing written in the English language of non-Common Law jurisdictions, we have to do our work expanding these stub sections. There is also reliable sourced right to bear arms in the jurisdictions operating under Sharia, see the 1978 paper by Raja Afsar Khan, and several other reliable sources including "Words of Ayman Al-Zawahiri" page 221 ISBN 9781606760079. Also, there are several sources that describe the right of inheritance in the Koran (tracing to tribal traditions which predate the Koran), as being dependently associated with the right to bear arms as a warrior, in other words; those without the right to bear arms (like women and male children) do not have the right of inheritance, ref: Women, the Koran and international human rights law: the experience of Pakistan pg 38 ISBN 9789004152373 . And, repeating myself, your continued insistence on editing this article based on your personal opinion, (using your words) "As I see it...", is counterproductive and in violation of WP:NOR policy. We can proceed more efficiently on this talk page if you were to rephrase your ideas by pointing to what we can read in third party reliable sources. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen (Hauskalainen I don't actually know your gender but am assuming), I didn't entirely agree or disagree with either of you. I agree with SaltyBoatr that the tradition of arms in the United States has its roots in the English common law. I agree with Hauskalainen that the organization of this article leaves something to be desired, and that the organization by source of the law may not be optimal. I think I am making a proposal with two points. First; that the editors should come to agreement on what the topic of this article is. Second; that once the editors determine the topic that the organization be reconsidered. SaltyBoatr, if you agree that the topic should be pinned down first, then perhaps you would set aside the question of reliable sources. I don't think that RS are going to dictate to the editors here what the topic of this article is. Once the topic is pinned down then of course RS could help determine the content and organization of the article. I see three ways that the topic of this article could be defined:

1: Discussion of "the right to keep and bear arms", a specific phrase from the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

2: Discussion of the right to bear arms in the context of the English common law.

3: A survey of the right of arms ownership across many nations, without giving undue weight to the United States or English common law.

I know that I did somewhat interject myself into your conversation uninvited. You are free to tell me if I am being unhelpful. But after I noticed your debate and reviewed the article, I was left unclear as to what *precisely* the topic of the article was and thought that it may be useful if you were in agreement as to what the article is supposed to be discussing. - Hoplon (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The topic of the article is what it says it is. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. This will vary from place to place. And no, I do not accept that Salty has made a proper case for the organization of the article in the way that he is trying to defend. Clearly Britain does not regard the RKBA as a piece of constitutional law. The U.S. does. That alone disproves his argument. The international listing should be be alphabetical by country and not by legal tradition.As Hoålon says, there is plenty of information in WP about RKBA in the United States and in a few other countries. This has to be the global perspective article and no case has been made to indicate that legal tradition is a major driver in determining RKBA globally.--Hauskalainen (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, however I think the following is somewhat problematic: "The topic of the article is what it says it is. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.". The problem I see is that the exact phrase "right to keep and bear arms" is taken from the US Constitution. It may be somewhat confusing to speak of "the right to keep and bear arms" in an international sense - I don't know if that exact construction of words is used anywhere else. There may be a "right to arms" or a "right to bear arms" or a "right to keep arms", but when you link them together to "right to keep and bear arms" that seems to be a particular Americanism. Not to put words into your mouth, but I *think* your view is that this article should be a survey of the legal status of the right to possess weapons from a global perspective. Is this correct? - Hoplon (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. - Please don't think I'm trying to play any sort of word games with you. It's just that certain phrases like "the right to keep and bear arms" or "the right to bear arms" have a strong implied meaning to some editors. You and SaltyBoatr may not have the same set of preconceptions and may not know what implied meaning each other relies on when you read one of these phrases. - Hoplon (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This article, until the article rename adding the words 'keep and', was well suited to give coverage to both the right to arms and the right to bear arms from a global perspective. There is the sticky distinction that possessing weapons does not always equate to bearing arms, as bearing arms often implies a warrior, where possessing weapons often implies a wider range of usages. Also, the word 'keep' in this context has multiple meanings, one being "to have", the other meaning "upkeep" as in "keep up an army", and we must be careful to neutrally present both meanings, and avoid favoring one usage over another.

None-the-less, yes, this should be a global article. I think it was a mistake to rename the article with the USA centric "keep and" which has very little meaning in contexts other than relative to the US federal. This is a global encyclopedia. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly it's a bit of a tough issue, balancing the preference for a global perspective with the fact that the phrase "right to keep and bear arms" is a legal term of art in the United States. (The Second Amendment to the US Constitution, as should already be familiar to participants here, refers explicitly to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in its text.) The phrase is, AFAICT, a legal term of art unique to the US. It seems to me some material about similar rights in other nations—and/or the relative lack thereof—is reasonably provided to give some perspective. But the phrase itself is a US phrase, complicated only by the roots of the phrase which go back to Europe and in particular the UK. An historical overview of the shorter phrase "bear arms" as it has evolved in other countries after the US split off from England might perhaps be best discussed in a separate article?, as distinct from how the constitutional rights debate has evolved under the rubric of the legal term of art in the US? Offhand it seems to me that if a consensus could be arrived at for this sort of split, organizing two respective articles with existing material, one on Right to keep and bear arms and another with a title like Right to carry weapons, or some such objective title, would not necessarily be a major endeavor. As to the UK, the historical issue of armed service obligations under the words "bear arms" need not necessarily have separate treatment, because the issue is not viewed analogously in the UK today as it is in the US today. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be simpler just to rename the article back to Right to bear arms, which is well understood and broad enough to cover the US topic and the global topics. The truth be told, the vote to add "keep and" to this global article title seemed to be a POV push, or if not, at least a form of USA systemic bias. The Right to keep and bear arms could be a redirect pointing to this Right to bear arms to eliminate all potential confusion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I'd like to keep this section to the point, and the point is that the organization of countries by legal tradition is not meaningful in an international context beyond the historical U.S. historical context. If we can agree that an alphabetical list of countries would be less misleading then we can at last make some progress.

On the issue of the article title, the right to keep and the right to bear are different concepts legally. Bearing Arms and Carrying Weapons are the same thing, so I don't really understand the distinction proposed by Kenosis. Rules regarding acquisition, storage, bearing (or carrying) and the usage of arms are all interesting aspects that deserve discussion and probably together in the same article because they are clearly related to each other. For this reason I would just be sensible to keep the information in the same article. I would not be averse to a new article Right to Keep and Bear Arms (United States) because the issue is clearly complex in that country and there will be a lot of variance from State to State.--Hauskalainen (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, it is necessary for you to reveal the sources of your opinion. Personally 'feeling' something doesn't carry weight here. I have show several reliable sources above which align the right to bear arms in countries with their legal tradition, and reliable sources trump personal opinion. As editors we must identify the various points of view seen in the reliable sourcing, and edit the articles according to what we read. (As opposed to editing the opinions we personally favor.) Also, when I look at reliable sourcing I see that almost without exception, the words "keep and" apply only to the United States. This is a global article, and including "keep and" in the title is harmful due to the US centric bias. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to grasp a better understanding what is at the core of Hauskalainen complaint here. Can I float a guess, and see if it rings true? In his summary just above he describes the article as a place to bring together "Rules regarding...arms". While presently, the article gives much coverage to the historic precedence of the right to bear arms. Hauskalainen, is it that you object to this coverage of the shared Common Law history of the right to bear arms? As several countries share this Common Law history, the structure you propose would make it very difficult to show this commonly shared history. Excuse me for guessing, (and speak up if I am wrong); this mutually shared history tends to gives focus to the 'historic militia duty' viewpoint in addition to 'individual possession of weapons' viewpoint. Is this POV tension between these two viewpoints the sticking point? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree with SaltyBoatr and Kenosis that the title "Right to keep and bear arms" inherently implies the United States. I think that renaming may be part of the outcome here, but I think it is premature to do so now.

SaltyBoatr; I suspect that Hauskalainen is approaching this article from a non-US perspective and doesn't see much benefit to tying together the common law countries. I think he has several times made clear his desire that this be an alphabetically arranged article that gives the status of the "right to bear arms" by country, although he may be using the phrase "right to bear arms" in a less rigorous manner than some may be accustomed to.

Hauskalainen; I am assuming that you are approaching this article from an international perspective without full awareness of the debate over arms in the United States. I would like to slightly correct two things you wrote. You wrote "the right to keep and the right to bear are different concepts legally" - this is actually a topic of debate in the United States. Some believe that the "right to keep" and the "right to bear" are distinct rights, while others believe that the "right to keep and bear" is a single unitary right. You also wrote "Bearing Arms and Carrying Weapons are the same thing" - some people strongly hold the belief that "bear arms" inherently means to use weapons in a military sense. I'm just pointing this out to maybe cast light on some of the disagreement here; the editors involved may not be using words in the same way.

Hauskalainen; I have a question for you. How close is the content currently at gun politics to what you envision should be here? That article is currently a listing by nation of the laws of various nations. - Hoplon (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I also would like to ask about how will we be able to describe the history of the rights to bear arms in different parts of the world alphabetically? Much of the Anglo-Saxon history goes back centuries with many countries sharing a common history, and predates the present names of the countries. Also, the Islamic history of the right to bear arms goes back equally long if not longer, with many countries sharing a common history; also predating the modern naming of the countries involved. Representing this history of the rights to bear arms just doesn't alphabetize according to modern country name. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that among the countless jurisdictions that have the many-centuries-old expectation or obligation for able trustworthy citizens to "bear arms" in defense of one's "state", be it country or region or fiefdom or whatever-- only in the United States has this become conflated with a constitutional right to keep and/or carry weapons on an individual basis. AFAICT, everywhere except in the US they're two separate issues: (1) an obligation to be available for mandatory armed service in defense of one's country or region (yet further complicated in the US by the fact that originally the applicable "region" is called a "state" because the original intent was for each to be part of a confederation of sovereign states rather than a single new country), and (2) rights to own, keep and/or carry a weapon. Most nations' laws deal with them as two separate issues including the US. But AFAICT only in the US are they superimposed in the nation's constitution as one "right to keep and bear arms", which has a very great deal to do with the fairly unique origins of the US as the first major nation to successfully free itself from the British Empire, which in turn happens to be the primary origin of the English term "bear arms".
..... Whatever the decision is w.r.t. how to name the article(s), I'd recommend keeping an eye open for this linguistic complication-- which is that today in nations other than the US, military service obligations and personal weapons rights are dealt with separately, not together in one constitutional provision. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Kenosis, I see your point. Though we must carefully and neutrally describe how the USA is different, separating the reliable third party sourcing from the third party advocacy websites and press releases as there is a lot of myth and misunderstanding out there especially when doing research by Google searches. This can be achieved by using just the published sources from respected publishing houses that meet high quality reliability standards with fact checking according to WP:V policy, and by avoiding original research and the use of primary sources per WP:NOR. One other nit pick, you use the word 'weapons' imprecisely. Weapon use implies fighting, which does not encompass other firearm uses such as hunting for sport or food, target practice for sport, or firearm use in historical reenactments, or gun collecting. Also, there are several excellent reliably sourced books that explore hypotheses about how the USA has taken a different path regarding gun culture, and hence regarding the evolution of "bearing arms" as compared to other common law countries; explaining why there is a modern difference between countries with a shared historical origin. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Re the use of the word "weapon": Yes, fair enough. I neglected the pickup truck with a shotgun rack, and other methods of keeping guns not ordinarily intended to be aimed at other humans. But bearing those guns-- that's regulated by laws governing game hunting and other limitations on manner of sport use. Fundamentally this article is about the right to keep and bear arms with the expectation that they're intended to be aimed at another person, the reason being that "to bear arms" is an English and American term of art that presumes a situation in which the purpose of carrying a weapon is to use, be ready to use, and/or threaten to use that weapon against another person. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

More nit picking. You use the words "keeping guns", which is politically charged and ambiguous. I think you mean "having guns", but the word "keep" has multiple meanings, and the meaning in context of upkeep of a citizen's militia in 1780 likely was the "upkeep" meaning as in "keep up an army" (versus the "to have" meaning). Today in 2009 certain advocates prefer to use the "to have" definition for political purposes, to the point that "keeping guns" meaning "having guns" has reached into common English usage. The article should explain this transition of the meaning of the word impartially and objectively.

Similarly, you use the words "bearing those guns", when I suspect you mean "carrying those guns", which is also politically charged and ambiguous. The meaning the two word term "bear arms" in context of a citizen's militia in 1780 was clearly "to serve military duty", (versus the "carrying guns" meaning so common today) . Today, in 2009 certain advocates prefer to use the "to carry" definition for political purposes. The meaning of "bear arms" has transitioned over time. This article should neutrally explain the history of the evolving meaning of these terms, and not just take for granted and casually mimic the politically charged advocacy usage. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I could should use, e.g. "owning and storing guns" or "having guns" rather than "keeping guns"; and I could should use "carrying those guns" and/or "using those guns" rather than "bearing those guns" as I did to try to make the point above, in order to help keep the constitutional term of art separate from colloquial and general legal usage in the US. But the underlying issue here is what to do with the article to balance a global perspective with the issue that whether one uses "right to keep and bear arms" or "right to bear arms" it's primarily a United States constitutional controversy in today's world. And, as Hauskalanian alluded to above in this long talk section, breaking it up into "common law", "civil law" and "shariah law" jurisdictions isn't logical given the primary usage of the words"right to keep and bear arms" as a US constitutional term of art.
..... Given the discussion above, personally I'd be OK with moving the article back to Right to bear arms and redirecting this title to it, leaving the global perspective in the article. I'd also be OK with splitting it into two articles, one with the present title and another with a global perspective. Possibly, nothing more than a rewriting is needed, weeding out the false distinction between common, civil and shariah, and perhaps replacing it with a summary of the term "bear arms" as it morphed into today's primary usage, along with a separate section about individual gun rights and obligations worldwide. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What false distinction? Plainly in reliable sources the Anglo-Saxon history of the right to arms has a common root, shared by the Common Law countries, a history which spans ten centuries. In the last two centuries this history has diverged, and that is also covered in reliable sources. None-the-less there is a very long single shared history among several common law countries. Regarding Sharia, there also is an even longer shared common history of a right to bear arms, documented in reliable sources. Regarding civil law countries, there appears to be very little that I have been able to find in reliable sources. I don't see how the common history can be represented alphabetically according to modern country names. The bulk of the problem here is that the USA centric title makes organizing a global article to be difficult. This could be easily solved by renaming the global article and creating a USA centric split out article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a false distinction for a number of reasons, among which are the following: 1) The "right to keep and bear arms" is a term unique to the United States, particularly as a constitutional right. 2) The "right to keep and bear arms" was not a term at common law, and the "right" existed at common law only by default, i.e., only to the extent that there were not explicit laws against it. Moreover, the term "bear arms" didn't necessarily mean the same thing as it does in the Second Amendment see, e.g., Law_of_Arms#The_right_to_bear_arms. 3) Other common law countries didn't follow the example of the US in codifying such a right. Quite the opposite, in the 19th Century, England and other common law countries began to pass laws explicitly restricting this right-by-omission. 4) "Civil law" and" Shariah law" countries don't follow the same set of traditions that led to the USA's codification of the "right to keep and bear arms" as a constitutional provision. 5) The phrase "right to keep and bear arms" is itself incomplete without an analysis of the "prefatory clause" and the full text in the Second Amendment, as the Supreme Court and others have noted. ("A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." ) 6) Today, gun rights in general have little or nothing to do with common law vs. civil law vs. Shariah law. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I grant your point 6, but this article is not about gun rights. 5, and 4, I agree. Points 2 & 3 seems to be your opinion, got sourcing? Per the sourcing I have read, especially Joyce Malcolm superb book[1] on the common law history of this right (transitioning from a duty) which began in England. Your point 1 has the false premise that the protection of a right is the same thing as the pre-existing right, is it not per many reliable sources. Heck, in the USA people have protection based on both the federal constitution and most people but not all people from the constitution of the state in which they reside. Some of those states provide for a self defense exception outside the home, some do not. The federal provides a self defense exception based within the home. Some state constitutions protect the "right to bear arms" and others the "right to keep and bear arms". Can we agree that the article is better suited for coverage of all the variations of the right, historical and jurisdictional, with the more general title "Right to bear arms"? SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I edited #2 here, just after your response came in--apologies for that. I should have said, as it now reads, something to the effect that at common law it was a right only to the extent that prohibitions of this right-by-omission were not codified. There were, of course, numerous laws on the books over the centuries about who could fight under what circumstance and such. For instance, a commoner had no rights whatsoever in this regard; IIRC only holders of real property did, and even holders of real property were subject to limitations about the circumstances under which they were permitted to bear arms. But I don't have sources at hand. So I'll need to be content with simply making a set of unsourced talk-page assertions for now. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

As to your explicit question about the article title-- not sure at present. There are more permutations of these terms than had appeared to be the case when I first checked in on this discussion. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping to give Hauskalainen time to respond but you two have made some progress forward so I'll chip in again here. First, just as I tried to inform Hauskalainen that he may be using phrases in a manner that isn't consistent with how some US editors read them, I think I should also point out that Saltyboatr's above explanations of the history of "weapon", "keep arms", and "bear arms" are not universally accepted.

I would like to suggest that we step back a moment from discussing definitions of words and sources and return to the fundamental question of what is the topic of this article supposed to be. I have a specific proposal to make for the other editors here to pass judgment on. I see at least three issues with the current article. First, the US perspective is significantly overweighted in an article which purports to take an international view. Second, good content specific to the English common law tradition of arms is in an article titled "the right to keep and bear arms", which is an American phrase taken from the Constitution. Third, countries without a common law tradition are given short shift. So, here is what I propose:

1 - The Right to bear arms page remains a redirect to various international treatments of this topic.

2 - The subject Right to keep and bear arms becomes a redirect to Second Amendment to the United States Constitution as the phrase "right to keep and bear arms" is just a passage of text from that document. The subject (from a US perspective) is already discussed at length there (and at articles that links to). Any non-redundant US-specific content that is currently here but not there gets migrated.

3 - A new article Right to bear arms (common law) (or similar title) be created to discuss at length the development of the English common law right to arms. That article would track the development of the right from the earliest date (12th century or so) to about the time when the empire began to dissolve. It could then segue to Gun politics in the United Kingdom.

4 - Gun politics (perhaps after renaming) remains the article to provide a general survey of the regulatory status of firearms around the world.

One thing this would leave out would be a place to discuss at length the philosophical or moral traditions of cultures that do not draw from the common law. I would propose that if we feel we have sufficient content to warrant, those traditions could each take on their own articles as well. Please note that all of the above is put forth as a topic for discussion. - Hoplon (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Redirecting RTKBA to the 2A article won't work because it is pretty much universally accepted that the right to bear arms pre-existed the Bill of Rights, and the 2A simply protects the pre-existing right relative to federal jurisdictions. For instance, there are other distinct and separate rights to bear arms in, if I recall correctly, 39 different state jurisdictions, each with their own State constitution. So, saying "the right to bear arms" is protected, by a person in Kentucky for instance, is an ambiguous statement. A person in Kentucky has both the federal protection of the right in federal jurisdictions, and the state protection of the right according to the Kentucky Constitution. Each of these protections is distinct from the other, and both are merely protections of a right. The protection of the pre-existing right is a distinct topic from the actual right.

The simplest way to fix this mess consistent with the WP:DPAGES guideline is to create a new disambiguation page named Right to bear arms (disambiguation) for the disambiguation pointers. Then, to rename this RTKBA article back to what it was before: Right to bear arms. The RTKBA article could be a redirect to the Right to bear arms article, or if the content grows too much, a new article discussing the various rights to bear arms distinctly protected by each of the 39 state constitutions plus the federal constitution. This new USA centric article could be RTKBA, or RTKBA(US), or some such.

And just for clarity, I do not claim that my explanations of the history of "weapon", "keep arms", and "bear arms" have ever been universally accepted. My assertion is that the meanings of those words are ambiguous in reliable sourced POVs, with dual meanings. I assert that we must be careful to use the words mindfully of the advocacy exploiting the ambiguous usages and that we be meticulously impartial and neutral. Just using the word "bear" to mean "carry", or "keep" to mean "have" in this article is dangerously sloppy. We must be impartial and precise when we use those words with dual meaning.

And, to state something that should have been mentioned before, the 'half quote' summary of the 2A favored by one advocacy group when discussing this topic (reflected in the present title) also politically exploits the agenda through partiality. By omitting the 'regulated militia' from the full discussion, by framing the focus. I am not advocating for one advocacy agenda over another, I am just advocating for an impartial and neutral coverage, befitting the policies of this encyclopedia. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Hauskalainen, who helped initiate this discussion, has left us. SB, let me restate what I think you are suggesting we do. 1) Move this article from "right to keep and bear arms" to "right to bear arms" in order to remove the US-centric phrase from the title. 2) Keep the article (after renaming) as an international treatment of the "right to bear arms" with the caveat that "bear arms" is not meant specifically in the English common law sense. - Hoplon (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Let's rename like that and give coverage of the international perspectives and the historical perspectives. The article should give balanced and neutral coverage to the various global and historical points of views, including mention of the English common law historical sense as it changed over time, and also give balanced coverage of the other senses of 'bear arms' found in the reliable sourcing including the dominant modern 'carrying guns' sense, without undue balance on any specific sense. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the consensus now to restore the article title back to be the more global "Right to bear arms" title? SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) No. Lets not rename it. Neither have I left the discussion. Its just that I am extremely busy at the moment. I will get back to this topic (of the illogical listing by legal system) in due course.--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

When you get a chance, please let us know what you are reading that forms the source of your opinion. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

NO! It is up to you to demonstrate that your sources have general applicability globally. So far you have not! --Hauskalainen (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Again. See above. The book by Joyce Lee Malcolm, ISBN 9780674893078, published by Harvard University Press describes the shared origin among the many Common Law countries that share the Anglo Saxon tradition. I have also pointed to at least three sources that identify a common origin of the many peoples in the world who share origins based in Sharia. Both of these separate independent traditions, per reliable sourcing, go back many centuries and predate modern country names. As to the Roman Law commonality, I have see one reliable source that describes that they did not and do not have a traditional basis of a right to bear arms but that rather the control of arms was reserved for the rulers. Indeed, I have shown applicability globally. It appears that you personally disagree. Therefore, to move this forward, it would be helpful for us to discuss what you are reading that forms the basis of your opinions. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No you haven't shown this. The Sharia clips are identical tiny snippets from which can get no context. It is impossible to know where it comes from. A quote from the Koran would be essential here as this is the source of Islamic authority. Even the small snippet we have say NOTHING about countries that follow Sharia law (which is actually very very small, even amongst countries with majority muslim populations). So your case is not made as regards Islam. Neither have you been able to give me enough information to verify the Malcolm quote. How can you say that there is a relationship when clearly US and modern English law have diverged so widely? The answer is that there is an HISTORIC link but that is it. I am not disputing the historic link, but its relevance to today is pretty much zero. Unless you can convince your fellow otherwise. So far you have not. And as for Roman law we need more than your memory of something you once read. The ONUS is still on you to prove this claim. You have not proved your assertion of a meaningful division of countries in this way.--Hauskalainen (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

After weeks of trying to work this out with you we still are going in circles. We have a dispute. Do you agree to follow dispute resolution policy in order to resolve our dispute? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be willing to yes. But before you begin this process answer me this. If you are right, (that legal traditions fundamentally affect the outcome of the right to keep and bear arms), how do you explain that the U.S. and the UK (which both have the same common law tradition) have very different laws on the subject? It seems to me to be perfectly clear that one can have the same legal tradition and yet very different laws. Is this somehow a hiccup in your theory? --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a theory. Neither is my premise the '...fundamentally affect...' you suppose. I am reading books on this subject. There is a multi-century history of this topic, and the common Anglo-Saxon history as shown in multiple reliable sources and that should also be shown in this article. Similar for the separate Sharia history. As to the divergence of the laws in the last two centuries, that too is documented in reliable sourcing and that divergence should be covered in this article. Please quit wasting talk page time on your personal speculation about what 'seems perfectly clear' to your imagination. Let's read the reliable sourcing and write the article based on what we read. Tell us, what have you been reading? SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

For a month now Hauskalainen has doggedly refused to reveal his sources, essentially claiming that the burden of proof was on me, not him. Well, now that Hauskalainen has made a major reorganization of the article based on his apparent whim[2], the burden of proof shifts. Hauskalainen, now will you disclose which reliable sourcing you are reading? SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)