El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.
[edit] Unresolved dispute about article neutralityI don't understand why the article doesn't simply start with the actual text of the 2nd amendment, which is of course very brief, note it as ratified on 1791, followed by some equivalent to "has been recently interpreted by the supreme court" to affirm a pre-existing individual right to possess wepons... blah. Seems to me that you start with what it is, in itself, then go directly to its current interpretation. As it is, it will read as very biased to many. 69.242.38.116 (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC) random visiting reader
I continue to dispute the neutrality of the article. I have explained this in detail above, but major elements are 1) Systemic bias. 2) Excessive use of originalism. 3) Improper mixing of the Bliss Kentucky right to bear arms, with the Federal 2A. Unfortunately, this dispute has been stonewalled for months, but it still remains unresolved. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC) I pointed out that YOU are the most biased person on this discussion and you deleted that. Why?
The comment you see above is in response to Salty Boars "burning" of a negative comment against him, pointing out that HE is the worst POV offender on this article. I'm sure if a poll was taken most of the people here would agree with that. in fact lets try it out 4.156.252.35 (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC) "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights that declares a right to keep and bear arms by individuals." That is currently the opening sentence of this article, and is completely POV (not to mention blatantly false). The text of the second amendment does not, anywhere, clearly define "a right to keep and bear arms by individuals." All controversy over the amendment is specifically about whether or not there is an individual right at all. Certainly, it states that there is some fashion in which the people have a right to keep and bear arms, but nothing in the text clearly states that there is an individual right. Why not open the article with say... the amendment? Instead, I open this article and am reading opinionated statements. Now, I'm not saying it doesn't imply an individual right to bear arms, but it certainly does not state it clearly and, to open this article with such a statement seems dishonest and particularly POV.
As the amendment is still something hotly contested, can we not say that it is a amendment the Supreme Court has "ruled" to mean individual self defense or whatever it was instead of just flatly saying that "this is what it definitely means? That way, you get the best of both worlds so to speak.--66.66.212.182 (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC) The amendment is not "hotly contested". As Al Gore would say, "the debate is over" *waves hand*. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.51.230 (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC) I don't understand why the entry doesn't begin with a more neutral frame. There is an ongoing debate in the historical and legal scholarship about the context and meaning of this amendment. The debate is not over. A single Supreme Court case does not end the debate any more than _Dred Scott_ or _Roe v. Wade_ settled the underlying disputes in those cases. So, why not put the supreme court in the subject position and say that it "recently ruled that..." One's current position on gun rights (I personally support gun rights) should not shape the article. This kind of blatant bias will convince no one. Please just give the information. Embededinclosure (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC) The article if allowed to begin with "protects the INDIVIDUAL right" does not appear neutral. This article should begin with the actual text of the second amendment and the disputes as to how to interpret the amendment should follow. You are doing Wikipedia an injustice by hi-jacking this page for your own agenda. 75.54.116.122 (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The phrase "pre-existing right" leads me to wonder what pre dated the second amendment of the constitution? Please provide some reference or identify a common law that pre dates the second amendment which guarantees "the right to bear arms". If you are unable to provide that then we must agree the phrase "pre-existing right" is incorrect. This article in order to remain un-biased should only state the facts about the second amendment. Instead it opens with quotes by one supreme court justice in a very recent ruling, Ignoring the fact that the supreme court split on the decision by a very narrow margin of 5-4. And even in that decision it was stated that the "right" to own guns can be limited. i.e. "restrictions on Military style assault rifles, Certain types of ammunition, etc. Keep the pro/con arguments in an appropriately titled section and refrain from any misleading opening statements. 69.227.153.239 (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The phrase "pre-existing right" leads me to wonder what pre dated the second amendment of the constitution? Please provide some reference or identify a common law that pre dates the second amendment which guarantees "the right to bear arms". If you are unable to provide that then we must agree the phrase "pre-existing right" is incorrect . - - This article in order to remain un-biased should only state the facts about the second amendment. Instead it opens with quotes by one supreme court justice in a very recent ruling, Ignoring the fact that the supreme court split on the decision by a very narrow margin of 5-4. And even in that decision it was stated that the "right" to own guns can be limited. i.e. "restrictions on Military style assault rifles, Certain types of ammunition, etc. - - Keep the pro/con arguments in an appropriately titled section and refrain from any misleading opening statements. 69.227.153.239 (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC) - - - - The article if allowed to begin with "protects the INDIVIDUAL right" does not appear neutral. This article should begin with the actual text of the second amendment and the disputes as to how to interpret the amendment should follow. You are doing Wikipedia an injustice by hi-jacking this page for your own agenda75.54.116.122 (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.159.98 (talk) [edit] Models of interpretationThis section was just removed from the article. I think the removal was unwise, because the article should have at least some information about all the major schools of thought on the Second Amendment. We shouldn't delete all references to, say, the "modified collective" theory just because a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court rejected it. By comparison, articles relating to eminent domain provide coverage to theories of the 5th Amendment's "Takings Clause" that disagree with the Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, and the article on Roe v. Wade covers the POV that that case was wrongly decided. The article should make it clear (as it now does) that the individual right view has been endorsed by the Supreme Court and is therefore currently the law within the U.S. court system, but it should also address the important minority POVs regarding the Second Amendment. PubliusFL (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Individual's Right to own a Pocket WarshipTo put some perspective on assault weapon bans, not only did the individual during the time of the Revolutionary war have the right to purchase a rifle, a weapon superior to the musket which was the standard infantry weapon of the age, but individuals had the right to to own WARSHIPS. The proof you ask? Consider the implication of the Constitutional prohibition on the States with respect to granting Letters of Marque and Reprisal. and I can bet you that if an individual had in his possession a first line ship of war many members of Congress would have kissed both his feet while granting that letter. A far cry from the current batch of control freaks running Washington! 4.156.252.32 (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The article has links to various legal issues relating to the Second Amendment including the ban on assault weapons. In response to the above I now ask What does a link, on the article page, to the assault weapons ban have to do with the Second Amendment? If you answer that question, I am sure you will find an answer to your own. 4.156.252.186 (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
In some respects I was editorializing, but my point is valid. During the Revolutionary War private ownership of guns, superior to normal military issue, was considered a BLESSING. The same for private armed vessels (warships) that were used to raid British shipping. Today, even with a Supreme Court ruling in his favor, Heller can't get a gun registered in Washington DC. In current news. WASHINGTON (WUSA) -- District residents can start registering their guns today. But at least one very high profile application was already rejected. Dick Heller is the man who brought the lawsuit against the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns. He was among the first in line Thursday morning to apply for a handgun permit. But when he tried to register his semi-automatic weapon, he says he was rejected. He says his gun has seven bullet clip. Heller says the City Council legislation allows weapons with fewer than eleven bullets in the clip. A spokesman for the DC Police says the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to their interpretation, all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns. 4.156.252.247 (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Re Private Ships of War Assuming the link below has accurate numbers, Naval vessels of the various states and Congress captured or sunk 200 British ships per link below, PRIVATE warships captured or sank 10 times that number. http://americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/SEA.HTM Before the end of 1775, the majority of colonies had commissioned several craft, and Congress had established a navy and marine corps. The Continental Navy eventually put into service 50 or 60 ships; the Colonies' navies added another 40 or so. In contrast, the British Navy in 1775 had 270 ships and by 1783 had increased the number to 468. Although the combined American navies were unable to cope with the British fleets, they sank or captured nearly 200 royal ships. Late in the war more than 400 American vessels operated as privateers in the waters off the Atlantic coast, the West Indies, and even those surrounding the British Isles. They inflicted severe damage on British ships and trade, costing Britain about 2,000 ships, £18 million, and 12,000 men captured. 4.156.252.71 (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC) This site is in agreement with the number of British ships sunk or captured but list the numbers of privateers as MUCH higher then the one above http://www.usmm.org/revolution.html Arguably without privateers the Revolutionary War would have been lost due to a shortage of gunpowder in the Colonies. Because of British policy regarding import of gunpowder, the colonists did not have enough to repel the third British charge at Bunker Hill. A survey by George Washington at the time showed army stockpiles were sufficient for 9 rounds per man. By 1777, the privateers and merchantmen brought in over 2 million pounds of gunpowder and saltpeter. A moment of silence for those that died to secure your freedom. About 55,000 American seamen served aboard the privateers. When captured by the British Navy, they were given a choice: join the British Navy or prison. The conditions of captivity aboard the prison ships, mostly abandoned ships moored in New York harbor, were inhuman. The most infamous of these was the HMS Jersey. About 11,000 privateers died of disease and malnutrition, their bodies dumped onto the mud flats of Wallabout Bay, where Brooklyn Navy Yard now stands. 4.156.252.71 (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC) Yes, and that was at a time when the US was fearful of incorporating a national army and was hard pressed to do it anyhow. However, the US now has a standing army national army, as well as the National Guard and various services that evolved from the militias and has taken its place. Might I also note there was heavy regulation even in the times of the Colonial period on weapons ownership, and those people who did posses weapons were often in militias under the jurisdiction and monitoring of the states for the purposes of the state and nation. So people weren't left willy nilly to do whatever they wanted with weapons. They were allowed weapons under the jurisdiction of the states, were often put through some test or regulation such as declaring allegiance to the nation or state or stopped from possessing a weapon should it threaten the security of the state ("a well regualted milita, being necessary to the security of a free state") or should they be found criminal in some manner, and if they served in a militia (to whom the constitutional protection of absolute firearms ownership may only apply), that militia was controlled by the state and organized under the state, and was little more than a state army than some sort of individual enclave formed by people unaligned or unwatched to serve simply their own purposes. Now I could get into all sorts of constitutional diatribe, but since Heller cemented some view of this amendment (whether valid to what the amendment actually means or simply the opinion of the Supreme Court), it would be all useless anyway and likely get a slap on the wrist for being a POV, regardless of the fact that I have seen some slights at POV here as well. So I am therefore stuck in historical contexts to get some point across. (Frankly, I think there were earlier decisions by the court on this issue which conflict with the one recently passed and were as powerfully stated as Heller and should be noted as well. Also, the fact that the decision only applied to DC as a federal enclave should play some role in the national legal standing of the decision and whether it applied nationally or simply bureaucratically to the amendment in DC. Therefore, it could still be an issue of debate on the national level.) Finally, this is all useless gobbledygook in any case as it is more blog than encyclopedia.--66.66.212.182 (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC) The United States of America does not have a 'standing army'. This is why the Congress must go through budgeting for the Armed Forces every two years. It may be an 'effective' standing army, yet Congress, who controls the money, rules and equipment, and declares wars, could abolish the army in a flash. There would a fleet of ships with little crew. NantucketNoon (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I ask you, Did Daniel Boone have to go to City hall or the local police station to get permission to purchase his rifle? or even to register it? Did Lewis and Clark have to do the same before starting their trek across the continent? I somehow can't quite picture it. 4.156.252.242 (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC) To NantucketNoon Regarding your comment that the US does not have a standing army What do you think a standing army is? and did the Founding Fathers agree with YOUR interpretation? This is what wiki has to say A standing army is an army composed of full time career soldiers who 'stand over', in other words, who do not disband during times of peace. When do you recall the US Army disbanding in a time of peace? I personally can't recall something like that at all and believe it last happened sometime before the War of 1812. 4.154.237.13 (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Warning to responders of the above: Some bug is making additions at the end of this section (the right to own a warship) show up at the end of the next section (GA Review). Check your edits AFTER posting to make sure that they appear where you want them to. 4.154.237.13 (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC) [edit] GA Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria {{subst:#if:This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.| This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.|}}
-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] District of Columbia v. Heller comments@SMP0328. : Please try to find any article published (or to be published) in a law review that praises Heller, before you again revert the comments (by Federal judges, I can't say it often enough) I added. I choose Posner and Wilkinson, but it could've also been Shaman or Walker. ––Bender235 (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] IntroductionI think there should be a more general introduction... one that talks about the Amendment in more general terms rather than referring specifically to a Supreme Court interpretation. Thoughts? Quark1005 (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Clarifying meaning of where the 2nd Amendment Language was originally going to goI get confused when I read the section of the article I've quoted below:
On first read it seemed (to me) that the subject of the first sentence was referring to something different than the subject of the second sentence. But if they're referring to the same thing then I think it might to less confusing to word it like this:
Or, like this:
What do others think? Hoping To Help (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Página espejo de la WikipediaDirectorio de Enlaces Directorio dmoz Directorio espejo dmoz Pedro Bernardo | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
