Talk:Right to keep and bear arms/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Individual definition

Moved this text IP edit here to the talk page from article page, this appears to be entirely original research. Is there any reliable secondary sourcing for this edit? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Answering my own question, I do see some reliable sourcing of this concept, here for instance. It does appear to be a US centric view, and should probably be moved down to the US section of the article though. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Limits to the Right to Bear Arms

Does anyone know why there are apparent limits to the right to bear arms? I have always thought that Jefferson believed if government became tyrannical, the people should have the means for overthrowing it, just as they had during the 1776-1783 war. Today, they would require weapons similar to those used by the US armed forces. How does the law restrict the types of weapons that people own? Is there any legal or constitutional authority or court judgment on this matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 01:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This, of course, is the global article about the right to bear arms and your question is USA centric. The US Constitution gives the President the power to suppress insurrections, even I think, that of insurrectionists with the view the that the US government is tyrannical. The only country (of which I am aware) that has the right of citizens' armed struggle explicitly protected in their constitution, oddly enough, is Cuba. As to US restrictions on the ownership of weapons, presently, that is left up to the laws of the individual US states which each state being different. It appears that federally in the US, the total federal ban on types of guns may or may not be disallowed while the federal regulation of guns will likely continued to be allowed. We should learn more after the US Supreme Court rules on the Heller case sometime next year. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Rakove and Malloy

Please take the trouble reading this book (available online in Google Books) and this law journal article also available online in its entirely, please read the whole article. Though pay special attention to pgs 116-117 of Mulloy and page 106,107... (including the footnotes) of Rakove. This information is well cited, and itfirmly meets WP:V with strong sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Then it ought to be easy to cite the requested sentences. Unusual claims demand strong and reliable sources. Yaf (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please read the source in the original? Please spare me the need to type what you can simply read directly. They are easily accessible online[1][2]. By the way, these two scholarly sources are very strong and reliable. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Have removed uncited content that appears to be POV commentary. Yaf (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar. --Jimbo, July 19, 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaf (talk • contribs) 20:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, did you read the sourcing I provided? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but haven't been able to verify all the claims. Also, it said that the quoting was sometimes very accurate, not just always incorrect. Have added this into the restored, corrected, and properly cited sentences in the second paragraph of the insurrrectionary section. Yaf (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, Your footnote says Mulloy pages 133-134, could this be a mistake? If you are mistaken, let us correct it. If not, I would like to read the exact passage to which you refer. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Have found an equivalent quote from earlier, within the text you should be able to verify on Google books, that says almost the same thing. It is probably close enough to balance the presentation just as well. Yaf (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tell me Yaf, did you actually read pages 133-134? <smile> SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. As well as quite a bit further, after starting around pg. 114. The book is rather biased, but it is a verifiable source. That said, I wouldn't recommend this book to my friends at the shooting range for them to buy, though :-) They would think I had gone daft. Yaf (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Where did you find a copy? And, so quickly! My local library doesn't have one, and I am a bit poor to pay the $160 price on the book market. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Military service definition

In a global context, how does the military service definition make any sense outside of US Federalism. I don't think that anywhere else in the world does the "right to bear arms" mean the right to serve in a military. This should probably go into a US-centric section. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, military service 'bearing arms' pertains to many countries besides the USA, certainly all the countries of English judicial origin. Read Joyce Lee Malcolm's book ISBN 0674893069 for more about this. And also, a long history of the 'bearing arms' pertaining military service under Roman law, especially the Spanish. There is a lot written about the right to bear arms during the Conquest of Spain and the era of the Spanish Inquisition. Here is one Spanish example[3], and there are many more. You are right to suggest that web searches prove 99.9% of the time a US centric attention to the right, and that I conclude is because of the POV push of the modern militia web bloggers. In all, we probably agree that the article is too USA centric, and that the Roman Law section needs expanding. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, the article should be split into a "Bear arms" and "Right to bear arms" articles, since the "Right to bear arms" which is the topic of THIS article, the "military service definition" has no bearing outside the USA. While the term "bear arms" sometimes has a military definition, the "right to bear arms" never does outside the USA-federal-state issue. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Joyce Lee Malcolm's book? It deals almost entirely with the right to bear arms outside, and predating, the USA. Sure, we have a section about the meaning of the term 'bear arms', and rightly so because it is a confusing term. We probably don't need a section about the definition of the word "right", which is not a confusing term. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in the US, only the people have 'rights'; Governments (state and Federal and local/counties/townships/parishes) have 'powers'. Distinguishing among the differences for rights in the US vs., say, in Spain or elsewhere around the world, would help clarify the discussion. Yaf (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You would agree then that the people of Spain lack a right to bear arms. Therefore, this is properly a global topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The people of Spain "lack a right to bear arms" in that they're not allowed to own arms. According to the article however they do not lack this right, since they do have the right to perform military service. That's the essence of the problem with the article as it stands. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am left to guess if this 'problem' you see is relative to your personal opinion, or relative to reliable sources. Could you cite reliable sources to explain this 'problem' you see? And actually, I think you are confusing 'right' with 'duty'. Big difference. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No I haven't. But what I'm saying is that perhaps the article is mixing two different concepts to the detriment of the article - it may be better to separate the issues which would allow better coverage and in a more global perspective. For example, while "bear arms" may denote a military service definition (disupted) "right to bear arms" almost never denotes a military service definition. Think about it "you have the right to serve in your military" --- it boggles the mind. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assertion that the 'right to bear arms' "almost never denotes a military service", the scholarly attention finds the polar opposite. The 'right to do military service', also known as 'the right to bear arms' in the 17th Century English language, originated from the Protestant vs. Catholic tensions in the run up to the Glorious Revolution, see the Malcolm book, especially chapter 1. And, you are bringing your bias to this, because the 'right to bear arms' in most of the world still has meaning, if for no other reason than that right belongs to the state not to individual people. Whether the right belongs to a person or belongs to a state (as it does in Spain) does not diminish the reality that the right is tangible thing worldwide. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I realize you disagree, but outside of the US, the right to do military service has almost no connotation. I read your Spain link, it makes no such assertion. In a global sense, the "right to bear arms" means almost exclusively the plain translation, ie "right to carry weapons". In the US we have the recent (last 25 years) research claiming that "bear arms" means something in addition to "bear" + "arms", but that "right to bear arms" means exactly "right" + "bear arms" - which is very inconsistent. This whole argument stems around controversies surrounding the nature of the 2A in the US. Outside the US people don't have this discussion. Splitting the article allows a more non-US-centric discussion of "bear arms" and also of "right to bear arms" without making awkward sectioning of "bear arms" and "bear arms usa" and "right to bear arms" and "right to bear arms usa" sections. I do believe your view should be included, but as the article stands now it takes the "bear arms" US centric definition (which is disputed) and applies it to a global "right to bear arms" phrase, (in the US it's even more complicated, as at a federal level it's "right of the people to bear arms" adding further complication) and this is not a good way to maintain a global unbiased view. Here's an easy test - pick a random person outside of the USA and ask them if the "right to bear arms" means their right to serve in a military, and this will let you now if the global view and the one you support are the same. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Plainly you are confusing the right to bear arms with modern US Gun politics. The history of the right to bear arms goes much further back in world history than the last 25 years of USA politics. Please read Professor Malcolm's book and then we can discuss this further. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that if I ask people inside the US about RBA, I'll get two different camps of answers. You seem to be saying that if I ask people outside the US the same question, they will break into the same groups. This simply is not accurate or correct. You're right, it centers arouond modern US gun politics, which this RBA article is using to support the concept in a biased fashion. That's why I'd prefer to either split the article into the two different concepts, or restructure it to handle them more cleanly without making the US political issues into the main core of the article. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your "asking people" is original research. My 'bias' is that we should set aside our preconceptions, and try to learn about "the right to bear arms" by reading reliable books written by university level scholars and published by well respected university publishing houses. Again, I suggest that you set aside your political preconceptions and read the books of Professor Malcolm and Professor Emeritus Uviller. Do not bring your 'asking people' personal research into this article please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you misunderstood. I'm well aware of Malcom and Uviller as well as the associated problems with their research and conclusions. In addition, I am not suggesting using WP:OR to introduce information into the article, I'm suggesting it as a sanity-check to see if your view that U&M is global is indeed accurate. I haven't yet seen any source suggesting that U&M's theories apply outside of a US federal-state problem. For the record, U&M is just another political preconception, so asking someone to read them is not to remove bias, but simply to show another political opinion. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You wrote you hadn't read the Malcolm book, now you claim familiarity. Professor Malcolm, with immense detail, describes history of 'the right to bear arms' as being of British origin. And sorry, the U&M book is remarkably well documented and your offhand dismissal as "just another political preconception" lacks gravitas. Have you read the U&M book? SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the "Joyce Lee Malcom" threw me off, I normally see it referred to as "U&M", and yes I do have it, and yes I've read it, and yes there are issues with many of their methods and conclusions. So we can't simply take their view as the "correct" view, but as one possible pov. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The Malcolm book: To keep and bear arms : the origins of an Anglo-American right ISBN 0674893069.

The Uviller and Merkel book: The Militia and the Right to Arms ISBN 0822330172

Which of these two books have you read?

You write: "...there are issues with many of their methods and conclusions". Please point me to the reliable sourcing behind your sweeping dismissal, thanks.

Also, you describe the Uviller and Merkel book sourcing as 'one possible pov' but you are vague as to what sourcing you use for your implicit 'other possible pov'. Please be explicit as to which books you use for sourcing your 'other' POV so that other editors may evaluate the reliability of your sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Rakove and Malloy

Please take the trouble reading this book (available online in Google Books) and this law journal article also available online in its entirely, please read the whole article. Though pay special attention to pgs 116-117 of Mulloy and page 106,107... (including the footnotes) of Rakove. This information is well cited, and itfirmly meets WP:V with strong sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Then it ought to be easy to cite the requested sentences. Unusual claims demand strong and reliable sources. Yaf (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please read the source in the original? Please spare me the need to type what you can simply read directly. They are easily accessible online[4][5]. By the way, these two scholarly sources are very strong and reliable. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Have removed uncited content that appears to be POV commentary. Yaf (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar. --Jimbo, July 19, 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaf (talk • contribs) 20:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, did you read the sourcing I provided? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but haven't been able to verify all the claims. Also, it said that the quoting was sometimes very accurate, not just always incorrect. Have added this into the restored, corrected, and properly cited sentences in the second paragraph of the insurrrectionary section. Yaf (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, Your footnote says Mulloy pages 133-134, could this be a mistake? If you are mistaken, let us correct it. If not, I would like to read the exact passage to which you refer. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Have found an equivalent quote from earlier, within the text you should be able to verify on Google books, that says almost the same thing. It is probably close enough to balance the presentation just as well. Yaf (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tell me Yaf, did you actually read pages 133-134? <smile> SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. As well as quite a bit further, after starting around pg. 114. The book is rather biased, but it is a verifiable source. That said, I wouldn't recommend this book to my friends at the shooting range for them to buy, though :-) They would think I had gone daft. Yaf (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Where did you find a copy? And, so quickly! My local library doesn't have one, and I am a bit poor to pay the $160 price on the book market. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Military service definition

In a global context, how does the military service definition make any sense outside of US Federalism. I don't think that anywhere else in the world does the "right to bear arms" mean the right to serve in a military. This should probably go into a US-centric section. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, military service 'bearing arms' pertains to many countries besides the USA, certainly all the countries of English judicial origin. Read Joyce Lee Malcolm's book ISBN 0674893069 for more about this. And also, a long history of the 'bearing arms' pertaining military service under Roman law, especially the Spanish. There is a lot written about the right to bear arms during the Conquest of Spain and the era of the Spanish Inquisition. Here is one Spanish example[6], and there are many more. You are right to suggest that web searches prove 99.9% of the time a US centric attention to the right, and that I conclude is because of the POV push of the modern militia web bloggers. In all, we probably agree that the article is too USA centric, and that the Roman Law section needs expanding. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, the article should be split into a "Bear arms" and "Right to bear arms" articles, since the "Right to bear arms" which is the topic of THIS article, the "military service definition" has no bearing outside the USA. While the term "bear arms" sometimes has a military definition, the "right to bear arms" never does outside the USA-federal-state issue. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Joyce Lee Malcolm's book? It deals almost entirely with the right to bear arms outside, and predating, the USA. Sure, we have a section about the meaning of the term 'bear arms', and rightly so because it is a confusing term. We probably don't need a section about the definition of the word "right", which is not a confusing term. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in the US, only the people have 'rights'; Governments (state and Federal and local/counties/townships/parishes) have 'powers'. Distinguishing among the differences for rights in the US vs., say, in Spain or elsewhere around the world, would help clarify the discussion. Yaf (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You would agree then that the people of Spain lack a right to bear arms. Therefore, this is properly a global topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The people of Spain "lack a right to bear arms" in that they're not allowed to own arms. According to the article however they do not lack this right, since they do have the right to perform military service. That's the essence of the problem with the article as it stands. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am left to guess if this 'problem' you see is relative to your personal opinion, or relative to reliable sources. Could you cite reliable sources to explain this 'problem' you see? And actually, I think you are confusing 'right' with 'duty'. Big difference. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No I haven't. But what I'm saying is that perhaps the article is mixing two different concepts to the detriment of the article - it may be better to separate the issues which would allow better coverage and in a more global perspective. For example, while "bear arms" may denote a military service definition (disupted) "right to bear arms" almost never denotes a military service definition. Think about it "you have the right to serve in your military" --- it boggles the mind. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assertion that the 'right to bear arms' "almost never denotes a military service", the scholarly attention finds the polar opposite. The 'right to do military service', also known as 'the right to bear arms' in the 17th Century English language, originated from the Protestant vs. Catholic tensions in the run up to the Glorious Revolution, see the Malcolm book, especially chapter 1. And, you are bringing your bias to this, because the 'right to bear arms' in most of the world still has meaning, if for no other reason than that right belongs to the state not to individual people. Whether the right belongs to a person or belongs to a state (as it does in Spain) does not diminish the reality that the right is tangible thing worldwide. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I realize you disagree, but outside of the US, the right to do military service has almost no connotation. I read your Spain link, it makes no such assertion. In a global sense, the "right to bear arms" means almost exclusively the plain translation, ie "right to carry weapons". In the US we have the recent (last 25 years) research claiming that "bear arms" means something in addition to "bear" + "arms", but that "right to bear arms" means exactly "right" + "bear arms" - which is very inconsistent. This whole argument stems around controversies surrounding the nature of the 2A in the US. Outside the US people don't have this discussion. Splitting the article allows a more non-US-centric discussion of "bear arms" and also of "right to bear arms" without making awkward sectioning of "bear arms" and "bear arms usa" and "right to bear arms" and "right to bear arms usa" sections. I do believe your view should be included, but as the article stands now it takes the "bear arms" US centric definition (which is disputed) and applies it to a global "right to bear arms" phrase, (in the US it's even more complicated, as at a federal level it's "right of the people to bear arms" adding further complication) and this is not a good way to maintain a global unbiased view. Here's an easy test - pick a random person outside of the USA and ask them if the "right to bear arms" means their right to serve in a military, and this will let you now if the global view and the one you support are the same. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Plainly you are confusing the right to bear arms with modern US Gun politics. The history of the right to bear arms goes much further back in world history than the last 25 years of USA politics. Please read Professor Malcolm's book and then we can discuss this further. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that if I ask people inside the US about RBA, I'll get two different camps of answers. You seem to be saying that if I ask people outside the US the same question, they will break into the same groups. This simply is not accurate or correct. You're right, it centers arouond modern US gun politics, which this RBA article is using to support the concept in a biased fashion. That's why I'd prefer to either split the article into the two different concepts, or restructure it to handle them more cleanly without making the US political issues into the main core of the article. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your "asking people" is original research. My 'bias' is that we should set aside our preconceptions, and try to learn about "the right to bear arms" by reading reliable books written by university level scholars and published by well respected university publishing houses. Again, I suggest that you set aside your political preconceptions and read the books of Professor Malcolm and Professor Emeritus Uviller. Do not bring your 'asking people' personal research into this article please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you misunderstood. I'm well aware of Malcom and Uviller as well as the associated problems with their research and conclusions. In addition, I am not suggesting using WP:OR to introduce information into the article, I'm suggesting it as a sanity-check to see if your view that U&M is global is indeed accurate. I haven't yet seen any source suggesting that U&M's theories apply outside of a US federal-state problem. For the record, U&M is just another political preconception, so asking someone to read them is not to remove bias, but simply to show another political opinion. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You wrote you hadn't read the Malcolm book, now you claim familiarity. Professor Malcolm, with immense detail, describes history of 'the right to bear arms' as being of British origin. And sorry, the U&M book is remarkably well documented and your offhand dismissal as "just another political preconception" lacks gravitas. Have you read the U&M book? SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the "Joyce Lee Malcom" threw me off, I normally see it referred to as "U&M", and yes I do have it, and yes I've read it, and yes there are issues with many of their methods and conclusions. So we can't simply take their view as the "correct" view, but as one possible pov. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The Malcolm book: To keep and bear arms : the origins of an Anglo-American right ISBN 0674893069.

The Uviller and Merkel book: The Militia and the Right to Arms ISBN 0822330172

Which of these two books have you read?

You write: "...there are issues with many of their methods and conclusions". Please point me to the reliable sourcing behind your sweeping dismissal, thanks.

Also, you describe the Uviller and Merkel book sourcing as 'one possible pov' but you are vague as to what sourcing you use for your implicit 'other possible pov'. Please be explicit as to which books you use for sourcing your 'other' POV so that other editors may evaluate the reliability of your sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Notes and revisions to the "James Madison" Section

Notes and revisions to the "James Madison" Section are on the way this morning (Feb 29, 2008, US Eastern Time), in an attempt to more closely follow the rules for sourcing and to (obviously) document the sources. I'm trying to follow the rules as best I can, but am a little new to this. I wrote this content back in November, but it looked like someone else had thrown in some notes and the gist of the content had been accepted, else I would have provided references myself. I will do it this time, and I think it will be a useful element of what is discussed here. I guess I should at some point soon create an account here, but in the interest of time, I want to get this in now so the page isn't so ragged. Regards, -JustMC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.243.243 (talk) 13:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem about 'being new to this', everybody was new a some point. Though, I see a problem that you have placed your 'James Madison' section up in the top of the article. Bear in mind this article is about a global context, and anything to do with 'James Madison' probably belongs down in the USA section. Additionally, your edit takes direct quotes from James Madison, and then adds your commentary about what he meant. This constitutes 'original research' and amounts to using 'primary sources', neither of which are allowed on Wikipedia. Read the policy about WP:NOR and WP:PSTS. I also have serious problems with the 'neutral point of view' of your thesis, as it appears that you are making this post to push your personal point of view. What have you been reading for the sourcing for your idea? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Salty, to answer your question, I was reading The Federalist, and I would appreciate your help in pondering how this page might be improved. I have already pulled down the content that I added, as I think I see how it either fails to fit the rules here and/or will be challenged as such, even with references added.

But when I have a few more minutes, I will write out a few more questions to ask for your help, and would appreciate your thoughts. In Federalist 46, Madison's discussion of militia in various scenarios explicitly illustrate a spectrum of cases where the militia might rise and fight tyrannical government (regardless of how unlikely Madison thinks it would be in a US) using their own arms. In one case the milita are made up of armed citizens "fighting for the common liberties, and united and conducted by [state or local] governments possessing their affections and confidence." In another, they are the Europeans who suffer actually suffer tyranny but even if they regained their "right" to be armed, would not have any such friendly [state or local] governments to help unite or conduct the fight to "shake off their yokes."

It is absolutely clear that Madison considers tyranny something that people are justified in fighting, and he specifically uses the term "right" to be armed. It is also explicit that he considers that citizens, even sans governments conducting them (e.g.: the Europeans in Fed 46), have the "right" to be armed. And Madison (and Hamilton and Jay) wrote The Federalist to explain their rationale for the Constitution (won't have much trouble finding a primary and secondary source for that).

My concern was that Madison's intent from his own words is very clear on these points. But when I read the page here in WP, the "military service definition" of bearing arms seems an awkward, imprecise, dichotomous construct for considering Madison's views. Granted, there are plenty who assume such a construct and argue both sides, and that bears discussion as does exist here already.

But there is a more granular and precise examination of who makes up militias that Madison walks through, and it feels very lacking from the discussion here. I think the article would be much more complete if it were in. I find Madison's words compelling, straight from the horse's mouth, but I'm looking for sources that would fit here and enrich the discussion here with some notion of this. Like I said, it is hardly a stretch of interpretation (Madison walks through this very clearly), but the article as written seems structured in a way that misses out on this significant viewpoint. For instance, in these two scenarios (armed citizens with and without the help and organization of friendly governments as they fight federal tyranny): is the fighting that the citizens do (with their rightfully kept firearms) "bearing arms" in the "military service definition" or not?

As written, the article seems unable to address the anwer. The whole definition seems not to fit, given that the militia can be a group of individuals with no formal organization other than what they construct themselves, and since the arms with which they fight must thus be their own (which Madison explicitly writes they have a "right" to) not something issued to them from some level of (now hostile) government above. It's almost a hybrid model--where the right to have the arms is clearly individual, but the fighting might be en masse in a milita. Except there doesn't seem to be any minimum number of people trying to stave off tyranny--a militia of one just seems far less likely to succeed.

Granted, I gather from the volumes of discussion of this page and reading lots of WP:XXX pages that the ideal is to find some published work that says this. (It's kind of funny, but it would almost be parroting Madison himself, and thus seems so needless that only a fool would restate it, that I wonder if academe ever thought it needed saying. But it is far more of a pure reading or observation of what Madison wrote than an interpretation of it. It's English.) Anyway, I'm curious whether you have run across any such sources in your travels, and how this seemingly significant (Madison seems a pretty important voice here, no?) subtlety might be added to the article. For reference, I have included the same two passages below, if that is of use in seeing my meaning. Regards, -JustMC

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.243.243 (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that your synthesis of what you read in The Federalist amounts to original research from a primary source. I asked you earlier to read the policy WP:NOR and WP:PSTS. Did you you get a chance to do this? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Salty, yes, to answer your question, I did read WP:NOR, as well as WP:V and WP:NPOV, and other explanatory material. This was helpful, and you will note that I pulled my own submission back down based on that--not the typical approach of a WP contributor with a different POV I suspect.

And I also went to great lengths--^{just look at those lenghts up there :)}-- to answer your prior question about what I had been reading and give it the context of why I thought the existing article might be improved.

In so doing I also asked some questions (bolded for ease of reference) and i'd still appreciate your considered answers. I confessed to being inexperienced in WP (I had no idea these discussion pages even existed when I made my first submission back in November). Reading all the discussion here it appears you have read a considerable amount on the subject, and I thought you might be able to help.

I have a few more thoughts, but this seems plenty for now. Regards, -JustMC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.243.243 (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing[7], good editing. Also per WP:TP, talk pages are not a place to discuss personal opinion, so I won't. Rather talk pages are a place to discuss the article. Regarding your questions, yes I have been reading a lot about this topic, and you can see this from the citations I have given when editing the article. My advice is to stick with most reliable mainstream sourcing, see WP:RS. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrofit topic-year headers

28-March-2008: I grouped older topics above using headers "Topics from 2006" (etc.) to emphasize age of topics, as on other talk pages. Older topics might still apply, but using the tactic of yearly headers to note the age helps avoid rehashing old news, without archiving any ongoing issues. Also, new topics will more likely be added at bottom, not top. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, why not archive the old topics? This page is 245k in size.

—WWoods (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If you now how to set up bot assisted archive, like with MiszaBot, I vote yes. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure; it's not hard, and seems to be working well for Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Anyone else have an opinion?

—WWoods (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute: Title is not NPOV

The neutrality of this article is disputed, particularly the title (see the discussion below). I am placing the POV banner in the article until this dispute is resolved.tc2011 (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, I see that you have removed the POV banner. However, this dispute has not been resolved, as concerns regarding the neutrality of this article's title have not been addressed. The latest commentary in this section indicates that the current title ("right to bear arms") is most definitely POV and fails to accurately reflect the actual content of the article. Please respond. tc2011 (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have put the POV banner back. I was responding to improvements regarding another dispute when it got removed. Thanks for pointing this out. Yaf (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The "right to bear arms" (deleting "keep and") is a phrase used primarily by gun control advocates to de-emphasize the individual nature of the right and to promote a collectivist understanding of the issue. I propose that the title be changed to remain true to the original text that gives rise to debate ("the right to keep and bear arms"), thus avoiding ideological deletions. The title, "the right to bear arms," simply does not reflect the article that follows it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.201.209 (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the banner "The neutrality of this article is disputed" be placed at the top of this article.tc2011 (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The title is misleading & not a neutral point of view. Keeping in mind the global nature of the article & the subsequent treatment of the term "bear arms" one would reasonably conclude that the page deals with the right of a person to enlist in the martial services of his/her country. If we assume that "bear arms" has only (or predominantly) a military context (which appears to be a u.S. centric view) then we omit discussion of the possession of arms, which is the central focus of the issue on both sides (one view arguing against individual possession, the other for, with "bear arms" being used to further define or dispute the state of individual possession). While the phrase is centered in the u.S. discussion about arms possession & martial service there are notable instances outside of the u.S. where the subject is framed as such ("right to keep & bear arms") but meant to cover non-martial use &/or private possession (Australia & Switzerland come to mind). In other words the tone of the article implies that "bear arms" is generally considered to mean serving in a military & that negates any relevance to the possession of arms, which is not the expected discussion if one searches for "right to keep & bear arms" & is redirected to this article.

I would suggest either altering the title of the page (from "Right to bear arms" to "Right to keep & bear arms"), or deleting the page & creating a new page which better addresses the phrase "Right to keep & bear arms". Mikegtr71 00:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the "keep and" qualifier was not used in Great Britain, nor is it used in several of the State Constitutions, and neither is it used in the US Declaration of Independence. According to Stephen Halbrook[8], the term "keep arms" was not universal. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The verbatim "keep and" qualifier may or may not have been used in GB, but reference to possession (i.e., keeping arms) certainly was. The article itself provides citations. If this is to be an article simply about bearing arms in military service, then so be it. However (Brady Campaign systemic bias aside), the content of this article clearly and constantly addresses the right to both possess and bear arms (either in military service or for personal defense). The title "right to keep and bear arms" is thus both more inclusive and universal, and more accurately reflects the actual content of the article.tc2011 (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Keep and" is not a qualifier, rather a transitive verb & conjunction used to direct the action to the noun ("arms"). :) In the English Declaration of Rights (1689) the phrase "have arms" is the equivalent of keep arms as used here, in so much as they both speak of possession. Same applies to the Assize of Arms where "possess" & "have" are both respectively used distinctively from "bear" (& its variants). It ("keep") is used in several state constitutions, past & present [9] & while the u.S. Declaration of Independence omits the topic, the constitution of Mexico as well as (according to references by David Kopel [10]) Switzerland deal with keeping arms apart from "bearing" in the military context.

The phrase "keep & bear arms" is generally viewed not as a strict iteration of martial use (except as used by gun control proponents), but as a convenient way of addressing the ideas for & against individual possession & the scope of use of arms. While it may be reasonable for someone with strong anti-gun ownership leanings to omit "keep" from the discussion, that is not what most users would think if they decided to look up "right to keep & bear arms". The place for the suggested military-only use of "bear arms" is within the article itself & not as a summation within the title, which negatively effects the neutrality of the article itself. By relying on "right to bear arms" then it becomes a discussion of whether military use is or is not the only legitimate validation for such a right & as I have pointed out there is a possession component in the phrase that is indispensable to anything other than a one sided view of the subject as a whole. If the page did not redirect from "right to keep & bear arms" & was thus framed as a discussion of the meaning of "bear arms" then the title would not be misleading, but as it stands it frames the issue in a biased manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miketgtr71 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Does the Declaration of Independence say "keep and bear arms"? No, it says 'bear arms'. You claim 'generally viewed', but don't cite your source. Please do. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

True. The u.S. DoI uses "bear Arms". However this is not an article about the u.S. DoI & its' use of that phrase. As I point out it redirects here from "right to keep & bear arms". As you have mentioned yourself (if I'm not mistaken) there should be a global rather than u.S. centric view to the article. Many documents from the u.S. & a few outside the u.S. use the phrase "keep and bear" or equivalent language to generally describe a right (or lack thereof) to possess, own or use weapons in some manner. When you focus so much on "bear arms" as you seem to mean it, then it excludes the opposing viewpoint - that bearing arms may not be related to military service. That is conveyed in the title of the page by the omission of "keep and".

This [11]is one example where an organization uses "keep and bear arms" to denote a discussion about gun control in general. Here [12] is another. Here [13] is a Google search for "keep and bear arms". Here [14] is a Google search using "right to keep and bear arms". I also refer you to the link numbered 38 in my previous comment which points to Volokh's discussion of state "right to keep & bear arms" provisions, even though not all use that phrase precisely. Here is his blog post announcing the publication of the article [15]. Here [16] is a book (or at least author) I believe you're familiar with. You'll note that the majority of sources are not neutral, but I believe you'll also note than when not involved in a direct discussion of the second amendment to the u.S. Constitution the phrase "right to keep & bear arms" is used to describe firearms ownership, possession &/or use by individuals. "RKBA" is a common abbreviation within the pro-gun movement (see the aforementioned links)& it is used to denote the concept of an individual right to arms even apart from discussions of the 2nd amendment to the u.S. Constitution. Thus I think it's not a stretch to say that widespread use of "right to keep & bear arms" points to a general discussion of gun ownership, rather than a specific discussion of the phrase "bear arms" (although the latter is certainly a component of the former).

Would my proposals (to amend the title or delete the current page & create a new page) be objectionable? If so, why? Mikegtr71 04:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Because you are attempting to push an americanocentric POV. The right to bear arms has a long history in quite a selection of legal systems.Geni 14:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the global article on the right to bear arms. Not to be the USA centric article. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Just because a disproportionate number of editors from from the USA does not mean that this article must not represent a global view. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, possession of arms is specifically referenced with great regularity throughout the world and throughout history. Please reference the article. To exclude possession from the title is itself an "americanocentric POV." Specifically, it is the POV of American gun control organizations and like-minded people. As the article points out, possession is specifically mentioned in the English, Irish, Mexican, medieval, Chinese, and American cultures, among others not mentioned here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tc2011 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think limiting the title to "right to bear arms" is a non-global treatment of the subject. As I have pointed out a few non-u.S. documents use language that equivocates "Keep" as well as "bear", so by omitting "keep" from the title the discussion is inclined towards the u.S. centric view that any right involved is of a martial &/or collective nature. After all this page deals with possession of arms as well as the use, so by using a title only referring to the latter (i.e. bear) you're slanting the article in favor of the latter at the expense of the former (i.e. keep, possession, etc...), when globally discussions of the "right to keep & bear arms" tend towards civilian, non-martial use [17], [18], [19], [20]. As per the Wiki Naming Conflict page [21] (specifically the objective criteria subsection) "right to keep and bear arms" is a more accurate & proper name for the subject, relying on common English usage as well as its' use in a number of legal documents & other reliable sources.

But I am open to being enlightened - just how is omitting "keep and" from the title a global treatment rather than a u.s. centric view, when the redirect from "right to keep and bear arms" points here?

Would there be an objection to altering the redirect so "right to keep & bear arms" does not lead to this page?Mikegtr71 21:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"...more accurate & proper name for the subject"???. Perhaps we are talking about two different subjects. It seems you are looking for an article about an Individual right to firearms. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We're looking for a title that appropriately and accurately represents the article and issue to which it is attached. This "right to bear arms" phraseology is a fabrication by anti-gun organizations to throw "keep and" down the memory hole. The current title ("right to bear arms") is blatantly ideological. Maybe this will help: gun rights supporters say "right to keep and bear arms," gun-control supporters say, "'keep and' doesn't jive with our collectivist interpretation, so we'll just change our wording to address a 'right to bear arms' and hope everyone forgets how this whole conversation started." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.201.209 (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No; same subject. From the page summary: "The right to bear arms refers to the concept that individuals, and/or governments, have a right to weapons. This right is often presented in the context of military service and the broader right of self defense". It seems there is focus on one aspect of it (the collective/martial use arguments), hence the non-NPOV situation.

Now if you'll do me the courtesy; What is the objection to adding "keep and" to the title (i.e. how is it a non-global view to insert "keep and"?)? Would stopping "right to keep and bear arms" from redirecting to this page be objectionable? Mikegtr71 00:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, you provide no reliable sourcing for your opinion. I already answered your question on April 6th. According to the expert reliable source, Stephen P. Halbrook[22], the term "keep arms" was not universal. You propose a too narrow title. Your concerns about coverage of the 'keep and' topic could easily be fixed by editing verifiable material about 'keep and' into the article, though it is already mentioned twenty times in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

From the article itself: "the Assize of Arms in 1181, which required knights and freemen to keep arms[18]" "Protestants may have Arms for their Defence...[19]" "criminalised the possession of virtually all handguns in the United Kingdom." "to keep firearms for personal protection, for example during "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland." "The inhabitants of the United Mexican States are entitled to have arms of any kind in their possession[61]" "privately owned firearms are illegal in the Peoples Republic of China [62]" Use of the phrase "right to bear arms" in no way addresses the universal issue of possession. It is less inclusive than "right to keep and bear arms." Further, the title is blatantly POV, as the popularity of the phrase "right to bear arms" is due entirely to particular anti-gun organizations of the United States. It is telling that the definition in this article cites Sarah Brady twice: once for each sentence of the definition. This article must be marked as having disputed neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tc2011 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You did not answer my question satisfactorily. While "keep arms" may not have been a universal term (setting aside arguments about its equivalents such as "have" & "possess") I am not arguing to use the phrase "keep arms". I am arguing that since the redirect from "right to keep and bear arms" points here, & that there is discussion in the page about keeping arms as well as bearing them, that either we need to change the title of the page to reflect the subject more accurately (& quell non-NPOV & systematic bias concerns) or stop the redirect from pointing here. Mikegtr71 21:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You did not answer several of my questions, see above. And my biggest concern, which is that you seek to change the title to a specific narrower title, which pertains to an 'individual right to firearms' POV. The existing title, and the article at present gives plenty of coverage of this POV, twenty mentions by rough count. The existing title covers the broader topic, of which 'individual rights to firearms' is a significant subset. Your proposed title, addressing just the subset POV, is too narrow when the topic is as expansive like this topic. Your view that the topic is an 'individual right to firearms' is too narrow for this global article. In short, the more neutral title is the broader title. SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Mikegtr71 has a point with reference to the title. Why not solve this by rephrasing the title so that it mirrors neither the collectivist nor the individualist interpretations of the US constitution? The title should indicate both in a global POV meaning that it does so without injecting UScentric advocacy for control or proliferation. This issues is getting hung up on whether the words "keep and" present a biased POV when in fact, the phrasing itself, with or without that language does have a rather Anglo-US centric POV regardless of the "keep and" language usage because it refers to the language of the those countries without being inclusive of other phrasings and nuances. It is undeniable that using the language "right to bear arms" is the exact language of gun control advocates while inserting "keep and" simply parrots the right to own advocates - this in itself presents a biased POV; Unavoidable bias in using either phrasing as it places all emphasis on US phrasing. If this is not the case, then why have a section that reads "The right to have arms" instead of one reading "the right to bear arms". The only way to settle this debate is to drop the Anglo-US centric language and go for a title more reflective of the global value of this article. In this manner a pro-gun bias ("keep and") and a control bias are avoided.JasonSP (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I recall that the 'have arms' section was included and named "right to have arms" because the 1689 Bill of Rights uses the phrasing "have arms". And, I recall that reliable sourcing (Malcolm?) would confirm that this 1689 involved issues including firearms used for militias, posse comitatus, and also firearms used for hunting/poaching in the game reserves (not to mention the gun powder tax). Therefore, the 1689 'right' falls in a gray zone, squarely in 'right to bear arms' and also outside it somewhat too. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This could be acceptable, I believe. Do you have a suggestion for an alternate title that accurately represents the article, and is inclusive of the major and universal points (possession and use of arms) it addresses? tc2011 (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Civilian use section

Yaf, could you please give more emphasis to using reliable secondary sourcing? Your use of direct quotes from court documents, and direct quotes from congressional hearings comes very close to crossing to be a WP:PSTS policy violation of WP:NOR. Surely, if your hypothesis is valid there must be some sourcing of the 'most reliable' standard found in WP:RS that you can find and use. If not, there are reasonable doubts that this may be a WP:REDFLAG issue. As a demonstration of good faith, could you also find and use some mainstream, scholarly, peer reviewed 'most reliable' secondary sourcing please? I am asking this on the talk page to give you a chance to respond, and with hopes of avoiding dispute or edit war. Surely there must be some really solid 'most reliable' sourcing for your idea so that you don't need to resort to a policy gray area for your sourcing. Find some scholarly sources please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Being that Heller was only recently heard, there are, as of yet, no textbooks or scholarly publications on the topic available. On the other hand, WP policy does not prohibit using quotes from primary sources, either. Please do not start Wiki-lawyering and then request page protection, as is your usual practice. (For more on this practice, see the currently page protected Gun politics in the United States, the indefinitely page protected Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, Hunting weapon, ad nauseum, articles to which you have resorted to this most detestable practice of Wiki-lawyering, then immediately requested page protection to prevent all other editors' attempts to balance articles. Articles on Wikipedia do not belong to single editors, who may think they WP:OWN them. Thank you. Yaf (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think finding some solid sourcing is what’s needed and would not be too hard to find.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Section is reliably sourced with secondary and tertiary sources. Additional sources would be good, too, of course. But, there are no primary sources currently used in this section. Yaf (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Quoting the court document and the US Senate report is dicey. Both these entities are active in directly legislating and ruling on the Right to bear arms, and because of that they violate WP:PSTS. I think it wise to use higher quality book sources to be on the safe side of the WP:NOR policy. Why is this so hard? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, these documents are defining the right, and doing so by citing primary sources. These are appropriate secondary sources. tc2011 (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"individuals, and/or governments, have a right to weapons."

i'm kind of troubled by this phrase in the intro. as the lede, normally citations are not required. so i'm reluctant to fact tag it. but the reality is it's an absurd statement on its face. by the very definition of government, governments do not have rights, they have powers. a government has no right to bear arms. it's patently false to suggest so, and frankly sounds ignorant. i'd recommend this be removed. Anastrophe (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense considering that in democracies, people are the government. It follows logically that people can authorize their government their right to control weapons, therefore in that real sense, the democratic government has been given, and therefore has, the right to control weapons. Your point of view appears to be based on an assumption of governments are authoritative, dictatorial and/or tyrannical? Please explain. I have seen pro-gun editors make this 'governments cannot have rights' argument before, but I am curious where this argument comes from? Is it from a book? I would like a chance to read in reliable sourcing your premise that: "by the very definition of government, governments do not have rights, they have powers". Where does this thought of yours come from? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To "authorize" means to grant authority/power. One does not "authorize" or even grant rights; rights are simply recognized, since they are innate to the individual. Government, despite possibly having representative characteristics, is an artificial construct and as such can have no "rights." Governments have authority or power, not rights. Only when it comes to guns do anti-gun people start talking about government having rights. tc2011 (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I read about your opinion in reliable sourcing? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

as is not unusual, you are conflating different concepts and claiming they are one. "the democratic government has been given, and therefore has the right to control weapons". that statement stands alone, separate entire from what is being discussed (never mind that it's incorrect). no, government has the power to control weapons. that power has been conferred by the people; the people hold rights, government holds powers conferred by the people. but it's not even germaine to what's under discussion. you are claiming that the power to control weapons has some sort of lexical symmetry to "government has a right to weapons"?? are you claiming that the government has a right to privacy? that would be novel, as it would destroy the very concept of how our government works. before you start hectoring for sources - where are your sources for your unsourced opinion and counter-claims above? as for my sources, see the OED. you find nowhere in the OED definition, or any other dictionary, a claim that government has "rights". you will only find that governments have power, authority, control, etc - governance, by definition. if you can cite me any reputable dictionary that claims government has rights, i'll eat my foot. Anastrophe (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I read about your opinion in reliable sources? Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

stop playing games. i just gave you a reliable source. now perhaps you'll do me the kindness of providing reliable sources for your opinion as well. Anastrophe (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The OED describes that governments have a right to judicially condemn land for public use, under the definition (Condemn v. 7.b) "...the land...the Government has a right to condemn it for that purpose." SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned a source where I can read your idea? You did not. Cite ISBN and page number please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

stop this tendentious, disruptive, nonsense. you're demanding the ISBN and page number from the Oxford English Dictionary where it defines "government" and "govern"? why not also demand to know how many inches in from the edge of the page the definition begins, what font, and what color the ink is and how many microns thick the paper is? This is entirely and purely disruptive rhetoric on your part. where are the sources for your contention that government has rights? you have the burden of proof if you wish this to be included. Anastrophe (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ISBN and page number please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry, no. demanding to know the page number for a definition IN A DICTIONARY is an absurdely disruptive and tendentious request. asking you for your source for your claim that government has "rights" is a legitimate request, since YOU have the burden of proof. open a dictionary. mirriam webster, fine. OED, fine. american heritage, fine. just do it. i've never before heard of an editor demanding to know the PAGE a definition is on within a dictionary. you are aware that dictionaries are in ALPHABETIC ORDER? Anastrophe (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

After just a short look, I see several instances in the OED where they describe the rights of government. That governments have a right to judicially condemn land for public use, under the definition (Condemn v. 7.b) "...the land...the Government has a right to condemn it for that purpose." Also, under the definition for anarchist, "The anarchist who denies the right of any government. (Joking now,) are you an anarchist? I could keep quoting where the OED describes the "right of governments", but more to the point. You asserted that governments only have powers, not rights. Surely this thought of yours can be found in some mainstream reliable source without having to resort to research in a dictionary. Try again. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the US Constitution, or the English Bill of Rights. Rights pertain to individuals. Powers pertain to Governments. Have removed OR from lede. Yaf (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, I meant a reliable third party source, per WP:V standards. Your reading primary documents involves WP:SYN. Surely for a concept as major as this you can find solid reliable third party sourcing. Perhaps some mainstream expert published by a reputable university press? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you look up "right" in the OED, or something else? Because it seems as if you're cherry picking. Anyhow, the OED is not an appropriate source for this discussion unless it specifically addresses the term "right" in the context of possessing and carrying arms. tc2011 (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

request for source for claim that government has rights

user saltyboatr is of the opinion that a government can have rights. i formally request a reliable source for this claim. absent a source, the opinion cannot be included in the article, per WP:V and WP:RS. absent a source, it's pointless to be party to bickering over saltyboatr's unsourced opinion, since none but he is insisting that this unsourced opinion be included in the article. Anastrophe (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Are the OED sources I just provided above not good enough for you? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

they are not. examples from other definitions hardly constitute reliable sources for the meaning of the word itself. stop playing games. Anastrophe (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems plainly obvious that the OED has great weight and authority about the proper usage of the English language. When the OED uses the expression "the right of government", that is solid proof of proper usage of the English language. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

what do the definitions of "government", "governance", "govern", say? do the definitions of those terms state that government has rights? no? then stop playing games. a quote used as an example of the definition of "condemn" does not define government. Anastrophe (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

it is sadly amusing, your utterly disruptive actions just a short while ago, demanding ISBN's, page numbers, etc, for the definition of government, that you turn around and magically start claiming that the OED definition of 'condemn' is relevant. it's odd that you haven't yet been able to find the actual definition of the word 'government' in the OED. perhaps your edition is damaged? Anastrophe (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It is you who is playing games. Per the OED, which is a gold standard for usage of the English language, (but not good enough for you apparently), I have shown that governments have rights. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

i don't own or have access to the OED, i have an oxford universal dictionary. it doesn't include these examples of usage you claim it has. please provide the full and complete material, rather than elided excerpts, so that i and others may see what is actually being quoted. the definition for government, the word under discussion, does not include the suggestion that government has rights, is that not correct?Anastrophe (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

can i have an answer to the above? i ask since you've responded elsewhere on this page since i made the request. i realize we're all busy people, so i simply don't want it to be overlooked. Anastrophe (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, here is a screenshot. Bear in mind this is just one example in the OED which I found in a few minutes searching. No doubt there are many more. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

that is a quote from the Niles Register illustrating usage of the term condemn. it is not authoritative by any measure whatsoever as to the meaning of the term government. would you be so kind as to provide screenshots for the terms "government", "govern", "governance"? do they anywhere mention government's "rights"? Anastrophe (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Look again, the OED passage quote is from the Congressional Record 1876. The OED provides rock solid sourcing about usage of the English language. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to source "the sky is blue." Historically, all governments have claimed all rights and it is only through their magnaminity that eny other entity has rights at all. This has been worldwide practice for thousands of years. (Please don't argue philosophy here with me, I'm not trying to defend any government here, much less our own, but just stating a fact.) Ma^t_chups 18:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your opinion, but you're in error. governments claim powers, not rights. the request for sourcing still stands. here's a link to the EB 1911 entry for 'government'. nowhere does it claim that government has rights. [23] Anastrophe (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Where in that encyclopedia article does it say "governments claim powers not rights"? I don't see that it says that. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

good try, but no. you've stated your opinion that government has rights. where in the article does it state that, or anything even remotely suggestive of it? Anastrophe (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you also have a duty to edit based on reliable sourcing, not just your personal opinion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

likewise. does this eminently reliable source state that government has rights? if the article does not, it could hardly be considered an oversight. EB trumps just about any source you can come up with. more below.Anastrophe (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Right" can mean different things in different contexts. In a broader legal sense, SaltyBoatr is correct, the government can have rights. In English/British/UK law, it is common to refer to the bundle of privileges and immunities that constitute the royal prerogative as "rights" of the Crown. In the U.S. constitutional tradition, things are different. "The United States Constitution consists of individual rights and institutional structure. People (including organized groups of people) have rights. Governments do not have rights. Rather, governments have powers and duties." (Prof Carl Esbeck, "Differentiating the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses," 42 Journal of Church and State 311, 2000.) I think Anastrophe is correct about constitutional rights in a U.S. context, but since this is not a U.S.-specific article the intro ought to take a broader perspective. PubliusFL (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"rights of the crown" seems dodgy as suggestive that government has rights. the rights of the crown are the rights held by monarchs - who by definition rule with total control of their subjects (that very word quite descriptive, i might add - 'those subject to rule'). that the UK now has a symbolic crown with virtually no power of control of the people suggests the term is archaic. as a historical colloquialism, it may be accurate, but i don't think it serves a valid definition today. is there a showing that in any nation today, the concept of 'government rights' is validly applicable? Anastrophe (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

James Madison argued on June 6, 1789[24] that the government "...has a right to pass all laws which shall be necessary...". SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

i'll again acknowledge your gift with search engines. that said, you utterly ignore the content of the paragraph, which clearly describes the powers of the government. to quote:

"It has been said that in the federal government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained: that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and therefore a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation; but they are not conclusive to the extent which has been supposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse to a certain extent, in the same manner as the powers of the state governments under their constitutions may to an indefinite extent; because in the constitution of the United States there is a clause granting to Congress the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; this enables them to fulfil every purpose for which the government was established. Now, may not laws be considered necessary and proper by Congress, for it is them who are to judge of the necessity and propriety to accomplish those special purposes which they may have in contemplation, which laws in themselves are neither necessary or proper; as well as improper laws could be enacted by the state legislatures, for fulfilling the more extended objects of those governments. I will state an instance which I think in point, and proves that this might be the case. The general government has a right to pass all laws which shall be necessary to collect its revenue; the means for enforcing the collection are within the direction of the legislature: may not general warrants be considered necessary for this purpose, as well as for some purposes which it was supposed at the framing of their constitutions the state governments had in view. If there was reason for restraining the state governments from exercising this power, there is like reason for restraining the federal government.'"

i've added a lot of emphasis, i admit. but in the very sentence you claim states that government has rights, madison states that these are exercises of power. the same sentence. and all other mentions within the paragraph are of powers granted to the government by the people. you're grasping at straws trying to maintain this point. shall i throw out your classic 'primary source' rejection of it? stick with EB 1911. incontrovertibly reliable source. Anastrophe (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Your moving target is hard to hit. I quote James Madison stating directly "government has a right". And somehow that is still not good enough for you. Your turn, where do you read your novel idea that governments cannot have rights? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

feel free to ignore the forest for all the damned trees. the entire section describes the limits upon the powers of the government and the potential for abuse of that power, and in an example, he uses the term 'rights of the government', while discussing the need to restrain the power of government. rather than focusing just on your search keywords, perhaps actually read the document, it's quite illuminating, and says exactly the opposite of what you wish it said. as for an incontrovertibly reliable source, we can go with encyclopedia britannica 1911 as i said, or the OED's definition of 'government', 'govern', 'governance'. which definitions you have pointedly avoided, because, quite obviously, the actual definitions of the terms do not support your mistaken opinion of what they should say. Anastrophe (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Your view is sitting out on a branch on a personal tree. Your stubborn refusal to cite any sources, and your pushing of personal opinion, violates WP:NOR. James Madison and John Locke[25], knew that the rights of government are meaningless without power. Per Locke and Madison (Democratic) governments have rights and, which flow from the people go hand in hand. Government by the people, has the rights and the power, granted by the people. Locke and Madison understood clearly that governments assume the right to govern from the people. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

EB1911- 100% acceptable secondary source, routinely used throughout wikipedia. OED, definition of "Government". 100% acceptable source for definition of "government". did you even bother to read the paragraph your keyword search directed you to? clearly not. hell, did you read your own sentence? "[...]knew that the rights of government are meaningless without power". hmm. if there is no power - there is no right. ergo, the suggestion that government has rights is meaningless, as a government without power is not a government! and from the very text you cite:

Locke sometimes identifies this power in other terms: the "power of the magistrate", the "authority to command", the "right to obedience", and the "power or right of government"; and he even occasionally uses the language of "sovereignty" to characterize it. But in whatever terms, political power is simply "that power which every man, having in the state of nature, has given up into the hands of society, and therein, to governours".

this is patently clear on its face. at best it's a euphemism to speak of government rights ("right to obedience" is clearly intended as sarcastic). EB1911. OED, definition of "Government". what, exactly, is your objection to those two eminently and completely reliable sources? Anastrophe (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither of those sources prove your point. You could point to a million sources that don't disprove your point. SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

States rights. You don't believe in them. Yet, the article needs to present a balance viewpoint. Certainly one viewpoint is the viewpoint known as the states rights view. Cleansing the article of this viewpoint, leaving only the individual rights view violates WP:NPOV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

from the states rights article: "The phrase states' rights (and all variants of the words and the phrase) does not appear in the U.S. Constitution or its amendments -- rather the word rights is exclusively associated within the Constitution with the phrase the people, while the word powers is extensively and exclusively associated with government entities such as Congress or states. Therefore, the phrase states' powers is more technically consistent with the terminology of the authors of the U.S. Constitution, with the phrase States' rights popularized by repeated usage." i'm done with this absurd wikilawyering. you want to shove your unsourced opinion into the lede of the article, with nowhere within the article any discussion of your opinion. you're violating WP:MOS by forcing an assertion into the lede that is nowhere in the body. you refuse to actually bother with the genuine definitions of words, rather prefering to cherry-pick the rare uses of the term 'government rights' that you are able to find using your exquisite gift for using search engines. perhaps it's time to bring in a neutral third party. by the way, i like the second sentence of your first graf. it reads, removing the double negative, "you could point to a million sources that prove your point". why thank you! Anastrophe (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody dispute that there is also a point of view on this topic termed the "states rights" view? Or, is the only valid point of view, the "individual rights" point of view? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

where in the body of the article is the 'states rights' view discussed? why are you changing the subject? your desire to insert an opinion into the first sentence of the lede, where it is nowhere discussed in the article, is unsupportable by any policy i'm aware of. Anastrophe (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

prepare for page protection!!

saltyboatr just dropped a 'friendly' request on my talk page asking me not to revert him. this is standard precedent to his soon requesting page protection, because he desires to pollute the intro to this article with all sorts of bizarre, unsourced and unsourceable POV wording (eg "through their collective government" - as opposed to 'individual government'??), but does not want others to edit it. Anastrophe (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we work out our differences on the talk page? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

great, stop edit warring the intro. with the exception of the bogus claim that government has rights, the former version that's been in place for months and months is fine by me. Anastrophe (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that Yaf just reverted[26] the former version to his problematic version, again! We need to learn to work things out on talk pages and not edit war. Otherwise, page protection is needed (yet again) to give us the discipline. When will we learn to discuss and find compromises? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted to Anastrophe's more neutral, less verbose, more cogent version. It is not "my" version. Yaf (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

editors make mistakes, particularly when an editor is forcing multiple, unsourced, POV changes into the lede. please answer my question above in the previous section, since you seem to have the time available. Anastrophe (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

can anyone really claim that this intro is not clear, concise, accurate, and appropriate

this is the lede as it is at this moment (19:15 UTC, god knows how long it'll last). it is brief (desireable), concise, accurate, and clear. what possible objection can there be to this wording? remember, this is the LEDE.

"The right to bear arms refers to the concept that people, individually or collectively, have a right to weapons. This right is often presented in the context of military service and the broader right of self defense. Whether this right pertains to individuals acting independently or individuals acting collectively is a matter of debate in the United States."

seriously, besides the current bickering, is this not an accurate lede? nowhere in the article does it discuss the 'right of government'. the debate, patently, is whether the right is individual or collective. nobody can dispute that, not in good faith. Anastrophe (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

While we work this out, I agree that we should settle on the last stable version of the lede paragraph, that which existed on April 11th and for months prior. I just restored that version, Yaf, please do not revert again. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

the problem is that nowhere in the article does it discuss the idea that government has a right to weapons. since that is nowhere discussed in the body, your opinion that government has rights does not belong in the lede.Anastrophe (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

furthermore, your edit summary is disingenuous. you claim i 'favor' that version, which is quite simply a lie. my edit was to add date for cat, wholey unrelated to the lede text. don't misrepresent my interests. Anastrophe (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Clean-up and re-write

Have attempted to fix the previously-jumbled presentation, ordering the text into a more readable article in the tradition of BE BOLD. This rewrite should help address many of the issues with the article. Still, there is a POV concern regarding whether or not the title of the article is correct. Should it be "Right to bear arms" or "Right to keep and bear arms", or ???. I can see it either way, as well as seeing the need to make the title more neutral such as "Right to arms", but respect that many believe that "keep and" or "bear" should be inserted into the title. Comments? Which way should it be? Yaf (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Have attempted to address the POV concerns in the lede of the article and removed the POV tagline. If anyone still thinks there is a POV problem, please put a {{POV}} tagline back on the article, and comment on why there is still a problem. Yaf (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Due to the particularly POV nature of "right to bear arms," I personally think "right to keep and bear arms" is the more appropriate title, as it is simply a verbatim excerpt of a very prominent text related to the article's discussion. Some have argued that, since that text is taken from the US Constitution, it may present some non-global issues...on the other hand, the article is written in English, and until we have a universal language (but English is lingua franca, anyhow), it would be inappropriate to avoid extremely germane, notable, and fitting expressions of that language simply because they are so notable. Besides, the US Constitution is one of the most prominent documents addressing the article's topic worldwide, and it is entirely acceptable to rely on such prominent documents for our wording. To dismiss the wording of this document for less notable documents (e.g., state constitutions, Brady Campaign publications, etc.), as suggested elsewhere on this page, strikes me as a particularly non-global approach. Even disregarding POV concerns with "right to bear arms," the title "right to keep and bear arms" is certainly a more objective and appropriate title for the article. In any case, these two aspects of the discussion (possession and use of arms) are indeed global, represent the actual article, and should be included in the title. Changing the title to "right to arms" (while making note in the lede of its origin in this dispute, similar to your edits, Yaf) might sidestep this dispute. Although I think it'd be better to have a title more representative of the article's actual content, "right to arms" might be acceptable. Before I reinsert the {{POV}} tag, I'm interested to see what you, Yaf, and others involved on this talk page think about these comments.

I would support a move to "Right to arms" with "Right to bear arms", "Right to keep and bear arms", and "RKBA" all identified as synonyms in the lede, similar to what is there now, to address potential NPOV issues. "Right to bear arms" is a gun control advocate's term. "Right to keep and bear arms" is a Second Amendment to the United States Constitution term. "RKBA" is a gun rights advocate's term. Although "Right to keep and bear arms" would be the most factual, coming from the US Constitution, it would likely draw criticism from gun control advocates. For this reawson, "Right to arms" would therefore be a slightly more neutral title. My $0.02 worth. Yaf (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Civilian use section

The Right_to_bear_arms#Civilian_usage_definition section relies predominantly on three quotes from judges and a politician. This falls in a WP:RS gray area, using direct quotes from court documents and congressional reports comes close to being a WP:PSTS violation. (I think it is, and Yaf thinks it is 'fine'.) I suggest that rather than arguing, lets just find some better solid sourcing. Surely this idea is mainstream enough that some good old most reliable sourcing is available. And, also could we[27] tolerate leaving the 'tag' in place? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think finding some solid sourcing is what’s needed and would not be too hard to find.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion topic already exists... DavidD4scnrt and SaltyBoatr have been answered in the original topic. tc2011 (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's the RKBA in the US and where else?

Contrary to the insertion by SaltyBoatr of "also referred to in the United States as", the right to keep and bear arms is not a US-only label. See for example, this website in Canada. Likewise, the "keep and bear arms" terminology is also used in England and Australia. On the other hand, the "right to bear arms" terminology is largely a gun-control preferred terminology used only in the US to stress the collective or militia only interpretation of the Second Amendment. We should take neither side in this argument in the lede of this article. The reference to the "also referred to in the United States as" needs to be reverted back to the more neutral earlier version, without any POV pushing, that has no mention of the United States. This will help to globalize the article. Similarly, it is not appropriate to put in non-globalizing content and a globalizing tagline, too, as SaltyBoatr has done. Yaf (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, the "keep and" makes primary reference to the Second amendment of the United States constitution. Sure, other people in the world discuss the 2A, but the 2A is fundamentally a USA centric provision. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Salty, it is entirely appropriate to borrow language from neutral and prominent documents that address the issue at hand, and certainly more appropriate than relying on biased Brady Campaign publications (see the POV definition of the issue offered in the article). Can you reference another globally prominent document that directly addresses the right to possess and use arms? "Right to keep and bear arms" is certainly neutral (as opposed to the current title), and is inclusive of the global issue of possession and use of arms discussed in this article. Your attempts to augment the American gun-control proponent POV the article by suppressing neutral references to possession ("keep and") is doing far more harm to the integrity of this article than the text of neutral and globally recognized documents. tc2011 (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr's edits are steadily augmenting the American gun-control proponent POV under the bizarre excuse that such a view is global. It is inappropriate to systematically ignore or minimize certain global aspects of the article's topic to fit this American gun-control proponent POV. tc2011 (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

To Salty, the commonality of the languege is simply because the framers of the constitution had the foresight to include two intertwined rights, the right to use arms (expressed as "bear arms") is useless without the right to possess arms (or "keep arms") both of which are covered in the article. The reason for using the older turn-of-phrase "keep and bear arms" is because it is more easily recognizable and unmistakably in-refrence to this issue, even outside the U.S. F-451 (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

the 'right to keep and bear arms' is not a US-only term. insertion into the lede of this unsourced opinion is not acceptable. Anastrophe (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Unconstitutional & Un-American Laws

Above, in the "Limits to the rights to bear arms" section, it clearly states "As to US restrictions on the ownership of weapons, presently, that is left up to the laws of the individual US states". However, if this is USA, what does the "U" stand for? "INDIVIDUAL" or "UNITED"? If it's UNITED, then ALL states should have ALL the same Laws. But as it stands right now, in OREGON, you can be arrested for walking down the street with a gun. I know this for a fact. I was, and I'm not a Felon, nor was the Gun concealed. There is no 2nd amendment, atleast, not in the Divided States of America.