→Philosophers: sigh |
No edit summary |
||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
::Sorry if I'm not being clear. First, this is a sub article of [[Right to keep and bear arms]]. That article should contain the generic concepts of RTBKA which apply across nations. If it's not direcly related to the right to keep and bear arms ''in the United States'' then it's in the wrong article. In fact, it's already in thet article so it's useless repetition here. Second, the material seems to be making an article about 'the people' versus 'the militia' or 'the army' or 'the state'. It's not clear what the point is. Third, how does this article relate to [[Second Amendment to the United States Constitution]]? Are we making the same arguments across multiple articles? Fourth, are we correctly summarizing the source? Is Halbrook's point that Aristotle described a right? I don't see it. Rather, Aristotle seems to be saying it would be good for farmers to carry weaspons, just like rich people do. Finally, is this a common view or should we attribute it to Halbrook? Who else says that Aristotle and Machiavelli described a right of the people to keep and bear arms? [[User:Felsic2|Felsic2]] ([[User talk:Felsic2|talk]]) 23:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC) |
::Sorry if I'm not being clear. First, this is a sub article of [[Right to keep and bear arms]]. That article should contain the generic concepts of RTBKA which apply across nations. If it's not direcly related to the right to keep and bear arms ''in the United States'' then it's in the wrong article. In fact, it's already in thet article so it's useless repetition here. Second, the material seems to be making an article about 'the people' versus 'the militia' or 'the army' or 'the state'. It's not clear what the point is. Third, how does this article relate to [[Second Amendment to the United States Constitution]]? Are we making the same arguments across multiple articles? Fourth, are we correctly summarizing the source? Is Halbrook's point that Aristotle described a right? I don't see it. Rather, Aristotle seems to be saying it would be good for farmers to carry weaspons, just like rich people do. Finally, is this a common view or should we attribute it to Halbrook? Who else says that Aristotle and Machiavelli described a right of the people to keep and bear arms? [[User:Felsic2|Felsic2]] ([[User talk:Felsic2|talk]]) 23:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::Regarding Aristotle, in addition to Halbrook : Kopel [https://web.archive.org/web/20050206021809/http://www.libertysoft.com/liberty/issues/76issue.html] Liddy [https://books.google.com/books?id=M65Rxn5nSDkC&pg=PA16&dq=aristotle+right+to+keep+arms&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiGt4fWm7XNAhXqy4MKHYGbDgsQ6AEIOTAF#v=onepage&q=aristotle%20&f=false], Keyt [https://books.google.com/books?id=FQHbuOrNvowC&pg=PA153&dq=aristotle+right+to+keep+arms&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiGt4fWm7XNAhXqy4MKHYGbDgsQ6AEIPzAG#v=onepage&q=aristotle%20right%20to%20keep%20arms&f=false], Sommers [https://books.google.com/books?id=-oKgZvgzEn0C&pg=PA12&dq=aristotle+right+to+keep+arms&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiGt4fWm7XNAhXqy4MKHYGbDgsQ6AEIUTAJ#v=onepage&q=aristotle%20&f=false], Simpson [https://books.google.com/books?id=HAOtCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA105#v=onepage&q&f=false], Wilson [https://books.google.com/books?id=0xQsDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA4#v=onepage&q=Aristotle&f=false] and literally dozens others. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 23:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC) |
:::Regarding Aristotle, in addition to Halbrook : Kopel [https://web.archive.org/web/20050206021809/http://www.libertysoft.com/liberty/issues/76issue.html] Liddy [https://books.google.com/books?id=M65Rxn5nSDkC&pg=PA16&dq=aristotle+right+to+keep+arms&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiGt4fWm7XNAhXqy4MKHYGbDgsQ6AEIOTAF#v=onepage&q=aristotle%20&f=false], Keyt [https://books.google.com/books?id=FQHbuOrNvowC&pg=PA153&dq=aristotle+right+to+keep+arms&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiGt4fWm7XNAhXqy4MKHYGbDgsQ6AEIPzAG#v=onepage&q=aristotle%20right%20to%20keep%20arms&f=false], Sommers [https://books.google.com/books?id=-oKgZvgzEn0C&pg=PA12&dq=aristotle+right+to+keep+arms&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiGt4fWm7XNAhXqy4MKHYGbDgsQ6AEIUTAJ#v=onepage&q=aristotle%20&f=false], Simpson [https://books.google.com/books?id=HAOtCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA105#v=onepage&q&f=false], Wilson [https://books.google.com/books?id=0xQsDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA4#v=onepage&q=Aristotle&f=false] and literally dozens others. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 23:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC) |
||
::::Thanks for those. I read the first one and do not see Where Kopel says that Aristotle described a ''right'' to keep and bear arms. Rather he seems to be saying that farmers ''should'' bear arms. Sorry if I didn't make that issue clear above. Since you're more familiar with these than I am, can you point to one which makes that specific assertion? [[User:Felsic2|Felsic2]] ([[User talk:Felsic2|talk]]) 23:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:43, 19 June 2016
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Creation
This article was created by porting over the majority of the section for the United States from the original article of nearly the same name, Right to keep and bear arms. Given the original section's size and detailed nature, it was unduly large for that article and justified the creation of a separate article. Appropriate templates and redirects have been put in place so that readers will not lose access to the information nor have to search for it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Ian Overton on Pakistan report
Recently, Ian Overton mentioned that a study on Pakistan showed that the number of homicides with firearms increased as people began attaining weapons for personal defense. He mentioned that "give people guns and they'll use it, it's that simple". It should be in his book somewhere (gun baby gun; see http://www.gunbabygun.com/global-numbers-killed-gun-examined/ ) but I didn't find an exact reference. It might be the 2014 global study homicide (https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/GSH2013/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf ) but I'm not sure. Can someone reread, confirm and add this ? Seems quite important to note in article. Xovady (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
"Keep arms"
The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right protected in the United States by the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States of America and in the state constitutions of 44 states.[1]—"STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS". UCLA Law School. Retrieved 2013-11-30.
That's wrong. A check of the source reveals that a number of states omit the right to keep arms. For example:
- Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. A
- Arizona: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, ...
- Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
And so on. I count thirteen listed entries that omit "keep", so the total would be 31, not 44. For the lead, it'd be too much to get into "bear" vs "keep and bear", so I'm going to change it to "many". Felsic2 (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- That is called extreme nitpicking. There is no distinction between RKBA and RBA, even the RKBA says as such and there is no real or legal or practical distinction. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- If we say something specific then we need to be specifically correct. You seem to be saying here and below that we can just include vague or incorrect assertions because, well, why not? Felsic2 (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Not at all, but the RKBA and RBA is the same. It is used interchangeably by everyone. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- If we say something specific then we need to be specifically correct. You seem to be saying here and below that we can just include vague or incorrect assertions because, well, why not? Felsic2 (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- If so, we should delete this sentence from the article:
- Though possessing arms appears to be distinct from "bearing" them, the possession of arms is recognized as necessary for and a logical precursor to the bearing of arms.[10]
- Have you actually read this article, or ther main article? Felsic2 (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- That kind of proves my point. You can't bear arms without keeping them, so if a Constitution says BEAR, then it must by default also allow KEEP. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Fine, then find a source which says that ghe two terms are exactly identical. Until then, it's wrong to say that 44 states include that precise language when in fact several of them use a variation. Or otherwise rewrite the text to say that 44 states include some variation on the formula. Just don't say that 44 states constitions say "xyz" if they only say "xy". I don't see why you're manking such a big deal about this - the edit I made is perfectly appropriate. Felsic2 (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- If so, we should delete this sentence from the article:
Philosophers
The people's right to have their own arms for their defense is described in the philosophical and political writings of Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, Machiavelli, the English Whigs and others.—Halbrook, Stephen P. (1994). That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (Independent Studies in Political Economy). Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute. p. 8. ISBN 0-945999-38-0. Aristotle has nothing to do with the U.S. 2nd Amendment RTKBA. This is just loading on. Felsic2 (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- And I put it back in, they most certainly do have what to do with the RTKBA and the source shows that. The framers of the Constitution utilized many of these philosophers when dealing with the RTKBA and other rights enumerated in the Constitution. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- OK, then add text which connects Aristotle to the RTKBA in the US. Generic RTKBA materuial should go in the general article. Felsic2 (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Why? There is a source and this is just a mention. You don't need additional citations and text on the section. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Why? Because this isn't the article on the generic issue of RTKBA. It's about the RTKBA in the US. So all text has to be about that topic. If Madison or someone quoted Aristolte then say so. Otherwise it's in the wrong article. Felsic2 (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- You're letting your bias show. The RKBA in the US is based on the writings of Locke, et al, so of course it has a place here. It's not a huge mention, just once sentence, not sure why the big deal. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- My bias? What about your bias? If you want to keep Artistotle using that source, please quote the text you're summarizing. Felsic2 (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- What part of the cite don't you get? The sentence is properly referenced to page 8. The quotes are there, I just checked. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- My bias? What about your bias? If you want to keep Artistotle using that source, please quote the text you're summarizing. Felsic2 (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- You're letting your bias show. The RKBA in the US is based on the writings of Locke, et al, so of course it has a place here. It's not a huge mention, just once sentence, not sure why the big deal. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Why? Because this isn't the article on the generic issue of RTKBA. It's about the RTKBA in the US. So all text has to be about that topic. If Madison or someone quoted Aristolte then say so. Otherwise it's in the wrong article. Felsic2 (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Why? There is a source and this is just a mention. You don't need additional citations and text on the section. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- OK, then add text which connects Aristotle to the RTKBA in the US. Generic RTKBA materuial should go in the general article. Felsic2 (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
really significant to the issue let's say why and how, not just list their names. Felsic2 (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- You can view it inside at: https://www.amazon.com/That-Every-Man-Armed-Constitutional/dp/0945999380#reader_0945999380 If you read the into, there is a whole section on Aristotle as well, and the page 8 reference includes a few quotes about Locke and how the framers loved to use Locke.Sir Joseph (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Please quote the text you're summarizing. The text I see relates to the the English, not the Americans. At best Aristotle belongs in the previous section, with a connection to English Republicans. Even then, I don't see anything more than a passing mention of Aristtotle without any claim to what he said about RTKBA. This is just sloppy writing to buttress a particular viewpoint. If you want to focus on Locke and the Americans, then that's a separate matter. Felsic2 (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- You can view it inside at: https://www.amazon.com/That-Every-Man-Armed-Constitutional/dp/0945999380#reader_0945999380 If you read the into, there is a whole section on Aristotle as well, and the page 8 reference includes a few quotes about Locke and how the framers loved to use Locke.Sir Joseph (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't follow you. The only sentence is "The people's right to have their own arms for their defense is described in the philosophical and political writings of..." That is what is cited and refed. It has nothing to do with the US or to England. That sentence describes the evolution of the RKBA and how even back then it was discussed. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry if I'm not being clear. First, this is a sub article of Right to keep and bear arms. That article should contain the generic concepts of RTBKA which apply across nations. If it's not direcly related to the right to keep and bear arms in the United States then it's in the wrong article. In fact, it's already in thet article so it's useless repetition here. Second, the material seems to be making an article about 'the people' versus 'the militia' or 'the army' or 'the state'. It's not clear what the point is. Third, how does this article relate to Second Amendment to the United States Constitution? Are we making the same arguments across multiple articles? Fourth, are we correctly summarizing the source? Is Halbrook's point that Aristotle described a right? I don't see it. Rather, Aristotle seems to be saying it would be good for farmers to carry weaspons, just like rich people do. Finally, is this a common view or should we attribute it to Halbrook? Who else says that Aristotle and Machiavelli described a right of the people to keep and bear arms? Felsic2 (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding Aristotle, in addition to Halbrook : Kopel [1] Liddy [2], Keyt [3], Sommers [4], Simpson [5], Wilson [6] and literally dozens others. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for those. I read the first one and do not see Where Kopel says that Aristotle described a right to keep and bear arms. Rather he seems to be saying that farmers should bear arms. Sorry if I didn't make that issue clear above. Since you're more familiar with these than I am, can you point to one which makes that specific assertion? Felsic2 (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding Aristotle, in addition to Halbrook : Kopel [1] Liddy [2], Keyt [3], Sommers [4], Simpson [5], Wilson [6] and literally dozens others. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry if I'm not being clear. First, this is a sub article of Right to keep and bear arms. That article should contain the generic concepts of RTBKA which apply across nations. If it's not direcly related to the right to keep and bear arms in the United States then it's in the wrong article. In fact, it's already in thet article so it's useless repetition here. Second, the material seems to be making an article about 'the people' versus 'the militia' or 'the army' or 'the state'. It's not clear what the point is. Third, how does this article relate to Second Amendment to the United States Constitution? Are we making the same arguments across multiple articles? Fourth, are we correctly summarizing the source? Is Halbrook's point that Aristotle described a right? I don't see it. Rather, Aristotle seems to be saying it would be good for farmers to carry weaspons, just like rich people do. Finally, is this a common view or should we attribute it to Halbrook? Who else says that Aristotle and Machiavelli described a right of the people to keep and bear arms? Felsic2 (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)