This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
So clearly just describing how ONE political party in ONE country used the word is inadequate. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:377E:61DF:3EAC:2898 (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. But as a starting point, this is an article about a fluid American political term, not a type of firearm. North8000 (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason the scope of the article can't include analogous legislation in other countries? VQuakr (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping in mind that "this is an article about a fluid American political term, not a type of firearm." The issue is "analogous in what way?" North8000 (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the way that the term and concept is also used in Canadian firearms legislation/politics. [1]. VQuakr (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]