Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:53, 26 March 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Right to keep and bear arms article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Firearms Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Unassessed

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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

revert of good faith edit

I am calling attention to this revert. What is the policy basis for the revert? Please be specific, citing policy, thanks. If possible, omit personal opinion and ad hominem arguments please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The text you added:

One of the principle debates about placing restrictions on the right to bear arms is the alleged effect that it will have on gun related accidents and deaths.

is not supported by the references given. Gun Violence by by Cook and Ludwig does not even mention the "right to keep and bear arms" on page 32. Nor is it mentioned anywhere else, for that matter, in support of the statement in question.

The msnbc article mentions gun deaths in the title and the first two paragraphs. It also mentions the right to keep and bear arms in four paragraphs near the end. No where does the article support the statement you added.

The text in question is an exceptional statement, and it requires high-quality sources that directly support it.

By the way, thanks for assuming that I would respond with personal opinion and ad hominem arguments. That's classy. --Hamitr (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you accept page 3 of the Bruce and Wilcox book, ISBN 9780847686148, as citation for that sentence? SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Page 3 of The Changing Politics of Gun Control does not support that sentence, either. This is precisely the reason that I made the proposal in the #gun violence, gun politics, synthesis, statistics, etc. section. While reliable sources support the statement that, "The right to keep and bear arms is sometimes referenced in discussions of gun politics and gun violence," those sources do not support the sentence you want to add. --Hamitr (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You have read all these now, can you suggest an alternative? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

modified lede consensus?

user saltyboatr modified the lede sentence from

The right to keep and bear arms, RKBA, or right to bear arms is the concept that people, individually or collectively, have a right to weapons.

to

The right to keep and bear arms, RKBA, or right to bear arms is the concept that people, individually or collectively, have a right to weapons and is often referenced in discussions of gun politics and gun violence.

can you point me to where this change was discussed - let alone consensus reached to change it? i can find no discussion on the talk page here of changing the lede to this wording. i'd appreciate a direct pointer to this discussion, because i'm surprised i'm unable to find it - has it been archived by the miszabot? if so, why has the change been made now, weeks later? i've reverted the edit pending some clarification. Anastrophe (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Look at the discussion of March 6th. especially 18:06, and the discussions of March 7th. If you don't like it, suggest wording that you find acceptable, and lets work out a compromise. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

that's not discussing the lede of the article. the wording is unacceptable because it's POV. the right to keep and bear arms is also often referenced in discussion of gun rights, rights in the united states, usurpation of rights by 'camel's nose under the tent' methods, etc.. limiting it to suggest that it's only referenced in discussing gun politics and gun violence is needlessly POV. i don't see any value in adding it to the lede sentence. Anastrophe (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What is your proposed compromise? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

as i said, i see no value in adding it to the lede. NPOV is not negotiable, as you frequently mention, and i agree. Anastrophe (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean you can accept the compromise of placing it down in the article? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

yes, as i said in my comments in section 8 above, at 19:03, 6 March 2009. it's certainly appropriate to cite opinion from reliable sources on the matter, covering it neutrally (so the section must include counter-opinions from reliable sources as well). i would caution however that if you wish to add mr justice burger's commentary, that you include those balancing opinions yourself contemporaneously - either that, or propose your text here on the talk page where we can all build it out consensually. adding burger's opinion to article space, then expecting other editors to balance it, just won't fly on this article. Anastrophe (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Section title, at the bottom of the article: The politics of the right to bear arms. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

is that the most accurate title? if it'll cover commentary and opinion, it seems that 'commentary on the right to bear arms' would be more appropriate. Anastrophe (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

as i said, let's work it out on the talk page first. adding a blank section doesn't make sense. Anastrophe (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

so much for working out the content here on the talk page. we now have an essentially one-sided presentment of the commentary/opinion, focusing only on the NRA and gun rights groups. i thought we were going to try for an NPOV section before it went up in article space? this rather defeats the purpose of keeping POV content out of article space until it's NPOV. i don't get it. Anastrophe (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Added tag to reflect that on editor thinks there is a POV problem with that section. I am willing to discuss specifics, but I disagree that the whole section needs to be deleted until after everything gets worked out. If that is the standard there is a likely chance that the section may never get inserted. I presume that is not the intent. Better to make incremental improvements. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

why does the UK section need a litany of laws?

the introduction pointedly notes that there is no right to keep and bear arms in the UK. so why is a lengthy, repetitive, and frankly boring litany of minor and major laws controlling arms even necessary? how does this contribute to an understanding of the right to keep and bear arms, if the right no longer exists there? many other countries have no right to keep and bear arms, should we list all their laws too? it's nonsensical.Anastrophe (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. A 'main article' link to Gun politics in the United Kingdom would probably be more appropriate, assuming all the information is there, and a far briefer overview could be provided here. --Breadandcheese (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur. --Hamitr (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

yes, the material is largely covered in the UK gun politics article, where it's relevant content. i'll clean up the section. Anastrophe (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. Yaf (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Do Not support If anything the article is way too long and it ís mostly all the about the United States. The article is way way too one sided. The material on knives is highly perinent and not represented in the other article. By the way, if anyone feels like deleting this again, I will remind them that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

correct, it is not a democracy, but it is also not an autocracy. consensus is a core value of wikipedia. relevance of content is also a core value. this article is not Gun politics in the United Kingdom. a litany of codes and laws in the UK is not appropriate to this article. the article is certainly not "one-sided". the right to keep and bear arms is obviously more greatly disputed in the united states than in the UK, where the right has been extinguished. since the right no longer applies there, there's really not much content relevant to the UK that is relevant to this article, thus, the section is shorter than where the right is codified and disputed, n'est ce pas? Anastrophe (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you guys should just retitle the article "The right to keep and bear arms in the United States of America" then you can delete all this tedious foreign stuff and rid yourselves of outside interference from foreign editors (who don't really have a right to edit the American Misplaced Pages anyway). --Hauskalainen (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

please try to be civil. thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hauskalainen has a point here, there is far too much information on the United States for a page which is supposedly international. There are already links to other pages, so why is all that reproduced here? If the information doesn't fit into one of these distinctly US pages on gun politics, then it should be largely moved to a new page and merely a linked overview provided. --Breadandcheese (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This article has huge US centric bias. Including the article title. Globally "right to bear arms" is more appropriate. And the "keep and" term drawn from the US Constitution plainly reflects the US bias. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

the proper solution is to keep this article "right to keep and bear arms", and move the global material that covers "right to bear arms" into its own article.Anastrophe (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I support this, and have suggested similar before. I also find this to be ironic considering that this article used to be titled Right to bear arms before USA centric editors insisted on renaming the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yaf's revert

Yaf's revert doesn't appear to be make per any policy. Please explain the policy basis for this revert. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus. See talk above. The insertion of clearly POV content, labelled as such, is not acceptable. Work it out on talk, first. Yaf (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is frustrating, as both of you object and both of you refuse to offer any proposal of an acceptable edit (other than wholesale deletion of the section). It has the effect of a stonewall. Please suggest an edit which would fix the POV problem you see. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the current text with POV balance for discussion,

Interest groups, primarily in the United States, have exerted political forces regarding legislation of the right to bear arms. This political debate in America is organized between those who seek stricter regulations and those that believe all gun regulations violate the Second Amendment protection of a right to bear arms. The largest political advocacy group in this regard is the National Rifle Association, and its political wing, the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. The NRA has been described as one of the largest and most powerful political special interest group in the United States. Additionally, several smaller groups including the Gun Owners of America and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, while smaller in size, are also well financed and politically active. The main gun control group in opposition is the Brady Campaign which has been described as considerably less effective, with less congressional access due to a budget about 1/30th of the NRA.

SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

have attempted to refine some of the content. fact tagged claim that brady campaign is the 'main' gun control organization. are they? mention of other gun control groups would be warranted. culled the claim of brady having 1/30th the budget - this article is about the RKBA, the section is about the politics. details about organization budgets can be appropriately found in their respective articles, that's what wikilinks are for.

the current text is at least not completely one-sided as the previous text was. the relevance to this article is still questionable - the reason there are other articles such as Gun politics et al is to cover such indirectly related material. a 'see also' section would be more appropriate than trying to shoehorn this information into this article. Anastrophe (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Questionable relevance? I don't understand your question. Literally every scholarly work I have read about the RTKBA is written with the political context, usually quite overtly, of right to bear arms. I cannot think of a single scholarly source that does not touch on the political context. Can you mention some reliable sources which are devoid of political context? Our article should reflect the sourcing, and literally all of it deals with the political context of the right. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

this is why Gun politics exists, for precisely that discussion. Anastrophe (talk)

I notice that you did not answer my second question, that is likely because there is little or no RS coverage of the right to bear arms that does not discuss the right in context of the politics. I am not talking about gun politics. I am talking about the right to bear arms. In virtually all the reliable source coverage of the topic of the right to bear arms, the right to bear arms is always discussed in context of the politics. Therefore this article should mirror the reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

it seems odd that you're arguing the matter from this perspective. the existing paragraph says little more than that there are advocacy groups in favor of the RKBA and advocacy groups opposed to it. that's hardly a scholarly observation. there's considerable scholarly examination of the right in the body of the article. you may say that you're not talking about gun politics, but that's precisely what this paragraph currently covers, and nothing more. Anastrophe (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I notice that you still didn't answer my second question. Also, I agree that the article suffers deeply from a lack of scholarly viewpoint and reads more like an advocacy piece. Fixing that problem is exceedingly difficult in this hostile editing environment. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

i agree, editors who badger other editors do indeed make for a hostile environment - to wit the repeated 'you didn't answer my second question'. i didn't answer it because i thought it too silly to dignify. the article in fact is filled with scholarly discussion of the right to keep and bear arms. there is scholarly discussion of the civilian usage interpretation, the military service interpretation, early commentary in state courts, etc etc - yet you claim it lacks scholarly discussion?? that's an amazing claim. you seem to be conflating "politics" with "advocacy". the section you added discusses advocacy groups themselves, it does not discuss the politics of the right itself to keep and bear arms. in fact, as it stands now the section title grossly misrepresents the material you added. it should be entitled "advocacy groups" to accurately represent the material. then, you'll need to explain how a section about advocacy groups is relevant to this article. it isn't. it is probably relevant to 'gun politics'. it's not relevant to an article about the right itself. Anastrophe (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel badgered by me. I apologize. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

thank you, although apologies are not necessary. the section as currently presented adds nothing of value to this article. mention of the NRA and Brady Campaign is relevant to Gun politics. as presented in this article, in a section properly entitled "advocacy groups", it has no meaningful relevance. we could add a section entitled "Handgun Ammunition" and list manufacturers of same, and it would have identical lack of meaningful relevance. Anastrophe (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither do I need an apology for you calling my question silly, as your lack of remorse tells enough about your character to never expect such from you.

Your analogy is far off base. The preponderance of reliable sourcing about the right to bear arms does not discuss "handgun ammunition". But, essentially all the reliable sourcing discusses the right to bear arms in context of the politics. This article should mirror the reliable sourcing and do the same. Indeed presenting the right to bear arms as simple 'fact' is in itself a POV push. The reliable sourcing shows the right to bear arms as being politically subjective, and the article should mirror that. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

please take a visit to WP:NPA. your comment in the first paragraph above is an unbridled personal attack. attack my arguments, not me.

my analogy is dead-on. please reread what i wrote. the section as you have written it is nothing but a description of advocacy groups. it is not about the 'politics' of the right to keep and bear arms. we are talking about the section you added to the bottom of this article. i stand by what i wrote. a description of a handful of gun rights and gun control advocacy groups provides no meaningful content about the politics of the right. the body of the article discusses the politics of the right at length and in great detail. the artificially concocted section you added - an outgrowth and reworking of hauskalainens synthesis push to add homicide statistics to the article, adds no such scholarly material of any value at all. Anastrophe (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Did I say lack of remorse was a bad thing? I don't expect apologies from you nor do I expect you to care one way or another that someone might take offense at your comments. Statement of fact based on knowing you for perhaps a year now. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"as your lack of remorse tells enough about your character to never expect such from you." emphasis added. that is an overt, unadorned, unbridled person characterization, phrased as a personal attack. please refrain from personal attacks. attack my arguments, not my character. Anastrophe (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

also, since you seem to be somewhat unclear on this: "your question is silly" is a comment about your question, and is not a personal attack (again, see WP:NPA). "you are silly" would be a clear personal attack. i said the former, not the latter.Anastrophe (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Your 'silly' comment is still offensive. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

how you choose to respond to minor slights is your business. you may wish to spend less time being offended, more time concentrating on writing an encyclopedia. or maybe you don't. it's your life. i'd recommend keeping discussion of your personal feelings off the talk page. Anastrophe (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The "Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms" has nothing to do with the topic of this this article? And, "Etched in the dark stone lintel above the (NRA) entrance was the pivotal phrase from the Second Amendment: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" (pg 31 Feldman ISBN 9780471679288). The advocacy groups are plainly topical in reliable sourcing. You also keep evading my point that virtually all the reliable sourcing discussed the right to bear arms in context of the politics. This article should do so also. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) you are conflating "advocacy" with "politics". they are not equivalent. the article contains massive amounts of scholarly material pertaining to the politics of this right. you are evading that point. the section title misrepresents what it contains. the section title should properly and accurately be "Advocacy groups", because that's the entire extent of what it discusses. can you tell me where the brady campaign discusses the right to keep and bear arms - aside from their desire that it did not exist? Anastrophe (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok to strike the Brady sentence entirely? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The NRA-ILA is not engaged in political advocacy? Really? "When the situation demands, NRA-ILA goes beyond legislative and political advocacy to defend the Second Amendment in court.". Plainly on topic in this article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

rename the section "Political advocacy" or "Political advocacy for and against the right to keep and bear arms". that characterizes the material correctly. then there's no overt need to scrub the section. Anastrophe (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Except that I don't see reliable sourcing that says the Brady Campaign is "against" the right to keep and bear arms. What sourcing are you reading that says this? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

perhaps they are not (at least overtly), however there are other organizations and people (dianne feinstein, e.g.) who openly state that they'd like to have the right eliminated. further, the brady campaign may not formally be against the right to keep and bear arms, but that does not mean that their political advocacy is not directed at the right. Anastrophe (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you reading? Is it reliable? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

for one, transcript, CBS news "60 Minutes", Feb 5, 1995 - certainly a reliable source - U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here.". a statement for outright ban on all firearms is clearly a suggestion to legislate away the right in question. certainly relevant both to a discussion of the politics of RKBA and advocacy. as for the brady campaign, ]:"The Brady Campaign traces its roots to 1974, and it has undergone superficial, and to some extent, substantive changes. Its transformation, in contrast to the NRA, was to morph into a more mainstream organization, and it abandoned its overt calls for banning firearms to lobby for less strong restrictions on both guns and gun owners"(emphasis mine). restrictions on guns and gun owners is advocacy directed at the right to keep and bear arms.Anastrophe (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This is helpful, finally learning your sources, except you omit that this is found verbatim on an NRA-ILA press release, and you insert the word "all". Isn't it a big presumption that legislated firearm regulations and bans are "against" the right to bear arms? That seems to mirror the NRA-ILA advocacy argument that any regulation or any ban is against the right to bear arms. Another more moderate belief is that "banning firearms" in many circumstances can be entirely consistent with the US Constitution. Considering that it is constitutional for the the right to bear arms to be circumscribed I am not convinced yet by your argument that the Brady Campaign is in opposition. Unless you expect the article to take the partisan presumption that any ban is against the right. While that is found on the gun rights advocacy blogs and the NRA-ILA press releases, it is not founded in the mainstream sourcing. Longstanding and reasonable bans are not necessarily against the right (see Doherty, ISBN 9781933995250, pg 110]). SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) your ceaseless attempts to characterize editors at every turn are reprehensible. i've never seen the NRA press release - until just now, since you provided a link. feinstein's quote has appeared in numerous sources; that it appears on one you appear to 'favor' for the purpose of impugning an editors motives doesn't mean that that is where this editor read it. it's like sitting for the mccarthy hearings at times - 'no, saltyboatr, i have never been nor am i now a member of the NRA'. i don't read the NRA website - not if i can help it - nor the NRA-ILA website, nor any other gun rights or gun control websites. i'll note here, since it's been a peculiar bone of contention - i am not fishing for an apology. what i want is for you simply to stop this uncivil behavior.

the reason the quote is "found verbatim", i would presume, is because it is a quote. i most certainly did not insert "all" into the quote. your claim that i did is without foundation.

are you seriously arguing that the brady campaign, coalition to stop gun violence, million mom march, etc, are not engaged in political advocacy with a bearing upon the right to keep and bear arms? it's interesting, you now seem to be backtracking on your former stance, that if it had any relationship to RKBA, no matter how tenuous - such as adding unadorned homicide rates into the article - that it was perfectly valid, because it was "related", albeit synthetically. which is it? Anastrophe (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The point I am making is that the Brady Campaign, et al, appears to merely have a different definition of the right to bear arms than the NRA-ILA does. In reliable sourcing, the definition is subjective, and the neutral framing of the definition is important to maintain neutral POV in this article. You, and perhaps coincidentally, people that hold a pro-gun point of view, like to prop up the Brady Campaign as enemies of a right, a politically expedient boogie man. The article should avoid doing that too, while at the same time describing neutrally the reality that the topic of "right to bear arms" has been politically framed. The Brady Campaign hasn't been reliably shown to oppose a right to bear arms, instead, they support reasonable and constitutional firearm regulations to reduce gun violence. Framing this as "defending the right to bear arms versus enemies of right to bear arms" improperly mirrors the polemics.

Where did you happen to find your 1995 transcript? Do tell. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

why do you ask? you seem to be intent on finding some reason to impugn me, rather than the quote in question. are you disputing that ms. feinstein said this? if so, what is your basis for disputing it? do you have some evidence that the quote is not reliable?

your statement previously that i inserted the word "all" was framed to suggest that i had modified the quote - one does not 'insert a word' into their own commentary.

you continue to focus only on the brady campaign. they are not the only "gun control" organisation, nor, based upon what the section is ostensibly about, are organisations the only 'allowed' source of opinion on the matter.

i am not alone in the opinion that organizations that attempt to disarm law-abiding citizens are in conflict with the right to keep and bear arms. the section is on the politics of that conflict. your desire to scrub any mention of gun control on the claim that gun control is not at odds with the right, is, itself, questionable. you are now apparently arguing that in the politics of the right to keep and bear arms, all advocacy for gun control is not at odds with the right - even advocacy for confiscation. this is not supported in reliable sourcing. Anastrophe (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Simply, I am trying to distinguish your argument based on the reliability of the sourcing of your ideas. Your evasiveness makes this hard, but the most reasonable conclusion I can reach is that your sourcing comes from partisan gun-rights blogs. Correct? Or, are you using reliable sources for your opinion? If so, I ask again: Which? If not, please quit using the talk page as a forum for your unsourced ideas. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

like i said, you're more interested in characterizing your fellow editors, and impugning their motives. relentlessly. just like the mccarthy hearings. the source i used is the source found in Dianne Feinstein. it's an editorial by chris cox, who i've learned (from you) is associated with the NRA. i'm certain you'll discard that as a reliable source, ignoring my question as to whether you are disputing that feinstein said this (i watched that edition of 60 minutes, and remember her saying it - but of course, that's OR - oh well). Anastrophe (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Unassessed Firearms articles
• Unknown-importance Firearms articles
• WikiProject Firearms articles
• Unassessed law articles
• Unknown-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics