Jump to content

Talk:Right to keep and bear arms: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,554,882 edits
m Signing comment by 2A02:587:4115:29C:2056:45E4:8195:48A0 - "In the US the sole cause of the "The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution" (weapon bearing rights) was the fear that the President could become a monarch (they didn't like the absolute authority of King George and that stuck but generalized) == * see: Anti-Federalism (but fear against absolute authority wasn't restricted among antifederalists)"
 
(14 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{controversial}}
{{controversial}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
⚫
{{Annual readership}}
{{WikiProject Firearms |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Firearms |class=Start |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Law |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Law |class=Start |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=mid|gun-politics=yes|gun-politics-importance=high|libertarianism=yes|libertarianism-importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics |class=Start |importance=mid|gun-politics=yes}}
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=mid}}
}}
}}
⚫
{{Annual readership}}


{{Archive box|auto=long}}
{{Archive box|auto=long}}
Line 17: Line 18:
|archive = Talk:Right to keep and bear arms/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Right to keep and bear arms/Archive %(counter)d
}}<!--Automatically goes to a new archive page if the archive is over 100 kB, threads with no new comments in the last 3 months get moved to the current archive page. Archiving is done once a day around midnight UTC-->
}}<!--Automatically goes to a new archive page if the archive is over 100 kB, threads with no new comments in the last 3 months get moved to the current archive page. Archiving is done once a day around midnight UTC-->
{{Broken anchors|links=
* <nowiki>[[Hunting#Shooting|hunting]]</nowiki> Anchor [[Hunting#Shooting]] links to a specific web page: [[Shooting]]. The anchor (#Shooting) is no longer available because it was [[Special:Diff/1149861837|deleted by a user]] before. <!-- {"title":"Shooting","appear":{"revid":459903574,"parentid":459903152,"timestamp":"2011-11-10T02:17:01Z","removed_section_titles":[],"added_section_titles":["Shooting","Regulation","Varmint hunting","Fair chase","Ranches"]},"disappear":{"revid":1149861837,"parentid":1149423119,"timestamp":"2023-04-14T22:12:48Z","removed_section_titles":["Shooting","Regulation","Varmint hunting","Fair chase","Ranches"],"added_section_titles":["CITEREFFerguson"]}} -->
* <nowiki>[[Gun law in the Czech Republic#Current law|Czech Firearms Act]]</nowiki> The anchor (Current law) [[Special:Diff/1039552033|has been deleted]]. <!-- {"title":"Current law","appear":{"revid":347715889,"parentid":347687989,"timestamp":"2010-03-04T15:11:10Z","removed_section_titles":["Current Law"],"added_section_titles":["Current law"],"replaced_anchors":{"Current Law":"Current law"}},"disappear":{"revid":1039552033,"parentid":1039551887,"timestamp":"2021-08-19T10:24:06Z","removed_section_titles":["Current law"],"added_section_titles":["2002 Firearms Act"]}} -->
}}

== Text of USA Section ==

The text of [[Special:PermanentLink/700398184|2016-01-18T07:44:01]] seems to offer the best overall summary. The text introduced in [[Special:PermanentLink/944941118|2020-03-10T20:54:28]] is not really about the United States specifically and in fact was cut-and-pasted from the general "Background" section. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jsnx|Jsnx]] ([[User talk:Jsnx#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jsnx|contribs]]) 23:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Self Defence sprays ==
== Self Defence sprays ==
Line 23: Line 32:




== Move backgroun to UK/US section ==
== This article needs to be renamed as "Constitutional right to keep and bear arms" to avoid it being just a repeat of a laundry list of world gun laws ==

Here we go again. [[Right to keep and bear arms]] has been co-opted by Cimmerian Praetor in his new guise as Abatementyogin and made into yet another copy of [[Overview of gun laws by nation]]. The point of the article is what countries have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, not just to repeat a review of gun laws by nation. Is anyone interested in making sure this article is about constitutional right to keep and bear arms? The current state of the article is just stupid duplication of [[Overview of gun laws by nation]]. [[Special:Contributions/99.236.244.35|99.236.244.35]] ([[User talk:99.236.244.35|talk]])

:The article should be kept separate as it is as the Right to keep and bear arms, but duplication of legal gun laws by nations could be transferred to the other article and superfluities deleted. It is essential to preserve the theories separate. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/98.16.90.161|98.16.90.161]] ([[User talk:98.16.90.161#top|talk]]) 18:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::How many countries have the right to keep and bear arms actually enshrined in their constitution? Serious question. I only know of one. And I'm sure we articles covering that already. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 23:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

== UK ==

"Since the passing of gun control laws, the UK has one of the lowest firearm death rates among developed nations, with 0.2 deaths per 100,000, compared to 10.2 in the U.S."

This sentence implies that the gun control laws are the reason firearm death rates are low in UK. And since US is known for its high firearm ownership, this also implies that high firearm death rates in US are caused by high firearm ownership. The source cited does not support these implications. I do not have the historical firearm death rates data, but I do have the [[List of countries by intentional homicide rate by decade|historical intentional homicide rate data]]. And this data shows that ''US has always had much higher homicide rates than UK (England and Wales to be precise), even when both of these countries had absolutely no gun control laws''. Additionally the homicide rate in UK is very steady, most of the time it stays in the 0.8-1.2 range and there is no visible decrease when further restrictions on gun ownership are placed. (For charts visualizing this, search for "England historical homicide rates" in Google Images.) Therefore I consider this sentence misleading and believe it should be removed. [[Special:Contributions/192.198.151.43|192.198.151.43]] ([[User talk:192.198.151.43|talk]]) 13:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

== UK (England) Bill of Rights ==

As far as I can make out, the provision in the English Bill of Rights (1688/89) declaring the right of Protestant subjects to bear arms is still in force, so it seems odd for the current article to state simply that there is no constitutional or legal protection for the right to bear arms. Of course, like any Statute the 1688/9 Act could be repealed or amended, but as far as I can see the 'arms' provision has not been amended. It was always a limited provision, since it qualifies the 'right' by the words '... Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law'. Presumably the various laws regulating the possession and use of arms are considered to fall within the phrase 'as allowed by law'.[[Special:Contributions/109.150.6.148|109.150.6.148]] ([[User talk:109.150.6.148|talk]]) 20:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

== In the US the sole cause of the "The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution" (weapon bearing rights) was the fear that the President could become a monarch (they didn't like the absolute authority of King George and that stuck but generalized) ==
* see: [[Anti-Federalism]] (but fear against absolute authority wasn't restricted among antifederalists)

It's a lie that the amendment was written about:
# Native Americans. Animals had more value and were more respected. You didn't need specfic legal permission to kill Indians and society did care for their death.
# Englishmen or other invaders. That's a joke. You don't need specific laws to kill enemies and invaders. Also if the enemy conquers a region and imposes new laws, if you believe in your own country and you are a fighter, the laws of the enemy are illegitimate. Also they don't recognize your laws in their conquered ground - you just kill them in battle. No law can change that.



The background part made sense years ago when the whole article was UK/US specific. In the current form it however doesn't make much sense (especially as Czech Wenceslaus Agreement of 1517 precedes the Bill of Rights of 1689 by more than a century and half). How about moving the background information to UK/US section? Or rewriting the background into "history" that would cover more than just UK/US? [[User:Cimmerian praetor|Cimmerian praetor]] ([[User talk:Cimmerian praetor|talk]]) 10:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


:I came here to ask about exactly this. I will go ahead and make the suggested change unless someone registers their objection here in the next couple of weeks (since people have already had a year to respond to the above comment and have not done so). [[User:LastDodo|LastDodo]] ([[User talk:LastDodo|talk]]) 11:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Why the sole reason for arm-bearing is the old fear of absolute authority within your own state? Because you support your state and adhere to its laws. Your own country or state isn't the enemy, and when its authorities infringe your rights, there is no legal way to both respect it and stop the infringement of power if the head of state acts monarchically.


== weak sources ==


I find the sourcing to be very weak, including from the [[NRA]] and the [[Gun Owners of America|GOA]] in the lead, among other glaring problems, such as the dubious interpretation/extrapolation of British common law, and Czech rules. the article was created 21 years ago and appears to be in a state of neglect. even the title kinda suggests a POV agenda.
Many Americans (and not only) know very well the biases, but don't understand their cause. For example Hebrews in Medieval Christian Europe were called Christ-killers and god-killers (in some nations). There are plenty of texts with these terms. There are records of Christians burning the houses and killing Jews (medieval Germany, etc). Watch DW medieval documentary on that, but Christian medieval crimes against Jews happened in many countries. Also at medieval times banking was deemed unethical. Initially Christians in some regions weren't allowed to be bankers being the sons of the true god. That law changed and anyone could become a banker. But people never forgot that initial injustice. Also the Bible itself is biased in the New Testament against the Jews, and most Christians took very seriously the Bible. Thus the New Testament is the first Christian biased record against the Jews.


in coming days, I plan to tag weak sources in the hope they can be improved to ensure this controversial topic is adequately supported by solid sources. I think the article should be formally designated as [[WP:CTOP]].
Some Americans are extremely strict on denying written and well attested facts. Old facts and early facts which prove how the historical biases evolved. They never present older facts, only newer conspiracy theories when the biases were deeply established.


if significant improvement is not made, the article might reasonably be considered as a candidate for deletion. that might ignite a firestorm of protest, so I hope some better sourcing might preclude such a development. [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 02:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories maintain the biases. Their true historical evolution exposes them, and cannot be accepted because is the core component of many ideologies. Removing or analysing the biases is suicidal for many groups. (see: [[perestroika]], the biases are the system; if you overanalyze them, the fallacious system gets exposed and collapses). <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A02:587:4115:29C:2056:45E4:8195:48A0|2A02:587:4115:29C:2056:45E4:8195:48A0]] ([[User talk:2A02:587:4115:29C:2056:45E4:8195:48A0#top|talk]]) 02:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Latest revision as of 11:33, 23 September 2024


Text of USA Section

[edit]

The text of 2016-01-18T07:44:01 seems to offer the best overall summary. The text introduced in 2020-03-10T20:54:28 is not really about the United States specifically and in fact was cut-and-pasted from the general "Background" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsnx (talk • contribs) 23:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Self Defence sprays

[edit]

I wrote that A person can legally take martial arts classes in the UK to defend themselves as well as carrying self defence sprays such as Farbgel and StoppaRed UV sprays. I put this in the article because I feel that it belongs there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.82.16.223 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 29 June 2014‎


Move backgroun to UK/US section

[edit]

The background part made sense years ago when the whole article was UK/US specific. In the current form it however doesn't make much sense (especially as Czech Wenceslaus Agreement of 1517 precedes the Bill of Rights of 1689 by more than a century and half). How about moving the background information to UK/US section? Or rewriting the background into "history" that would cover more than just UK/US? Cimmerian praetor (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to ask about exactly this. I will go ahead and make the suggested change unless someone registers their objection here in the next couple of weeks (since people have already had a year to respond to the above comment and have not done so). LastDodo (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak sources

[edit]

I find the sourcing to be very weak, including from the NRA and the GOA in the lead, among other glaring problems, such as the dubious interpretation/extrapolation of British common law, and Czech rules. the article was created 21 years ago and appears to be in a state of neglect. even the title kinda suggests a POV agenda.

in coming days, I plan to tag weak sources in the hope they can be improved to ensure this controversial topic is adequately supported by solid sources. I think the article should be formally designated as WP:CTOP.

if significant improvement is not made, the article might reasonably be considered as a candidate for deletion. that might ignite a firestorm of protest, so I hope some better sourcing might preclude such a development. soibangla (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms&oldid=1247229933"