Talk:Right to keep and bear arms

Self Defence sprays

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

Incorrectness of "No right to bear firearms exists under international law, in particular there is no human right to self-defense and its means"

The article linked as proof in fact says the exact opposite, with an entire section titled "Duty to recognize a right to self defense." Accordingly, I am editing the previous "No right to bear firearms exists under international law, in particular there is no human right to self-defense and its means. Instead, states are under an obligation to reasonably limit access to firearms as part of their duty to protect the right to life.[14]" Apfox (talk) 03:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

In your change you say that "states are given significant latitude" in allowing self-defense, but the source actually says international law sets limits on what states can allow (see p. 36). TFD (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

References

"Called by this proponents"

Bringing a brief edit war to the talk page.

Proponent = a person who speaks publicly in support of a particular idea or plan of action.

An introductory definition in encylopedia needs to be a factual statement of what the article is about. Right to keep and bear arms is self-explanatory. However User:HiLo48 feels the need to bring his bias into the article by adding subjectivity into the introductory sentence.

User:HiLo48 Please explain the motivation behind your edit warring. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

1. One edit is not an edit war.

2. We all have biases. Yours are apparently different from nine.

3. There are many possible definitions of a right to keep and bear arms. It is simply not self-explanatory.

4. Absolute certainly is a sign to me of a lack of depth and breadth of thought on the matter. HiLo48 (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

We are not arguing the meaning of Second Amendment. We are talking about "Right to keep and bear arms". Basically what you are saying is that right to keep and bear arms may mean something else than a right to keep and bear arms.

If there are "many possible definitions" than it's up to you bring them forward and list them in the intro in a meaningful way. Not to take a sourced definition (with a reference) and re-write it to your liking. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm really busy at the moment, and cannot be bothered nor do I have the time for debating with someone with a closed mind, but you really do need to look more widely. Perhaps just start by considering the fact that things are very different from the USA in most of the rest of the world, and most people are very happy with it. Then look into why. HiLo48 (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Either make your case or decist. FYI I am not from the US. This article is not about what anyone is happy with, this article is about RKBA. If there are other defitions, provide them. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 05:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I have a small semantic (or grammatical) objection to the wording. I would also delete "proponents' (since it's not a proposition advanced by only one side; the boundaries are what's argued), but IMO saying the term is "defined as" should be added. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding of all the countries that have no consitutional RKBA

This article is getting ridiculous by IP users repeating information from various other articles on gun laws in certain countries only preceded by "no constitutional RKBA protection".

Unless those countries/systems are in any way specific (like the section on Sharia law), they should be summed up in a single part. This article is not enriched by adding of all the miscellaneous information. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that countries without a constitutional RKBA have no place in this article—and that most certainly includes the Czech Republic. But if one country without a CRKBA is included with its own section, then there is every reason to include all countries. I have been working at clarifying this article for a long time. Switzerland and the UK have been left as countries without CRKBA as US gun rights adherents on WP believe they have a special place here. The inclusion of a huge section on gun laws in Czech Republic here is the major offender: so much verbiage, so little pertinence to the topic of the CRKBA. And now it comes complete with a sidebar and a pointless photograph?

I understand that there has been a move to add a US-style amendment to the Czech Constitution to enshrine the RKBA. If that happens, then a succinct section on the Czech Republic is warranted, along with a re-write of the lede. As it stands, the inclusion of the Czech Republic here is a glaring example of what you are complaining about.

Remaining as an IP user is my choice. It is honest and you can actually see where I live.99.236.244.35 (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that countries without a constitutional RKBA have no place in this article

You are admitting to bad faith editing and edit warring.

Switzerland and the UK have been left as countries without CRKBA

This article is not called CONSTITUTIONAL RKBA but simply RKBA. The fact is that 1689 English Bill of Rights includes right to be armed - but unlike US it states that this right shall be limited by law. This is important not only as regards UK, but also development of US RKBA.

Switzerland simply has RKBA. Lack of CRKBA is a different issue.

Adding CRKBA is a topic that is happening right now in the Czech Republic. Meanwhile, we do have RKBA, albeit conditional upon completion of several legal requirements. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not admitting to anything. Read the lede for the CRKBA. Inclusion of the Czech Republic is wrong; it does not fit. It is completely misleading. The other countries without a CRKBA listed are like the Czech Republic, and if you want to include the Czech Republic here, then the other countries also belong. The huge section on gun laws in the Czech Republic does not improve the article; it just obfuscates the issue. Sorry.2607:FEA8:88A0:184C:B9D6:DDA3:1D4D:6ACC (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Again this is not CRKBA. This is RKBA article. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 06:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

That’s enough. It’s just convoluted reasoning and petty accusations—which are false. 2607:FEA8:88A0:184C:2426:9DF3:33E9:CAEE (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Read the lede 2607:FEA8:88A0:184C:2426:9DF3:33E9:CAEE (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Article name change discussion

This article should not be called RTKBA, but moved to "Gun Laws of the World" Discuss. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

AGREED. There are only three countries that have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms: Guatemala, Mexico, and the United States. The rest of the countries included in the article do not have a RKBA spelled out in their constitutions. This could be moved to a "Gun Laws of the World" to point out the oddity of having such a "right" given constitutional protection. In fact, the coverage of the RTKBA is already looked after in Right to keep and bear arms in the United States, as Guatemala and Mexico's RTKBA may have been based on RTKBA in the US. The rest of the sections in RTKBA are meaningless as they certainly don't represent countries that have such a right and the article has been reduced to a means to push personal opinion.2607:FEA8:88A0:184C:B9D6:DDA3:1D4D:6ACC (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

OPPOSE. Again, IP's argument is invalid since he again pushes the narrative of CKRBA, while the article is RKBA. Roxy, the dog., please make your case, you put no reason forward apart from "should be". Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

This article seems to have become a hobbyhorse for those who have reduced the value of the article to just be a way to push irrelevant gun politics from their own country. It appears that if you can't get your own way, the recourse is to call an editor "IP," file a bogus sock puppet case against those who oppose you, and enlist the aid of other editors to block legitimate editing of the article. This article started out as a way to push US-centric views on gun politics onto the rest of the world. Any arguments contained in it are found elsewhere in a more complete form. The article is about the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as is/was discussed in the lede. 2607:FEA8:88A0:184C:B9D6:DDA3:1D4D:6ACC (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

call an editor "IP,"

You yourself have admitted to edit warring in this article under multitude of various IPs.

legitimate editing of the article

I fail to see the added value of repeating information from all of the national legislation articles, with merely adding the sentense "no CRKBR". Those were bad faith edits that were not adding anything of informational value.

This article started out as a way to push US-centric views on gun politics

How exactly is that in an article that almost omits mentioning US?

The article is about the constitutional right to keep and bear arms

You keep repeating that. It is simply not so. Before your edit warring, the bulk of information in the article were about Switzerland (RKBA but no CRKBA) and England (arguably RKBA through the Bill of Rights, but clearly no CRKBA). Right now the article lists 1 country with clear RKBA, 2 countries with CRKBA the constitution of which expect statutory limits, 2 countries with RKBA and England due to its specific situation with Bill of Rights. Clearly, this article is not about RKBA. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Baseless accusations. How petty. 2607:FEA8:88A0:184C:B9D6:DDA3:1D4D:6ACC (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, if we are not moving the article, why do we have so much stuff that is off topic, as most of the world does not have that right, just a few three TPLAC's. Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Historically, the right was recognized under both English and Scottish law and hence throughout the British Empire. It was added to the U.S. constitution and copied into many constitutions modelled on the U.S. Although only three formal national ocnstitutions contain the right, at one time it was fifteen.[1] Arguably the right still exists in Commonwealth countries, although the supremacy of parliament has made it moot. (The only restrictions on gun ownership in Commonwealth countries are those in legislation.) TFD (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Which brings us back to this really being (in your mind at least) about the CONSTITUTIONAL right, the All-American thing. This article would not exist were it not for the current gun idiocy in the United States. HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

But it was a constitutional right, and maybe still is, in the UK, Canada and the rest of the British Commonwealth. The only difference is that in Commonwealth countries, the people could restrict the right through their elected parliaments, while in the U.S. it requires 3/4ths of the state legislatures. The Canadian government for example held that even Irish immigrants had a constitutional right to keep and bear arms when local officials tried to disarm them. Mind you, that was in the 19th century. TFD (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

"...maybe still is, in...the rest of the British Commonwealth" The word "...maybe" doesn't make a strong argument. As someone who watched closely the happenings in Australia that led to our current legislation, I saw no claim from gun enthusiasts that there was anything in the constitution to help their case. Pretty sure they would have used it had it existed. And I just examined the Australian constitution - https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/~/media/AC79BBA0B87A4906A6D71ACCEEF10535.ashx - the words "arms" isn't there. HiLo48 (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

That is the written constitution. There is also the use a in broader sense, as in the Constitution of the United Kingdom, which is "a sum of laws and principles that make up the country's body politic." See: "Civil Liberties and the Absence of a Bill of Rights": "Australia's historical approah to protection of fundamental freedoms has been based in the notion that the rights and processes established by the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the common law were imported to Australia by British colonists and provide sufficient protection.[2]] Also, The Story of Australia: "English law was transplanted into the Austraian colonies by virtue of the doctrine of reception, thus notions of the rights and processes established by the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights 1689 were brought from Britain by the colonists."[3] Of course as I mentioned, parliaments have the power to restrict these rights. Hence it is moot today, although it had historical significance and has never been specifically repealed. In any case, that "Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law" certainly formed part of the laws of Australia, at least at some point. TFD (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

You are wandering all over the place with that comment. My simple point is that there is nothing about arming oneself in the Australian constitution, and never was. Remember, Australia did not exist as a legal entity until 1901. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Then lets wander back. There was a colonial law in force in Australia that protected the right to be armed, hence its relevance to the "right to keep and bear arms." Note too that the Succession to the Crown Act 2015, Part 4 recognizes that the Bill of Rights 1689 is part of Australian law. (Note too that the Australian states existed as legal entities prior to 1901.) TFD (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

There is extensive discussion in a book about gun control in Canada about 19th century views on gun rights which says that if was common among liberals to believe the right existed, and this was reflected in government thinking.[4] Of course unlike Australia, the government wanted people to be armed. TFD (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Two problems there. Firstly, are you aware that the major conservative party in Australia is the Liberal party? Please take care not to use American language when discussing the rest of the world. Secondly, your implication that the government disarmed them Australian people. That's a standard American gun lover falsehood. Pure NRA bullshit. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Three problems actually - it implies that only Protestants in Australia "may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law". I am not even sure that this quote can be construed as a "right to bear arms", as it says that it is subject to the law - just like everybody else on this planet.

The real issue with this article - what is its purpose and scope? It began its life in 2003 as a redirect to the US Second Amendment and has since developed into a poorly constructed mélange of material that is also available from the "See Also" articles found in the hatnote, and remains at Quality=Start class even after the passage of 15 years. William Harris • (talk) • 09:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks to me as if we have a consensus to remove anything not about the three TPLAC's with the "right". It wont take long, when I start. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I found my way here from the "Bill of Rights 1689" article. This RTCBA article is nothing that I would normally search for, and I believe that it needs to either (a) have an axe put through it and be deleted, or (b) have a scalpel taken to it as you have suggested. In its current form it is attracting well-meaning editors who get bogged down arguing minutiae, when their talents would be better invested in providing content elsewhere on Wikipedia. I would also be inclined to delete WikiProject Politics from this talk page because for the 3 jurisdictions Constitutionally involved it is not a political issue, it is a matter of legal fact. William Harris • (talk) • 11:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

HiLo, no idea why you think when I referred to 19th century liberalism I was using the "American language referring to modern American liberalism which developed in the 1930s. Let's stick to the point and avoid digressions. See Gun Control in Canada, pp. 58-59: "Several MPs argued that Canadians, as British subjects, had a right to bear arms. This belief fit well with the liberal principles dominant in the late nineteenth century, which emphasized individual liberty and property rights....Prominent Liberal MP, and future Supreme Court of Canada Justice, David Mills also raised the constitutional concern. He called the bill [disarming aboriginals] "very objectionable," for the British constitution held that it was "one of the rights of a British subject to have fire arms in his possession." It was "one of the provisions of the declaration of rights," he declared in referring to the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Mills, like Blake, even referenced the American Second Amendment as a source for his claim, arguing that the American constitution had simply copied the fundamental privileges of British liberty."[5]

William Harris, the Bill of Rights 1689 is generally considered to protect rights, even though it can be amended. It limited the power of the Crown to act without parliament, which was a major issue at the time.

TFD (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou for sharing something about a document to which I have recently supplied the link to in this article after having read it in depth. More importantly to us, perhaps you might share your views on what you see as the purpose and scope of this RTKBA article and where it might go from here. William Harris • (talk) • 09:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I will add something further based on the source I provided. I think the key points are that the right to keep and bear arms was believed by English liberals to be part of the common law and was protected under the Bill of Rights and transplanted to English colonies. It subsequently was incorporated into the United States constitution and other constitutions modeled on the U.S. Today it has become moot in Commonwealth countries, although it occassionally is brought up in debates and litigation and most countries that protected the right in their constitutions have removed it. The relevance to this discussion is that at least historically the right was not restricted to the U.S. and the two other countries that recognize the right today. TFD (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

You have already raised these points above and I am not disagreeing with you. What are your views on the article - do you believe that it should remain as it is or would it benefit from changes, and if so changes in which direction? William Harris • (talk) • 08:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)