which is no more a metric than if i were to suggest that your interest in this article is due to systemic bias by those who are attracted to this article because they are anti gun will you agree to cease characterizing your fellow editors as being pro gun Intro Continues to reflect extensive anti gun POV an intro is supposed to cover the main points of the article The current hijacking of the intro by those with an anti gun POV has totally destroyed the impartiality of that intro The latest addition only reaffirms my point The paragraph quoted from Cruikshank belongs under that case and not in the intro 4 154 235 197 Have attempted to address these concerns moving the detailed Cruikshank and Heller minutia into their appropriate detailed discussion sections Intro now even more biased to the in favor of gun control It seems that with every new edit neutral or pro gun ownership language gets deleted and pro gun control language becomes more and more predominant This REEKS of POV bias In order to counter this blatant POV bias I ask that the following from Heller be added to the intro The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self defense within the home The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens militia enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms so that the ideal of a citizens militia would be preserved I repeat my previous position that such blatant POV bias is uncalled for and I will delete all anti gun rhetoric in the into once this article becomes unprotected I feel it is safe to say that no other wiki article on a Amendment is so ANTI the protections of that amendment Again this article REEKS of POV bias 4 156 78 115 Hamilton quote still only quote showing Continuing POV bias Why does the proponent of the MOST EXTREME position of the loosing side of the Second Amendment Bill of Rights debate continue to be the only one quoted His opinions are most certainly NOT the mainstream opinion of the time If it was then there would be no Bill of Rights and no Second Amendment Those two items CLEARLY exist and they exist because the majority of the time THOUGHT THEY WERE NEEDED Again Hamilton s was clearly a MINORITY opinion This quote from Federalist 25 shown Hamilton to be ANTI Militia and anti NUMEROUS state constitutions of the time as well as Anti Virginia Bill of Rights This is NOT a mainstream opinion of the time Here I expect we shall be told that the militia of the country is its natural bulwark and would be at all times equal to the national defense This doctrine in substance had like to have lost us our independence On another point Hamilton s usage of the term well regulated conforms to the usage of the time Well regulated being used to mean well trained From Federalist 29 To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia 4 156 78 9 Firearm Owners Protection Act section The inclusion a whole section on this obscure piece of pro gun legislation while not mentioning the National Firearms Act or the Gun Control Act of 1968 or the Militia Act of 1903 or the Militia Act of 1792 is very much a NPOV undue weight problem with the exception of the characterization obscure i agree with this assessment there are articles for each of the above as well as the Firearm Owners Protection Act the extended discussion of the FOPA as its own section in this article doesn t seem to add anything substantive to the article that isn t cove