Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 6

message: The article contains the question, in the list of points of question/"modern interpretations" regarding the text of the amendment, "What does 'shall not be infringed' mean?"
Wait, what?
This seems about on par with questioning wether or not 2 plus 2 does in fact equal 4.
I mean, yeah, NPoV and whatever, but the question, quite honestly, seems very stupid.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeroofTime55 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wait, what? 

message: From a source in the 2a article: "Rather than search for a single meaning for the right to bear arms it makes more sense to recognize that this right could be interpreted in radically different ways by spokesmen for different groups within American society."  Arthur 20:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Key words: "could be interpreted".  Presently we are phrasing the lede summary as a concise statement of what the 2A is now.  I suppose we could reword it to be more open, stating how it 'could be interpreted'.  How would you phrase such a paragraph?  SaltyBoatr 21:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Would you please concisely state your POV? You have not ever done so. Thanks.  SaltyBoatr 22:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No.  The question is how shall we establish the proper neutral POV balance.  You are arguing that the balance is wrong.  For instance, a 'flat earth POV' must not carry weight when determining the balance point because it fails a WP:RS standard.  But significant POVs which meet a RS threshold do carry weight when determining the balance point.  Therefore you should explicitly describe which POV's must be weighed to achieve balance.  It appears you are using a 'flat earth POV'.  (If you dispute this, you can easily dispel the appearance by itemizing the "several different interpretations of the 2A" that you are weighing.)  Please answer explicitly.  SaltyBoatr 17:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your continued use of "flat earth" is highly prejudicial. Again, NPOV does not allow us to judge whether a POV is correct or not. I have provided a mountain of RS that shows that this POV exists. To call it "flat earth" in the presence of numerous sources simply is inaccurate. Arthur 18:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you refer vaguely to numerous sources, yet you have not provided even one source that claims that the 2A is presently incorporated.  I apologize for 'flat earth' seeming prejudicial, let me restate.  What I mean is that your assertion that the 2A presently pertains to the States is an assertion that has no reliable source, in shorthand a 'flat earth' opinion.  (I accept your sourcing that people argue that it should pertain, but that is a separate question entirely.)  If you insist that we cover 'should pertain', perhaps my suggested wording below can be an acceptable compromise.  SaltyBoatr 18:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no vagueness. Reliable sources are listed in proliferation above in their own section and I could continue ad naseaum. I have even on many of them added specific pages for your benefit. Your argument that the POV doesn't exist is disingenuous. I am NOT sourcing people arguing that it "should pertain', in fact, I don't believe that "should" appears in any of the sources I gave, although it might. For example, yet again, the two original authors of the 14th said that it "does". So does Curtis. So does the congress subcomittee report. So does Foner. You seem to feel that the 14th does not cover the 2A, and so you're saying that their belief that is does is incorrect. Such an assessment does not take into account NPOV. Arthur 18:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You claim you have proved that a POV exists that the 2A presently pertains to State and Local jurisdictions.  How then is that we see thousands of state and local firearms laws?  This defies common sense.  Though I would easily accept a claim that a POV exists that the 2A 'should' presently pertain to State and Local jurisdictions.  SaltyBoatr 18:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting note re 2A POV