This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was created by porting over the majority of the section for the United States from the original article of nearly the same name, Right to keep and bear arms. Given the original section's size and detailed nature, it was unduly large for that article and justified the creation of a separate article. Appropriate templates and redirects have been put in place so that readers will not lose access to the information nor have to search for it. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 20:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Recently, Ian Overton mentioned that a study on Pakistan showed that the number of homicides with firearms increased as people began attaining weapons for personal defense. He mentioned that "give people guns and they'll use it, it's that simple". It should be in his book somewhere (gun baby gun; see http://www.gunbabygun.com/global-numbers-killed-gun-examined/ ) but I didn't find an exact reference. It might be the 2014 global study homicide ( https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/GSH2013/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf ) but I'm not sure. Can someone reread, confirm and add this ? Seems quite important to note in article. Xovady ( talk) 15:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right protected in the United States by the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States of America and in the state constitutions of 44 states.[1]— "STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS". UCLA Law School. Retrieved 2013-11-30.
That's wrong. A check of the source reveals that a number of states omit the right to keep arms. For example:
And so on. I count thirteen listed entries that omit "keep", so the total would be 31, not 44. For the lead, it'd be too much to get into "bear" vs "keep and bear", so I'm going to change it to "many". Felsic2 ( talk) 18:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
could you provide a diff of your proposed change? At first glance I agree with Joseph, that you are nitpicking, but its possible that your edit could provide some reasonable precision. Gaijin42 ( talk) 00:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The people's right to have their own arms for their defense is described in the philosophical and political writings of Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, Machiavelli, the English Whigs and others.—Halbrook, Stephen P. (1994). That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (Independent Studies in Political Economy). Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute. p. 8. ISBN 0-945999-38-0. Aristotle has nothing to do with the U.S. 2nd Amendment RTKBA. This is just loading on. Felsic2 ( talk) 16:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
really significant to the issue let's say why and how, not just list their names. Felsic2 ( talk) 19:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't follow you. The only sentence is "The people's right to have their own arms for their defense is described in the philosophical and political writings of..." That is what is cited and refed. It has nothing to do with the US or to England. That sentence describes the evolution of the RKBA and how even back then it was discussed. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I think you are splitting hairs on Kopel. Somners and Liddy are very explicit in their assertion though. "Aristotle was hardly alone among those in the pre-Christian world in understanding that man has an inalienable right to keep and bear arms..." "The right of the individual to own weapons...". With the amount of sources available, I fear you are wasting everyones' time here. I hope this does not need to go to another pointless RFC to prove that the sky is blue. A few more. [7] [8] Gaijin42 ( talk) 00:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I have no objection to making that linkage more clear. But as your own edit summary indicated, your edit was absurd. While clearly Aristotle did not right about American rights, he (and many other writers) did discuss the people's rights, and those peoples rights were part of the foundation that the founders were building on. That you think there is not a clear relation is your own WP:GAME to play. Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
if we're going to nitpick and include writings from thousands of years ago, can we also cite Star Trek while we're at it? come on. if they intended for every random idiot to have rocket launchers in the 1700s, they would've written it to say that. what they intended was for military-aged males to be able to keep weapons because we were in times of struggle against foreign powers aiming to take us over, and the most powerful handheld weapons were less lethal than sling shots. all of the NRA jockeys posting here are cluttering up what should be nothing more than a historical reference of the amendment itself. 67.161.127.203 ( talk) 05:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 01:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Right to keep and bear arms in the United States →
Gun rights in the United States – Per
WP:COMMON NAME and
WP:NPOV. The proposed name is also shorter and more intuitive.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 23:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
There does not seem any reference to government financial help for individuals to purchase guns.
Given that the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", how does the USA federal government provide for it's citizens who wish to exercise that right but don't have sufficient financial means?
Is this achieved by means tested grants to individuals who wish to purchase guns from private gun shops. Is it achieved by issuing vouchers? Or does the government simply distribute surplus ex-military equipment to the poor. (Or even quite wealthy people who cannot afford the very latest most powerful gun).
Or is there a loan/rental scheme, (it appears there is no right to own a gun, just a right to bear and keep one).
Anyone with expertise in how the American Social Security systems and gun owning/ keeping system interact.
I can't see sources on the topic, but there must be something somewhere? 91.84.189.190 ( talk) 23:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
References
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was created by porting over the majority of the section for the United States from the original article of nearly the same name, Right to keep and bear arms. Given the original section's size and detailed nature, it was unduly large for that article and justified the creation of a separate article. Appropriate templates and redirects have been put in place so that readers will not lose access to the information nor have to search for it. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 20:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Recently, Ian Overton mentioned that a study on Pakistan showed that the number of homicides with firearms increased as people began attaining weapons for personal defense. He mentioned that "give people guns and they'll use it, it's that simple". It should be in his book somewhere (gun baby gun; see http://www.gunbabygun.com/global-numbers-killed-gun-examined/ ) but I didn't find an exact reference. It might be the 2014 global study homicide ( https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/GSH2013/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf ) but I'm not sure. Can someone reread, confirm and add this ? Seems quite important to note in article. Xovady ( talk) 15:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right protected in the United States by the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States of America and in the state constitutions of 44 states.[1]— "STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS". UCLA Law School. Retrieved 2013-11-30.
That's wrong. A check of the source reveals that a number of states omit the right to keep arms. For example:
And so on. I count thirteen listed entries that omit "keep", so the total would be 31, not 44. For the lead, it'd be too much to get into "bear" vs "keep and bear", so I'm going to change it to "many". Felsic2 ( talk) 18:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
could you provide a diff of your proposed change? At first glance I agree with Joseph, that you are nitpicking, but its possible that your edit could provide some reasonable precision. Gaijin42 ( talk) 00:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The people's right to have their own arms for their defense is described in the philosophical and political writings of Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, Machiavelli, the English Whigs and others.—Halbrook, Stephen P. (1994). That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (Independent Studies in Political Economy). Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute. p. 8. ISBN 0-945999-38-0. Aristotle has nothing to do with the U.S. 2nd Amendment RTKBA. This is just loading on. Felsic2 ( talk) 16:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
really significant to the issue let's say why and how, not just list their names. Felsic2 ( talk) 19:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't follow you. The only sentence is "The people's right to have their own arms for their defense is described in the philosophical and political writings of..." That is what is cited and refed. It has nothing to do with the US or to England. That sentence describes the evolution of the RKBA and how even back then it was discussed. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I think you are splitting hairs on Kopel. Somners and Liddy are very explicit in their assertion though. "Aristotle was hardly alone among those in the pre-Christian world in understanding that man has an inalienable right to keep and bear arms..." "The right of the individual to own weapons...". With the amount of sources available, I fear you are wasting everyones' time here. I hope this does not need to go to another pointless RFC to prove that the sky is blue. A few more. [7] [8] Gaijin42 ( talk) 00:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I have no objection to making that linkage more clear. But as your own edit summary indicated, your edit was absurd. While clearly Aristotle did not right about American rights, he (and many other writers) did discuss the people's rights, and those peoples rights were part of the foundation that the founders were building on. That you think there is not a clear relation is your own WP:GAME to play. Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
if we're going to nitpick and include writings from thousands of years ago, can we also cite Star Trek while we're at it? come on. if they intended for every random idiot to have rocket launchers in the 1700s, they would've written it to say that. what they intended was for military-aged males to be able to keep weapons because we were in times of struggle against foreign powers aiming to take us over, and the most powerful handheld weapons were less lethal than sling shots. all of the NRA jockeys posting here are cluttering up what should be nothing more than a historical reference of the amendment itself. 67.161.127.203 ( talk) 05:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 01:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Right to keep and bear arms in the United States →
Gun rights in the United States – Per
WP:COMMON NAME and
WP:NPOV. The proposed name is also shorter and more intuitive.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 23:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
There does not seem any reference to government financial help for individuals to purchase guns.
Given that the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", how does the USA federal government provide for it's citizens who wish to exercise that right but don't have sufficient financial means?
Is this achieved by means tested grants to individuals who wish to purchase guns from private gun shops. Is it achieved by issuing vouchers? Or does the government simply distribute surplus ex-military equipment to the poor. (Or even quite wealthy people who cannot afford the very latest most powerful gun).
Or is there a loan/rental scheme, (it appears there is no right to own a gun, just a right to bear and keep one).
Anyone with expertise in how the American Social Security systems and gun owning/ keeping system interact.
I can't see sources on the topic, but there must be something somewhere? 91.84.189.190 ( talk) 23:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
References