Posted on 11/27/2007 3:13:08 PM PST by Frobenius
I am working 80-100 hr weeks at the moment and cannot take it on and do a good job.
Is there anyone that understands how to edit Wikipedia articles that is willing to have a go??
Find the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Wiki isn’t about the truth and I think that most people, especially here, know that.
To me, it reads accurately in its description of the various interpretations and the disputed meaning.
Bang
Editing Wikipedia is incredibly easy. You only have to click “edit” at the HEADING of the section you want to edit. Give it a go.
No guarantee your edit will stay though, you can bet the anti-gun crowd will want to edit it as well, with their slant.
the beginning of the article would lead you to believe there is a bias. But read the next section where it says, “Precedent
The philosophy behind the Second Amendment began several hundred years before its creation, originating in England. The concept of citizens or “subjects” bearing arms for universal military obligation dates back to at least the 12th century when King Henry II obligated all freemen to bear arms for public defense (see Assize of Arms). In the following century, King Henry III required 1553 every subject between the ages of fifteen and fifty to own a weapon other than a knife (see Yeoman). This was of such importance that Crown officials gave periodic inspections to guarantee a properly armed townspeople. This was because England did not have a police force until 1829, and in the absence of a regular army it was the responsibility and duty of the subjects to keep watch and ward at night to confront and capture “suspicious persons”
Further reading shows more of the above. Remember, Wikipedia is THE WORST source for unbiased information. It is written by individuals who may or may not know what the hell they are writing about.
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."
I don’t waste time on this, these days.
If you think you can just show up, pass a law, and expect my old Redneck hiney to show up at police headquarters, turning in, anything, Oh Well! I don’t really even care what SCOTUS says! I likely can read as well as Scotus can.
I may not understand lawyer talk, but I do understand plain English.
It’s more complicated than that. Wikipedia is your basic vipers’ nest and to do anything at all with any sort of article involving any kind of controversy, you need lots of bodies. One or two people will use up their three edits a day in about thirty minutes and the article won’t be changed and if the one or two people try to do any more than that they get blocked and/or banned.
What's accurate about that? This is just Stalinist revisionism. Prior to the 1990's, I can't think of anyone even saying something as ludicrous as the 2nd being a "collective" right. Now they allege it's the predominant view?
This is just the progression of propaganda: introduce an untruth, repeat it often, then start alleging that "it's always been this way" and then pronounce it the final, uncontested truth, even though it was fabricated from whole cloth.
The truth is that Americans have been guaranteed their right to keep and bear arms for over 2 centuries now, and that, strangely, is why all those darn people own them. Whoda thunkit?
There's never been any real debate among the populace about that until the last 30 or so years. The prohibition on things like machine guns were weasel worded to allow some regulation, and while people might have had reservations about that interpretation, they acquiesced because most people didn't see the need to own such a weapon, and anyway, a license could be obtained. So the Right appeared intact, if somewhat constrained.
But I know of no mass consensus that the 2nd represents the right of the government to give rifles to the National Guard, which is what the "collective right" BS amounts to.
My state, The Peoples Republic of Maryland, keeps trying to pass a law to make it a crime to NOT report a stolen firearm.
They DO NOT now know what I own except a few handguns.(required paperwork)
I do not check my collection every day. More like once a year. I have the ones I use frequently in a different location. I would know if one of those was missing.
One question is, if I own an illegal firearm, it gets stolen and I DO NOT report it in the prescribed time, can I claim, if it ever got back to me, the 5th Amendment on the grounds I do not want to implicate myself in the crime of owning an illegal firearm?
Volokh is probably one of the top 5 2nd Amendment scholars. Maybe top 3.
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/
He’s running out of time - if he isn’t Top two soon he’ll never get to opine for the championship.
This is exactly what needs to be added to the 2nd amendment article.
When we see the intent of the writers in other documents and correspondence there is no debate as to what they intended with the 2nd.
Just say, Hell No! Just say, Hell No! Do I need to repeat?
Don’t come whining here about how much showing your balls is going to cost you, you are bluffing, and it shows!
All the Hell you are worried about, if you buck up on the RKBA issue, is the effect of your stand on your bottom line. Hell, if you didn’t make so much money, maybe you would need to hit on older women, or, just do, without!
Anyway, do you really know just how trite, and irrelevant, you sound?
Whether it's in the Bill of Rights or not, it's still a right. It's tough to kill a deer with a rock!!
You can add that information to the site just cut and past.
Wikipedia is province of nickel-knowledge-know-it-alls, most of whom are, if you excuse my redundance, statist crypto-commies.
If you think modern “journalism” is truthful, then you’ll believe anything the least bit controversial on wikipedia, and, as the pedantry proceeds apace, *everything* will be controversial on wikipedia, sooner or later.
Thanks. Bookmarked.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.