I undertake a huge rewrite of gun politics in the United States. Before I encountered it, it was a huge, POV mess (here's an example); it was highly biased, and was also probably the result of merging two other pages, seeing as how it covered many topics twice, neither time well.
16:33, Apr 28, 2005
I finish up my massive reorganization of the article (diff). It is much less biased, and also much more coherent.
User:Wodan and I engage in a productive back-and-forth over a few minor issues of wording (see history, as well as this version of the talk page, which documents the consensus we reached).
19:15, Apr 29, 2005
I remove the {{cleanup}} tag; the first time this article hasn't needed cleanup since March 15.
Gun control advocates answer that it is unrealistic to suppose that private citizens could oppose a government which controls the full power of the US Armed Forces, were it to become tyrannical, ignoring the question of whether it is already tyrannical simply by being too large for the citizenry to bring under control if need be.
Some gun control advocates also claim that the people's power to replace elected officials by voting is sufficient to keep the government in check, while these same advocates tend to believe that their votes were ignored in the 2000 and/or 2004 presidential elections.
Invasion by hostile outside forces is another reason gun rights advocates oppose registration. This view is supported by a quotation of WWII Japanese Admiral Yamomoto to Togo, in advising against an invasion of the US mainland, "there is a rifle behind every blade of grass," in referring to the popular and common ownership of firearms in the US.
Registration aside, gun rights advocates claim that an armed citizenry is a strong deterrent against a foreign invasion. However, this claim is highly disputed, despite historical anecdotes such as the above as well as citations of other totalitarians who were deterred by armed populaces in Switzerland, Finland, etc.
I revert Mlorrey's edits, with the edit summary "rv POV changes. You stop watching for one minute...". In retrospect, this is disrespectful and inappropriate; I wish to apologize for a momentary lapse of judgement.
Mlorrey re-inserts his edits; he uses no edit summary.
07:37, May 15, 2005
Mlorrey goes to the talk page. He makes several POV comments, using Wikipedia as a discussion forum, which it is not (reproduced below).
"Fine, have them point out valid, peer reviewed and reproduced studies proving their claims. They can't. Gun owners can and do, to which gun controllers stick their fingers in their ears and call out "neener neener, I'm not listening" or try to smear the authors with vile attacks which do not impugn the science in any way."
" The claim that the collective view was the 'de facto' position is false revisionist history promoted by the Bradyistas"
He also challenges on substantive grounds one of the facts in the article. The article originally said
The de facto position of the Executive Branch from 1934 until 2002 was that the Second Amendment protects a collective right, based on an interpretation of US v. Miller. In 2002, Attorney GeneralJohn Ashcroft and Solicitor GeneralTheodore Olson announced their interpretation that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, including a different interpretation of US v Miller to support their arguments.
On the talk page, Mlorrey disputed this; he claimed that "Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush were both lifetime NRA members and stated on numerous occasions that they believed it was an individual right, as has frmr AG Ed Meese. The claim that the collective view was the 'de facto' position is false revisionist history promoted by the Bradyistas".
08:24, May 15, 2005
On the talk page, I cite a source, namely a New York Times article. The article is only available from Lexis-Nexis or another paid database, but the lead says ":Reversing decades of official government policy on the meaning of the Second Amendment, the Justice Department told the Supreme Court for the first time late Monday that the Constitution "broadly protects the rights of individuals" to own firearms", essentially supporting my point. See the talk page for the details of the article if you wish to verify this yourselves.
08:16, May 15, 2005
I start a discussion on talk. I politely state why I consider Mlorrey's version to be non-neutral, and point out the relevant policies.
Over the course of the next few days, Mlorrey and I discuss on the talk page, but are unable to come to a consensus. Mlorrey is uniformly hostile and provocative; I've reproduced some quotes below. I attempt to discuss with him and reach a consensus, but it is impossible, as he merely treats me as an enemy for not immediately agreeing with his biased version of the article.
"I hope you would reconsider this in light of the May 10th passage of the REAL ID Act. I don't think it is possible for anyone to objectively and neutrally claim the US isn't slipping into fascist tyranny rather quickly. The fact is that the other side IS ignoring this question entirely."
"Pointing out the flaws in the anti-gun argument, when other writers are only pointing out flaws in the pro-gun argument is, in aggregate, neutral. It is the neutrality of the consensus that matters, not the individual contributions of individual contributors"
Mlorrey issues a veiled personal attack, writing that "I will refrain from stating my opinion of anybody who looks to the New York Times as a paragon of fairness, truth, or accuracy in reporting. The fact is that Reagan and Bush I were both lifetime NRA members and believed gun ownership was an individual right." Note that the membership of Reagan and Bush I is not even at issue here; this is a clever attempt to change the subject of the dispute. He also reproduces several quotes from various Presidents purporting to show support for his position; however, on examination, none of them actually address the specific fact being disputed.
After I reply, disputing Mlorrey's characterization of the facts, he says only "This is rich. The presidents opinion isn't policy?" (diff)
17:37, May 26, 2005
Mlorrey inserts POV language into the article on Thomas J. Dodd, claiming that Dodd was "notorious for having the Legislative Research Service translate his personal copy of the Nazi-era National Weapons Law, obtained when he was a Nuremburg prosecutor in Germany, into what is now known as the Gun Control Act of 1968, the most tyrannical gun control law passed in the United States to that date. This action is well documented by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership."
This is, as far as I can tell, a very obscure theory--a google search for "Gun Control Act of 1968" +Nazi returns only 534 hits. This very obscurity has made it hard to refute--essentially, no gun-control groups even bother to refute this claim.
There is a series of reversions of the article over the next week; see history.
17:47, May 26, 2005
Mlorrey inserts POV language into the article on Christopher Dodd as well (the son of Thomas J. Dodd; he writes that "His votes and public statements in support of gun control legislation demonstrate he carries on the legacy of his father in supporting the imposition of fascim on America."
17:49, May 26, 2005
I revert, with the edit summary "revert. Please follow NPOV".
17:53, May 26, 2005
Mlorrey reverts; his edit summary is "Voting for expanding law originating in Nazi Germany is objectively and NPOV fascism. Having a NPOV does not mean you cannot call a spade a spade." I revert again, warning him of the 3RR, and the matter has been quiet (on this front) since then.
18:03, May 26, 2005
I explain on talk why Mlorrey's version of Christopher Dodd is not neutral, writing that "It is only your opinion that gun control is fascism--it is not a fact. Therefore, it should not be included in the article." I also provide a warning of the 3RR rule.
18:20, May 26, 2005
Mlorrey responds with a series of personal attacks; he claims that I am editing from what he calls a "moral relativist POV" and asks a series of rhetorical questions, including "Is grass green?", "Do tyrannical governments always impose gun control?", and "Is there a difference between having an open mind and having one so open that one's brains fall out?".
