Talk:Bear arms (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Disambiguation[edit]

Copied from Talk:Right to keep and bear arms#global? Cool Hand Luke 01:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, "right to bear arms" is the English phrase most often used in reference to heraldic rights. At least that's what Google seems to indicate:

'"right to bear arms" heraldry' yields ~248,000 hits
'"right to arms" heraldry' yields ~2,430 hits
'"right of arms" heraldry' yields ~78 hits

Which probably means that Right to bear arms should provide disambiguation, rather than a strict redirect to this article. --tc2011 (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There actually is a problem, in that "keep and bear arms" is a term with meaning primarily in context of the United States. Also, the concept that 'bear arms' equates to having or owning weapons, is far from universal. This ignores the significant point of view that 'bear arms' means 'fight, military service' in many instances. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the relevant talk page where this is addressed. --tc2011 (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation of "bear arms"[edit]

Regarding this revert[1]. The meaning of "bear arms" is ambiguous. Certainly it has the meaning "firearms". It also has the meaning "military service". This is exactly the situation that disambiguation pages are meant to clarify. This ambiguity is documented in many places, see for instance here[2]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding recent edit war to focus on the 'weapons' meaning. There is also a well sourced long standing 'military service' meaning of the right to bear arms. This is part of a very long running POV battle at Wikipedia trying to insert one POV over another. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nowhere in the destination does it mention civic duty, civic military service, civic anything. using a construct nowhere used in the destination article is likely to be reverted. further, the 'collectively' portion of the existing construct covers the military service meaning. the 'collective right' interpretation means 'militia' in all sourcing i'm aware of. do you have sourcing that suggests that collective right means something else? further, the military service usage is archaic. while it is an interesting historical curiousity, it's not the mainstream understanding i'm aware of. do you have contemporary sourcing that suggests otherwise? please share. Anastrophe (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong about this. The "military service" meaning is contemporary, and long standing. See for instance the book by Garry Wills, page 257 [3] "Bear arms refers to military service". See it also confirmed in the book by Michael Lind page 221[4] "bear arms in this context clearly refers to military service" and in the book by Uviller and Merkle page 194 [5] "To the ratifiers, bearing arms unequivocally meant rendering military service.". For this disambigation page to only focus on the 'weapons' meaning when the the 'military service' meaning is also valid, (and covered in the article) violates policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

um, two of your three references above are referring to historical usage not contemporary usage, unless we are to understand that the ratifiers of the constitution are alive today? the middle of the three is quite the bloviating opinion piece, it may be published by a reliable source, but it's a highly partisan source. and again, do you have some sourcing that suggests that the 'collective right' definition does not include military service? you seem to want the POV balance of this one line summary to have two references to non-individual bearing of arms, and only one to the individual bearing of arms. that seems out of balance. Anastrophe (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, some people apparently do confuse Dr. Bob Basso's portrayal of Thomas Paine on Youtube with the real Thomas Paine :-) See Video: Angry guy dressed as Founding Father ready for the tea parties. Yaf (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your sarcastic comment is offensive, please be civil. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of modern usage[6], 2008 International Journal of Refugee Law. SaltyBoatr (talk)

um, two of your three references above are referring to historical usage not contemporary usage, unless we are to understand that the ratifiers of the constitution are alive today? -- This is nonsense. The meanings of the words people wrote down don't change when they die. The 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution is a contemporary document and still means exactly the same thing it meant when it was written ... when it referred to wielding military weapons in battle. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 10:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually "Refusal to bear arms" not "Right to bear arms" AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your point? "Bear arms" means military service in 2008. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

furthermore, the only appearance of the word right in that article is in the copyright. what is the point of bringing up a reference like this? will you please answer my question as to what reliable sources you have that suggest that 'collectively' as used to describe the right to (keep and) bear arms is ever used to denote anything other than this military/militia service usage? Anastrophe (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction is the term "bear arms" means "military service" The term "bear" "arms" means carry weapons. POV advocates tend to prefer one version or the other depending on their POV. For this disambiguation page to be neutral it needs to fairly accommodate both of the POV's. Presently it pushes the "bear" "arms", by focusing on weapons and the scrubbing of the "bear arms" military service meaning. For more on this check the Oxford English Dictionary. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

problem. this is not the disambiguation page for Bear arms. it is the disambiguation page for '''Right to''' bear arms. your argument is a distraction. what is your reliable sourcing that suggests that when described as a 'collective right', the right to bear arms does not mean military/militia service? if you have none, then please say so. Anastrophe (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NPOV policy requires balance, and this disambig page violates that policy. Interesting that you object so hard, makes me guess why. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are yanking my chain, but indulging your question, yes in the 21st Century see ISBN 9780804753784 published by Stanford University Press, chapter 6, especially pages 177 and 178[7] which uses "right to bear arms" meaning the right (and virtues) of democratic military service. I expect to see shifting goal posts from you again, coupled with personal outrage that I don't assume good faith from you. Not much room left for assumptions about you. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i'm yanking your chain and moving the goalposts? balderdash. quite the opposite. your source may be dated in the 21st century, which is fine for establishing when the tome was published. the content within that source makes no mention of the meaning of military service equated with the right to bear arms in anything beyond the 19th century. so far, you've produced numerous 'proofs' and 'references', none of which sustain or support your claim. no outrage, more astonishment - you're usually better able to support your arguments than by this dancing around the periphery of the topic.

this disambig page most certainly does not violate NPOV. you've shown no evidence that 'military service' is at the present time synonymous with 'the right to bear arms'. as a historical fact, yes, but this is merely a disambig page, not the article itself. all your inclusion of 'military service' will do is tend to confuse readers, who in the present day would never say that when a young woman enlists in the marines that she's engaging in her 'right to bear arms'. Anastrophe (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if your "at the present time" criteria were true, it is not a valid criteria for not including the disambiguation. Certainly there are many historical articles on Wikipedia, and this encyclopedia is used for research of historical topics. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

military service meaning[edit]

Maybe we need to discuss this some more. The 'military service' meaning is a significant meaning of the term 'bear arms', often used in the phrase 'right to bear arms', therefore it needs to be disambiguated here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what about the right to collect the arms of bears?[edit]

i.e. the right to keep a collection of polar bear's arms alongside a nice assortment of grizzly's legs and perhaps the nose of penguin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.195.21 (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TWODABS[edit]

Per WP:TWODABS, this should redirect to one of the named articles with a hatnote to the other. Which one should be the primary target? bd2412 T 16:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]