Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Obama's comment.... | Main | Budd Schroeder running for Congress in NY »

Wikipedia assist needed

Posted by David Hardy · 13 April 2008 11:10 AM

The Wikipedia entry on CCW laws is proposed for removal due to too few citations or links. (It looks like there are, but in fact the State names link only to entries describing the state, not to firearm laws). If anyone has some Wiki skills, they might drop over there and bolster the entry.

11 Comments | Leave a comment

Alcibiades McZombie | April 13, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply

It's not proposed for deletion, yet (I think). Generally, articles are only removed when their subject is completely insignificant.

30yearProf | April 13, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply

Done.

Tarn Helm | April 13, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply

Awesome!

Let's keep the ball rolling!

Carl in Chicago | April 13, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply

Thanks 30yearprof. Great. I suspect the good folks at

http://www.handgunlaw.us/

might also be willing to step up to the plate.

Letalis Maximus, Esq. | April 13, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply

Good thing to watch, the rumor is that Wiki has been taken over by...um...how do I say this...left leaning types?

30yearProf | April 13, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply

"Good thing to watch, the rumor is that Wiki has been taken over by...um...how do I say this...left leaning types?"

I've heard lots of comments about recent "editing" that, if true, would support this conclusion.

David E. Young | April 13, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply

By accident while searching the web using AltaVista last week, I came across a dispute about content of the Wikipedia entry for the Second Amendment. I just now checked the main entry and it is protected from editing until disputes are resolved. I am not sure what the date of the dispute was on the page viewed last week, but the diputed point had to do with whether Noah Webster's commentary about the people having to be disarmed before a standing army could rule should be allowed on the page. I have no idea who the disputing parties actually were, but one was apparently against using any primary American historical sources regarding the Second Amendment.

Apparently the agenda driven politicized dispute over the meaning of the Second Amendment and what sources should be examined to settle the dispute has arrived full force at Wikipedia.

How will it ever be possible to determine what the Founders meant if one cannot refer to what they said and did? It appears that an attempt is underway to fill the article with modern ideas from one side of the intent dispute and get rid of the historical materials that embarassingly contradict that side and of which there are a great many.

Tarn | April 13, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply

If Mr. Young's observations prove to be prophetic about a trend in Wikipedia management, we 2nd Amendment supporters might have to start dumping as much 2nd Amendment stuff as possible in the conservapedia.

By the way, I am very grateful for your work, Mr. Young, especially your latest--I gave half a dozen copies of it to family members for Christmas in 2007.

I also have your earlier (huge) work.

Keep up the fight.

Kevin P. | April 14, 2008 8:28 AM | Reply

Wikipedia's owner Jimmy Wales is actually libertarian. However, the site has attracted a lot of left-leaning editors (anybody and everybody is an editor).

As far as the Second Amendment goes, we are in relatively good shape and outnumber the anti-gun editors.

The best cure for the left-leaning editors? Become a Wikipedia editor! It takes a few seconds to sign up for an account and start editing. Start with simple fact and balance corrections and learn editing and policy as you go.

Please consider becoming a Wikipedia editor if you have good writing skills and want to make sure that our side of the story is fairly presented.

Kevin P. | April 14, 2008 8:30 AM | Reply

Incidentally, this particulary Wikipedia article was not flagged for deletion but for having many uncited claims. Several people including myself have added many citations and so the article is in much better shape now.

The Mechanic | April 14, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply

I've seen some good libertarian citations in Wikipedia articles that go back to Austrian Economics and Mises Institute and so forth. Combine that with the fact that Leftist professors and encyclopedia salesmen just hate Wikipedia so I think its going to stay a good start point for research.

Leave a comment