text:
Příbram

Příbram (Freiberg in Böhmen or Pribram, in 1939–1945 Pibrans) is a town in the Central Bohemian Region of the Czech Republic. It has about 33,000 inhabitants. It is well known for its mining history, and more recently, its new venture into economic restructuring.

The town is the third-largest in the Central Bohemian Region (behind Kladno and Mladá Boleslav), and is a natural administrative and cultural centre of the south-western part of the region, although it also tends to be largely influenced by the proximity of Prague.

The Svatá Hora pilgrimage site above the town is the oldest and most important Marian pilgrimage site in Bohemia. Příbram is also known for the Mining Museum Příbram.

Administrative parts
Příbram is made up of 18 town parts and villages:

 * Příbram I
 * Příbram II
 * Příbram III
 * Příbram IV
 * Příbram V-Zdaboř
 * Příbram VI-Březové Hory
 * Příbram VII
 * Příbram VIII
 * Příbram IX
 * Brod
 * Bytíz
 * Jerusalem
 * Jesenice
 * Kozičín
 * Lazec
 * Orlov
 * Zavržice
 * Žežice

Bytíz forms an exclave of the municipal territory.

Etymology
The name is derived from the personal name Heinricus Pribrami and originally meant "Pribrami's (court)".

Geography
Příbram is located about 46 km southwest of Prague. It lies in the Brdy Highlands. The highest point of the municipal territory is the hill Vojna at 667 m above sea level. A dominant feature of the town centre is the hill Svatá hora with at 590 m.

The town is situated mostly on the right bank of the Litavka River. The Příbramský stream flows through the town and feeds a set of ponds in the town centre.

13th–15th centuries
The first written mention of Příbram is from 1216, when the nobleman Hroznata of Teplá sold Příbram to Ondřej, bishop of Prague. Soon the settlement became a market town with a church. Příbram was devastated during the disturbances in the second half of the 13th century. The Bishopric of Prague invited new settlers to the market town and a period of prosperity began.

The castle in Příbram was built by order of Archbishop Arnošt of Pardubice. New villages were founded in the vicinity of Příbram, and were administered from the castle. In the 15th century, the majority of the population was Czech, but there were also Germans who came to the area around the market town to mine silver. During the Hussite Wars (1419–1434), Příbram stood on the reformation side. After the war, it ceased to be church property and was acquired by the king, who pledged it to his creditors. However, the temporary administrators were not interested in the development of the market town, which meant a gradual decline. In 1497, Příbram was promoted to a town by Vladislaus II.

16th–19th centuries
At the beginning of the 16th century, silver mining began to develop and the mining settlement Březové Hory was established. In the mid-16th century, the mining declined. This lasted until 1579, when Rudolf II promoted Příbram to the royal mining town. Since then, the town of Příbram prospered, but the settlement of Březová Hora remained insignificant.

The Thirty Years' War had a large impact on Příbram, lowering the population and causing violent recatholicization that was supported by the growing importance of Svatá Hora, nearby the pilgrimage site. The town did not recover until the end of the 17th century, when iron ore mining developed.

Silver mining continued but was not very profitable, so Příbram gave up the majority of its mining profit share over in favor of central government in Vienna. This turned out to be a mistake, as in the 18th century Příbram became the site of the most profitable silver mining in the entire Habsburg monarchy. The town became the seat of the central mining institutions and, in the mid-19th century, also the mining academy. Peak prosperity lasted until the 1880s, after which it stagnated until the end of the 19th century. In 1897, Březové Hory was promoted to a royal mining town. The importance of Příbram mines declined after 1900, but the town's reputation as the educational and cultural centre remained high.

20th century
In the 1920s, uranite mining developed and the prosperity of the town started again.

Region with strong partisan resistance was around Příbram during World War II. Several prominent citizens participated in the resistance, and many were killed by Nazi occupiers. Student Antonín Stočes, his father, and Příbram's gymnasium director Josef Lukeš were executed in Tábor in 1942 following the assassination of Reichsprotektor Reinhard Heydrich. Their story was idealized in Jan Drda's fiction Higher Principle.

In 1953, the towns of Příbram and Březové Hory were merged.

The last epoch of Příbram mining occurred since the 1950s, when the district was opened again for uranite mining and several mines around the town were opened. The industry was included into a program of penal labour that Communist Czechoslovak government used for persecution of regime objectors. Labor camps Příbram-Vojna and Příbram-Brody were run there in 1949–1951, holding up to 800 detainees. In 1976 and in 1980, many surrounding municipalities were annexed to Příbram, increasing the total population to more than 35,000 citizens.

Located near to the Brdy military area, Příbram was an important locality during the 1968 Occupation of Czechoslovakia by the Warsaw Pact forces. The army command in Příbram was labeled a "focus of contrarevolution" in the Czechoslovak Army, as it did not cooperate the occupation forces and harbored the Czechoslovak Television during its independent broadcasting. The rioting of Příbram-Bytíz crime prisoners and the strike of Příbram miners were the other major events related to the August 1968 invasion.

The 1989 Velvet Revolution influenced Příbram significantly. Large mining enterprises, old silver and lead mines as well as modern uranium ore mines, were closed, but new opportunities opened up for the town and the economy diversified.

Economy
Příbram's economy was determined by the mining industry and supplying companies for hundreds of years. At the end of the 1980s, when the mining was slowly derogating, the basic Příbram corporations included Český státní uranový průmysl ("Czech State Uranium Industry"), Rudné doly ("Ore Mines") and suppliers such as ZRUP – Základna rozvoje uranového průmyslu ("Base of Uranium Industry Development") and others.

After 1989, the economy restructured because of the closure of mines and privatization. The nationwide important branch office of state enterprise Diamo is the successor of the Uranium Mines; the office is named Administration of Uranium Deposits (Správa uranových ložisek). Several of the supplying companies continue their activities under new owners.

The largest employer based in the town is the hospital. There is no large industrial enterprise in Příbram today, but many medium-sized enterprises are located here. The largest industrial employer is Ravak, the biggest producer of baths and shower-baths in central and eastern Europe.

The District Economic Chamber Příbram was founded in 1993.

Transport
The national road No. 18 (from Rožmitál pod Třemšínem to Votice) runs through the town. The D4 motorway runs east of the town and bypasses the Bytíz exclave.

Intratown transport is run by Arriva Střední Čechy, s.r.o. company. The bus terminal is located next to the railway station, the busiest hub for town buses is, however, located in the Jiráskovy sady near the Pražská street.

Příbram is located on the railway line of supraregional importance from Prague to Písek, and on the railway line of regional importance from Beroun to Blatná.

The Příbram airfield (ICAO airport code LKPM) is located outside of the municipal territory in Dlouhá Lhota, 6 km northeast of Příbram. It is a recreational aerodrome.

Culture
Due to the notable levels of education and cultural interactions in the town, Příbram was nicknamed Brdy Athens at the end of the 19th century. The town's culture was then largely influenced by the mining industry, which went on until the late 20th century. Mining life was described by poets and writers Fráňa Kučera, Quido Maria Vyskočil and František Gellner, who lived or studied in Příbram. Many books by Příbram's most famous writer, Jan Drda, were inspired by Příbram and he used the names of the town's neighbouring villages in his tales. Some of the stories in his Němá barikáda ("Silent Barricade") have their origin in Příbram (especially Higher Principle).

The town library was opened in 1900.

The Antonín Dvořák Theatre in Příbram has a long history thanks to a long tradition of theatricals. During the struggle to build the permanent theatre stage, the plays had to be performed in different halls for a long time, especially in the Sokolovna, the hall of Příbram Sokol. In 1959 the House of Culture was built, which hosts the Příbram theatre. The theatre is a permanent scene with a professional ensemble, its repertory is enriched by regular on-tour performances by Prague's and other cities ensembles. The reputation of the Příbram ensemble is derived not only from departure of several actors to bigger ensembles, but also from the nationwide successful spectacle of Hrdý Budžes ("Proud Budžes"), a comedy play after book of Příbram born Irena Dousková.

Musical life of Příbram is connected to the name of Antonín Dvořák, who had his summerhouse in near Vysoká u Příbramě and often visited Příbram. In 1969, the Antonín Dvořák Music Festival was founded in Příbram, which has been organized annually until now, bringing domestic as well as foreign musicians and ensembles to the town and its neighbourhood. Příbram has its own amateur philharmonic orchestra, the Příbram Big Band still helds its concerts, miners' bands perform during annual miners‘festivals, the newest form of musical performances was brought to Příbram with the Ensemble of Svatá Hora Horn-Blowers.

The most important form of the town's musical activities was the choir singing. Starting with the Lumír-Dobromila association, founded and directed by composer, choirmaster and choral director Bohumil Fidler for fifteen years, and continuing as the Příbram Mixed Choir, the ensemble made a great impact on several generations of Příbram citizens. The most important choir leaders were Antonín Vepřek and his son, Vladimír. In 1939, Antonín Vepřek founded Příbram Children Choir, which is one of the oldest children choruses in the Czech Republic. Several children choruses are organized in Příbram elementary and art schools, where the town hosts annual international show of children choruses.

Miners in Příbram used to earn more money by handicrafts (embroidery, woodcarving, painting etc.), often on good artistic level. The Christmas cribs-making lives until today, the museum collects also several mechanical models of mine. Of the professional artists, painter and graphic artist Karel Hojden, pupil of Max Švabinský was the most important. The František Drtikol Gallery seats in Zámeček-Ernestinum and offers permanent exhibition of František Drtikol.

Education
Příbram was the site of the Mining University, the tradition of which still continues today however the institution was moved to Ostrava in 1945.

With the removal of the Mining University, Příbram lost the status of university town. In the 1990s, the town authorities aspired for the status again. In 2005 the College of European and Regional Studies (Vysoká škola evropských a regionálních studií, VŠERS) with seat in České Budějovice opened its affiliate in Příbram, with 30 students in the courses.

High schools offer in Příbram includes two gymnasiums, technical school, business academy, medical school and training college. Gymnasium Příbram was founded 1871 and serves as a general educational propaedeutics institutions for applicants for university studies. The Pod Svatou Horou gymnasium was founded in the 1990s. The technical school was derived from the preliminary courses of the Mining University, so called Mining School, founded already in 1851. In 2006 the school had 564 students.

Seven elementary schools are in Příbram, six of them with traditional educational program (the number was reduced by two in the 1990s). The remaining one, found in 1991, stands on the Waldorf education program and it has also opened its own high school.

The town has 13 kindergartens and runs also two musical and art schools.

Mining University in Příbram (1894–1945)

Mining education in Příbram dates from the beginning of the 19th century. The School of Mines was founded in 1851 and it was changed to Mining Academy in 1865. It was then the only mining educational institution in the Czech lands. The academy struggled in the shadow of Leoben academy, which repeatedly obtained its privileges in advance.

Important professors and lecturers of this era include:
 * Geologist František Pošepný: one of the most important educators in the 19th century and of all the school's history;
 * Mine surveyor (Markscheider) Gustav Ziegelheim: Professor for mining, ore processing and mine surveying as of 1882, Director of the School of Mines in 1883–1885 and in 1889–1895.

In 1894, the academy received its university status decree and A. Hoffmann was elected the first chancellor of the university in 1898.

At the beginning of the 20th century the national conflicts lead to attempts to move Leoben academy to Vienna, while the Příbram school should have been dissolved. Long proceedings and the fact, that three quarters of the mining production of the Austria-Hungary was provided by the mines in the Czech lands, resulted in keeping both mining schools (Leoben and Příbram) alive. In 1904 both Leoben and Příbram institutions were renamed Mining Academy (Vysoká škola báňská) with Josef Theurer as the first chancellor.

The university started with 11 departments, but the number grew to 18 in 1924. The university had the right to name doctors of mining sciences (dr. mont.). The highest number of students was almost 500 in 1921, but in the late 1930s the number fell to 120.

The position of the institution changed basically after arousal of Czechoslovakia in 1918, one year later the Czech language became the official language of the university. Many attempts to move it out of Příbram recurred, several of them initiated from the university itself, but they were refused.

World War II and the closure of Czech universities interrupted the work of the institution, which was resumed in 1945. The university was however moved to Ostrava within few months to bring the education closer to the booming mining industry in the Ostrava region. The last mining university students left Příbram in 1946 summer.

Sport
Příbram is the home of football club of FK Viagem Příbram, successor of past Dukla Prague. The top division games have been played at the Na Litavce Stadium since 1997. The other Příbram's football club Spartak (also called Horymír) plays regional competition.

Příbram's volleyball club Vavex Příbram, found in 1935, has been a member of the Czech top division since 1998.

The ice hockey club entered regional league in 2006. The town is regular host of a town run, several road cycling races including the Grand Prix of Příbram. The Rallye Příbram (former Rallye Vltava) used to be part of the European Championships, now is the integrant part of the national championships. The movement of the little football plays a major role in the sport for all in the town and region organizing regular long-term competitions twice a year for almost 50 teams.

Besides the Na Litavce Stadium, the sport facilities in Příbram include two indoor ice rinks (main arena for approx. 5,000 spectators opened in 1978), indoor sports arena (opened 1978, capacity enlarged in reconstruction in 2005), modern open-air and indoor swimming pool and several playgrounds and tennis centers. Many of the Příbram's elementary schools have their sport-oriented classes and they have sports facilities like the high schools in the town.

Svatá Hora
The landmark of Příbram and the most valuable monument is Svatá Hora (literally "Holy Mountain"). It is the oldest and most important Marian pilgrimage site in Bohemia, protected as a national cultural monument. It consists of a Baroque monastery complex, cloisters and chapels. The cult of the statue of Saint Mary of Svatá Hora began in the 14th century, when, according to legend, it was carved by Bishop Arnošt of Pardubice himself. In 1647, a chapel on the hill Svatá hora was acquired by the Jesuits, who had rebuilt it to a magnificent temple in 1658–1675. This Basilica of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary of Svatá Hora was built according to the design of the architects Carlo Lurago and Benjamin Schleyer, and decorated by Jan Brokoff, Petr Brandl and other famous artists. Next to the basilica is a Baroque residence. The complex is connected to the town by a 450 m long staircase from 1685, which was roofed in 1727–1728, and Kilian Ignaz Dientzenhofer also participated in the final form.

Historic centre
The landmark of the town centre is the Church of Saint James the Great. It is originally a Gothic building the first half of the 13th century, and is the oldest monument in Příbram. It was rebuilt several times, most notably in the Baroque style in the 18th century. The current form of the church dates from 1869, when the tower acquired four side Neo-Gothic turrets. The most valuable interior decoration includes two wood carvings by Ignác František Platzer and a tin baptismal font from 1511.

Zámeček-Ernestinum is one of the most important historical buildings in Příbram. It was originally a wooden fort, rebuilt into a small stone castle in the mid-14th century, which served as the archbishop's residence. The building was damaged in the Hussite Wars and in the Thirty Years' War, and many inappropriate construction modifications were made. Therefore, only the Gothic bay window of the chapel with a ribbed vault and a few other elements have survived to this day. Today it serves cultural and social purposes. It houses the Gallery of František Drtikol, Museum of the Anti-communist Resistance, and offices.

The Town Hall is a Neo-Renaissance building from 1889–1891, designed by architect Vojtěch Ignác Ullmann. The second notable building designed by Ullmann is the Neo-Renaissance dormitory from 1892.

Březové Hory and surroundings
The Mining Museum Příbram was founded in 1886. It is the biggest mining museum in the Czech Republic. It contains five objects of historical mines with old headstock, miner's house, drift with a mining train, exhibition of mining history, geological collection and others. the museum also operates several other exhibitions around the town.

The Church of Saint Adalbert is the landmark of the main square in Březové Hory. It was built mostly in the Neo-Renaissance style, but it also has Neo-Baroque and Neo-Romanesque elements. It dates from 1889.

The Church of Saint Procopius was originally a chapel from 1732, which replaced a wooden bell tower from the 16th century. In 1879, most the chapel was demolished and replaced by the current pseudo-Romanesque church.

The youngest ecclesiastical building is the temple of the Czechoslovak Hussite Church in memory of Master Jacob of Mies. It dates from 1936. It has a 30 m high tower, which also serves as an observation tower open to the public.

The House of Culture was designed by Václav Hilský and was built in the modern Neoclassical style in 1957–1959. The building is protected as a cultural monument. It also houses the Antonín Dvořák Theatre.

Notable people

 * Bohuslav Balbín (1621–1688), writer and poet; lived here
 * František Pošepný (1836–1895), geologist, director of the School of Mines in Příbram
 * Bohumil Fidler (1860–1944), composer, choirmaster and choir director
 * Jiří Baborovský (1875–1946), chemist
 * František Gellner (1881 – c. 1914), poet; studied here
 * František Drtikol (1883–1961), photographer
 * Hermína Týrlová (1900–1993), animator and film director
 * Adina Mandlová (1910–1991), actress
 * Jan Drda (1915–1970), writer
 * Richard Tesařík (1915–1967), general and war hero
 * Josef Doležal (1920–1999), athlete
 * Ivan Fuksa (born 1963), politician
 * Irena Dousková (born 1964), writer
 * Martin Švejnoha (born 1977), footballer
 * Patrik Štefan (born 1980), ice hockey player
 * Tomáš Zápotočný (born 1980), footballer
 * František Rajtoral (1986–2017), footballer
 * Tomáš Pilík (born 1988), footballer
 * Antonín Barák (born 1994), footballer
 * Aleš Matějů (born 1996), footballer
 * Václav Černý (born 1997), footballer

Příbram meteorite
The town was the impact site of the Přibram meteorite in 1959. This was the first meteorite whose trajectory was tracked by multiple cameras recording the associated fireball. Several fragments of it were found close to Příbram at the nearby village of Luhy.

Twin towns – sister cities
Příbram is twinned with:

 * 🇫🇷 Anor, France (2005)
 * 🇩🇪 Freiberg, Germany (1999)
 * Hoorn, Netherlands (1992)
 * 🇸🇰 Kežmarok, Slovakia (1997)
 * 🇩🇪 Königs Wusterhausen, Germany (1974)
 * 🇮🇹 Ledro, Italy (2008)
 * 🇫🇷 Villerupt, France (1988)

title: Příbram


text: File:Temple Bar in the 1870s. Photographer York & Son.jpg

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Presupposition

In the branch of linguistics known as pragmatics, a presupposition (or PSP) is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse. Examples of presuppositions include:
 * Jane no longer writes fiction.
 * Presupposition: Jane once wrote fiction.
 * Have you stopped eating meat?
 * Presupposition: you had once eaten meat.
 * Have you talked to Hans?
 * Presupposition: Hans exists.

A presupposition must be mutually known or assumed by the speaker and addressee for the utterance to be considered appropriate in context. It will generally remain a necessary assumption whether the utterance is placed in the form of an assertion, denial, or question, and can be associated with a specific lexical item or grammatical feature (presupposition trigger) in the utterance.

Crucially, negation of an expression does not change its presuppositions: I want to do it again and I don't want to do it again both presuppose that the subject has done it already one or more times; My wife is pregnant and My wife is not pregnant both presuppose that the subject has a wife. In this respect, presupposition is distinguished from entailment and implicature. For example, The president was assassinated entails that The president is dead, but if the expression is negated, the entailment is not necessarily true.

Negation of a sentence containing a presupposition
If presuppositions of a sentence are not consistent with the actual state of affairs, then one of two approaches can be taken. Given the sentences My wife is pregnant and My wife is not pregnant when one has no wife, then either:
 * 1) Both the sentence and its negation are false; or
 * 2) Strawson's approach: Both "my wife is pregnant" and "my wife is not pregnant" use a wrong presupposition (i.e. that there exists a referent which can be described with the noun phrase my wife) and therefore can not be assigned truth values.

Bertrand Russell tries to solve this dilemma with two interpretations of the negated sentence:
 * 1) "There exists exactly one person, who is my wife and who is not pregnant"
 * 2) "There does not exist exactly one person, who is my wife and who is pregnant."

For the first phrase, Russell would claim that it is false, whereas the second would be true according to him.

Projection of presuppositions
A presupposition of a part of an utterance is sometimes also a presupposition of the whole utterance, and sometimes not. For instance, the phrase my wife triggers the presupposition that I have a wife. The first sentence below carries that presupposition, even though the phrase occurs inside an embedded clause. In the second sentence, however, it does not. John might be mistaken about his belief that I have a wife, or he might be deliberately trying to misinform his audience, and this has an effect on the meaning of the second sentence, but, perhaps surprisingly, not on the first one. Thus, this seems to be a property of the main verbs of the sentences, think and say, respectively. After work by Lauri Karttunen, verbs that allow presuppositions to "pass up" to the whole sentence ("project") are called holes, and verbs that block such passing up, or projection of presuppositions are called plugs. Some linguistic environments are intermediate between plugs and holes: They block some presuppositions and allow others to project. These are called filters. An example of such an environment are indicative conditionals ("If-then" clauses). A conditional sentence contains an antecedent and a consequent. The antecedent is the part preceded by the word "if," and the consequent is the part that is (or could be) preceded by "then." If the consequent contains a presupposition trigger, and the triggered presupposition is explicitly stated in the antecedent of the conditional, then the presupposition is blocked. Otherwise, it is allowed to project up to the entire conditional. Here is an example:
 * 1) John thinks that my wife is beautiful.
 * 2) John said that my wife is beautiful.
 * If I have a wife, then my wife is blonde.

Here, the presupposition (that I have a wife) triggered by the expression my wife is blocked, because it is stated in the antecedent of the conditional: That sentence doesn't imply that I have a wife. In the following example, it is not stated in the antecedent, so it is allowed to project, i.e. the sentence does imply that I have a wife.
 * If it's already 4am, then my wife is probably angry.

Hence, conditional sentences act as filters for presuppositions that are triggered by expressions in their consequent.

A significant amount of current work in semantics and pragmatics is devoted to a proper understanding of when and how presuppositions project.

Presupposition triggers
A presupposition trigger is a lexical item or linguistic construction which is responsible for the presupposition, and thus "triggers" it. The following is a selection of presuppositional triggers following Stephen C. Levinson's classic textbook on Pragmatics, which in turn draws on a list produced by Lauri Karttunen. As is customary, the presuppositional triggers themselves are italicized, and the symbol » stands for 'presupposes'.

Definite descriptions
Definite descriptions are phrases of the form "the X" where X represents a noun phrase. The description is said to be proper when the phrase applies to exactly one object, and conversely, it is said to be improper when either there exist more than one potential referents, as in "the senator from Ohio", or none at all, as in "the king of France". In conventional speech, definite descriptions are implicitly assumed to be proper, hence such phrases trigger the presupposition that the referent is unique and existent.
 * John saw the man with two heads. »there exists a man with two heads.

Factive verbs
In Western epistemology, there is a tradition originating with Plato of defining knowledge as justified true belief. On this definition, for someone to know X, it is required that X be true. A linguistic question thus arises regarding the usage of such phrases: does a person who states "John knows X" implicitly claim the truth of X? Steven Pinker explored this question in a popular science format in a 2007 book on language and cognition, using a widely publicized example from a speech by a U.S. president. A 2003 speech by George W. Bush included the line, "British Intelligence has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Over the next few years, it became apparent that this intelligence lead was incorrect. But the way the speech was phrased, using a factive verb, implicitly framed the lead as truth rather than hypothesis. There is however a strong alternative view that factivity thesis, the proposition that relational predicates having to do with knowledge, such as knows, learn, remembers, and realized, presuppose the factual truth of their object, is incorrect.
 * Martha regrets drinking John's home brew.
 * Presupposition: Martha did in fact drink John's home brew.
 * Frankenstein was aware that Dracula was there.
 * Presupposition: Dracula was in fact there.
 * John realized that he was in debt.
 * Presupposition: John was in fact in debt.
 * It was odd how proud he was.
 * Presupposition: He was in fact proud.

Some further factive predicates: know; be sorry that; be proud that; be indifferent that; be glad that; be sad that.

Implicative verbs

 * John managed to open the door. »John tried to open the door.
 * John forgot to lock the door. »John ought to have locked, or intended to lock, the door.

Some further implicative predicates: X happened to V»X didn't plan or intend to V; X avoided Ving»X was expected to, or usually did, or ought to V, etc.

Change of state or continuation of state verbs
With these presupposition triggers, the current unfolding situation is considered presupposed information.
 * John stopped teasing his wife. »John had been teasing his wife.
 * Joan began teasing her husband. »Joan hadn't been teasing her husband.

Some further change of state verbs: start; finish; carry on; cease; take (as in X took Y from Z » Y was at/in/with Z); leave; enter; come; go; arrive; etc.

Iteratives
These types of triggers presuppose the existence of a previous state of affairs.
 * The flying saucer came again. »The flying saucer came before.
 * You can't get gobstoppers anymore. »You once could get gobstoppers.
 * Carter returned to power. »Carter held power before.

Further iteratives: another time; to come back; restore; repeat; for the nth time.

Temporal clauses
The situation explained in a clause that begins with a temporal clause constructor is typically considered backgrounded information.
 * Before Strawson was even born, Frege noticed presuppositions. »Strawson was born.
 * While Chomsky was revolutionizing linguistics, the rest of social science was asleep. »Chomsky was revolutionizing linguistics.
 * Since Churchill died, we've lacked a leader. »Churchill died.

Further temporal clause constructors: after; during; whenever; as (as in As John was getting up, he slipped).

Cleft sentences
Cleft sentence structures highlight particular aspects of a sentence and consider the surrounding information to be backgrounded knowledge. These sentences are typically not spoken to strangers, but rather to addressees who are aware of the ongoing situation.
 * Cleft construction: It was Henry that kissed Rosie. »Someone kissed Rosie.
 * Pseudo-cleft construction: What John lost was his wallet. »John lost something.

Comparisons and contrasts
Comparisons and contrasts may be marked by stress (or by other prosodic means), by particles like "too", or by comparatives constructions.
 * Marianne called Adolph a male chauvinist, and then HE insulted HER. »For Marianne to call Adolph a male chauvinist would be to insult him.
 * Carol is a better linguist than Barbara. »Barbara is a linguist.

Counterfactual conditionals

 * If the notice had only said 'mine-field' in Welsh as well as in English, we would never have lost poor Llewellyn. »The notice didn't say 'mine-field' in Welsh.

Questions
Questions often presuppose what the assertive part of the question presupposes, but interrogative parts might introduce further presuppositions. There are three different types of questions: yes/no questions, alternative questions and WH-questions.
 * Is there a professor of linguistics at MIT? »Either there is a professor of linguistics at MIT or there isn't.
 * Is Newcastle in England or in Australia? »Newcastle is in England or Newcastle is in Australia.
 * Who is the professor of linguistics at MIT? »Someone is the professor of linguistics at MIT.

Possessive case

 * John's children are very noisy. »John has children.

Accommodation of presuppositions
A presupposition of a sentence must normally be part of the common ground of the utterance context (the shared knowledge of the interlocutors) in order for the sentence to be felicitous. Sometimes, however, sentences may carry presuppositions that are not part of the common ground and nevertheless be felicitous. For example, I can, upon being introduced to someone, out of the blue explain that my wife is a dentist, this without my addressee having ever heard, or having any reason to believe that I have a wife. In order to be able to interpret my utterance, the addressee must assume that I have a wife. This process of an addressee assuming that a presupposition is true, even in the absence of explicit information that it is, is usually called presupposition accommodation. We have just seen that presupposition triggers like my wife (definite descriptions) allow for such accommodation. In "Presupposition and Anaphora: Remarks on the Formulation of the Projection Problem", the philosopher Saul Kripke noted that some presupposition triggers do not seem to permit such accommodation. An example of that is the presupposition trigger too. This word triggers the presupposition that, roughly, something parallel to what is stated has happened. For example, if pronounced with emphasis on John, the following sentence triggers the presupposition that somebody other than John had dinner in New York last night.
 * John had dinner in New York last night, too.

But that presupposition, as stated, is completely trivial, given what we know about New York. Several million people had dinner in New York last night, and that in itself doesn't satisfy the presupposition of the sentence. What is needed for the sentence to be felicitous is really that somebody relevant to the interlocutors had dinner in New York last night, and that this has been mentioned in the previous discourse, or that this information can be recovered from it. Presupposition triggers that disallow accommodation are called anaphoric presupposition triggers.

Presupposition in critical discourse analysis
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a broad study belonging to not one research category. It focuses on identifying presuppositions of an abstract nature from varying perspectives. CDA is considered critical, not only in the sense of being analytical, but also in the ideological sense. Through the analysis of written texts and verbal speech, Teun A. van Dijk (2003) says CDA studies power imbalances existing in both the conversational and political spectrum. With the purpose of first identifying and then tackling inequality in society, van Dijk describes CDA as a nonconformist piece of work. One notable feature of ideological presuppositions researched in CDA is a concept termed synthetic personalisation

Logical construct
To describe a presupposition in the context of propositional calculus and truth-bearers, Belnap defines "A sentence is a presupposition of a question if the truth of the sentence is a necessary condition of the question's having some true answer." Then referring to the semantic theory of truth, interpretations are used to formulate a presupposition: "Every interpretation which makes the question truly answerable is an interpretation which makes the presupposed sentence true as well."

A sentence that expresses a presupposition in a question may be characterized as follows: the question has some true answer if and only if the sentence is true.

title: Presupposition


text:
Talk:Gun Control Act of 1968

"Old School"
At the very beginning of this article, there is both a p.c. interpretation of facts, as well as no citation to support the material fact stated. "The 1968 Gun Control Act was supported by America’s old school manufacturers (Colt, S&W, etc.) in an effort to forestall even greater restrictions which were feared in response to recent domestic violence." - To whomever wrote this, your tone is too new-school and you have no citations here. The opinion part of this needs removing.69.108.103.227 (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Have removed uncited claim. Yaf (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

POV Vandalism
Firebug: Please do not vandalize wikipages based on your non-NPOV.Mlorrey 01:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Once again, please do not vandalize wikipages based on your POV. You may think the JPFO is a fringe group but their documentation has stood up against independent scrutiny and is accepted history. I will have to report you in an RFC if you keep up this revisionistic vandalism.Mlorrey 20:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * First of all, please do not accuse me or other users of "vandalism" for making legitimate edits you disagree with. It is considered a personal attack. Secondly, it is utterly inappropriate to include fringe theories such as "Nazi origins" so prominently in the introduction. I will include a small section at the end, if you insist, although frankly I don't think these crackpot allegations from a tiny crackpot group deserve even that level of prominence. But I'm not going to allow you to turn this article into a soapbox. Firebug 02:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "Allow you"? WTF? Are you the king of wikiland? Who the hell do you think you are? You are so obviously ignorant of the gun rights movement and second amendment issues you shouldn't have any editing authority whatsoever with any issues related to this. You are clearly a vandal here. That you continue to vandalize after I have requested mediation demonstrates clear bad faith on your part and further evidence of your vandalistic motives. It is a true personal attack to destroy the work of others because of your personal political agenda. Mlorrey 03:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to continue to discuss this issue with you, since you are so clearly unable to distinguish opinion from fact in regards to this issue. I strongly suggest that you edit other articles not related to gun issues instead, and leave gun articles alone. All that you are doing here is creating unnecessary work for myself and other editors who have been reverting your repeated POV insertions. Firebug 05:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't deal in opinion. I have been hip deep in the shooting sports since childhood. I know what is fact and fiction, and frankly, you don't know what you are talking about. The only persons here inserting opinion is you and Meelar who are injection your left-wing anti-gun opinions by editing out facts which contradict or bring discredit upon your sides propaganda. I strongly suggest you back off and stop trying to edit reality out of existence. Mlorrey 13:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uh...ok, glad that got sorted out. Anyway, does the GCA also bar transfer of NFA weapons that were imported after its passage? I read that here: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nfa_faq.txt where it says

On top of the FOPA machine gun restrictions, any NFA weapon imported into the U.S. after the Gun Control Act took effect (end of 1968) cannot be transferred to an individual. See 26 U.S.C. sec. 5844. They can be transferred to SOT's, although without any written police demonstration request, and kept by the SOT after surrendering his SOT. These are sometimes called "pre-86 samples", or "dealer samples", although dealer sample can be used to refer to either a post-86 machine gun or to any NFA weapon imported after 1968.

...but that's the only discussion of that I've found. If that's the case, it would be good for the article to mention that, as well as any other restrictions.

importation vs transfer and other things
Yes, it is legal to make transfers of machine guns imported between 68 and 86. It is even legal to import MGs to this day. However, post-86 guns cant be transferred to civilians, so the importation becomes a moot point. In all cases where "weapon x is legal for transfer, but only legal to import by person Y" you can buy the weapons off Y after he imports them. See U.S. v. Vollmer, 1 F.3d 1511 (7th Cir. 1993) for an illustration of a dealer arranging for national guardsmen to purchase semiauto steyr-augs (banned as "unsporting" by the 89 ban under authority granted by the 68 GCA) and then resell them to him. He was found not guilty, but the guardsmen were convicted of lying during importation.

The 68 GCA is really the root of all the evil that the ATF has visited upon gun dealers and owners for the past 40 years. Without the FFL system, you could purchase firearms through the mail and the ATF would not be able to attack a very small number of registered dealers. Remember that the requirements for being an FFL is that the ATF can make warrantless administrative searches (no 4th amendment) and be open during regular business hours so they can be entrapped at any time into a violation.

The idea is basically to limit the number of people that can legally transact in firearms. In 1968, it was probably about 200 million (adults not including felons). Thanks to ATF harassment and raising of the FFL fees, the number is now down to 50k nationwide.

Also, without the 68 GCA there would be no sporting purposes bans (89 and 94). Beerslurpy 18:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

FFL
The FFL section needs some work. Example: ” A person who does not have a Federal Firearms License may not sell and buy guns from other people for the purpose of making a profit” Is not correct because type 3 FFL’s are not suppose to be in business of making a profit.

It also list states that don’t have privet sells which is not part of the GCA. Maybe just a small note and link to state laws or something is needed.

About FFL and "selling for profit"
The problem is that the FFL thing is very vague and the ATF has long interpreted it BOTH ways. IE, if you apply for an FFL, they will turn you down as saying you dont have enough likely sales volume to justify it. But if you go ahead and start selling off your collection, they arrest you for selling firearms without an FFL. Happened many times since 68.

Many gun owners responded by simply sending in the paperwork and becoming FFLs, even if they werent actually gun dealers. They would call their kitchen or living room the "shop" and keep bound books and all the ATF paperwork. It was an inconvenience but at 10 dollars a year, it was a pretty good deal for someone who would otherwise have to pay for transfers, so there were about a quarter million people were FFLs at any given time. During the Clinton years, a bunch of gun dealers and the anti-gunners got together and decided it would be good (for different reasons) to restrict the FFL system and make it more difficult to become an FFL- so they upped the fee to 200 dollars and required that they actually be a) businesses b) have inspectable public areas and a storefront c) regular business hours d) comply with all state and local laws. And "state and local laws" didnt mean just gun laws, it meant zoning laws and business regulations. If you live in a residential area (as most people do), obviously you cant operate a business. This cut the numbers down (I beleive) about 90 percent as all the non-dealers and the small dealers closed up shop. Thus creating business for the gun dealers and restricting the avenues of gun supply for the average person.

Since then I dont know what the ATF deal is with buying and selling guns for profit. I heard somewhere that the number is 4 per year, but that isnt legally binding and the FFL might prosecute you for less or decline to prosecute you for far more. Administrative law is different from ordinary civil cases, but in my shallow understanding, you could probably use FOIA requests to get the ATF to separately justify what qualifies someone for FFL licensing and what qualifies someone for prosecution of selling without one. If there is a considerable gap between the two, you sue seeking some sort of remedy (since the crime is selling without an FFL and their rules deny you one), showing proof you fit in that gap. I strongly suspect that this has already been done at some point, but I dont get to take admin law until next year, so I have no idea. Beerslurpy 20:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

FFLs are not vague it is ATF interpretations that are vague so I think we should try to stay away from those for the most part. There is more information need for the article though that is not ATF interpretations like the different types of FFLs outlined by the GCA. How the atf actually hands the new FFL system with the various forms and required keeping requirements. (Which are already in the actual but could be re written)

Some of the history on the way things worked before the GCA and after. Maybe even add some of the ATF interpretation stuff that is historical and documented about the changes to the FFL system since 68. (Even all the other silly requirements that the ATF requires now to get a FFL)

By the way there is no number of firearms that you can or can’t sell until the atf calls you a dealer. The profit thing would be a good thing to work in with the FOPA changes to the FFL system maybe in a history section. --65.219.181.82 19:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

FFL System -- Private Sales
In the section "FFL System" I deleted "Illinois" from the sentence "States that do not allow private sales: California, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York." Illinois does allow private sales, i.e. firearm sales where neither the seller nor the buyer has an FFL. This is explained on the Illinois State Police web site, in the document Acquiring or Transferring Firearms in Illinois. Mudwater 03:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

JPFO/Nazis
Please stop removing the JPFO/Nazi paragraph. It was at weaselly at one time, but at current the only weasel remaining is "disputed by some" which hardly justifies the removal of the entire paragraph. -- Scott eiπ  05:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, perhaps "disputed by some" ought to be removed. The only source for this that I can find online is some history professor on a mailing list who refers to the findings as a "piece of lunacy" with no further elaboration. -- Scott  eiπ  06:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

 * It may not be "weaselly," but the section is poorly written and its claims are stated as facts and unattributed. The argument isn't based on "JPFO's findings," it's based on their allegations. The article says that Dodd asked the LoC to translate the Nazi act and "adapt its language to the American legal system." That isn't supported by the reference. Since this is a "controversy," you should attribute the "side-by-side comparison of the two laws" to its source: "JPFO says that a side-by-side comparison etc."

 * On its site, JPFO says that "[t]he framers of GCA 68 apparently borrowed even the idea of classifying weapons according to their 'sporting purpose' from the Nazi Law's 'hunting weapons' terminology." In order to take an allegation like that seriously, one would have to know that there was no precedent in American law — or other law of more recent vintage than the Nazi law — of "classifying weapons according to their 'sporting purpose'" before this act.

 * Finally, are you serious? JPFO says things like "[I]deas about race underlay GCA 68. And ideas about race underlay the 1938 Nazi Weapons Law." That's innuendo, not proof, and it really doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 23:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with Malik Shabazz. These are allegations made by the JPFO. This is kind of thing does not belong in a Wikipedia article. I'm going to remove it. There is absolutely no proof that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was modeled after or inspired by a Nazi laws. MiFeinberg 15:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Yikes. I get the feeling you'd remove the moon landing hoax article because "there is absolutely no proof that the Apollo missions were staged". -- Scott eiπ  23:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, unless this can be cited it is POV and violates WP:NPOV. Purgatory Fubar Converse or Snafu 16:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

 * There were two cites in the removed material. Why are we removing cited information?  WP is not supposed to be censored. Yaf 16:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to engage in scholarship, the first question you have to ask yourself is, "Is this source reliable?" And if anything discounts a source's reliability, it's a source's having a political agenda. The JPFO is a shrill, propogandistic group incapable of making an objective opinion. If you think the group's being Jewish somehow gives its opinion on this matter authority, think again. Including this paragraph in this article really demeans Wikipedia as an objective, reliable source for information. I'm removing. Hashaw 16:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That sections citations violate Links normally to be avoided Sections, 1,2,4,6 and 13 In order for this section to be readded it must follow WP:NPOV and the citation links must adhere to the Links policy. Purgatory Fubar Converse or Snafu 16:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I favor leaving the JPFO content in the article, as it represents one of the major points of view within the US. Other major points of view that represent other views should also be included for balance.  Yaf 19:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Come on Yaf. That this bill is based on one devised by the Nazis is a "major point of view" is preposterous. I think the confusion has arisen here because Dodd was on the Nuremburg commission. He was one of the people who prosecuted the Nazis for war crimes in Nuremburg. See the discussions above. An encyclopedia or any scholarly article is only as good as its sources. This is a very bad source. MiFeinberg 19:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Do you have a source that claims the JPFO is a very bad source? Or is this original research (OR)?  Yaf 19:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A source for a bad source? Any group with an overt political agenda that draws upon shrill Nazi comparisons is a bad source. MiFeinberg 15:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Gary North [www.lewrockwell.com/north/north165.html] (and presumably Lew Rockwell) believes it. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "major point of view", but this is hardly something dreamed up by some guy in his parents' basement. I would also remind you the the criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. -- Scott eiπ  09:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 * It is definitely verifiable. Have reverted the (rv vandalism) removal, as it is not vandalism, but is instead a POV fork.  Lets work to balance the verifiable statement, rather than engage in edit warring back and forth. Yaf 17:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * YOu demean Wikipedia when you include this Nazi stuff on it. I'm reverting. MiFeinberg 18:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Please keep on topic, and do not resort to personal attacks. This is a cited section, and meets WP:ATT.  You are not going to achieve your goal by edit warring to establish your POV.  Please work with other editors on this to achieve a mutually-acceptable balance.  Thank you. Yaf 20:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 * As I wrote above, I happen to think that JPFO sound like a bunch of nuts, but their opinion seems to carry some weight (as Scott's link indicates). My earlier concerns — that allegations were being stated as facts — have been addressed, and I don't see a problem leaving the language. This is a "Controversy" section, where the usual concerns about NPOV and RS are a little weaker (obviously one party or another in a controversy has a POV, and that will have to be expressed in this section).

 * For those people who think this paragraph doesn't belong here, I offer a suggestion: Find a reasonably credible source that debunks the JPFO argument and write a paragraph about it, or integrate both parties' arguments into a single paragraph. (Or, as an alternative, find a source that convincingly argues that JPFO is a fringe opinion that doesn't merit mention in a Wikipedia article, although Scott's article suggests otherwise.) An edit war isn't the right way to deal with this. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 02:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You have got be kidding me. This is the old "Do you still beat your wife?" logic. The person being asked hasn't beaten his wife, but he is in the position of having to prove it. Look, by any standards, this is just a very, very poor source. I'm certain if I bring this to mediation others will agree with me, and I'm going to do that if you keep this up. MiFeinberg 22:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Have restored the deletion once again. For the record, I don't agree with everything JPFO says.  However, I do believe that the best method of working this is to work with other editors on this to achieve a mutually-acceptable balance.  Yaf 04:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

 * The quality of the source is certainly worth balancing in the article, through appropriately cited sources. However, just because you feel that the source is "very, very poor", this is not a reason to remove a major viewpoint that is commonly held by a group that, by some beliefs, is creditable. (As I have stated before, I don't subscribe to all their beliefs, either.)  Nonetheless, I do believe that a NPOV-section tagline is certainly warranted on this section until there is balance established.  Will insert this. Yaf 03:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe that none of us clicked through to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. The bottom of that article describes the group's Nazi theory and cites a law professor who refutes it. The article is 27 pages long, so it'll take some time to read it and digest it, but — contrary to MiFeinberg — I think we found a credible source that debunks JPFO's argument. I hope somebody can summarize the professor's arguments so we can include two sides of this controversy. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Sounds like a good find! Good job, Malik Shabazz!  Now, we just have to figure out a way to get it to balance the article.  Yaf 04:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read through the article and it does not, in fact, debunk the JPFO's claim, or even address it. What it says is basically this:
 * A) The Nazis did not have strong opinions on guns. Gun ownership was already restricted when the Nazis took power. If anything, the 1938 law actually loosened restrictions for ordinary Germans. Jews were disarmed, but only as necessary to effectively contain, control, and kill them.
 * B) This, like other arguments tying gun control to Nazis, is just a Godwin. It doesn't matter whether GCA68 was based on the old German Law.
 * Now, I think the section still ought to be rewritten somewhat in light of this article. -- Scott eiπ  08:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC
 * I disagrew with Scott. I have read the professor's article, and it does debunk the JPFO's claims. However, I don't care to dignify the JPFO's claims be "debunking" them in this article. The claims are preposterous to begin with. Refuting the claims gives them dignity they don't deserve. Griot 16:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it absolutely does not debunk this specific claim. It doesn't even mention Senator Dodd or the GCA68. It only says that the JPFO has mischaracterized the motives behind the Nazi NFA. Furthermore, the accuracy of the claim is not in question with regards to its inclusion in this article. -- Scott eiπ  07:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The JPFO claim that the Gun Control Act of 1968 is founded on the Nazi lawsis based on two very tenuous claims: 1)The 1968 Act, like the Nazi act, made a distinction between guns used for sporting purposes and guns used for other purposes; 2) Senator Christopher Dodd asked for a translation into English of the Nazi gun control act. (Dodd was a prosecutor at the Nuremburg Trial; can you imagine him, after viewing the trail first hand, wanting to emulate the Nazis in anything?) It is absolutely beyond me how anyone with even the smallest pretense to scholarship can give any credence to such narrow criteria as the JPFO's. In debates, everyone should be wary of comparisons to the Nazis under any context. The JPFO is a shrill, extremist group. It's claims should not be considered in this article. Griot 15:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the JPFO's pamphlet, so I don't know what similarities are claimed. But I do know that both laws contain a "prohibited persons" list, in addition to "sporting purposes" clauses. I also don't find it unbelievable that Dodd would want to copy the Nazis in this respect. For example, Dwight Eisenhower spent four years fighting the Nazis, and then copied their highway system in the US. -- Scott eiπ  07:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The making of a distinction of "sporting purposes" had no precedent in prior US law, especially in light of U.S. vs. Miller where the NFA was upheld because the USSC determined a sawed off shotgun as not being a "militia weapon" aka a military weapon. Thus the only similar test established by precedent was for the exact opposite. A side-by-side comparison of the German law and the GCA of 68 yields too many parallels. If anything it does warrant mention as it cannot be disproven, and there is ample evidence supporting the assertation, as well as the evidence present by comparison of the two. NPOV is NPOV, anything less is pushing propaganda, not providing useful information for a public discourse. HiroProX 01:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Saying that the distinction between sporting purposes and military purposes as regards to guns had not precedent in pior US law is somewhat misleading. The distinction between sporting guns and military guns is longstanding. The Act of 1968 merely made this distinction a part of the law. I would like everyone in this discussion to take note of Godwin's Law. It's just plain to me that JFPO is making comparisons between this law and Nazi laws for propaganda purposes. No encyclopedia should be used this way. Griot 17:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

After reading the paragraph, I feel it is properly written. It states an claim made by a group. There is nothing wrong with listing an opinion of a group that is active in the relevant topic as long as it is clearly read as just an opinion of that group. I'm only vaguely familiar with JPFO, but I am aware of the parallels they claim between US gun control and that of numerous disarmament movements that preceded atrocities including the actions of the Nazi party. The claims to parallels between the US/Nazi laws I have read did not imply direct copying, but rather a pattern of history repeating itself. Perhaps a less volatile approach would be to remove the Nazi reference and cite their general claim that governments in the past have disarmed the populous in order to abuse them afterwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.26.41 (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I found the link to the jpfo.org site was 404 not found. So, I substituted a related link from their site that does work. Another possible URL, with the title "common sense" is http://www.jpfo.org/common-sense/cs34.htm However, reverting to the earlier URL would be a bad move, since it is a broken link. I realise that there are people involved in the above dispute who would just as soon see the link broken. Have we really been reduced to the point where scholarly discussion of issues devolves to breaking links to each other's sites? C'mon guys. Have some arguments, or rhetoric, or evidence. With regard to the "less volatile" approach, I think that defeats the whole purpose of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership in making the argument. They are not just saying that some governments have disarmed the populace to abuse them somewhat, but that particular governments like that of Hitler (and they mention elsewhere Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) have disarmed people specifically to enable massacring people. In various instances millions or tens of millions of people. This argument is made by JPFO's Aaron Zelman precisely because it is volatile, because it is incendiary, because it is a sensitive topic. He's upset about it. You can make the legitimate argument that his sensitivity to the issue of disarmament and Jewish extermination by Hitler has colored his view of the Gun Control Act of 1968, though I still find his scholarship to be convincing. However, you can't just swap in a dull, watered down version of his argument and say that you are doing it justice. "Oh, yeah, and some whiny Jews who are a bit too caught up in millions of their lives being obliterated a few decades back have made this argument that governments sometimes disarm a populace in order to abuse it just a bit," is not his argument, and to substitute it for his argument is a disservice to everyone. Planetaryjim (talk) 06:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

 * If we are going to include JPFO's link to Harcourt as refuting their argument, why not include a link to Halbrook's reply to Harcourt as supporting their argument?
 * Bernard E. Harcourt, On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians), 73 Fordham L. Rev. 653 (2004) http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/harcourt/harcourt_fordham.pdf
 * Deborah Homsher, Response to Bernard E. Harcourt's "On Gun Registration", 73 Fordham L. Rev. 715 (2004)
 * Robert J. Spitzer, Don't Know Much About History, Politics, or Theory: A Comment, 73 Fordham L. Rev. 721 (2004).
 * Reply:
 * Stephen P. Halbrook, Nazism, the Second Amendment, and the NRA: A Reply to Professor Harcourt, 11 Texas Rev L. & Pol 113 (2006) http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/nazism.nra.pdf

 * Halbrook: "The Fordham Law Review recently published a provocative Second Amendment Symposium issue which included three articles suggesting that Nazi Germany had liberal policies toward firearm owners and that the National Rifle Association (NRA) promotes a myth of Nazi repression of firearms owners as part of a cultural war." (That was Fordham Law Review, November, 2004, Symposium: The Second Amendment and the Future of Gun Regulation: Historical, Legal, Policy, and Cultural Perspectives)

 * Harcourt quoted William Pierce, author of the Turner Diaries and leader of the neo-Nazi National Alliance and National Vanguard, as a reliable source on the assertion that "German firearms legislation under Hitler, far from banning private ownership, actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by German citizens..." (Harcourt at page 668) which is true if you don't count German Jews as citizens of the Third Reich and Harcourt did not deny "The Nazis sought to disarm and kill the Jewish population" (Harcourt at page 671). However, Harcourt does claim that Stephen Halbrook, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) and National Rifle Association (NRA) promote a myth of Nazi repression of firearms owners. Obviously the Nazis repressed only certain firearms owners. This is like comparing Virginia's Racial Integrity Act to the Nazi laws on racial purity. Naaman Brown (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Age to own? Age to purchase?
A recent edit added a point to the prohibited persons list...

 * "Any person who is under 21 (handgun) or 18 (other firearm)."

I read the GCA and an 18-year-old is not a prohibited prosessor of handguns as near as I can tell. My initial though was to change the bullet point to "Any person who is under the age of 18". Then I reads the section intro...

 * "The original GCA prohibits firearms purchase and ownership by certain broad categories of individuals..."

The GCA under § 922(x) says...

 * (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile --
 * (A) a handgun; or
 * (B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.
 * (2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to knowingly possess --
 * (A) a handgun; or
 * (B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.

...and then goes on in the same section to say...

 * (5) For purposes of this subsection, the term "juvenile" means a person who is less than 18 years of age.

So 18-year-olds are allowed to own handguns obtained via a gift or through private sale, both of which are legal. But I think an FFL, as per the terms of their license to sell firearms, is not allowed to sell to under 21 (not totally sure). So purchase may not be legal under certain circumstances, but ownership certainly is. 18USC922 as it reads today is the same as I described above, so it doesn't look like FOPA changed it.

Thoughts on how to change? —Thernlund (Talk 02:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

 * One more bit, with respect to those under 18:

 * (3) This subsection does not apply to--
 * (A) a temporary transfer of a handgun or ammunition to a juvenile or to the possession or use of a handgun or ammunition by a juvenile if the handgun and ammunition are possessed and used by the juvenile--
 * (ii) with the prior written consent of the juvenile's parent or guardian who is not prohibited by Federal, State, or local law from possessing a firearm,

 * I don't think the age restrictions belong under the "Prohibited Persons" section.
 * --jdege 04:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I disagree. With respect to purchase and ownership, age restrictions certainly do belong.  Removal of the point is certainly more acceptable than having it read incorrectly, but leaving it out is less than desirable.  I'm going to take a stab at it I think.  —Thernlund (Talk 05:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree and have revised the article to more accurately reflect federal law pertaining to juveniles.
 * The juvenile ban applies only to handguns (not shotguns and rifles), and has several exceptions-neither of these are true for the other categories. Felons, etc. are prohibited from all firearms and ammo under nearly all circumstances
 * Because juvenile possession is not entirely proscribed, I didn't feel it belonged in the same list as persons prohibited from all firearms in nearly all circumstances.
 * This distinction is also reflected in the law itself-each of those enumerated categories of prohibited person are contained under 18 USC 922(d) and the ban on juvenile possession and its exceptions are part of 18 USC 922(x).—Bfperez (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Prohibited Persons
As respects items #2 and #3 on the list of prohibited persons, it would be helpful to point out that the exemptions for business practices and certain state misdemeanors are contained not in 18 USC sec. 921 et seq., but in the corresponding CFR. It is the definition of "Crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year" in 27 CFR 478.11 that states that "The term shall not include (a) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices or (b) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of 2 years or less." It is confusing to persons who read the text of sec. 922 (g)(1) (which states simply that persons convicted in any court of a crime with 1-year imprisonment are prohibited), who would not know where these exemptions exist. This raises a larger point that the article should state that 27 CFR contains many of the details of how the GCA is implemented, with a link to the applicable rules.--Ana Nim (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

How are guns serialized?
Does each gun bear a unique serial number or just a unique serial number for that specific type of gun/manufacturer? Additionally, are the serial numbers sequential? - Could you tell if a gun is older/newer than another one by comparing serial numbers? Thanks! --24.15.235.157 (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Each "make and model" has its own list of serial numbers, meaning that you could theoretically own, say, Springfield GI 1911 #471175 and Beretta 92 #471175. Serial numbers are generally sequential, but the law requires only trhat they be unique; at least one manufacturer (North American Arms) offers "vanity" serial numbers.  Many guns can be dated by their serial numbers--it's best to check with the manufacturer or with a community of collectors (the internet makes this pretty easy).  Elmo iscariot (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Serial numbers have been usually assigned within models. Many manufacturers have made many different models, some of which have been quite similar. The result has been that multiple guns, that were very similar in design and appearance, have been manufactured with the same serial number. And after a number of decades of firearms being reworked, rebarreled, restocked, etc., it's anyone's guess what the original model was. Serial numbers are not a reliably unique identifier for a firearm.--jdege (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To uniquely identify a firearm, you must have Make, Model AND Serial Number. Ser Nums may be repeated between different models, and Model numbers may be repaeted between manufacturers. Naaman Brown (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sporting Purposes
The "sporting purposes" requirement is mentioned in the controversy section, but not in the main article. For as much as I have heard about it, it seems like something that should be discussed. Can it be explained within the article? Jmclark56 (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

removing the Alleged Nazi connections section
The "Alleged Nazi connections" section is poorly-sourced and inflammatory. We should not be citing Wayne LaPierre's "The Global War on Your Guns: Inside the UN Plan To Destroy the Bill of Rights" as a source of facts. We should also not be basing our coverage of an issue on WP:PRIMARY source quotes from Congressional testimony without any secondary sourcing that explains these quotes. The claim in the first sentence of the paragraph - that "the bill was copied directly from German laws" is not supported by the rest of the paragraph. We're describing a letter to Senator Dodd that refers to Nazi gun laws, but we don't say who wrote the letter or what their purpose was (was it a pro-gun group that wanted to make a point about how terrible gun legislation is?) and we don't bother to state whether the letter had any impact on Dodd or anyone else. Dingell's statement about Nazi gun laws being used to disarm Jews and Tydings' reply do not indicate that the bill's authors made any reference to Nazi gun laws - just that the rhetoric about the bill happened to include this particular argument. There's no secondary source that puts this quote into context. Similarly, the unsourced claim that Tydings put documents into the record "concerning the history of Nazism and gun confiscation" means nothing unless a reliable secondary source explains Tydings' purpose and the impact of these documents. GabrielF (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

 * http://books.google.com/books?id=dA3pGSYG2yIC&pg=PA286&dq=gca+1968+nazi&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9Z-wUvbWDZSqyQG2tYDgDg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=gca%201968%20nazi&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=H_RrLyV9rDUC&pg=PA549&dq=gca+1968+nazi&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9Z-wUvbWDZSqyQG2tYDgDg&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=gca%201968%20nazi&f=false

WP:NPOV "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone."

reverted. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue is not just neutrality, it is that the sourcing itself is unacceptable. This falls within WP:BRD. GabrielF (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

 * I've tweaked and trimmed the passage to leave in what I think is acceptable (but even that might be too much--it's little more than a tiny bit of "controversy" that in later NRA literature is blown up into a conspiracy). Dodd and his letter are out: our article doesn't draw a conclusion, but leaves it up to the reader to make the easy leap, "Ah, Dodd copied the Nazi law!". That is not acceptable. Gaijin, I read your source, and what it says, and I am telling you that you cannot (well, you can, but we can't) accept that particular interpretation of the historical record to be stated as a fact--in this case, that the record somehow proves Tydings copied the German law. That is the opinion of Neal Knox, and you know who he is; it is not a verified historical truth: "No one noticed...that he [Tydings] and President Johnson were, indeed, trying to emulate the Nazi registration laws". It's interpretation from someone who is so obviously not neutral that we cannot accept that--at the most, we can say "according to longtime NRA officer and career gun activist Neal Knox", but that's giving undue weight to one particular opinion. And you could cite LaPierre as well, with a similar introduction, making it even more undue. Here's again where RS has no bearing on what should be in an article; it's NPOV. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * it is an uncontested fact that they had the original german document, and during the time they were debating the GCA, asked for a translation, and inserted that translation into the congressional record. The implication and allegation of copying however should be attributed to Knox and the JPFO of course. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So? It may also be that they had hot dogs with sauerkraut for lunch. Who knows what else they put in that congressional record? Are you saying that reading a Nazi law makes one a Nazi? Are you saying that reading a Nazi law makes one write Nazi laws? This may be a surprise, but I think any legal scholar will tell you that lawyers read voraciously and sometimes indiscriminately--at least in terms of politics. It is simply good practice to read jurisprudence, and from many different sources, in order to know what has been done and how things should and should not be written. We still don't know what was supposed to be borrowed anyway. The exemption for Nazi party members? No, this is OR bordering on conspiracy theory. Perhaps we should call in the big guns, like . Drmies (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The source you just updated the cite tag for in fact does directly allege copying (p 285)(both hearsay allegation (commenting on JPFO), and then directly by the author). "[...] which charges that the 1968 GCA was a direct copy of the Nazi gun laws of 1938" ... "did the authors [...] copy the nazi law and translate it into amendment 90 to s.1? Not likley. Well, it appears I was wrong". This same source additionally is a reliable secondary source directly referencing the primary sources cited in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC) I've removed several sentences. Given that the bill did not include registration, the comment from Dingell, which specifically references registration, is irrelevant to the claim that some critics "[say] that the bill was comparable to German laws". I read the testimony and Gaijin42's summary of what Dingell says is inaccurate. Dingell never mentions Jews. It's not clear exactly what Dingell means when he makes the Nazi reference - Tydings challenges him by asking Dingell explicitly whether he's suggesting that Nazi gun control laws helped Hitler come to power, and Dingell says that's not his inference, but he never actually states explicitly what he believes the consequence of these laws was, other than that he believes they made gun ownership prohibitively expensive. The sources used at Talk:Gun control demonstrate that Dingell is completely wrong since the Nazis did not strengthen gun laws across the board. The quote from Tydings is from a primary source with no reliable secondary source demonstrating its significance. It's downright tendencious to cite Tydings asking Dingell to clarify his remark or Dodd putting a document in the record, but not to cite either of these Senators' actual arguments. GabrielF (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you don't see the huge chasm between "reliably stating primary data" and "making broad interpretations from primary data" then I probably can't explain it at all. I don't doubt that there are a letter, documents, etc. What I doubt is Knox's interpretation, given without any further evidence, that the documents somehow prove that Tydings was introducing legislature copied from the Nazis. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed the claim that a translation of the bill was placed in the congressional record. It's completely disingenuous. if you actually read the record it clearly states that Tydings inserted the translation, along with some reports from the Library of Congress to refute the claim that the bill was equivalent to Nazi laws. Here is the exact quote from Tydings that precedes the insertion into the record (page 480) "This is the argument that extremists use. When I hear a Congressman of the United States using this type of argument I find it unacceptable in view of the facts as I know them to be. I will insert at this point in the record appropriate documents concerning the history of Naziism and gun confiscation." GabrielF (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page
There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to editors of this page. Lightbreather (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Nazi Controversy
Although certainly the accusation of nazi relationship is notable, in this particular case, the argument may be factually wrong. On the ArbCom page, someone provided a link to the full pdf of the hearings, and dingell does not make an argument that the Jews were disarmed (but he does make a comparison to Nazi registration). Tydings reply is there, but in context it is clear that his inclusion of the Nazi laws was to rebut Dingell's argument. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gaijin42. Here is the link (70MB). See page 478 of the text (487 of the PDF file). The text I deleted makes a clear factual error (Dingell does not refer to Jews) and it makes implications about Tydings and Dodd that are unreasonable and unsubstantiated.GabrielF (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not following, but if you both agree I'm cool with that.  Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * TLDR :The debate happened, but its being significantly mischaracterized by knox and the JPFO, in an objectively factual way. Its not just a disagreement of opinion. They are attributing words to Dingel that he did not say, and presenting some of the other info in an obviously misleading manner. I think it should probably still have the 1 line mention, because the accusation is somewhat notable, but we should not go into the specific details that are known to be wrong. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

History section
I attempted to remove the following which is fairly well sourced, but appears at first glance to be unnecessary detail with regard to such a short section, "President Kennedy was shot and killed by an Italian military surplus rifle purchased by mail-order from an ad in American Rifleman magazine." Forget the bad grammar for the moment, since rifles can't do anything on their own.

The sources go into considerable detail describing the catalog number for it, when the rifle was shipped, the store that ordered it, etc., but the piece of information that the User chooses to include (and defensively revert) only pertains to the NRA's "American Rifleman" magazine. Does this seems POV and WP:UNDUE to anyone else? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 20:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Perhaps someone is in the middle of expanding the section and is working from 1963 forward? Lightbreather (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

 * So you're admitting to POV editing and adding content that is WP:UNDUE, anyone else agree? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 20:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Please WP:AGF. I am admitting to developing the background/history section, using good- and high-quality sources. Lightbreather (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, not all of the sources give the store name, catalog number, rifle specifics and other details, so it might be undue to use those in the article... but a detail that all of the sources do give in common is that the rifle was mail-ordered from an ad in American Rifleman. Lightbreather (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

 * And my reply to your observation regarding these specific details is "So what?". In an article about federal legislation from almost 50 years ago, why is it relevant that the origin of the rifle used in one assassination out of several cited be included? Did you bother to check and see if any of your 5 sources cross reference each other? That's the easiest explanation for the prevalence of certain details. Its not an indication of importance, it just means one author copied another. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 21:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if the legislation was 50 years ago or 5 years ago. The article is about the legislation, so how and why it came about is relevant. And are you saying that John Kennedy's assassination wasn't more significant than the others? First, it was the first in a string of assassinations. But more importantly, it was the assassination of the President of the United States. If you want to go compare who is citing whom, knock yourself out. I'm off to gather up more sources who think these two details are relevant. Lightbreather (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Scalhotrod is removing this information again. When he first removed it, three days ago, he said it was undue. Today, he said, first, that it was bad grammar and spurious detail. So I restored it, because it's relevant, though I fixed what I believe was the grammar error that he hinted at. Then he deleted it again, this time saying that I must "justify that this detail is relavant."

Why is it relevant? Because a preponderance of WP:V, WP:RS say it is. This is the sentence that immediately follows the removed one:
 * Congressional hearings followed, and a ban on mail-order gun sales were discussed, with support from the National Rifle Association (NRA), but no law was passed.

The first source, by Bugliosi, is a play-by-play that goes into great detail, including that Kennedy's assassin ordered his rifle by mail-order from an ad in American Rifleman. The second, by Michaud (quoting Lepore) gives not quite as much detail, but includes that the assassin ordered his rifle by mail-order from an ad in American Rifleman. The third, by Rosenfeld, gives less detail, but includes that the assassin ordered his rifle by mail-order from an ad in American Rifleman. The fourth, by CBS, gives even less detail, but includes that the assassin ordered his rifle by mail-order from an ad in American Rifleman. The fifth, from ABC, gives a few details, but includes the ones that are common to the other sources: that the assassin ordered his rifle by mail-order from an ad in American Rifleman.

So, according to the sources (and I can provide many more), the fact that the rifle was mail-ordered from American Rifleman is relevant. It explains why, in the hearings that followed Kennedy's assassination, banning mail-order gun sales was discussed - with support from the NRA. Lightbreather (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

 * I get the relevance of it being "mail ordered" just not through "American Riflemen" when the sources clearly say that there were ads in a number of periodicals and/or why its necessary to say that it was Italian made? It could just as easily been the "Saturday Evening Post", but you keep focusing on one publication when it doesn't matter in the context of this section. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 21:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

 * More sources: some books and a couple more news sources.
 * If you want to drop the "Italian made," I don't have a problem with that, since it wasn't a detail common to all the sources that I gave. FWIW, if a preponderance of sources said it was an ad in the Saturday Evening Post, I would have written that. The sources made the publication relevant, not me. I think I should ask: Do you have a conflict of interest when it comes to the NRA?
 * --Lightbreather (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Other than I'm a member, like you, not that I'm aware of. But you have a POV that you're pushing, you've stated it here where you state "my observation is that I am the only "pro-control" editor here" as well as made evidence of it in article summaries and WP formal processes that are too numerous to mention.
 * And the preponderance of any detail still is not enough to warrant its inclusion except maybe in the article about the Kennedy assassination. The salient fact is that the rifle was mail ordered, anything else is extraneous and subject to question. If you aren't on a POV mission, then you should be OK with leaving it out. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 15:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please keep it on content, not character. You're "If you aren't on a POV mission" applies to you or anyone editing on Wikipedia. All Wikipedians have POVs, but mine, yours, and theirs make no difference. If someone has a COI - that does matter. I do not. And you say you do not, so WP:DTS and quit bringing up that tired, uncivil argument. If you really think it's an issue, gather up your evidence and take it to the appropriate forum - please. I mean it. I am fully prepared to respond to any specific diffs you want to bring up in the appropriate place. Otherwise, quit whining about it every time we have a dispute. Lightbreather (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't really matter now, looks like we're both about to be Topic Banned... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to drop the "Italian made," I don't have a problem with that, since it wasn't a detail common to all the sources that I gave. FWIW, if a preponderance of sources said it was an ad in the Saturday Evening Post, I would have written that. The sources made the publication relevant, not me. I think I should ask: Do you have a conflict of interest when it comes to the NRA?
 * --Lightbreather (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Other than I'm a member, like you, not that I'm aware of. But you have a POV that you're pushing, you've stated it here where you state "my observation is that I am the only "pro-control" editor here" as well as made evidence of it in article summaries and WP formal processes that are too numerous to mention.
 * And the preponderance of any detail still is not enough to warrant its inclusion except maybe in the article about the Kennedy assassination. The salient fact is that the rifle was mail ordered, anything else is extraneous and subject to question. If you aren't on a POV mission, then you should be OK with leaving it out. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 15:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please keep it on content, not character. You're "If you aren't on a POV mission" applies to you or anyone editing on Wikipedia. All Wikipedians have POVs, but mine, yours, and theirs make no difference. If someone has a COI - that does matter. I do not. And you say you do not, so WP:DTS and quit bringing up that tired, uncivil argument. If you really think it's an issue, gather up your evidence and take it to the appropriate forum - please. I mean it. I am fully prepared to respond to any specific diffs you want to bring up in the appropriate place. Otherwise, quit whining about it every time we have a dispute. Lightbreather (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't really matter now, looks like we're both about to be Topic Banned... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Compromise
I just made an edit that I hope will bring this dispute to an end. The fact that the NRA supported the mail-order ban proposals following Kennedy's assassination is relevant. The NRA is the nation's #1 gun group/lobby. Why did they support it? As its executive VP, Franklin L. Orth, testified at the hearings: "We do not think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States." The content I restored leaves off the publication name, but makes it clear that it was an NRA publication. This is all supported by numerous good- to high-quality reliable sources. Lightbreather (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Although I still consider the mention of the publication name irrelevant, I can accept the edit. You do understand that back in 1968, the NRA was nothing like it is today, right?

 * Where did the Orth quote come from, that seems like a good addition to the section which seems light on its progress and development as a bill? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I do understand. Though the late 60s and 70s were pivotal times in the orgs development. But that is neither here nor there here. The thing is, the sources find the information about the NRA's connection to the GCA relevant.
 * As for the quote, I've seen it in many places, but in this case I pulled it from the Michaud source. I almost added it, but I figured you would remove it. Lightbreather (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Go ahead in the time we have before the topic ban goes into effect. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 19:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Texas Federal Court case
A fairly significant ruling was handed down per this reference and it should be included in the article, but it needs to be explained and stated properly and within the context of its circumstances. Twice now there has been the attempt to insert a broad, far reaching statement into the Lead without any addition to the main body of the article which is against WP:LEAD. Anyone want to help craft the paragraph or section explaining what this case applies to? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Mention of American Rifleman magazine as source of rifle that shot that JFK
I have removed this as WP:UNDUE several times and its been added claiming that it is WP:DUE because there are five sources that cite this factoid. There are likely many more that cite this, but it still makes it no more relevant.

In 1963, there were a scant few firearm related publications in addition to American Rifleman such as Shooting Times started in 1882, Gun Digest (1944), Guns (magazine) (1955), and Guns & Ammo (1958). So the add that Oswald responded to could have just as easily been from one of these or the Saturday Evening Post for that matter, but it just happened to be an NRA publication at the time.

The key issue in the article is that the rifle was order via the mail regardless of how the add was found or what it was for. And that is what the legislation described in the article addresses. The inclusion of the magazine is a tangent that takes away from this main point. Two sources cited state how much the rifle was purchased for (although they conflict) and one even goes so far as to cite the money order number used. Its all trivia and none of it relevant to the fact that the 1968 GCA addressed mail order gun sales.

The that added this material and repeatedly reverts and defends it has yet to state why its inclusion is WP:DUE with anything other than The sources say so... In controversial articles and subjects, that has never been an acceptable explanation.

This same editor has personally made over 350 edits to the National Rifle Association article with the explanation behind much of it that its for the sake of "balance" and "weight", but I don't buy it when someone complains that a criticism section is too small and then proceeds to make and defend edits elsewhere around the site like the one being discussed here.

As you can see above, we tried to hash this out almost 10 months ago just before a topic ban went into effect, but I still do not see the relevance of this detail in this article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

 * Everything I had to say about this, I said last July, not only about the content (including the Saturday Evening Post), but about your ruminations on my character and motives. If you have problem with those, gather your evidence and take it to the appropriate forum, otherwise, knock it off. (My arm is back in a cast/split thingy and I don't want to type the same stuff all over again.)

 * Just out of curiosity, setting aside for now what the sources say are due (decided to publish in their reports), do YOU believe that the facts that 1. The ad used to order the weapon used to assassinate a sitting president was in NRA publication American Rifleman and that 2. The NRA had a lot to say about this law is simply coincidental? If you had been editor of these sources at the time, would you have left out that the ad came from American Rifleman - that was inconsequential? Lightbreather (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

 * What you have just stated is speculative nonsense that you have contradicted in other discussions. I'm requesting a WP:Third Opinion. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 06:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

 * Firstly, warning about the 3RR being approached and request both experienced editors to focus on content. I assume that this section has fully highlighted both sides of the parties involved in this content dispute. This is the disputed edit. -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

 * , so what you're saying is that a coincidental circumstance makes it OK to link the two? If it was any other publication, would it have mattered that the NRA was involved at all? Furthermore, and this topic has been discussed and acknowledged previously, the NRA was not the politically motivated organization in the early 60s that it is today. That transformation did not start until over a decade later. One of the references cited in the article actually says this . The link these subjects and characterize the organization in this way via one of the most polarizing events of the 20th century might seem trivial to discuss, but the material is still WP:UNDUE IMO. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

 * The NRA's transformation (contemporary, political focus on "gun rights") didn't start in the 70s - it was completed in the 70s with the "The Cincinnati Revolution." Nonetheless, the org wasn't apolitical before this.

 * Thank you,, for your 3O. I do not wish to overstate the NRA's influence in these things, but to give it its due consideration. To hide the significant influence the NRA has had and still has on U.S. gun laws, or to pretend its influence is marginal, is not NPOV. Lightbreather (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Unaccounted for removal of information

 * Regarding this edit - - you removed information from the article (that has been in the article since at least July 2014, if not earlier) without explaining why. Could you please explain what you deleted, and why? Lightbreather (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing was removed that was directly attributed to the sources used. It was edited and paraphrased, but all of the references were kept and applied to the sentence that they directly supported. The only content not retained was the mention of the Malcom X assassination and the University of Texas shooting, neither of which were found in any of the 5 non-subscription based sources. The intermediate legislation efforts were moved in line chronologically with when they happened, in the middle of the efforts for the GCA to be passed. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gun Control Act of 1968. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140707222435/http://doddcenter.uconn.edu/asc/research/gun_control.htm to http://doddcenter.uconn.edu/asc/research/gun_control.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

6.5 mm Carcano?
The gun that killed Kennedy was never forensically proven. No bullets recovered that could be proven without a doubt. A 6.5 mm casing was found on the gurney with JFK, but an a obvious plant. A 6.5 mm Carcano was shown to press and had been mail-ordered, yes, but whether Oswald's or even used cannot be proven. There were two photos of Oswald ; one with a rifle, one exactly like it but without. The angle of his hand to hold it is incorrect. It isn't clear if same rifle as no serial number, of course, visible. By US Treasuyr: "Firearms shall be identified my serial number". I move word Alleged inserted, or Popularly believed. 174.18.29.200 (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Capstone Course in American Politics
— Assignment last updated by Nharkdivad (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gun Control Act of 1968