San Francisco to ban guns?

[SirNitram]

So. Fourth time. Back up your claim that, and I quote, full citizens can not have their constitutional rights removed without just cause and going through a process.

Thats the whole fucking point behind the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These are rights the people have that the government can NOT trample, can not restrict. The Bill of Rights is actualy designed to limit what the government can do in regards to the people.

Then it should be simple as fuck to actually prove this, shouldn't it, Alyeska? So why haven't you?

Now I ask you for the final time to prove that the government can just restrict and alter constitutional rights of citizens on a whim.

Well, see, I live in the REAL WORLD. I can go pick up a paper and look up which states have done just that sort of thing. You know. Laws restricting gun ownership, who can marry, things like that.

YOU are making the claim they can just shit on constitutional protected rights (these are rights the government can NEVER violate (except in the issue of martial law, but thats covered before the Bill of Rights and we aren't talking martial law).

No, I'm simply challenging yours that they are absolutely unconditional.

So enough with the fucking red herrings Nitram. Stop avoiding the topic. I've pointed out the intent of the Constitution, I've countered examples of restrictions by pointing out their specifics. You on the other hand continue to repeat your groundless position. You prove that the government has the legal right and capability to shit on citizens rights.

Bullshit, Aly. This is repulsive and stupid. You've made a claim, that these rights can't be violated. Instead of fucking pulling your weight in a debate and going and getting anything to back this up, you play this stupidity over and over.

FIFTH. TIME. PROVE THIS STATEMENT: full citizens can not have their constitutional rights removed without just cause and going through a process.

[frigidmagi]

Oh for God Sakes Alyeska how hard is it to google the Constitution or get the link off of Rogue 9 like I did?

Article [IX.]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Don't say I didn't get you anything for Christmas.

[Alyeska]

Then it should be simple as fuck to actually prove this, shouldn't it, Alyeska? So why haven't you?

Can you even bloody read? I JUST DID.

Well, see, I live in the REAL WORLD. I can go pick up a paper and look up which states have done just that sort of thing. You know. Laws restricting gun ownership, who can marry, things like that.

Whoop-de-shit. Those local laws get struck down by the courts all the bloody time. Those few that don't get struck down by the courts become a reinterpretation of the constitution and thus rights aren't being restricted. And guess what.

No, I'm simply challenging yours that they are absolutely unconditional.

Give me a conditional right in the constitution, please.

Bullshit, Aly. This is repulsive and stupid. You've made a claim, that these rights can't be violated. Instead of fucking pulling your weight in a debate and going and getting anything to back this up, you play this stupidity over and over.

Funny, thats exactly what you are doing.

FIFTH. TIME. PROVE THIS STATEMENT: full citizens can not have their constitutional rights removed without just cause and going through a process.

Grow the fuck up. I already answered your demand. Its your turn to prove what you claim.

[SirNitram]

Oh for God Sakes Alyeska how hard is it to google the Constitution or get the link off of Rogue 9 like I did?

Article [IX.]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Don't say I didn't get you anything for Christmas.

That'll do. Point conceeded.

Seriously, getting people to provide sources these days, it's like pulling goddamn teeth...

[SirNitram]

Then it should be simple as fuck to actually prove this, shouldn't it, Alyeska? So why haven't you?

Can you even bloody read? I JUST DID.

No. You never cited a single goddamn thing. You repeated yourself. That's not proving a claim. Go get your head extracted from your ass, pigfucker.

[Alyeska]

GAH!! (frustrated post expressing furstration without actualy saying anything else, not aimed at anyone).

[SirNitram]

GAH!! (frustrated post expressing furstration without actualy saying anything else, not aimed at anyone).

Noted, echoed, and left in past. Tea?

[Alyeska]

More like a rum and coke, SEVERAL of them.

[Rogue 9]

Yeah, I've been keeping a tab open to the Constitution as hosted by the House of Representatives site all week; I've been needing it far too often. Constitution. Amendments.

[aerius]

The increase in reported crime figures is because it has become easier to report crimes not because the number of crimes committed has increased.
The British Crime Survey (which doesn't include violent crime it must be noted) has shown that crime has fallen year on year for almost a decade.

The BCS relies on asking people if they experienced a crime during the survey period, its accuracy is debatable. Of more interest is the recorded crime stats, which is the number of crimes recorded by police, a standard that is used by most countries.

Excerpt from the latest crime survey.

Police recorded crime and the British Crime Survey (BCS) are complementary series, which
together provide a better picture of long-term trends in crime than could be obtained from either
series alone. Such comparisons are only available since 1981 and are calculated for each
financial year. Consequently, figures 3 and 4 show trends up until the year ending March 2004.
• BCS crimes rose steadily in the decade from 1981, and continued to rise during the early
1990s, peaking in 1995. BCS crime has fallen in each BCS survey since 1995 (Figure 3).
• Recorded crime increased during most of the 1980s, reaching a peak in 1992 (Figure 4).
Recorded crime then fell each year until 1998/99 when there was a change in Home Office
Counting Rules. Since then there has been a general increase in recorded crime although
trends in recorded crime should be interpreted with caution due to the introduction of the
National Crime Recording Standard.

Whether violent crime is rising or falling is unknown but burglary has been falling which would seem to be pertinent to the issue of gun use for home protection.

There's a double digit percentage increase in violent crime every year for the last few years, I'd say it's pretty certain that it's increasing.

Burglaries and non-violent crime in general are indeed falling, partly because of new counting methods (breaking into an apartment building and cleaning out 5 residences is counted as 1 instead of 5 burglaries) and partly because violent crime is now easier to commit.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Then it should be simple as fuck to actually prove this, shouldn't it, Alyeska? So why haven't you?

Can you even bloody read? I JUST DID.

No. You never cited a single goddamn thing. You repeated yourself. That's not proving a claim. Go get your head extracted from your ass, pigfucker.

Alyeska has personally discussed the 9th Amendment to you personally before, Martin. You just don't have a memory.

In fact, I remember specifically why: Alyeska justified gay marriage on the grounds that the Constitution couldn't be construed to deny any rights to the people.

[SirNitram]

Can you even bloody read? I JUST DID.

No. You never cited a single goddamn thing. You repeated yourself. That's not proving a claim. Go get your head extracted from your ass, pigfucker.

Alyeska has personally discussed the 9th Amendment to you personally before, Martin. You just don't have a memory.

In fact, I remember specifically why: Alyeska justified gay marriage on the grounds that the Constitution couldn't be construed to deny any rights to the people.

You're right. I don't have one. Aren't you special, you worked out what I've openly said several times on this board: I'm LD, thanks to literal brain damage. So yes. I will forget things. Bite me, and piss off.

[TheDarkling]

The BCS relies on asking people if they experienced a crime during the survey period, its accuracy is debatable. Of more interest is the recorded crime stats, which is the number of crimes recorded by police, a standard that is used by most countries.

I disagree, the recorded crime figures depend upon the reporting rate and the reporting rate has increased therefore skewing results.

Excerpt from the latest crime survey.
*snip*

Isn't that what I said?

There's a double digit percentage increase in violent crime every year for the last few years, I'd say it's pretty certain that it's increasing.

There has also been a reclassification of what constitutes violent crime, it now includes lesser offences like spitting.
The detection rate has also increased and this could easily account for the increase in violent crime (the percentage of domestic violence has almost doubled since 81 for example).

I would however agree that gun crime seems to be increasing, most rapidly in the area of replica gun use it is interesting to note.

The segments of violent crime the BCS does cover have fallen 24% since 1997.

Burglaries and non-violent crime in general are indeed falling, partly because of new counting methods (breaking into an apartment building and cleaning out 5 residences is counted as 1 instead of 5 burglaries) and partly because violent crime is now easier to commit.

That doesn't wash; Britain wasn't exactly bristling with guns before the last round of anti gun laws so I very much doubt they have made violent crime easier.

I would also point out that apartments aren't widespread in Britain and I very much doubt the reclassification you mention accounts for the 42% drop in Burglary since 1997.

If you wish to prove that gun control causes the collapse of law and order then you will have to look somewhere else, Britain doesn't show what you want it to.

Of course Britain is a rather different case than the US/Canada in that there weren't many guns around before so I'm not sure any results could be interpreted to apply from on to the other on the issue of gun control.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Remember guys, there is also a preamble to the bill of rights that states that the Bill of Rights are restrictive on government. Announcments expressely limiting the governemtn, that it cannot violate in any way shape or form.