If you are disliked because of your race...

[Unkotare]

...

Muslims with their belief of convert or kill are fully protected, those whites who do not believe in inter-racial / inter - faith marriages within their religion are not protected. ....

Muslims, or anyone else who kills or tries to kill, would NOT be protected by law. YOU will not be prosecuted by law for whatever idiotic views you may or may not have about who should or shouldn't date. You want so badly to be a victim, but you are only a victim of your own paranoia and weakness.

 

[Unkotare]

...

The whites are under attack on a daily basis. .....

Who are "the whites"? I'm not under attack on a daily basis. If you feeeel as if you are, how so?

Just because "you" don't feel assaulted; just because "you" have not been victimized; just because "you" don't feel the effects of a multicultural society is NO indication that the rest of society doesn't feel it......

Just because you do is an indication that all of society does? Your paranoia is not as contagious as you want it to be.

You're an idiot. Don't bother me again. If you can't provide facts, fuck off.

Don't blame me for your inability to exercise logic.

 

[Unkotare]

...... How much money have you made off the bullshit you post on these boards?

I've been a teacher - a real one - for almost 25 years. Real History is nothing like the paranoid nonsense posted here.

Any other questions?

A teacher? Yeah right. ...

Yeah, right. Sorry if that intimidates you.

 

[Unkotare]

....

The first governing document of our country was the Mayflower Compact. ....

No, it was not. You should have stayed in school.

 

[Unkotare]

....

Between 1620 and the ratification of the Constitution you cannot name a time when multiculturalism was responsible for the society our forefathers built. .....

Do you know who the first person killed in the Boston Massacre was, dropout?

 

[Unkotare]

,....

The plans to destroy our Republic via civil rights was financed by liberals. These are the same people who gave us forced busing, affirmative action, racial quotas, and preferential hiring schemes. Of course, these are the same people that want to eliminate public displays of the Ten Commandments and nativity scenes. Those liberals are the same people with a problem with private property Rights and the Second Amendment.....

The Second Amendment is a civil right, you liberal.

The Second Amendment is an unalienable Right.

 

[Unkotare]

.... America has somewhat of a unique culture, but at the end of the day our culture is inclusive of race.....

That is incorrect. America is a nation of many cultures, and race is not determinant of the nation as a whole, of course.

 

[Unkotare]

..... secure the blessings of Liberty to the posterity of our founding fathers, who just happened to be white, right?

Thomas Jefferson was a Founding Father.

 

[Unkotare]

..... secure the blessings of Liberty to the posterity of our founding fathers, who just happened to be white, right?

Thomas Jefferson was a Founding Father.

George Washington was a Founding Father.

 

[Humorme]

..... secure the blessings of Liberty to the posterity of our founding fathers, who just happened to be white, right?

Thomas Jefferson was a Founding Father.

George Washington was a Founding Father.

I do not respond to moronic and irrelevant posts. You're wasting your time and not making a point.

 

[Montrovant]

It's good of you to speak for the rest of the posters on the board. You may not believe this, but there probably aren't too many people reading this conversation regardless of whether or not I use the multi-quote function. You also may not realize this, but using the multi-quote function doesn't actually increase the number of paragraphs in a post; all of the quoted paragraphs would still be there in a full post quote, just hidden. I'm not sure why that's put such a bug up your ass, but you'll notice I haven't used it again.

You haven't made any mistakes? Well, you mistakenly claimed that all Kennesaw homes are required by law to have a gun in them. That isn't true, as I provided evidence for.

I did not claim that disagreeing with you was refuting you. I pretty clearly said that I have been refuting or disagreeing with your claims. Notice the word 'or': it indicates doing one or the other, not that both are the same thing.

I haven't claimed any "major victory" over you. I have pointed out when you've made a false claim, or claims I feel are wrong, or claims without much evidence to back them up.

I have not denied the possibility that "many races and cultures simply cannot acclimate themselves to ours." I will say clearly that I think you are wrong, at least when it comes to races; a person's race does not prevent them from adopting American culture.

You provided a link about English law from the 6th century to the 11th century. You provided another link that supposedly goes to an article about the development of the Anglo-American judicial system, but is broken. You provided a link to the Dred Scott decision, which is widely considered one of the worst decisions in the history of the USSC. I suppose I can agree that those links speak for themselves; I'm pretty sure we disagree about what it is they are saying, though.

I have still not seen any evidence that a genocide is being perpetrated on the white population of the US.

I never claimed anything like that someone is wrong about everything. I'm not sure where you get that from.

I would like to see statistics that support the idea that the higher the non-white population, the greater the crime rate. That is true in some instances, but not others, from what I can recall of statistics I've seen; blacks and Native Indians have higher crime rates than whites, but Asians have a lower one, I believe.

You talk about me having a weak position, but much of my position is simply that you do not have any compelling evidence for yours.

It appears to me that all you want is to attempt to try and discredit me with a mere opinion. If a link was broken, then you were blowing smoke because you did not see the evidence... not hardly my fault since this isn't my board. So, since the link was broken, evidence wasn't compelling... how do we have a civil conversation based on that?

By today's standards, the Dred Scott decision was unpopular. But, it was extremely well documented and factual. For example, Taney spent pages 407–421 of his decision chronicling the history of slave and negro law in the British colonies and American states to decide if federal law could recognize Scott as a citizen of any state within the meaning of Article III.

You probably went looking for some half baked opinion and never actually read the Dred Scott decision. You just searched the Internet to see if you could find someone to agree with you.

All of that is well and good, but we got off to a bad start when you started calling me a liar. So, I don't know how much room there is for a civil discussion. Be forewarned: if you challenge me, I've read all of the material I quote. You doing the Cliff's Notes deal and finding people to "disagree" with me when most of them never actually read the material will prove extremely embarrassing for you. It's just that I can't have a civil and serious conversation with people who have started out calling me a liar (a question or two would have yielded you much better results.) I can't take you seriously when you say there is no compelling evidence and then say a link was broken. If you haven't yet seen the evidence, it's hard to say whether or not it's compelling.

I have a feeling what you want to do is to try and see how much you can Google to attempt to prove me wrong and pretend that makes you somehow superior. That's not a good way to have a civil conversation. You are not prepared to be in a debate because if that is what you're doing, let me give you some advice:

I never lost a case in court. The reason being, I study the other guy's side until I can argue it better than he can. The silly ass game of working people to get them to put their opinion out there so you can shoot it down via Google is infantile and won't impress me.

I started off calling you a liar? You might want to go back and see that you began this conversation by replying to a post of mine with a post of your own that was in large part unrelated. I asked IM2 what term he used for an individual who believes themself to be superior to other races. You replied with this:

EVERYBODY thinks they are a part of a group that is superior in one way or another. Race is no different than those who think their gang or their football team is better.

And don't patronize the left with what you're about to say. One of the worst wars of our lifetimes came between Honduras and Nicaragua over a disputed score... in a soccer game.

If people all over the world thought that all groups were equal, Zimbabwe would not be 99.7 percent African; China would not be 98.5 percent Han Chinese; North Korea would not be 98 percent Koreans; Japan would not be one of the most racially segregated countries in the world. Saudi Arabia is 90 percent Arabs and only 10 percent blacks (when talking about citizens.)

So you began by claiming to know what I was going to say before I said it. That's pretty impressive, considering I don't recall ever having a conversation with you before.
I followed that with this post:

Race is certainly different than a gang or being a fan of a football team. Race is inherent, while being in a gang or liking a football team are choices.

What do you think I was about to say, and why would it be patronizing the left?

Just because other nations are mostly homogeneous does not mean this one is or should be.

I'm not certain why you decided to reply to that particular post the way you did.

I did not start by calling you a liar. I'd have to go back to check, but I don't recall actually calling you a liar at any point. Also, I did ask you a couple of questions in my very first response to you.

Whatever the facts of the Dred Scott ruling, it certainly was based on opinion as well. You did, in fact, quote part of the opinion which says just that; the justices did not think that blacks were intended to be included as citizen in the Constitution. I did not have to "search the internet" for someone to agree with me. In fact, before I mentioned it, someone in this very thread pointed out that Dred Scott is considered a terrible ruling; Unkotare said as much in post #53. I have read and taken part in discussions about Dred Scott on this board on multiple other occasions, as well as having read about it outside of the board, and in the majority of cases, it is considered a bad ruling. Certainly it is a terrible ruling by modern standards, but even by the standards of the day, many believe it was bad. A later Chief Justice of the USSC, Charles Evan Hughes, called the Dred Scott decision a "self-inflicted wound." http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3570&context=cklawreview
Whether I search the internet or just go by what I've read about the case before now, most seem to consider it a bad ruling.

One bad link is not the reason I say you have not provided compelling evidence that whites are experiencing a targeted genocide. Your lack of evidence is why I say that. What evidence have you actually provided? So far as I recall, all you have done is made some statements and given your opinion, but not provided any actual evidence of said genocide. You've provided evidence of what English law was a millennia ago, and you've linked to Dred Scott, but I don't see how either of those is evidence of whites being victims of an intentional genocide. I've pointed out that whites remain the majority in this country, and are expected to be the largest racial group in the country for at least decades to come, but you have not explained how a group that is larger than any other in the US is the victim of genocide.

I looked up Kennesaw because it was an interesting claim and I wanted to see if it was true. It turned out that, at least in the case of all homes being legally required to have a gun, it is not true. I pointed that out, and you have as of yet refused to acknowledge your mistake. In fact, you've claimed not to have made any mistakes, despite the evidence to the contrary. You say you can't take a discussion with me seriously because I say there is no compelling evidence and a link is broken, but so far as I can tell that broken link would not have provided any evidence of a genocide, anyway. You say you can't have a serious conversation with someone who began by calling you a liar (going on to say "a question or two would have yielded better results), but as I've shown you, I did not begin by calling you a liar, and asked questions in my very first response to you. You called me a troll simply for using the multi-quote function. You said that you stopped reading my post which used multi-quote after it passed a dozen paragraphs, but I only wrote 10 paragraphs in that post, none particularly long. I have to say, if anyone aught to be talking about not being able to have a serious conversation here, it's me.

But I'll continue gamely on and ask, once again, what your evidence is that whites are being targeted by an attempt to commit genocide, and who exactly is making this attempt. Are all minorities part of this attempt? Only certain minorities? Are whites complicit in their own genocide? What makes it genocide, rather than simply a declining birth rate?

Can you admit to having made mistakes in this conversation?

I'll admit that everything I said about you is true:

"Kennesaw is noted for its unique firearms legislation in response to Morton Grove, Illinois' law mandating gun prohibition. In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21]:[21]

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore."

Kennesaw, Georgia - Wikipedia

It's symbolic, I realize. But I'm not wrong nor did I lie about it. And if you want to get your facts from Unkotare, you may as well get your nutritional recommendations from a bag of M&Ms.

Now, you want to say something OR are you still going to imply that I lied?

The Kennesaw law is not only symbolic, it contains exemptions which basically make it that anyone who wishes to can decide not to keep a gun. The law does not require every home to have a gun.

Sec. 34-21. - Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(a)In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

(Ord. No. 2009-03, Exh. A, 2-16-09)

Municode Library

So every head of household is required to maintain a firearm and ammunition.....except for those who cannot use such a firearm because of a disability, those who are poor, felons, and anyone who opposes doing so.

Your original quote about Kennesaw was this:

By contrast, the safest town in Georgia - possibly America is Kennesaw, Georgia... which is predominantly white AND it is required, by law, that each home have a gun in it.

That is untrue, as every home is not required by law to have a gun in it. Even if the law in question were enforced, it would not require every home to have a gun in it, because pretty much anyone can be exempt. So yes, you were wrong about Kennesaw.

I did not say or imply that you lied, but instead that you made a mistake. I've actually said explicitly more than once that you've made a mistake rather than lie. That you continue to think I'm saying you are lying seems to me to say more about what you feel about the situation than what I do.

I didn't say anything about getting facts from Unkotare, but instead pointed out that he agreed with me about Dred Scott being considered a terrible decision, after you said I "searched the internet" for someone to agree with me. I didn't have to search, as someone agreed with me before I even posted about it.

You still have not explained about your genocide claim, after me asking about it multiple times.

You can give us a song and dance; play semantics; argue all you like; put a spin on it. The law does what I said it does and as long as you're dancing around making false claims, we have nothing to discuss relative to the real topic. You aren't Perry fucking Mason and the whole point of the Kennesaw law was to prove a point - that gun control don't work and a place can be pro-gun and a very safe place to be.

Should you decide it isn't worth me continuing to prove that you were wrong, you can apologize and ask about the white genocide. Otherwise you are pissing in the wind.

The law does not do what you said. I provided proof in the form of the actual law, which provides exemptions to pretty much anyone who wants to be exempt.

You are absolutely right that the Kennesaw law was not meant to be an enforced law, but was making a point; it was, in fact, passed in response to a handgun ban in another town. FALSE: Mandatory Gun Ownership Law Caused Crime Rates to Plummet I also agree that a place being safe while pro-gun was part of that point, and was a valid point. However, you are the one dancing around the fact that the law never actually required every home to own a gun, as you claimed. There were always exceptions to the law, and the law was never meant to be enforced, meaning no one was ever actually required to own a gun or have a gun in their home.

You have not proven me wrong about Kennesaw. You have simply ignored the fact that the law provides exemptions to pretty much anyone who wants to be exempt. You continue to be seemingly incapable of admitting any wrong; simply saying, "Yeah, they made very broad exceptions to this law, so it didn't require everyone to own a gun." or perhaps, "I didn't take the exemptions into account" would have ended this a ways back. But here you are, continuing to stick by the claim that the law requires every home to have a gun, when it clearly does not.

I am starting to wonder if you are tying the rest of the conversation to Kennesaw to avoid explaining your claims of white genocide....

 

[Humorme]

It appears to me that all you want is to attempt to try and discredit me with a mere opinion. If a link was broken, then you were blowing smoke because you did not see the evidence... not hardly my fault since this isn't my board. So, since the link was broken, evidence wasn't compelling... how do we have a civil conversation based on that?

By today's standards, the Dred Scott decision was unpopular. But, it was extremely well documented and factual. For example, Taney spent pages 407–421 of his decision chronicling the history of slave and negro law in the British colonies and American states to decide if federal law could recognize Scott as a citizen of any state within the meaning of Article III.

You probably went looking for some half baked opinion and never actually read the Dred Scott decision. You just searched the Internet to see if you could find someone to agree with you.

All of that is well and good, but we got off to a bad start when you started calling me a liar. So, I don't know how much room there is for a civil discussion. Be forewarned: if you challenge me, I've read all of the material I quote. You doing the Cliff's Notes deal and finding people to "disagree" with me when most of them never actually read the material will prove extremely embarrassing for you. It's just that I can't have a civil and serious conversation with people who have started out calling me a liar (a question or two would have yielded you much better results.) I can't take you seriously when you say there is no compelling evidence and then say a link was broken. If you haven't yet seen the evidence, it's hard to say whether or not it's compelling.

I have a feeling what you want to do is to try and see how much you can Google to attempt to prove me wrong and pretend that makes you somehow superior. That's not a good way to have a civil conversation. You are not prepared to be in a debate because if that is what you're doing, let me give you some advice:

I never lost a case in court. The reason being, I study the other guy's side until I can argue it better than he can. The silly ass game of working people to get them to put their opinion out there so you can shoot it down via Google is infantile and won't impress me.

I started off calling you a liar? You might want to go back and see that you began this conversation by replying to a post of mine with a post of your own that was in large part unrelated. I asked IM2 what term he used for an individual who believes themself to be superior to other races. You replied with this:

EVERYBODY thinks they are a part of a group that is superior in one way or another. Race is no different than those who think their gang or their football team is better.

And don't patronize the left with what you're about to say. One of the worst wars of our lifetimes came between Honduras and Nicaragua over a disputed score... in a soccer game.

If people all over the world thought that all groups were equal, Zimbabwe would not be 99.7 percent African; China would not be 98.5 percent Han Chinese; North Korea would not be 98 percent Koreans; Japan would not be one of the most racially segregated countries in the world. Saudi Arabia is 90 percent Arabs and only 10 percent blacks (when talking about citizens.)

So you began by claiming to know what I was going to say before I said it. That's pretty impressive, considering I don't recall ever having a conversation with you before.
I followed that with this post:

Race is certainly different than a gang or being a fan of a football team. Race is inherent, while being in a gang or liking a football team are choices.

What do you think I was about to say, and why would it be patronizing the left?

Just because other nations are mostly homogeneous does not mean this one is or should be.

I'm not certain why you decided to reply to that particular post the way you did.

I did not start by calling you a liar. I'd have to go back to check, but I don't recall actually calling you a liar at any point. Also, I did ask you a couple of questions in my very first response to you.

Whatever the facts of the Dred Scott ruling, it certainly was based on opinion as well. You did, in fact, quote part of the opinion which says just that; the justices did not think that blacks were intended to be included as citizen in the Constitution. I did not have to "search the internet" for someone to agree with me. In fact, before I mentioned it, someone in this very thread pointed out that Dred Scott is considered a terrible ruling; Unkotare said as much in post #53. I have read and taken part in discussions about Dred Scott on this board on multiple other occasions, as well as having read about it outside of the board, and in the majority of cases, it is considered a bad ruling. Certainly it is a terrible ruling by modern standards, but even by the standards of the day, many believe it was bad. A later Chief Justice of the USSC, Charles Evan Hughes, called the Dred Scott decision a "self-inflicted wound." http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3570&context=cklawreview
Whether I search the internet or just go by what I've read about the case before now, most seem to consider it a bad ruling.

One bad link is not the reason I say you have not provided compelling evidence that whites are experiencing a targeted genocide. Your lack of evidence is why I say that. What evidence have you actually provided? So far as I recall, all you have done is made some statements and given your opinion, but not provided any actual evidence of said genocide. You've provided evidence of what English law was a millennia ago, and you've linked to Dred Scott, but I don't see how either of those is evidence of whites being victims of an intentional genocide. I've pointed out that whites remain the majority in this country, and are expected to be the largest racial group in the country for at least decades to come, but you have not explained how a group that is larger than any other in the US is the victim of genocide.

I looked up Kennesaw because it was an interesting claim and I wanted to see if it was true. It turned out that, at least in the case of all homes being legally required to have a gun, it is not true. I pointed that out, and you have as of yet refused to acknowledge your mistake. In fact, you've claimed not to have made any mistakes, despite the evidence to the contrary. You say you can't take a discussion with me seriously because I say there is no compelling evidence and a link is broken, but so far as I can tell that broken link would not have provided any evidence of a genocide, anyway. You say you can't have a serious conversation with someone who began by calling you a liar (going on to say "a question or two would have yielded better results), but as I've shown you, I did not begin by calling you a liar, and asked questions in my very first response to you. You called me a troll simply for using the multi-quote function. You said that you stopped reading my post which used multi-quote after it passed a dozen paragraphs, but I only wrote 10 paragraphs in that post, none particularly long. I have to say, if anyone aught to be talking about not being able to have a serious conversation here, it's me.

But I'll continue gamely on and ask, once again, what your evidence is that whites are being targeted by an attempt to commit genocide, and who exactly is making this attempt. Are all minorities part of this attempt? Only certain minorities? Are whites complicit in their own genocide? What makes it genocide, rather than simply a declining birth rate?

Can you admit to having made mistakes in this conversation?

I'll admit that everything I said about you is true:

"Kennesaw is noted for its unique firearms legislation in response to Morton Grove, Illinois' law mandating gun prohibition. In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21]:[21]

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore."

Kennesaw, Georgia - Wikipedia

It's symbolic, I realize. But I'm not wrong nor did I lie about it. And if you want to get your facts from Unkotare, you may as well get your nutritional recommendations from a bag of M&Ms.

Now, you want to say something OR are you still going to imply that I lied?

The Kennesaw law is not only symbolic, it contains exemptions which basically make it that anyone who wishes to can decide not to keep a gun. The law does not require every home to have a gun.

Sec. 34-21. - Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(a)In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

(Ord. No. 2009-03, Exh. A, 2-16-09)

Municode Library

So every head of household is required to maintain a firearm and ammunition.....except for those who cannot use such a firearm because of a disability, those who are poor, felons, and anyone who opposes doing so.

Your original quote about Kennesaw was this:

By contrast, the safest town in Georgia - possibly America is Kennesaw, Georgia... which is predominantly white AND it is required, by law, that each home have a gun in it.

That is untrue, as every home is not required by law to have a gun in it. Even if the law in question were enforced, it would not require every home to have a gun in it, because pretty much anyone can be exempt. So yes, you were wrong about Kennesaw.

I did not say or imply that you lied, but instead that you made a mistake. I've actually said explicitly more than once that you've made a mistake rather than lie. That you continue to think I'm saying you are lying seems to me to say more about what you feel about the situation than what I do.

I didn't say anything about getting facts from Unkotare, but instead pointed out that he agreed with me about Dred Scott being considered a terrible decision, after you said I "searched the internet" for someone to agree with me. I didn't have to search, as someone agreed with me before I even posted about it.

You still have not explained about your genocide claim, after me asking about it multiple times.

You can give us a song and dance; play semantics; argue all you like; put a spin on it. The law does what I said it does and as long as you're dancing around making false claims, we have nothing to discuss relative to the real topic. You aren't Perry fucking Mason and the whole point of the Kennesaw law was to prove a point - that gun control don't work and a place can be pro-gun and a very safe place to be.

Should you decide it isn't worth me continuing to prove that you were wrong, you can apologize and ask about the white genocide. Otherwise you are pissing in the wind.

The law does not do what you said. I provided proof in the form of the actual law, which provides exemptions to pretty much anyone who wants to be exempt.

You are absolutely right that the Kennesaw law was not meant to be an enforced law, but was making a point; it was, in fact, passed in response to a handgun ban in another town. FALSE: Mandatory Gun Ownership Law Caused Crime Rates to Plummet I also agree that a place being safe while pro-gun was part of that point, and was a valid point. However, you are the one dancing around the fact that the law never actually required every home to own a gun, as you claimed. There were always exceptions to the law, and the law was never meant to be enforced, meaning no one was ever actually required to own a gun or have a gun in their home.

You have not proven me wrong about Kennesaw. You have simply ignored the fact that the law provides exemptions to pretty much anyone who wants to be exempt. You continue to be seemingly incapable of admitting any wrong; simply saying, "Yeah, they made very broad exceptions to this law, so it didn't require everyone to own a gun." or perhaps, "I didn't take the exemptions into account" would have ended this a ways back. But here you are, continuing to stick by the claim that the law requires every home to have a gun, when it clearly does not.

I am starting to wonder if you are tying the rest of the conversation to Kennesaw to avoid explaining your claims of white genocide....

You are wrong. The law as I stated DID exist. You said you could find no law and then I proved you wrong. Then, you wanted to make the point I made the focal point (that the law was largely symbolic.)

What you want to do is call me a liar (something you wouldn't say to my face BTW) and rely on semantics when the over-all point, in context, was a part of the bigger picture that cities with a predominantly white population that owns guns is safer than more predominantly black cities where firearms are discouraged.

I won't have a discussion with you as long as you don't simply STFU about Kennesaw. What I will do just to prove that we both know what your long term strategy is will be the following:

YOU state that this is where we will have to agree to disagree and allow others to make up their own mind, after reading the law. That's a close a compromise that I can give you when you've done your best to alienate me. You're wrong; you haven't proven shit and the only people you'll get to agree with you are professional trolls.

According to one news story:

"In 1982, Kennesaw was a city of about 5,000, "a rural population of Southern conservatives, strong Second Amendment advocates," city spokeswoman Pam Davis says. The city enacted the measure in response to a law passed in Morton Grove, Ill., that outlawed gun ownership.

"When the law was passed, it was common knowledge that it was not going to be enforceable," Davis says. "It was a symbolic gesture."

Still, the crime rate, not that high to begin with, plummeted after the law was enacted — by 89%, compared with a 10% drop statewide, according to published accounts. Davis says there were 11 burglaries per 1,000 residents before the law, 2.7 after. Despite slight fluctuations, she says, crime here "is significantly lower" than similar-sized Georgia cities."

Georgia town not alone in using gun law as 'deterrent'

USA Today seems pretty mainstream to me.

5 American cities that require you to own a gun

 

[miketx]

that is just simply too bad. And let me show why this is the case.

All of us...every single of one us, with no exceptions - are disliked by somebody else out there becaue of our race. Perhaps even hated. It's just human nature.

If you are:
white - somebody dislikes you because of that
black - somebody dislikes you because of that
jewish - somebody dislikes you because of that
asian - somebody dislikes you because of that
mexican - somebody dislikes you because of that

You are not loved by the whole country let alone the whole world, and that is not an expectation you can have! You simply cannot go around with the attitude, love me, love me, love me.

There are lots and lots of people out there who don't like you, and never will. There is nothing you can do, there is nothing they can do. It is inborn, and nurtured as well. It cannot be changed.

Racism is not about one person not liking you. It is about a system based on laws and policies that gave advantages to whites over everyone else and still does.
It would be nice if some people would quit trying to find excuses for racism.

EVERY law gives someone an advantage at the expense of another.

Get into a fight with a neighbor and one set of laws apply; get into the same tiff with a family member, another law applies. All are human. Why the difference in the way the law is applied?

Shoot me and you'll get a much more lenient sentence than if you kill a cop under the same circumstances. My life isn't worth that of a cop's.

It must be okay. You can't point me to the thread where you're lamenting the fairness of such laws. How is that race is any different?

When we stop making excuses and man/woman up, this nation will become a better place

What excuses do you have when black animals loot and burn their cities over criminals getting their sorry ass shot?

 

[Humorme]

Whites are the most discriminated against racial group in America.

 

[Montrovant]

I started off calling you a liar? You might want to go back and see that you began this conversation by replying to a post of mine with a post of your own that was in large part unrelated. I asked IM2 what term he used for an individual who believes themself to be superior to other races. You replied with this:
So you began by claiming to know what I was going to say before I said it. That's pretty impressive, considering I don't recall ever having a conversation with you before.
I followed that with this post:
I did not start by calling you a liar. I'd have to go back to check, but I don't recall actually calling you a liar at any point. Also, I did ask you a couple of questions in my very first response to you.

Whatever the facts of the Dred Scott ruling, it certainly was based on opinion as well. You did, in fact, quote part of the opinion which says just that; the justices did not think that blacks were intended to be included as citizen in the Constitution. I did not have to "search the internet" for someone to agree with me. In fact, before I mentioned it, someone in this very thread pointed out that Dred Scott is considered a terrible ruling; Unkotare said as much in post #53. I have read and taken part in discussions about Dred Scott on this board on multiple other occasions, as well as having read about it outside of the board, and in the majority of cases, it is considered a bad ruling. Certainly it is a terrible ruling by modern standards, but even by the standards of the day, many believe it was bad. A later Chief Justice of the USSC, Charles Evan Hughes, called the Dred Scott decision a "self-inflicted wound." http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3570&context=cklawreview
Whether I search the internet or just go by what I've read about the case before now, most seem to consider it a bad ruling.

One bad link is not the reason I say you have not provided compelling evidence that whites are experiencing a targeted genocide. Your lack of evidence is why I say that. What evidence have you actually provided? So far as I recall, all you have done is made some statements and given your opinion, but not provided any actual evidence of said genocide. You've provided evidence of what English law was a millennia ago, and you've linked to Dred Scott, but I don't see how either of those is evidence of whites being victims of an intentional genocide. I've pointed out that whites remain the majority in this country, and are expected to be the largest racial group in the country for at least decades to come, but you have not explained how a group that is larger than any other in the US is the victim of genocide.

I looked up Kennesaw because it was an interesting claim and I wanted to see if it was true. It turned out that, at least in the case of all homes being legally required to have a gun, it is not true. I pointed that out, and you have as of yet refused to acknowledge your mistake. In fact, you've claimed not to have made any mistakes, despite the evidence to the contrary. You say you can't take a discussion with me seriously because I say there is no compelling evidence and a link is broken, but so far as I can tell that broken link would not have provided any evidence of a genocide, anyway. You say you can't have a serious conversation with someone who began by calling you a liar (going on to say "a question or two would have yielded better results), but as I've shown you, I did not begin by calling you a liar, and asked questions in my very first response to you. You called me a troll simply for using the multi-quote function. You said that you stopped reading my post which used multi-quote after it passed a dozen paragraphs, but I only wrote 10 paragraphs in that post, none particularly long. I have to say, if anyone aught to be talking about not being able to have a serious conversation here, it's me.

But I'll continue gamely on and ask, once again, what your evidence is that whites are being targeted by an attempt to commit genocide, and who exactly is making this attempt. Are all minorities part of this attempt? Only certain minorities? Are whites complicit in their own genocide? What makes it genocide, rather than simply a declining birth rate?

Can you admit to having made mistakes in this conversation?

I'll admit that everything I said about you is true:

"Kennesaw is noted for its unique firearms legislation in response to Morton Grove, Illinois' law mandating gun prohibition. In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21]:[21]

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore."

Kennesaw, Georgia - Wikipedia

It's symbolic, I realize. But I'm not wrong nor did I lie about it. And if you want to get your facts from Unkotare, you may as well get your nutritional recommendations from a bag of M&Ms.

Now, you want to say something OR are you still going to imply that I lied?

The Kennesaw law is not only symbolic, it contains exemptions which basically make it that anyone who wishes to can decide not to keep a gun. The law does not require every home to have a gun.

Sec. 34-21. - Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(a)In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

(Ord. No. 2009-03, Exh. A, 2-16-09)

Municode Library

So every head of household is required to maintain a firearm and ammunition.....except for those who cannot use such a firearm because of a disability, those who are poor, felons, and anyone who opposes doing so.

Your original quote about Kennesaw was this:

By contrast, the safest town in Georgia - possibly America is Kennesaw, Georgia... which is predominantly white AND it is required, by law, that each home have a gun in it.

That is untrue, as every home is not required by law to have a gun in it. Even if the law in question were enforced, it would not require every home to have a gun in it, because pretty much anyone can be exempt. So yes, you were wrong about Kennesaw.

I did not say or imply that you lied, but instead that you made a mistake. I've actually said explicitly more than once that you've made a mistake rather than lie. That you continue to think I'm saying you are lying seems to me to say more about what you feel about the situation than what I do.

I didn't say anything about getting facts from Unkotare, but instead pointed out that he agreed with me about Dred Scott being considered a terrible decision, after you said I "searched the internet" for someone to agree with me. I didn't have to search, as someone agreed with me before I even posted about it.

You still have not explained about your genocide claim, after me asking about it multiple times.

You can give us a song and dance; play semantics; argue all you like; put a spin on it. The law does what I said it does and as long as you're dancing around making false claims, we have nothing to discuss relative to the real topic. You aren't Perry fucking Mason and the whole point of the Kennesaw law was to prove a point - that gun control don't work and a place can be pro-gun and a very safe place to be.

Should you decide it isn't worth me continuing to prove that you were wrong, you can apologize and ask about the white genocide. Otherwise you are pissing in the wind.

The law does not do what you said. I provided proof in the form of the actual law, which provides exemptions to pretty much anyone who wants to be exempt.

You are absolutely right that the Kennesaw law was not meant to be an enforced law, but was making a point; it was, in fact, passed in response to a handgun ban in another town. FALSE: Mandatory Gun Ownership Law Caused Crime Rates to Plummet I also agree that a place being safe while pro-gun was part of that point, and was a valid point. However, you are the one dancing around the fact that the law never actually required every home to own a gun, as you claimed. There were always exceptions to the law, and the law was never meant to be enforced, meaning no one was ever actually required to own a gun or have a gun in their home.

You have not proven me wrong about Kennesaw. You have simply ignored the fact that the law provides exemptions to pretty much anyone who wants to be exempt. You continue to be seemingly incapable of admitting any wrong; simply saying, "Yeah, they made very broad exceptions to this law, so it didn't require everyone to own a gun." or perhaps, "I didn't take the exemptions into account" would have ended this a ways back. But here you are, continuing to stick by the claim that the law requires every home to have a gun, when it clearly does not.

I am starting to wonder if you are tying the rest of the conversation to Kennesaw to avoid explaining your claims of white genocide....

You are wrong. The law as I stated DID exist. You said you could find no law and then I proved you wrong. Then, you wanted to make the point I made the focal point (that the law was largely symbolic.)

What you want to do is call me a liar (something you wouldn't say to my face BTW) and rely on semantics when the over-all point, in context, was a part of the bigger picture that cities with a predominantly white population that owns guns is safer than more predominantly black cities where firearms are discouraged.

I won't have a discussion with you as long as you don't simply STFU about Kennesaw. What I will do just to prove that we both know what your long term strategy is will be the following:

YOU state that this is where we will have to agree to disagree and allow others to make up their own mind, after reading the law. That's a close a compromise that I can give you when you've done your best to alienate me. You're wrong; you haven't proven shit and the only people you'll get to agree with you are professional trolls.

According to one news story:

"In 1982, Kennesaw was a city of about 5,000, "a rural population of Southern conservatives, strong Second Amendment advocates," city spokeswoman Pam Davis says. The city enacted the measure in response to a law passed in Morton Grove, Ill., that outlawed gun ownership.

"When the law was passed, it was common knowledge that it was not going to be enforceable," Davis says. "It was a symbolic gesture."

Still, the crime rate, not that high to begin with, plummeted after the law was enacted — by 89%, compared with a 10% drop statewide, according to published accounts. Davis says there were 11 burglaries per 1,000 residents before the law, 2.7 after. Despite slight fluctuations, she says, crime here "is significantly lower" than similar-sized Georgia cities."

Georgia town not alone in using gun law as 'deterrent'

USA Today seems pretty mainstream to me.

5 American cities that require you to own a gun

The law as you stated did NOT exist, as you failed to mention the extremely large exceptions to the law. If a law were passed stating that all men must engage in 2 years of military service, but it went on to say that conscientious objectors, men who are disabled, and men over the age of 35 are exempt, it would be wrong to state that the law required all men to have 2 years of military service.

If you won't have a discussion with me because I refuse to accept your incorrect statement about the Kennesaw law, that is all you. I cannot help it that you are unwilling to admit to a mistake.

What I have proven, by quoting the actual law, is that the law does not, and never did, apply to every home in Kennesaw. Even if it were more than symbolic, even if the police attempted to enforce the law, it would not apply to every home in Kennesaw. Therefore, it is wrong to say that every home in Kennesaw is required by law to have a gun. I quoted the law for you, did you not read it? Are you denying that as written, the law does not apply to anyone who doesn't want a gun in their home, not to mention multiple other exceptions?

I have never tried to deny that the law was symbolic, nor that crime rates dropped after its passage. Nor have I denied that Kennesaw is a majority white town.

Clearly we disagree. Will you actually answer questions about other subjects if Kennsaw is dropped as a subject? To this point, you've mostly ignored questions.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The law as you stated did NOT exist, as you failed to mention the extremely large exceptions to the law. If a law were passed stating that all men must engage in 2 years of military service, but it went on to say that conscientious objectors, men who are disabled, and men over the age of 35 are exempt, it would be wrong to state that the law required all men to have 2 years of military service.

If you won't have a discussion with me because I refuse to accept your incorrect statement about the Kennesaw law, that is all you. I cannot help it that you are unwilling to admit to a mistake.

What I have proven, by quoting the actual law, is that the law does not, and never did, apply to every home in Kennesaw. Even if it were more than symbolic, even if the police attempted to enforce the law, it would not apply to every home in Kennesaw. Therefore, it is wrong to say that every home in Kennesaw is required by law to have a gun. I quoted the law for you, did you not read it? Are you denying that as written, the law does not apply to anyone who doesn't want a gun in their home, not to mention multiple other exceptions?

I have never tried to deny that the law was symbolic, nor that crime rates dropped after its passage. Nor have I denied that Kennesaw is a majority white town.

Clearly we disagree. Will you actually answer questions about other subjects if Kennsaw is dropped as a subject? To this point, you've mostly ignored questions.

You won't get humorme to answer anything, he believes it is you who should simply take his word for things, as he will then throw out that he has credentials to look authoritative. He is a Sovereign Citizen wingnut that failed basic English comprehension. Case in point, his claims about Kennesaw being factual when they are but his own inept interpretation of trying to make statements fit his ideologically inane ideals/theories.

I suggest buying stock in aluminum/tin foil as he goes through his tin foil hats rather quickly.

 

[Unkotare]

..... secure the blessings of Liberty to the posterity of our founding fathers, who just happened to be white, right?

Thomas Jefferson was a Founding Father.

George Washington was a Founding Father.

I do not respond to moronic and irrelevant posts. You're wasting your time and not making a point.

Do you know what the word “posterity” means?

 

[Humorme]

I'll admit that everything I said about you is true:

"Kennesaw is noted for its unique firearms legislation in response to Morton Grove, Illinois' law mandating gun prohibition. In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21]:[21]

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore."

Kennesaw, Georgia - Wikipedia

It's symbolic, I realize. But I'm not wrong nor did I lie about it. And if you want to get your facts from Unkotare, you may as well get your nutritional recommendations from a bag of M&Ms.

Now, you want to say something OR are you still going to imply that I lied?

The Kennesaw law is not only symbolic, it contains exemptions which basically make it that anyone who wishes to can decide not to keep a gun. The law does not require every home to have a gun.

Sec. 34-21. - Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(a)In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

(Ord. No. 2009-03, Exh. A, 2-16-09)

Municode Library

So every head of household is required to maintain a firearm and ammunition.....except for those who cannot use such a firearm because of a disability, those who are poor, felons, and anyone who opposes doing so.

Your original quote about Kennesaw was this:

By contrast, the safest town in Georgia - possibly America is Kennesaw, Georgia... which is predominantly white AND it is required, by law, that each home have a gun in it.

That is untrue, as every home is not required by law to have a gun in it. Even if the law in question were enforced, it would not require every home to have a gun in it, because pretty much anyone can be exempt. So yes, you were wrong about Kennesaw.

I did not say or imply that you lied, but instead that you made a mistake. I've actually said explicitly more than once that you've made a mistake rather than lie. That you continue to think I'm saying you are lying seems to me to say more about what you feel about the situation than what I do.

I didn't say anything about getting facts from Unkotare, but instead pointed out that he agreed with me about Dred Scott being considered a terrible decision, after you said I "searched the internet" for someone to agree with me. I didn't have to search, as someone agreed with me before I even posted about it.

You still have not explained about your genocide claim, after me asking about it multiple times.

You can give us a song and dance; play semantics; argue all you like; put a spin on it. The law does what I said it does and as long as you're dancing around making false claims, we have nothing to discuss relative to the real topic. You aren't Perry fucking Mason and the whole point of the Kennesaw law was to prove a point - that gun control don't work and a place can be pro-gun and a very safe place to be.

Should you decide it isn't worth me continuing to prove that you were wrong, you can apologize and ask about the white genocide. Otherwise you are pissing in the wind.

The law does not do what you said. I provided proof in the form of the actual law, which provides exemptions to pretty much anyone who wants to be exempt.

You are absolutely right that the Kennesaw law was not meant to be an enforced law, but was making a point; it was, in fact, passed in response to a handgun ban in another town. FALSE: Mandatory Gun Ownership Law Caused Crime Rates to Plummet I also agree that a place being safe while pro-gun was part of that point, and was a valid point. However, you are the one dancing around the fact that the law never actually required every home to own a gun, as you claimed. There were always exceptions to the law, and the law was never meant to be enforced, meaning no one was ever actually required to own a gun or have a gun in their home.

You have not proven me wrong about Kennesaw. You have simply ignored the fact that the law provides exemptions to pretty much anyone who wants to be exempt. You continue to be seemingly incapable of admitting any wrong; simply saying, "Yeah, they made very broad exceptions to this law, so it didn't require everyone to own a gun." or perhaps, "I didn't take the exemptions into account" would have ended this a ways back. But here you are, continuing to stick by the claim that the law requires every home to have a gun, when it clearly does not.

I am starting to wonder if you are tying the rest of the conversation to Kennesaw to avoid explaining your claims of white genocide....

You are wrong. The law as I stated DID exist. You said you could find no law and then I proved you wrong. Then, you wanted to make the point I made the focal point (that the law was largely symbolic.)

What you want to do is call me a liar (something you wouldn't say to my face BTW) and rely on semantics when the over-all point, in context, was a part of the bigger picture that cities with a predominantly white population that owns guns is safer than more predominantly black cities where firearms are discouraged.

I won't have a discussion with you as long as you don't simply STFU about Kennesaw. What I will do just to prove that we both know what your long term strategy is will be the following:

YOU state that this is where we will have to agree to disagree and allow others to make up their own mind, after reading the law. That's a close a compromise that I can give you when you've done your best to alienate me. You're wrong; you haven't proven shit and the only people you'll get to agree with you are professional trolls.

According to one news story:

"In 1982, Kennesaw was a city of about 5,000, "a rural population of Southern conservatives, strong Second Amendment advocates," city spokeswoman Pam Davis says. The city enacted the measure in response to a law passed in Morton Grove, Ill., that outlawed gun ownership.

"When the law was passed, it was common knowledge that it was not going to be enforceable," Davis says. "It was a symbolic gesture."

Still, the crime rate, not that high to begin with, plummeted after the law was enacted — by 89%, compared with a 10% drop statewide, according to published accounts. Davis says there were 11 burglaries per 1,000 residents before the law, 2.7 after. Despite slight fluctuations, she says, crime here "is significantly lower" than similar-sized Georgia cities."

Georgia town not alone in using gun law as 'deterrent'

USA Today seems pretty mainstream to me.

5 American cities that require you to own a gun

The law as you stated did NOT exist, as you failed to mention the extremely large exceptions to the law. If a law were passed stating that all men must engage in 2 years of military service, but it went on to say that conscientious objectors, men who are disabled, and men over the age of 35 are exempt, it would be wrong to state that the law required all men to have 2 years of military service.

If you won't have a discussion with me because I refuse to accept your incorrect statement about the Kennesaw law, that is all you. I cannot help it that you are unwilling to admit to a mistake.

What I have proven, by quoting the actual law, is that the law does not, and never did, apply to every home in Kennesaw. Even if it were more than symbolic, even if the police attempted to enforce the law, it would not apply to every home in Kennesaw. Therefore, it is wrong to say that every home in Kennesaw is required by law to have a gun. I quoted the law for you, did you not read it? Are you denying that as written, the law does not apply to anyone who doesn't want a gun in their home, not to mention multiple other exceptions?

I have never tried to deny that the law was symbolic, nor that crime rates dropped after its passage. Nor have I denied that Kennesaw is a majority white town.

Clearly we disagree. Will you actually answer questions about other subjects if Kennsaw is dropped as a subject? To this point, you've mostly ignored questions.

IF and when you figure out that the Kennesaw is what the law is (and NO law does what it purports to do) I would list the things that prove my case on the subtle genocide of the white culture (which is inclusive of race.)

I made a simple statement about the Kennesaw law AND you want to argue your interpretation of the law after I had stated it was largely symbolic. But, symbolic or not, it had a great enough impact on the people that its interpretative value by the general public (who are not so anal retentive that they spend hours trying to put their own spin on the statute) resulted in a drop in crime. And even that is not the issue.

What I deduce by you constantly misrepresenting what I say, is that you want to draw me into a similar battle of which you are not qualified, simply to try and display what you falsely believe to be your superior intellect.

Until your ass has been in court a few times; until you have had your Freedom and Liberty at stake; until your life has been threatened and you can name scores of friends and acquaintances that have been killed, you don't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of winning any pretend debate on this board or any other.

Until you can admit what I said and in what context, regarding Kennesaw, I have to question your motives. Are you wanting to learn something OR prove that you think you are superior to those whose lives you don't know shit about?

 

[Humorme]

..... secure the blessings of Liberty to the posterity of our founding fathers, who just happened to be white, right?

Thomas Jefferson was a Founding Father.

George Washington was a Founding Father.

I do not respond to moronic and irrelevant posts. You're wasting your time and not making a point.

Do you know what the word “posterity” means?

Do YOU know what it means? It's pretty damn obvious if you READ TANEY'S fourteen pages documenting it in the Dred Scott decision (and that is just the high spots.)

You can keep trying to badger me, but it's not doing anything except confirming your abject stupidity. What you need here is an echo chamber since you think you know everything about every topic.

 

[Unkotare]

..... secure the blessings of Liberty to the posterity of our founding fathers, who just happened to be white, right?

Thomas Jefferson was a Founding Father.

George Washington was a Founding Father.

I do not respond to moronic and irrelevant posts. You're wasting your time and not making a point.

Do you know what the word “posterity” means?

Do YOU know what it means? .....

Yes I do. That's why I kindly posted those interesting photos.