If you are disliked because of your race...

[Unkotare]

13 Worst Supreme Court Decisions of All Time

 

[Montrovant]

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.

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: 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?

I guess you don't want to let the subject go.

I don't have to admit to what you said, as I've actually quoted it. Multiple times. Here, I'll do so again:

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.

How have I misrepresented that?

I have been happy to admit and agree that the law is symbolic. Even as a symbolic law, the text of the law means it does not cover everyone. Not every home is required to have a gun in it whether the law is symbolic or not. That the text of the law provides exemptions, meaning it does not require each home to have a gun in it, is an objective fact. Even the text which says that heads of households must maintain guns does not specify where those guns must be maintained, so it could be argued that the guns could be kept in another location, again meaning not every home is required to have a gun.

I'll quote the section again:

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

If someone conscientiously opposes maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs, they are exempt. That pretty means anyone can say they don't want a gun, and the law does not require them to have it, not even symbolically.

What is the context that changes what you said? What is the context that makes your quote "that each home have a gun in it" mean something different?

You can brag about your supposed legal credentials all you want. It doesn't change the text of the law.

I'm trying to find out the specifics of your beliefs and claims. I don't see how my motives come into play when you won't answer questions about those things. Whatever my motives, I can't learn about something you refuse to discuss.

The post where you brought up Kennesaw is #63 in this thread, to provide context.

 

[Humorme]

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.

Your photos mean nothing. You asked about Thomas Jefferson. At the federal level, only whites could be citizens during Thomas Jefferson's era.

Jefferson was also a citizen of the state of Virginia. Virginia had outlawed miscegenation in 1691. So, the children he had by Sally Hemmings were not and could not be U.S. Citizens under federal or state law.

Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws, so they were not qualified to be citizens via any changes in the law AND the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified so you have another problem there... and finally, above all, Dred Scott v Sanford was never over-turned. It was presumed moot due to the passage of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Unkotare]

Some people trying to post on this thread clearly understand nothing about government, history, language and the law. It’s disappointing.

 

[Unkotare]

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.

Your photos mean nothing. You asked about Thomas Jefferson. At the federal level, only whites could be citizens during Thomas Jefferson's era.

....

This is why I asked you if you knew what “posterity” means. It seems I got my answer.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Your photos mean nothing. You asked about Thomas Jefferson. At the federal level, only whites could be citizens during Thomas Jefferson's era.

Jefferson was also a citizen of the state of Virginia. Virginia had outlawed miscegenation in 1691. So, the children he had by Sally Hemmings were not and could not be U.S. Citizens under federal or state law.

Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws, so they were not qualified to be citizens via any changes in the law AND the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified so you have another problem there... and finally, above all, Dred Scott v Sanford was never over-turned. It was presumed moot due to the passage of the 14th Amendment.

Whether the 14th was ratified illegally or legally, would you agree that at this point it is de facto part of the Constitution?

If you agree, would you then also agree that Dred Scott is, in fact, no longer valid because of the 14th?

What about the Civil Rights Act of 1866, how do you think that fits in? I don't think it was ever declared unconstitutional, it was passed over presidential veto, is it valid even if the 14th is not?

 

[Unkotare]

The 14th Amendment was legally ratified and is part of the abiding law of my country. The idiot confederate criminals should have thought through the consequences of illegally 'seceding' from the Union if they didn't (or don't) like it.

 

[Humorme]

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?

I guess you don't want to let the subject go.

I don't have to admit to what you said, as I've actually quoted it. Multiple times. Here, I'll do so again:

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.

How have I misrepresented that?

I have been happy to admit and agree that the law is symbolic. Even as a symbolic law, the text of the law means it does not cover everyone. Not every home is required to have a gun in it whether the law is symbolic or not. That the text of the law provides exemptions, meaning it does not require each home to have a gun in it, is an objective fact. Even the text which says that heads of households must maintain guns does not specify where those guns must be maintained, so it could be argued that the guns could be kept in another location, again meaning not every home is required to have a gun.

I'll quote the section again:

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

If someone conscientiously opposes maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs, they are exempt. That pretty means anyone can say they don't want a gun, and the law does not require them to have it, not even symbolically.

What is the context that changes what you said? What is the context that makes your quote "that each home have a gun in it" mean something different?

You can brag about your supposed legal credentials all you want. It doesn't change the text of the law.

I'm trying to find out the specifics of your beliefs and claims. I don't see how my motives come into play when you won't answer questions about those things. Whatever my motives, I can't learn about something you refuse to discuss.

The post where you brought up Kennesaw is #63 in this thread, to provide context.

You did not admit that the Kennesaw was symbolic. I did. Had I not done that, it was the only logical road you could take to attack me. That is your first misrepresentation.

Secondly, I said that Kennesaw is the safest city in Georgia. It's brought up in the Georgia legislature every year and it seems to be there claim to fame. So, I am not lying. If their criteria and yours are not in sync, that's your problem.

Who said a damn thing about my "legal" credentials? I work as an activist. I'm in the streets with the people who make the changes.

In simple terms, unlike your buddy, I've done more than post all day long on the Internet.

 

[Humorme]

The 14th Amendment was legally ratified and is part of the abiding law of my country. The idiot confederate criminals should have thought through the consequences of illegally 'seceding' from the Union if they didn't (or don't) like it.

All political jockeying aside, and I'm not a partisan on this subject, the 14th Amendment most assuredly was not legally ratified. You have to look at things objectively sometimes.

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

So, bottom line here son. Should I believe a professional Internet poster OR a judge when it comes to matters of the law?

And, hold onto your thoughts for a moment.

You post so much that I won't begin to recall the times you've supported my posts when the anti-immigrant lobby has said so - called "illegal aliens" are not covered by the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection of the laws." How much B.S. have I endured from them for stating the obvious?

The 14th Amendment DOES guarantee all persons the equal protection of the laws. Equally, the 14th Amendment distinguishes between citizens and persons. Citizens get additional privileges and immunities; however, all of us are entitled the equal protection of the laws. And every human being has unalienable Rights. How many times, Unkotare have you witnessed the right climb my ass over me standing my ground on that?

I'm not a partisan hack. The 14th Amendment is de facto law. It was illegally passed AND it cannot be employed as an ex post facto law. It says what it does, but if you look at the precedents the right is using to wage wars against immigrants, what case law are they relying on? And who is winning that war? And who is going to stack the United States Supreme Court?

This subject is far more complex than you can fathom. But, suffice it to say, the 14th Amendment did not serve as a tool to make races equal; it is an amendment that made slaves out of all of us.

 

[Humorme]

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.

Your photos mean nothing. You asked about Thomas Jefferson. At the federal level, only whites could be citizens during Thomas Jefferson's era.

Jefferson was also a citizen of the state of Virginia. Virginia had outlawed miscegenation in 1691. So, the children he had by Sally Hemmings were not and could not be U.S. Citizens under federal or state law.

Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws, so they were not qualified to be citizens via any changes in the law AND the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified so you have another problem there... and finally, above all, Dred Scott v Sanford was never over-turned. It was presumed moot due to the passage of the 14th Amendment.

Whether the 14th was ratified illegally or legally, would you agree that at this point it is de facto part of the Constitution?

If you agree, would you then also agree that Dred Scott is, in fact, no longer valid because of the 14th?

What about the Civil Rights Act of 1866, how do you think that fits in? I don't think it was ever declared unconstitutional, it was passed over presidential veto, is it valid even if the 14th is not?

The 14th Amendment is de facto law in the United States, but beyond the fact that it did not pass constitutional muster, everything you're asking is purely speculation.

There was a move to challenge the Civil Rights of 1866, but was presumed moot due to the passage of the 14th Amendment. The Dred Scott decision was never over-ruled. It was presumed to be moot due to the 14th Amendment. One day I would presume that the anti-immigrant lobby would get sick of the bumbling idiots and refugees from the Nazi Party they have attracted and rethink their legal strategy consistent with the Justices on the Supreme Court. But, I don't presume. IF they ever looked at the facts, my feeling is that the 14th Amendment would be declared null and void.

Do I think it will happen? No. I think we will have a small civil war just before the people who supported Trump fade into oblivion. It will be so insignificant, it won't even register as news in most other countries.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Your photos mean nothing. You asked about Thomas Jefferson. At the federal level, only whites could be citizens during Thomas Jefferson's era.

Jefferson was also a citizen of the state of Virginia. Virginia had outlawed miscegenation in 1691. So, the children he had by Sally Hemmings were not and could not be U.S. Citizens under federal or state law.

Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws, so they were not qualified to be citizens via any changes in the law AND the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified so you have another problem there... and finally, above all, Dred Scott v Sanford was never over-turned. It was presumed moot due to the passage of the 14th Amendment.

Whether the 14th was ratified illegally or legally, would you agree that at this point it is de facto part of the Constitution?

If you agree, would you then also agree that Dred Scott is, in fact, no longer valid because of the 14th?

What about the Civil Rights Act of 1866, how do you think that fits in? I don't think it was ever declared unconstitutional, it was passed over presidential veto, is it valid even if the 14th is not?

The 14th Amendment is de facto law in the United States, but beyond the fact that it did not pass constitutional muster, everything you're asking is purely speculation.

There was a move to challenge the Civil Rights of 1866, but was presumed moot due to the passage of the 14th Amendment. The Dred Scott decision was never over-ruled. It was presumed to be moot due to the 14th Amendment. One day I would presume that the anti-immigrant lobby would get sick of the bumbling idiots and refugees from the Nazi Party they have attracted and rethink their legal strategy consistent with the Justices on the Supreme Court. But, I don't presume. IF they ever looked at the facts, my feeling is that the 14th Amendment would be declared null and void.

Do I think it will happen? No. I think we will have a small civil war just before the people who supported Trump fade into oblivion. It will be so insignificant, it won't even register as news in most other countries.

How does a constitutional amendment not pass constitutional muster? That's an odd way to put it.

If who ever looked at the fact, the USSC? The anti-immigrant lobby? You are unclear.

 

[Humorme]

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

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

Your photos mean nothing. You asked about Thomas Jefferson. At the federal level, only whites could be citizens during Thomas Jefferson's era.

Jefferson was also a citizen of the state of Virginia. Virginia had outlawed miscegenation in 1691. So, the children he had by Sally Hemmings were not and could not be U.S. Citizens under federal or state law.

Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws, so they were not qualified to be citizens via any changes in the law AND the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified so you have another problem there... and finally, above all, Dred Scott v Sanford was never over-turned. It was presumed moot due to the passage of the 14th Amendment.

Whether the 14th was ratified illegally or legally, would you agree that at this point it is de facto part of the Constitution?

If you agree, would you then also agree that Dred Scott is, in fact, no longer valid because of the 14th?

What about the Civil Rights Act of 1866, how do you think that fits in? I don't think it was ever declared unconstitutional, it was passed over presidential veto, is it valid even if the 14th is not?

The 14th Amendment is de facto law in the United States, but beyond the fact that it did not pass constitutional muster, everything you're asking is purely speculation.

There was a move to challenge the Civil Rights of 1866, but was presumed moot due to the passage of the 14th Amendment. The Dred Scott decision was never over-ruled. It was presumed to be moot due to the 14th Amendment. One day I would presume that the anti-immigrant lobby would get sick of the bumbling idiots and refugees from the Nazi Party they have attracted and rethink their legal strategy consistent with the Justices on the Supreme Court. But, I don't presume. IF they ever looked at the facts, my feeling is that the 14th Amendment would be declared null and void.

Do I think it will happen? No. I think we will have a small civil war just before the people who supported Trump fade into oblivion. It will be so insignificant, it won't even register as news in most other countries.

How does a constitutional amendment not pass constitutional muster? That's an odd way to put it.

If who ever looked at the fact, the USSC? The anti-immigrant lobby? You are unclear.

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

There is the link. The judge outlined THREE major reasons the 14th Amendment failed constitutional muster. It was not passed in accordance with the requisite laws.

IF the anti-immigrant lobby had anyone with a little bit of legal acumen, they would pursue the historical information in that link.

However, in their minds, the 14th is perfectly legal, but is not being enforced as per original intent... the same argument people make with respect to the Second Amendment and NONE of those arguments work in the real world due to the activist courts.

In my opinion, if we could teach people the difference between citizens and guests; unalienable Rights versus the privileges of citizenship; the real intent of the Constitution, we could resolve a lot of these racial battles to everyone's benefit.

 

[Montrovant]

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?

I guess you don't want to let the subject go.

I don't have to admit to what you said, as I've actually quoted it. Multiple times. Here, I'll do so again:

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.

How have I misrepresented that?

I have been happy to admit and agree that the law is symbolic. Even as a symbolic law, the text of the law means it does not cover everyone. Not every home is required to have a gun in it whether the law is symbolic or not. That the text of the law provides exemptions, meaning it does not require each home to have a gun in it, is an objective fact. Even the text which says that heads of households must maintain guns does not specify where those guns must be maintained, so it could be argued that the guns could be kept in another location, again meaning not every home is required to have a gun.

I'll quote the section again:

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

If someone conscientiously opposes maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs, they are exempt. That pretty means anyone can say they don't want a gun, and the law does not require them to have it, not even symbolically.

What is the context that changes what you said? What is the context that makes your quote "that each home have a gun in it" mean something different?

You can brag about your supposed legal credentials all you want. It doesn't change the text of the law.

I'm trying to find out the specifics of your beliefs and claims. I don't see how my motives come into play when you won't answer questions about those things. Whatever my motives, I can't learn about something you refuse to discuss.

The post where you brought up Kennesaw is #63 in this thread, to provide context.

You did not admit that the Kennesaw was symbolic. I did. Had I not done that, it was the only logical road you could take to attack me. That is your first misrepresentation.

Secondly, I said that Kennesaw is the safest city in Georgia. It's brought up in the Georgia legislature every year and it seems to be there claim to fame. So, I am not lying. If their criteria and yours are not in sync, that's your problem.

Who said a damn thing about my "legal" credentials? I work as an activist. I'm in the streets with the people who make the changes.

In simple terms, unlike your buddy, I've done more than post all day long on the Internet.

I have, on multiple occasions, admitted that the Kennesaw law is symbolic. Have you not been reading the posts you are replying to?

You are absolutely right that the Kennesaw law was not meant to be an enforced law, but was making a point

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.

^^ Note in this quote I say "even if" the law were more than symbolic, indicating that it is only symbolic.

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.

That law is symbolic. It is not enforced.

^^ This quote is from my very first response to you about the Kennesaw law.

Now, I'm not calling you a liar, but you are clearly and objectively mistaken in saying that I did not admit the Kennesaw law is symbolic. I did, in fact, state that before you did, as can be seen by simply looking at the relevant posts. You made your statement about the Kennesaw law, and in the very next post, I mentioned that the law is symbolic. Those are posts #63-64, if you would like to check for yourself.

I did not say that you are lying about Kennesaw being the safest city in Georgia. In fact, although I posted a link which showed it as fourth safest place to live in Georgia, I also said it was the one thing about Kennesaw you said that might not be untrue. I also later said that whether it is the safest or not depends on what criteria are used. This is all easily found in this thread.

Credentials was a bad word to use. I was talking about you making multiple statements about time spent in court, and never losing a case, for example:

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.

I don't believe that I have once called you a liar. You, on the other hand, have called me a liar. It's odd that you are the one who keeps bringing up being called a liar, then.

 

[Montrovant]

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

Your photos mean nothing. You asked about Thomas Jefferson. At the federal level, only whites could be citizens during Thomas Jefferson's era.

Jefferson was also a citizen of the state of Virginia. Virginia had outlawed miscegenation in 1691. So, the children he had by Sally Hemmings were not and could not be U.S. Citizens under federal or state law.

Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws, so they were not qualified to be citizens via any changes in the law AND the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified so you have another problem there... and finally, above all, Dred Scott v Sanford was never over-turned. It was presumed moot due to the passage of the 14th Amendment.

Whether the 14th was ratified illegally or legally, would you agree that at this point it is de facto part of the Constitution?

If you agree, would you then also agree that Dred Scott is, in fact, no longer valid because of the 14th?

What about the Civil Rights Act of 1866, how do you think that fits in? I don't think it was ever declared unconstitutional, it was passed over presidential veto, is it valid even if the 14th is not?

The 14th Amendment is de facto law in the United States, but beyond the fact that it did not pass constitutional muster, everything you're asking is purely speculation.

There was a move to challenge the Civil Rights of 1866, but was presumed moot due to the passage of the 14th Amendment. The Dred Scott decision was never over-ruled. It was presumed to be moot due to the 14th Amendment. One day I would presume that the anti-immigrant lobby would get sick of the bumbling idiots and refugees from the Nazi Party they have attracted and rethink their legal strategy consistent with the Justices on the Supreme Court. But, I don't presume. IF they ever looked at the facts, my feeling is that the 14th Amendment would be declared null and void.

Do I think it will happen? No. I think we will have a small civil war just before the people who supported Trump fade into oblivion. It will be so insignificant, it won't even register as news in most other countries.

How does a constitutional amendment not pass constitutional muster? That's an odd way to put it.

If who ever looked at the fact, the USSC? The anti-immigrant lobby? You are unclear.

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

There is the link. The judge outlined THREE major reasons the 14th Amendment failed constitutional muster. It was not passed in accordance with the requisite laws.

IF the anti-immigrant lobby had anyone with a little bit of legal acumen, they would pursue the historical information in that link.

However, in their minds, the 14th is perfectly legal, but is not being enforced as per original intent... the same argument people make with respect to the Second Amendment and NONE of those arguments work in the real world due to the activist courts.

In my opinion, if we could teach people the difference between citizens and guests; unalienable Rights versus the privileges of citizenship; the real intent of the Constitution, we could resolve a lot of these racial battles to everyone's benefit.

I understand the argument that the 14th was passed illegally. What I meant was that "passing constitutional muster" is a phrase I associate with the court ruling on whether a law violates the constitution or not. I'm not sure if an amendment to the constitution can be said to violate the constitution; it is part of the constitution. I was only commenting on the turn of phrase, not the idea behind it.

I don't have a strong opinion about how the 14th was passed; it was a unique time in the country's history. Whether it should have been allowed to pass as it did or not, however, at this point it is well past the point of declaring it invalid. It is the 14th amendment, and another amendment would be required to nullify it.

I find it unlikely that no one involved in "the anti-immigrant lobby" has any legal acumen.

 

[Humorme]

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?

I guess you don't want to let the subject go.

I don't have to admit to what you said, as I've actually quoted it. Multiple times. Here, I'll do so again:

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.

How have I misrepresented that?

I have been happy to admit and agree that the law is symbolic. Even as a symbolic law, the text of the law means it does not cover everyone. Not every home is required to have a gun in it whether the law is symbolic or not. That the text of the law provides exemptions, meaning it does not require each home to have a gun in it, is an objective fact. Even the text which says that heads of households must maintain guns does not specify where those guns must be maintained, so it could be argued that the guns could be kept in another location, again meaning not every home is required to have a gun.

I'll quote the section again:

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

If someone conscientiously opposes maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs, they are exempt. That pretty means anyone can say they don't want a gun, and the law does not require them to have it, not even symbolically.

What is the context that changes what you said? What is the context that makes your quote "that each home have a gun in it" mean something different?

You can brag about your supposed legal credentials all you want. It doesn't change the text of the law.

I'm trying to find out the specifics of your beliefs and claims. I don't see how my motives come into play when you won't answer questions about those things. Whatever my motives, I can't learn about something you refuse to discuss.

The post where you brought up Kennesaw is #63 in this thread, to provide context.

You did not admit that the Kennesaw was symbolic. I did. Had I not done that, it was the only logical road you could take to attack me. That is your first misrepresentation.

Secondly, I said that Kennesaw is the safest city in Georgia. It's brought up in the Georgia legislature every year and it seems to be there claim to fame. So, I am not lying. If their criteria and yours are not in sync, that's your problem.

Who said a damn thing about my "legal" credentials? I work as an activist. I'm in the streets with the people who make the changes.

In simple terms, unlike your buddy, I've done more than post all day long on the Internet.

I have, on multiple occasions, admitted that the Kennesaw law is symbolic. Have you not been reading the posts you are replying to?

You are absolutely right that the Kennesaw law was not meant to be an enforced law, but was making a point

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.

^^ Note in this quote I say "even if" the law were more than symbolic, indicating that it is only symbolic.

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.

That law is symbolic. It is not enforced.

^^ This quote is from my very first response to you about the Kennesaw law.

Now, I'm not calling you a liar, but you are clearly and objectively mistaken in saying that I did not admit the Kennesaw law is symbolic. I did, in fact, state that before you did, as can be seen by simply looking at the relevant posts. You made your statement about the Kennesaw law, and in the very next post, I mentioned that the law is symbolic. Those are posts #63-64, if you would like to check for yourself.

I did not say that you are lying about Kennesaw being the safest city in Georgia. In fact, although I posted a link which showed it as fourth safest place to live in Georgia, I also said it was the one thing about Kennesaw you said that might not be untrue. I also later said that whether it is the safest or not depends on what criteria are used. This is all easily found in this thread.

Credentials was a bad word to use. I was talking about you making multiple statements about time spent in court, and never losing a case, for example:

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.

I don't believe that I have once called you a liar. You, on the other hand, have called me a liar. It's odd that you are the one who keeps bringing up being called a liar, then.

I don't know how far you want to go with this. I said the law was symbolic first. So, why did I say that?

Had I not pointed it out first, YOU would have jumped on that to make a big dramatic case pointing out the obvious.

Many people fall for what they think laws say and the reputation dissuades a lot of would be street criminals from setting up shot in / around Kennesaw.

Be that as it may, Kennesaw's reputation illustrates, on a small scale, what I see as being indicative all across the nation.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I understand the argument that the 14th was passed illegally. What I meant was that "passing constitutional muster" is a phrase I associate with the court ruling on whether a law violates the constitution or not. I'm not sure if an amendment to the constitution can be said to violate the constitution; it is part of the constitution. I was only commenting on the turn of phrase, not the idea behind it.

I don't have a strong opinion about how the 14th was passed; it was a unique time in the country's history. Whether it should have been allowed to pass as it did or not, however, at this point it is well past the point of declaring it invalid. It is the 14th amendment, and another amendment would be required to nullify it.

I find it unlikely that no one involved in "the anti-immigrant lobby" has any legal acumen.

The idea that the 14th was illegally ratified came about in the 1950's as a theory put out

The subject has a historiography, and not altogether a savory one. In 1953, after the first round of arguments in Brown v. Board and the other school desegregation cases, the Supreme Court ordered counsel to answer certain queries regarding various events connected with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court was specifically interested in the intent of the framers respecting segregation, but a Tulane law professor, Walter J. Suthon, Jr., responded by publishing an article questioning the “dubious origin” of the amendment. In it, he traced the origins of Article V, the amending clause of the Constitution, put together a brief history of the proposal of the amendment and its forced ratification in the South, and concluded that the intent of the framers was irrelevant, for the whole proceeding, start to finish, was unconstitutional.

Was the Fourteenth Amendment Constitutionally Adopted? | Abbeville Institute

Numerous SCOTUS opinions have used the 14A from its time of ratification through that time and after, if it were truly illegally ratified, SCOTUS would have never used it to begin with.

 

[Montrovant]

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?

I guess you don't want to let the subject go.

I don't have to admit to what you said, as I've actually quoted it. Multiple times. Here, I'll do so again:

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.

How have I misrepresented that?

I have been happy to admit and agree that the law is symbolic. Even as a symbolic law, the text of the law means it does not cover everyone. Not every home is required to have a gun in it whether the law is symbolic or not. That the text of the law provides exemptions, meaning it does not require each home to have a gun in it, is an objective fact. Even the text which says that heads of households must maintain guns does not specify where those guns must be maintained, so it could be argued that the guns could be kept in another location, again meaning not every home is required to have a gun.

I'll quote the section again:

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

If someone conscientiously opposes maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs, they are exempt. That pretty means anyone can say they don't want a gun, and the law does not require them to have it, not even symbolically.

What is the context that changes what you said? What is the context that makes your quote "that each home have a gun in it" mean something different?

You can brag about your supposed legal credentials all you want. It doesn't change the text of the law.

I'm trying to find out the specifics of your beliefs and claims. I don't see how my motives come into play when you won't answer questions about those things. Whatever my motives, I can't learn about something you refuse to discuss.

The post where you brought up Kennesaw is #63 in this thread, to provide context.

You did not admit that the Kennesaw was symbolic. I did. Had I not done that, it was the only logical road you could take to attack me. That is your first misrepresentation.

Secondly, I said that Kennesaw is the safest city in Georgia. It's brought up in the Georgia legislature every year and it seems to be there claim to fame. So, I am not lying. If their criteria and yours are not in sync, that's your problem.

Who said a damn thing about my "legal" credentials? I work as an activist. I'm in the streets with the people who make the changes.

In simple terms, unlike your buddy, I've done more than post all day long on the Internet.

I have, on multiple occasions, admitted that the Kennesaw law is symbolic. Have you not been reading the posts you are replying to?

You are absolutely right that the Kennesaw law was not meant to be an enforced law, but was making a point

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.

^^ Note in this quote I say "even if" the law were more than symbolic, indicating that it is only symbolic.

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.

That law is symbolic. It is not enforced.

^^ This quote is from my very first response to you about the Kennesaw law.

Now, I'm not calling you a liar, but you are clearly and objectively mistaken in saying that I did not admit the Kennesaw law is symbolic. I did, in fact, state that before you did, as can be seen by simply looking at the relevant posts. You made your statement about the Kennesaw law, and in the very next post, I mentioned that the law is symbolic. Those are posts #63-64, if you would like to check for yourself.

I did not say that you are lying about Kennesaw being the safest city in Georgia. In fact, although I posted a link which showed it as fourth safest place to live in Georgia, I also said it was the one thing about Kennesaw you said that might not be untrue. I also later said that whether it is the safest or not depends on what criteria are used. This is all easily found in this thread.

Credentials was a bad word to use. I was talking about you making multiple statements about time spent in court, and never losing a case, for example:

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.

I don't believe that I have once called you a liar. You, on the other hand, have called me a liar. It's odd that you are the one who keeps bringing up being called a liar, then.

I don't know how far you want to go with this. I said the law was symbolic first. So, why did I say that?

Had I not pointed it out first, YOU would have jumped on that to make a big dramatic case pointing out the obvious.

Many people fall for what they think laws say and the reputation dissuades a lot of would be street criminals from setting up shot in / around Kennesaw.

Be that as it may, Kennesaw's reputation illustrates, on a small scale, what I see as being indicative all across the nation.

Wow. Just wow.

Please, go look at your post #63. Then look at the very next post, which was by me, post #64. In post #63, you made the first reference to Kennesaw's gun law. This is what you said:

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 all that you said about Kennesaw's gun law in that post.

In the very next post, in the post you got so upset about because I used multi-quote, I said this in response to your statement on Kennesaw:

That law is symbolic. It is not enforced.

How far do I want to go? I don't know. I'm wondering how long you will ignore the evidence which shows quite clearly that you are mistaken. I said that the Kennesaw law is symbolic in the post directly after you first mentioned it. I said that before you said anything about it being symbolic. It's not difficult to see. I've given you the post numbers, I've quoted the relevant portions of the posts, it's all right in front of you. I have no idea what it is that makes you incapable or unwilling to admit any mistake, but it's fascinating.

Do you deny that the only thing you said about Kennesaw in post #63 is what I quoted here? Do you deny that that was the first time you brought up Kennesaw in this thread? Do you deny that I said the Kennesaw law is symbolic in the very next post? I'm extremely curious how you rationalize arguing that you called the law symbolic before me, or how you rationalize your statement earlier that I "did not admit that the Kennesaw was symbolic," when I have done so multiple times. It's interesting and baffling.

Certainly mistaken beliefs about the Kennesaw law may have caused a decline in the crime rate. The city itself only claims that the burglary rate declined after the law passed on its website, but either way, potential criminals might have expected homes to have guns in them, even though the law was not enforced. If nothing else, that such a law passed would indicate that plenty of Kennesaw residents probably already had guns in their homes.

I don't know what you think Kennesaw's reputation indicates in relation to this thread. Is it just that gun ownership is a crime deterrent, or does it relate to the racial theme that the thread began with?

 

[Unkotare]

...the 14th Amendment most assuredly was not legally ratified. .....

Yes, it was.

 

[Unkotare]

.....

The 14th Amendment is de facto law in the United States....

And de jure.

 

[Humorme]

Your photos mean nothing. You asked about Thomas Jefferson. At the federal level, only whites could be citizens during Thomas Jefferson's era.

Jefferson was also a citizen of the state of Virginia. Virginia had outlawed miscegenation in 1691. So, the children he had by Sally Hemmings were not and could not be U.S. Citizens under federal or state law.

Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws, so they were not qualified to be citizens via any changes in the law AND the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified so you have another problem there... and finally, above all, Dred Scott v Sanford was never over-turned. It was presumed moot due to the passage of the 14th Amendment.

Whether the 14th was ratified illegally or legally, would you agree that at this point it is de facto part of the Constitution?

If you agree, would you then also agree that Dred Scott is, in fact, no longer valid because of the 14th?

What about the Civil Rights Act of 1866, how do you think that fits in? I don't think it was ever declared unconstitutional, it was passed over presidential veto, is it valid even if the 14th is not?

The 14th Amendment is de facto law in the United States, but beyond the fact that it did not pass constitutional muster, everything you're asking is purely speculation.

There was a move to challenge the Civil Rights of 1866, but was presumed moot due to the passage of the 14th Amendment. The Dred Scott decision was never over-ruled. It was presumed to be moot due to the 14th Amendment. One day I would presume that the anti-immigrant lobby would get sick of the bumbling idiots and refugees from the Nazi Party they have attracted and rethink their legal strategy consistent with the Justices on the Supreme Court. But, I don't presume. IF they ever looked at the facts, my feeling is that the 14th Amendment would be declared null and void.

Do I think it will happen? No. I think we will have a small civil war just before the people who supported Trump fade into oblivion. It will be so insignificant, it won't even register as news in most other countries.

How does a constitutional amendment not pass constitutional muster? That's an odd way to put it.

If who ever looked at the fact, the USSC? The anti-immigrant lobby? You are unclear.

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

There is the link. The judge outlined THREE major reasons the 14th Amendment failed constitutional muster. It was not passed in accordance with the requisite laws.

IF the anti-immigrant lobby had anyone with a little bit of legal acumen, they would pursue the historical information in that link.

However, in their minds, the 14th is perfectly legal, but is not being enforced as per original intent... the same argument people make with respect to the Second Amendment and NONE of those arguments work in the real world due to the activist courts.

In my opinion, if we could teach people the difference between citizens and guests; unalienable Rights versus the privileges of citizenship; the real intent of the Constitution, we could resolve a lot of these racial battles to everyone's benefit.

I understand the argument that the 14th was passed illegally. What I meant was that "passing constitutional muster" is a phrase I associate with the court ruling on whether a law violates the constitution or not. I'm not sure if an amendment to the constitution can be said to violate the constitution; it is part of the constitution. I was only commenting on the turn of phrase, not the idea behind it.

I don't have a strong opinion about how the 14th was passed; it was a unique time in the country's history. Whether it should have been allowed to pass as it did or not, however, at this point it is well past the point of declaring it invalid. It is the 14th amendment, and another amendment would be required to nullify it.

I find it unlikely that no one involved in "the anti-immigrant lobby" has any legal acumen.

Have you ever read the endless stuff they post in places like the immigration forum here? Summed up, they believe only legal citizens are afforded the equal protection of the laws and only legal citizens have unalienable Rights.