I'm not locking this thread, I didn't start it but I'm sure as hell involved in it and I haven't even begun to form my response to the things said in this thread.

Please, continue posting, follow the rules I've stated but continue to post.

This will be EgN's trial by fire of allowing debate on its forums, we will see if members can handle it.

The next common argument against the "people holding the power" is that "rifles won't do anything against tanks and bombs".

If that's how you think it would go down you should read Sun Tsu's The Art of War and Musashi's The Book of Five Rings. The militias have a tactical and logistical advantage against the government across all 50 states, assuming it came down to a civil war insurgency; which it would.

As for the terrorism topic, I can see how people would blame the U.S. for terrorists in Europe considering we were their primary adversary. However, let's remember that just because our Middle Eastern wars might have been the genesis of these terrorist groups, they did NOT force them to spread into European countries, nor did the U.S. have anything to do with other nations' foreign policy on refugees. (I'm not well versed on the history of terrorists in the EU, this is just how I feel about it atm with the limited knowledge I remember).

To add on to this, I think it's a good idea to post this. I've posted it before, but this is a much more appropriate setting. If you have any critique of it please post.

"The Second Amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights initially to ensure that all citizens had not only the right to bear arms, but to establish and uphold militias. The purpose of this is so that the citizens would be able to form a potential resistance against a tyrannical uprising in their government that threatens the Constitution, and this still applies today. This most common counter to this idea is that it is futile to resist the government today, as their military power far surpasses simple, rifle-wielding militias. However this argument is completely pointless, as it neglects the actual reason a tyrannical dictator would want to come to overthrow the Constitution in the first place. To understand the motives of a totalitarian regime, one would simply have to look at history. A perfect example of this would be Adolf Hitler. Regarded as one of the most power-hungry dictators of the all time, Hitler wanted nothing more than to expand his Reich through military power. In order to conquer regions, a civilization would need top level military power, as well as defense and infrastructure to protect against attacks. These conditions can only be met in a booming economy, or at least a stable one, with a cooperative populace to support the domination movement. This brings me to the premise of my argument, that a totalitarian government would never even think of usings its most powerful weapons to quell a resistance. For example, imagine that the U.S. government attempts to completely disarm all of its citizens. Obviously, many citizens would refuse to give up their guns, and a serious civil conflict would arise nationwide, potentially evolving into a civil war. The only way for the government to forcefully confiscate all arms would be to invade every home in order to take them, violating several amendments in the process. The citizens would most likely join forces through local militias so that they would be able to protect their rights. The common counter argument mentioned before applies here, as people will say that fighting against the government would be pointless if it would just involve the militias being blown to shreds by a drone strike. This argument is completely pointless, as the true purpose of a tyrannical government is not to simply kill its citizens, which they would have to do in America’s case. If a government were to use their highest power military weapons on the militias, they would be destroying their own populace, economy, and infrastructure in the process. This will then render the country nearly fallen, and it will become nearly powerless compared to other world powers. This is the polar opposite of what a totalitarian regime strives for."

The thought of Americans giving up their guns is truly laughable, because it will never happen.

The second ammendment isn’t for duck-hunting, it’s their to keep citizens (i.e. the militia) armed incase the government ever usurps. The second ammendment is literally there to stop the government from taking the guns.

Just remember that Hitler, Chairman Mao, all the governments of tyranny that killed millions of people, disarmed the citizens first.

What else needs to be said?

K, lemme just highlight some of the stupidity you've said, in the hopes you learn something of dealing with large groups and how to actually be the "Bigger person and stop..." whatever you've started.


You initiated this entire discussion in another thread, throwing out unsubstantiated claims, which when called to task quickly deflected it by stressing that you were special and didn't need to justify anything except your personal right to offend American's.

You threw an entire nation under the bus for something you couldn't prove, you wanted this and started it, you walked into this and now you are losing and in defeat claim "I never meant to offend". Intentional or not you bear the responsibility for your words, and walking away only proves how worthless your words or opinions are, since you can't even defend them.

Hypocritical, since you are trying to get in the "last word" by throwing in the towel and walking away from a loss, saving face now again only proves how worthless your opinion is. You should have just apologized for what you've said, that would be the "Adult thing" since you clearly believe you are the moral authority in this.

Well done, insult those who disagree with you, instead of actually being an adult and defending your words/opinions you throw out the "I don't get how I can't just offend whoever I want without repercussion? Be adults and take it and let me act like a child!". I've been the adult and offered you a chance so you could justify your stupidity, instead you complain that you shouldn't be held accountable to the shit you've said, so who's the adult and who's the child?

Yes, you really need to re-evaluate what you say, because someday when you grow up you might be held accountable in a court of law for it. And considering you live in the EU, you are more likely to be in court over things you say than I am.

Right, cut the shit and apologize for what you've said, since you can't even back the shit you've said up.

There ya go Neezon! Hope it help's!