Frederick

Italy supports the Hequian Monarchy in its attempts to curtail the movement of illegal drugs brought on by "refugees".

Italy welcomes the emergence of the Prussian Empire and hopes to open relations in the near future.

(Looking fashy... *tips hat*) Italy congratulates Portugal on its national rebirth and foresees a bright future ahead for our two nations.

You seem to not know what the 2nd amendment is. Wording is, in fact, very important when twats like yourself think you can simply interpret the constitution however you wish regardless of how it was intended by the founding fathers. The word, "because" is not present in any part of the 2nd amendment so you are changing it for your own designs. If we are to interpret the constitution of the United States as the founding fathers intended, then we must absolutely analyze it as it is presented. I will reiterate, since it seems hard to get through your head, that the word "people" does in fact have special value. If they had used "military" or "government" or "state", the meaning would be vastly different. America was founded on the idea of a citizen republic where every man had the right to defend his home and property. That is why the wording was so important in formulating the constitution.

The 2nd Amendment also states(as you neglected to mention) that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The people as mentioned in the 2nd Amendment does not mean the government nor the state. By using the term people, the founding fathers were separating the American people from any abstraction(such as a state) and putting forth clearly that it is the American people-the citizens of this country-that have a inalienable right to bear arms. Also note that the "militia" as stated, is comprised of the people(different from the standing army) and thus all American citizens with a firearm can be part of this unorganized militia. I think it is you who is cherry picking here buddy. It's easy to talk about the greatness of communism when you're sitting in your college dorm room masturbating to Das Kapital. Those who have actually lived under the Soviet Union would beat you to a pulp if you even suggested bringing it back in their countries. You can also be sure the same thing will happen if you start trying to take away the constitutional rights of Americans who believe in American values and not those of failed civilizations. Now silly boy go back to fantasizing about your Marxist Utopia and the plights of the Proletariat.

This topic was kind of dead, but I'll reply anyways. Regardless of what the hell you think we Americans are so "obsessed with guns" for is irrelevant. Even the crime statistics are irrelevant (though they show that more gun control typically correlates with more crime). The fact is that the 2nd Amendment's very fundamental purpose is to act as a check against the federal government; not self-defense against criminals. It is meant so that the people-the citizens-will have the means to resist if the government becomes tyrannical. Without the 2nd amendment, the rest of the Bill of Rights is fair game for the government to play with and so all this debate about crime rates amounts to nothing in the end. If you bastards think you can take away someone's rights guaranteed by the constitution, then you should be the first in through the door. If you aren't willing to be the one risking your neck when the government decides to go after the guns, then you have no place telling anyone what their rights are and what they aren't. You may be a sheep, but the gun-owning American people are not. As put by Samuel Adams: "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"

Has zero infantry.

Isn't a real Saracen-slaughtering crusader.

Doesn't understand the meaning of worship.

Doesn't believe in Nationalism or Self-Sovereignty

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/alternate-future/images/d/d0/Flag_of_the_Kingdom_of_Italy.png/revision/latest?cb=20140927060721

I suppose all of the BLM violence was just being orchestrated by Trump as well? What about all the people getting violently beat up up by intolerant and rabid leftists just for supporting Trump? If liberals don't support these terrorist attacks, then they should be condemning them; instead of taking the apologist route. When you can provide enough instances of American conservatives committing acts of violence to the level of liberals, then I'll start listening, but as it stands you sound like a terrorist sympathizer. When it comes to feminism, liberals are all up against "victim blaming", but the moment a conservative is attacked you all start talking nonsense about it being a right wing orchestration. Stop being such a hypocrite.

Has a scary cover image.

Having 10 abortions after taking the dick from everyone in sight to prove that one is in control of their body isn't exactly a "right" that anyone should be guaranteed. Lets start on abortion. After a certain point when the fetus is developed, you cannot take the moral high ground and yet simultaneously propose to take away the life of the unborn just because you were too irresponsible to use protection or just not be a !@#$. If you are alright with killing fetuses for the so called abortion rights of a woman(I suppose a baby doesn't have rights), then go ahead and say it. Also, Marriage is a mutual contract and obligation. When someone sleeps with someone other than their spouse, they are disrespecting their said spouse and dishonoring the mutual contract. There is absolutely no excuse for this and it doesn't prove that someone is "independent and in control their body" by walking around naked and acting like a !@#$ with no self respect whatsoever. Just because you don't believe in standards doesn't mean that society is just going to throw it away. Standards are what create healthy communities and if these are removed, you get a degenerate hellhole where everyone lacks any notion of virtue. Simply look at the ghetto thug culture in rap music and you will see degeneracy. Drugs, sex, "hoes", degradation of women, etc.. The first thing you need to do when you feel like accusing someone else of sexism is look at yourself and ask if you are supporting what is truly best for women. On another note, it would seem that liberals are actually the most sexist and condescending towards women. Many conservatives and traditionalists believe in standards because they see women as respectable partners who should be held up as paragons of virtue. Liberals, on the other hand, take every opportunity to rid society of standards and personal consequences; telling women that they don't need to have self-respect. For liberals, women are not capable of higher standards and so are treated as if they can act in the most despicable fashion and still be accorded respect. When someone is held to higher standards, they should take it as a compliment; not an insult. I would personally find it degrading if someone told me that I wouldn't be judged no matter how foolish or despicable I acted. I am sure many others are like this and there are many women who don't appreciate being looked down upon by the white knight liberals coming to their "rescue". These women I speak of(like Lauren Southern) are those who are truly independent; not the ones who say they are independent and then(ironically) proceed to demand that others pay for their college education and healthcare, while repeating everything they heard in the mainstream media.

I guess someone who thinks differently must be pretty hard to deal with. It would definitely destroy preconceived notions of objective universal values.

It was the Christian White Supremacists who were behind this. There is no doubt about it. Only white males are capable of such atrocity and violence.

Your profile pic is strangely irritating.

Hold up, hold up. Did you just acknowledge that men and women are different? I'm sorry but that is sexist and I'm afraid I can't take a bigot like you seriously.

Nope. Women as property is not a traditional concept, but a Judeo/Christian/Islamic concept. The pagans of Europe viewed women as sacred givers of live and as such, they were accorded great respect. They had different roles yes, but they were not considered property or by any means inferior as a whole. Just as men wouldn't be the best suited for expressing empathy and caring for a child, women were not the best suited for battle or leadership. No one was considered "better" than the other; both took pride in their role in the community and the family.

How then would you explain the current double standards pushed by the media and society as a whole? The fact that you deny such a thing means that you are probably living in your own ignorant little bubble. Edit: Not many men started beating their women outright for no reason. If a woman starts going hysterical and slapping and kicking like a mule, a good slap to the face can wake them up. Additionally if a woman is with another man aside from their husband and acting like a !@#$, you cannot blame the man for having a violent response to this. The "no violence against women under any circumstances" just shows the double standard and how people want to escape any consequence of their actions.

The "equality" of society says that women are free to hit men but the moment a man hits a woman it is "muh oppression". Do you support this logic or lack thereof? Either you don't or you in fact would be addressing that man and woman are different. In which case, you could very well be considered a sexist.

Those were the good old days weren't they? Now, males are beaten by their wives and found groveling at their feet. At least the beta ones like yourself; the ones who shouldn't even be considered men. I mean..who doesn't like beating women?!?

No.

You say modern; I say degenerate. Who is to say that more "modern" means better? This myth of progress needs to seriously stop.