What are you doing right now?

[Anonymous2]

Sarcasm sure, but a really inflammatory kind, and according a blue birdie who emailed me, Vurn has in the past made several homophobic slurs on other communities and also via instant messaging devices...

Whatever, he wants to be a homophobe he can be, but the world is getting progressively less homophobic by the day and our country just proved that. As far as I'm concerned, most homophobia I've encountered in my life is restricted to the internet, and truth be told, I've been gay bashed by more from other countries, than my own!

That's hilarious! Are you jealous? Aw poor Vurny, probably in the closet and jealous that Poland doesn't have gay rights and gay marriage.

[Boingo]

Anonymous, tone it down.

We do not need to start another argument.

I was about to offer my two cents on all this, but it seems this is spiralling out of control already.
Let's accept what has happened today, whether we are for or against it, and not rub stuff into the noses of others.

Let me repeat, we do not need to start another argument.

I'm getting sick of this argumentative crap that you guys keep generating because you can't control yourselves when others push your buttons.

[Paranormal]

We do not need to start another argument.

I was about to offer my two cents on all this, but it seems this is spiralling out of control already.

I was being reasonable in my responses, asking someone to do research when they don't understand something isn't being unreasonable is it?

Yeah, there's some stuff that's been posted that's a little out of hand. I said my comments from a neutral perspective, and was educating people on why our government works in the way it does. There was nothing inflammatory about what I happened to say, if anything I thought I was being helpful.

[Boingo]

I have no problems with talking about how governments work. That was helpful.
I have problems with people provoking other people (not you). That was inflammatory, and not helpful for the community.

[Paranormal]

Your system and relationship to your constitution is really interesting though.

It is. That's why gun control is such a huge debate in the U.S., because we have an amendment that allows the use of firearms. But, yet, our politicians want to ban or limit them? You can see why we have a problem with that kind of legislation coming into effect!

[Anteroinen]

Sarcasm sure, but a really inflammatory kind, and according a blue birdie who emailed me, Vurn has in the past made several homophobic slurs on other communities and also via instant messaging devices...

I have no reason to believe your sources are accurate on this. Having talked to Vurn a lot, homophobe is pretty much the last thing he is. Perhaps you a mixing him up with Vurn, the musicican. The two are not the same.

If you want to know, Vurn was inspired by this thing's over-the-top style. I hope it is clear without me saying it, but I will say it anyway: "Facts I just made up" is not a blog that writes this in a serious manner.

I am only saying this, because I happen to know that Vurn won't be around to rebut you on this the following day, not because I personally want an argument out of this. Normally I would let Vurn talk to you himself on this matter.

EDIT:

Your system and relationship to your constitution is really interesting though.

It is. That's why gun control is such a huge debate in the U.S., because we have an amendment that allows the use of firearms. But, yet, our politicians want to ban or limit them? You can see why we have a problem with that kind of legislation coming into effect!

Finland obviously has no such thing in the constitution, which has enabled very strict gun laws. They were majorly restricted even further after the Jokela school shooting a few years back, which was the second one in Finnish history, so people were shocked. This is the way I like it really. I've never really understood why anyone would need a gun unless you hunt or you aspired to shoot at a shooting gallery.

I don't know if there used to be such a law in the constitution, it was changed in 1999 – mostly to strip the president of their overreaching powers. If you are really bored and want to read all 131 sections feel free to read the thing.

[Anonymous2]

Apologies, Kore got loose from his cage. He's back in now.

On a side-note, Kore knows not to flame, harass, or discriminate against another member here. He might pull occasional trolling, but that's about all he will be doing. I have him under complete control when he gets loose.

Its difficult to live with a split personality, but you'll get used to it

[Jatsko]

It is. That's why gun control is such a huge debate in the U.S., because we have an amendment that allows the use of firearms. But, yet, our politicians want to ban or limit them? You can see why we have a problem with that kind of legislation coming into effect!

Anytime someone brings up U.S. gun control I think of Jim Jefferies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL8JEEt2RxI

While not entirely logical and based off of misinformation (not to mention he's a comedian that likes to swear about everything), I find it funny.

[Anonymous2]

Paranormal wrote:
It is. That's why gun control is such a huge debate in the U.S., because we have an amendment that allows the use of firearms. But, yet, our politicians want to ban or limit them? You can see why we have a problem with that kind of legislation coming into effect!

You're misinformed.

Its not about banning guns entirely, its about restricting who has access to such weapons. Should we really allow the violent criminals and severely mentally ill, access to a weapon where they can instantly kill one or more people?

I don't believe so. But the NRA and other silly politicians who support guns for all do.

But then its not just about that, but its also about restricting where exactly guns can be at. You have Texas when is an open carry state, meaning, you can have a gun right there out in the open and nobody can say or do anything about it. Michigan is an open carry state as well, and we had an incident a while back, where a guy brought a gun into a library and they ended up calling the police and he was banned from the library and he ended up suing the city for it.

He claimed that his right to open carry made it possible for him to bring a gun into a gun-free zone such as a library. That's the thing. Should we allow citizens who are responsible gun owners, bringing their guns into areas such as churches, schools, places of business?

I'm not saying they are going to mental and shoot the place up, but there is a thing called common sense.

I think businesses have the right to refuse service. If I can't bring a pocket knife into a government building, then they shouldn't be able to bring a gun into one.

[Paranormal]

You're misinformed.

I wasn't in the mood to clarify the differences in the argument, because I didn't want to start one. That's why I said "ban or limit" because I'm not going to try to argue about it. I'm aware of what's being done, with lower capacity magazines being sold and public areas not allowing people to open-carry in states where it happens to be legal.

I'm aware of the common sense issue it revolves around, and yes, in some cases people need to use it because they don't need an assault rifle while at the library. I mean, a 9mm handgun is enough in most situations and therefore in that case that can even be seen as an extreme.

So yes, I was generalizing the debate. But I wasn't using the right description, though.