Meanwhile.....

I said this:

"I have never been offended by the rare "F" word, never offended by the more often "farging/freakin/frickin" etc stuff that serves it's intended purpose nicely,

without hammering vulgarity right into the eyes of kids who may have walked up to a parent and sees it."

And Cysko said this:

"Get off your high horse, and stop playing the poor me, I'm offended by the f word routine. It makes you look like a huge bag of douche. You're not offended by it. "

Therefore, Cysko, I just said I wasn't, never have been offended by the "F" world, and you said the stupid thing you said.

I am annoyed that kids don't need to see that crap online, and anybody on this board should be able to express themselves

without the stupid "F" word all the time.

If you can't, there's something wrong. Woody like.

@mld-woody said:

Oh... well...

I guess if I wanted to continue this I would have to sort through a lot of terminology

yeah it's best to arm yourself with some knowledge it will make your point of view easier to accept if you are talking from a place of knowledge. And hey you never know maybe you will feel less hardline against them when you understand them better.

@nunboy said:

Assault weapon is a vague term and that is one of the reasons I cringe whenever I hear it . Hitler coined the phrase Sturmgewr which literally means storm(attack) gun for the stg 44 rifle. but what is generally accepted as an assault rifle is a select fire (single; 3 round burst; and full auto fire) capable rifle in an intermediate(.223 or .308) round.

What most people refer to as a machine gun in the movies is actually typically an assault rifle or a submachine gun (submachine guns use pistol size cartridges) but submachine guns are normally smaller in size than a rifle; though technically machine guns, assault rifles, and submachine guns, all fit into the broad category of "machine gun"(overlapping terms yay!). The stuff civilians typically use may be the same cartridge size as an assault rifle and may even look like an assault rifle, are nothing more than sport rifles. which is a broad category of hunting and sport shooting guns, from Olympic target guns to Elmer Fudd stuff.

Oh... well...

I guess if I wanted to continue this I would have to sort through a lot of terminology

@mld-woody said:

What defines a gun as "assault" by the way? I might be misunderstanding the exact definitions of some terms.

I realize all guns have the potential to end life. I think we just have access to some with a much higher potential than one would need.

Assault weapon is a vague term and that is one of the reasons I cringe whenever I hear it . Hitler coined the phrase Sturmgewr which literally means storm(attack) gun for the stg 44 rifle. but what is generally accepted as an assault rifle is a select fire (single; 3 round burst; and full auto fire) capable rifle in an intermediate(.223 or .308) round.

What most people refer to as a machine gun in the movies is actually typically an assault rifle or a submachine gun (submachine guns use pistol size cartridges) but submachine guns are normally smaller in size than a rifle; though technically machine guns, assault rifles, and submachine guns, all fit into the broad category of "machine gun"(overlapping terms yay!). The stuff civilians typically use may be the same cartridge size as an assault rifle and may even look like an assault rifle, are nothing more than sport rifles. which is a broad category of hunting and sport shooting guns, from Olympic target guns to Elmer Fudd stuff.

Bunker said:

bring it on half-wit, you never served anything but soup.

You calling anybody a half wit is hilarious. You a know-nothing punk with shit coming out of your mouth. It's easy for you to say bring it on but if I brought it you'd piss your pants in fear you little loudmouth turd. You are by far the dumbest piece of crap anybody has ever talked to. You're not even worth the time it took to write this paragraph.

@mr.-t said:

Potheads? hell yeah potheads fit right into the same category as you have mentioned. Believe me I have dealt with all of the above and I wouldn't trust any of them.

How can you honestly put marijuana in the same category as meth, heroin, and prescription pills, which are extremely addictive, and therefore ripe for overdose? Last time I checked, marijuana is not highly addictive, and nobody has died from accidental overdose, because it's virtually impossible to do so! You will have to excuse me, and no offense, but do you subscribe to the "Reefer Madness" propaganda, and the lies that made marijuana illegal in the first place?

As for guns, you and I agree, and I'm all for you and everyone else being able to keep their guns. We have that right to protect ourselves, and sorry, but I don't want to be like Europe. Not to mention the cops can't always be there at a moments notice.

These are assault weapons.

@nunboy said:

you should start with basic gun education first honestly. all guns have the potential to end a life no matter how big or small all should be treated with the same utmost respect. oh and the first 10 rules of firearms

1 its always loaded

2 its always loaded

3 its always loaded

4 its always loaded

5 its always loaded

6 only point at what you want to shoot

7 only point at what you want to shoot

8 only point at what you want to shoot

9 only point at what you want to shoot

10 only point at what you want to shoot

The shooting that took place in Chardon happened with a Ruger pistol that has a 10 round magazine and is .22 in caliber. a round that most in the gun communnity mostly laugh at as ineffectual for anything larger than a pop can, yet we all know the tragic outcome in that case as well. It is unfortunate that some people are broken and decide that killing is an option but lets not kid ourselves and pretend that laws will make them suddenly better people.

The US has roughly 200 million guns in the hands of its citizens (no real way to get an exact number) yet only a few thousand die by firearms each year.

What defines a gun as "assault" by the way? I might be misunderstanding the exact definitions of some terms.

I realize all guns have the potential to end life. I think we just have access to some with a much higher potential than one would need.

You're creative? Er...I don't know. You can be entertaining to argue with, but I think you're overestimating your creativity. You are a broken record of buzzwords and catch phrases. Hoopty-damn-doo-doo. I'm not impressed, although I have more respect for you than many others like your cronie, bunker. Also, you are as offensive as they come. So don't sit here and act like you're not, ok? Get off your high horse, and stop playing the poor me, I'm offended by the f word routine. It makes you look like a huge bag of douche. You're not offended by it.

Bunker said:

you never served in the military you lying sack of shit. i dont know anyone who ever served and was ever so stupid that they wanted guns banned. your a feeble-minded moldy sock devouring cerebral penis who molests the ragged cheeseball and the moldy sock devouring skumbag.

You're lucky you're hiding behind a computer, pussy, where I can't beat your ass and make you cry

@mld-woody said:

I get your point there, but I think these are two different cases. I think everyone can understand the firerate of a gun and how that translates into is killing potential. Like I said I don't know the exact wording I would want to implement, but I know where I would start looking and I think I could come up with something.

In the case of global warming I feel there is a lot more science and statistics involved. These aren't difficult to understand but it is an issue where I think an experts view would hold much more weight than an average persons. There is a lot more research put behind global warming, all of which is needed to validate it, than gun regulation.

I do get your point though, and maybe I can be convinced with compelling sources that go against mine. I am not completely shut out to new information and ideas like some people on this board...

you should start with basic gun education first honestly. all guns have the potential to end a life no matter how big or small all should be treated with the same utmost respect. oh and the first 10 rules of firearms

1 its always loaded

2 its always loaded

3 its always loaded

4 its always loaded

5 its always loaded

6 only point at what you want to shoot

7 only point at what you want to shoot

8 only point at what you want to shoot

9 only point at what you want to shoot

10 only point at what you want to shoot

The shooting that took place in Chardon happened with a Ruger pistol that has a 10 round magazine and is .22 in caliber. a round that most in the gun communnity mostly laugh at as ineffectual for anything larger than a pop can, yet we all know the tragic outcome in that case as well. It is unfortunate that some people are broken and decide that killing is an option but lets not kid ourselves and pretend that laws will make them suddenly better people.

The US has roughly 200 million guns in the hands of its citizens (no real way to get an exact number) yet only a few thousand die by firearms each year.

@nunboy said:

Would you rail at someone for having a contrary opinion to yours in say global warming if they were barely able to describe some of the most basic of terms in the field? Now I want to try and tell you what to do in that field with my very limited knowledge in it and my decisions will affect millions of people because I have a feeling for what is right.

I get your point there, but I think these are two different cases. I think everyone can understand the firerate of a gun and how that translates into is killing potential. Like I said I don't know the exact wording I would want to implement, but I know where I would start looking and I think I could come up with something.

In the case of global warming I feel there is a lot more science and statistics involved. These aren't difficult to understand but it is an issue where I think an experts view would hold much more weight than an average persons. There is a lot more research put behind global warming, all of which is needed to validate it, than gun regulation.

I do get your point though, and maybe I can be convinced with compelling sources that go against mine. I am not completely shut out to new information and ideas like some people on this board...

@mld-woody said:

I am sure the wording would have to be worked out, and I'll admit I don't know enough about it to determine that wording. I think there is an amount of firepower that you don't need though. I just don't see the need for that much killing power, not to protect yourself from wolves or coyotes or whatever.

I don't think the founding fathers are infallible, I don't think the Constitution is infallible. That is why the ability to change it is written into it. Just because the founding fathers didn't mention restrictions doesn't mean we can't have them. What was the top gun at the time? A musket? You get off one shot every 20 seconds? I don't think they had the weaponry we have now in mind when they came up with the 2nd amendment.

Would you rail at someone for having a contrary opinion to yours in say global warming if they were barely able to describe some of the most basic of terms in the field? Now I want to try and tell you what to do in that field with my very limited knowledge in it and my decisions will affect millions of people because I have a feeling for what is right.

I don't think the founding fathers are infallible, I don't think the Constitution is infallible. That is why the ability to change it is written into it. Just because the founding fathers didn't mention restrictions doesn't mean we can't have them. What was the top gun at the time? A musket? You get off one shot every 20 seconds? I don't think they had the weaponry we have now in mind when they came up with the 2nd amendment.

Let's wait to see if Little Johnnie Woodpecker responds intelligently to Nunboy's solid point:

I'd bet Woody doesn't. Or, it would be a first. Odds would probably be 400 to 1.

**************************************

"look I am not as hard line on the language as the other guys seem to be but it doesn't help your point at all to come at me like that. now explain to me why I don't need a rifle like an AR15 that comes in a varmit sized round(5.56) that fires in semi auto just the same as most other guns do. it is not an automatic weapon just like the majority of legal weapons in the US. and the round is smaller than most other rifles in the US. like I said it is a varmit round and it really is not all that powerful.

so far you have not had a point other than to say the you feel we do not need a gun and that quite frankly means nothing. when the founding fathers of our country were using full military grade everything to fight a revolution. I am pretty sure they were absolute in their belief that we needed weapons and they made no mention of restrictions on military grade anything because that is exactly what they were using." NUNBOY

@nunboy said:

look I am not as hard line on the language as the other guys seem to be but it doesn't help your point at all to come at me like that. now explain to me why I don't need a rifle like an AR15 that comes in a varmit sized round(5.56) that fires in semi auto just the same as most other guns do. it is not an automatic weapon just like the majority of legal weapons in the US. and the round is smaller than most other rifles in the US. like I said it is a varmit round and it really is not all that powerful.

so far you have not had a point other than to say the you feel we do not need a gun and that quite frankly means nothing. when the founding fathers of our country were using full military grade everything to fight a revolution. I am pretty sure they were absolute in their belief that we needed weapons and they made no mention of restrictions on military grade anything because that is exactly what they were using.

I will quote this again so that I can bypass off topic infighting.

And Cysko, nobody questioned your love or loyalty nothin. Our mod does a nice job, and you don't know when he reprimands and when he doesn't,

so stick a cork in it about that. Get a clue, Cysko - when somebody is reprimanded, you don't get a nice update email. You and Little Johnnie Woodpecker,

and the rest of us aren't going to know. I was in the Air Force too. Do you see me getting gross, grotesque, vulgar, and below the belt offensive etc when somebody disagrees with me? NO. You ever see me call somebody "Retarded" or "moron" or "shortbus" ? Ever see me drop the "F" word? I don't need to do that to express myself. And some of it really

takes away from the discussions on the board, and the free expression of opinions by other members, especially new members.

So, there ya go. I'm creative. If kids see me call somebody an arg-fested, flea bit nitwilly, I wouldn't think that's offensive. but it's funny, and it gets my point

across, that I'm disagreeing very strongly. I don't believe anybody would be offended by that, ever.

I have never been offended by the rare "F" word, never offended by the more often "farging/freakin/frickin" etc stuff that serves it's intended purpose nicely,

without hammering vulgarity right into the eyes of kids who may have walked up to a parent and sees it.

But the constant, CONSTANT slurs are unecessary. T appropriately allows a lot of them, but again and again and again and again and etc etc etc?

Come on. That isn't discussing anything. That's trying to offend intentionally. Trying to intimidate certain others to keep quiet, never disgree with "you",

or even run those you don't like off the board. Libs do it constantly, trying to see if they can control/dominate the content and slant of the board. Trust me,

we've seen it in the past. And those libs failed to be able to control the content, or control the type of person/politics that was "allowed" to contribute

to discussions on the board.

I have argued for weeks/months back in the day with Rich. Our goin round about the Browns was probly famous. Yet, neither one of us ever

dropped obscene stuff, 4 letter words, below the belt personal attacks, nothin. Ask around. Ask Rich. He is one classy guy to argue with a lot...

albeit stark ravin wild thinkin, nobody here needs to try to win an argument etc, by getting vulgar. Sure, a lot of stuff is okay, but the really nasty stuff,

that you don't want kids to catch accidently, is not appropriate, not necessary, not friendly, not cool, and not appreciated. Especially when it is constant.

Far too many threads have been messed up by Woody's constant "moron" crap, and yes, Bunker has gone too far with the gay stuff. But what goes on

as far as discussions stuff, reprimand stuff, is the moderator's business.

We used to not be able to talk much Browns football because politics got in the way. So, that's why this board was created. Then, out of spite

and belligerence, Shep and Heck and mz the pussy the pussy the pussy etc, made this board a very unfriendly place. But mz the pussy the pussy the pussy...er.... Little Johnnie Woodpecker, is stinkin up the board

with the constant irrelavent posts that have nothing to do with the subject at hand, ususally derogatory statements about the posters.

Just my rusty two cents. @@

@mr.-t said:

I gave you a warning for the vulgar language and Woody is next.

Try again and stop acting like a spoiled brat because you cannot get your way. If you do not like the Bill of Rights move out of the country and denounce your citizenship because true americans protect their rights.

Where's my freedom of speechnow, big man? If. Getting banned. So be it. I'll go to dawgs by nature to talk browns. I'll mention again that I served in the united states air force as a sergeant. Don't you ever question my love and loyalty to America. You haven't earned the right. You're nobody. A moderator on an internet forum.

You let bunker suggest beating and killing gays without a word of reprimand but you think you're going to throw your paltry amount of power around on me? For saying the f word? This is your moderator folks.

@nunboy said:

look I am not as hard line on the language as the other guys seem to be but it doesn't help your point at all to come at me like that. now explain to me why I don't need a rifle like an AR15 that comes in a varmit sized round(5.56) that fires in semi auto just the same as most other guns do. it is not an automatic weapon just like the majority of legal weapons in the US. and the round is smaller than most other rifles in the US. like I said it is a varmit round and it really is not all that powerful.

so far you have not had a point other than to say the you feel we do not need a gun and that quite frankly means nothing. when the founding fathers of our country were using full military grade everything to fight a revolution. I am pretty sure they were absolute in their belief that we needed weapons and they made no mention of restrictions on military grade anything because that is exactly what they were using.

figured I would quote this again since some in board fighting stuff got in the way that I want nothing to to do with.

Bunker jumps off a cliff, I'll bet he has a parachute.

It probly figures you won't think of that, Little Jack Splat Johnnie Woodpecker..... You aren't smart.

@nunboy said:

meh it is his first amendment right to say as he pleases. It just detracts from a valid point being made if you are vulgar.

I will fight to the death to defend his right to say it, but I do not have to agree with it.

plus in adult company I enjoy my colorful language.

Thank you. You should be mod. We disagree but at least you won't go banning people that disagree with you....

Like some mods...

I love how my "vulgarity" is now just so awful and terrible. What board have you been reading? Hell, have you ever read anything Bunker says?