wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:00:34 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:21:46 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Capt. JG wrote:
"jds" ssss wrote in message
...
hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam
in
the uses of powerful weapons. he seemed to think i was old, mature,
grown
up enough to handle them. turns out i was. i have weapons on my boat,
in
my home and on my person at all times. if you have ever needed a
weapon to
keep yourself or family alive, you understand what i mean. regards,
j.d.

And, because you were "matrure" enough to have them at that age, that
means
all those 17 are? Hardly.
Haha. Now you're trying to entirely change the argument. You were
claiming Zak shouldn't have a gun because he is 17. The only way that
argument works is if *no* 17 yo's are old enough to use guns safely,
because if some are, Zak might be one of them.


Some 12 year olds know more about politics and current events than
many 40 year olds. I guess we should lower the voting age to 12. heck,
maybe five is old enough. After all, it only takes one example to
prove something on your planet. I'm sure there is at least 1 five year
old that could qualify.

How about instead of trying to determine an age to descriminate people
at, you base it upon competence, which occurs at different ages for
different people?


Risky as it sounds, I think you should retain the right to vote.



Now that's funny.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com