The issue is . . .
 

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.

Now you are using the straw man tactic to change the opponents argument
when you realize the side you are on is wrong. Lame.

Stephen

The issue is . . .
 

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:38:11 -0700, "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. It's a fact that a young person's brain isn't
fully mature (on average) until they're in their mid-20s.

You are correct in that some 17 year olds aren't mature enough to make
decisions, but neither are some 20, 30, 40, 50,.... year olds.
Physical age is hardly a gauge of mental maturity. If it were the
daily news would read much different then it does.

If your supposition is correct why are we allowing people younger then
17 drive cars? Have a look at the statistics and see who are killing
the most people? Car drivers or gun owners?

I suggest that a great deal of the supposed immaturity of the youth
today is really the fact that they are cosseted and cuddled by their
parents and never have to make a decision. So they never do learn to
do so.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

The issue is . . .
 

Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
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.

Now you are using the straw man tactic to change the opponents argument
when you realize the side you are on is wrong. Lame.

Stephen


No, I never said that. That was Jim I believe. Haha. You need to re-read
what I said.

Let's both reread what you said:

And, because you were "matrure" enough to have them at that age, that
means all those 17 are? Hardly.

You didn't write this? Put the bong down, dude.

Stephen

The issue is . . .
 

The issue is . . .
 

"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:38:11 -0700, "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. It's a fact that a young person's brain isn't
fully mature (on average) until they're in their mid-20s.

You are correct in that some 17 year olds aren't mature enough to make
decisions, but neither are some 20, 30, 40, 50,.... year olds.
Physical age is hardly a gauge of mental maturity. If it were the
daily news would read much different then it does.

If your supposition is correct why are we allowing people younger then
17 drive cars? Have a look at the statistics and see who are killing
the most people? Car drivers or gun owners?

I suggest that a great deal of the supposed immaturity of the youth
today is really the fact that they are cosseted and cuddled by their
parents and never have to make a decision. So they never do learn to
do so.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


I made no claim that 17 year olds should not be allowed to have a gun. I
stated a fact about the mature brain. This has little to do with whether or
not one should take a gun aboard. I think it's a bad idea, and I stated my
reasons. If you disagree, that's your choice. If you want to get into a
discussion about whether or not someone should get a drivers license or the
immaturity or maturity of youth, that's best done in another newsgroup.


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

The issue is . . .
 

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
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.

Now you are using the straw man tactic to change the opponents argument
when you realize the side you are on is wrong. Lame.

Stephen


No, I never said that. That was Jim I believe. Haha. You need to re-read
what I said.

Let's both reread what you said:

And, because you were "matrure" enough to have them at that age, that
means all those 17 are? Hardly.

You didn't write this? Put the bong down, dude.

Stephen


I never said that Zak is or isn't mature enough. I said "just because you
(jds) was mature enough at 17, that doesn't mean all 17 year olds are."

If you're having trouble following the line of reasoning, I'm not going to
be able to make it more clear. Sorry.

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

The issue is . . .
 

Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
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.

Now you are using the straw man tactic to change the opponents argument
when you realize the side you are on is wrong. Lame.

Stephen

No, I never said that. That was Jim I believe. Haha. You need to re-read
what I said.
Let's both reread what you said:

And, because you were "matrure" enough to have them at that age, that
means all those 17 are? Hardly.
You didn't write this? Put the bong down, dude.

Stephen


I never said that Zak is or isn't mature enough. I said "just because you
(jds) was mature enough at 17, that doesn't mean all 17 year olds are."

No one ever said all 17 yo's are mature enough. You just tried to change
the argument to that. Can you see what you did now?

If you're having trouble following the line of reasoning, I'm not going to
be able to make it more clear. Sorry.

You understand yet?

Stephen

The issue is . . .
 

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
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.

Now you are using the straw man tactic to change the opponents
argument when you realize the side you are on is wrong. Lame.

Stephen

No, I never said that. That was Jim I believe. Haha. You need to
re-read what I said.
Let's both reread what you said:

And, because you were "matrure" enough to have them at that age, that
means all those 17 are? Hardly.
You didn't write this? Put the bong down, dude.

Stephen


I never said that Zak is or isn't mature enough. I said "just because you
(jds) was mature enough at 17, that doesn't mean all 17 year olds are."

No one ever said all 17 yo's are mature enough. You just tried to change
the argument to that. Can you see what you did now?

If you're having trouble following the line of reasoning, I'm not going
to be able to make it more clear. Sorry.

You understand yet?

Stephen




It was a question to the other person. Not a statement. Try again.

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

The issue is . . .
 

Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
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.

Now you are using the straw man tactic to change the opponents
argument when you realize the side you are on is wrong. Lame.

Stephen
No, I never said that. That was Jim I believe. Haha. You need to
re-read what I said.
Let's both reread what you said:

And, because you were "matrure" enough to have them at that age, that
means all those 17 are? Hardly.
You didn't write this? Put the bong down, dude.

Stephen

I never said that Zak is or isn't mature enough. I said "just because you
(jds) was mature enough at 17, that doesn't mean all 17 year olds are."
No one ever said all 17 yo's are mature enough. You just tried to change
the argument to that. Can you see what you did now?

If you're having trouble following the line of reasoning, I'm not going
to be able to make it more clear. Sorry.
You understand yet?

Stephen




It was a question to the other person. Not a statement. Try again.

Either you're really clueless about what you're doing or you are just
hoping no one else notices. Either way, I'm starting to feel sorry for
you, so I'll drop it.

Stephen

The issue is . . .
 

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
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.

Now you are using the straw man tactic to change the opponents
argument when you realize the side you are on is wrong. Lame.

Stephen
No, I never said that. That was Jim I believe. Haha. You need to
re-read what I said.
Let's both reread what you said:

And, because you were "matrure" enough to have them at that age,
that
means all those 17 are? Hardly.
You didn't write this? Put the bong down, dude.

Stephen

I never said that Zak is or isn't mature enough. I said "just because
you (jds) was mature enough at 17, that doesn't mean all 17 year olds
are."
No one ever said all 17 yo's are mature enough. You just tried to change
the argument to that. Can you see what you did now?

If you're having trouble following the line of reasoning, I'm not going
to be able to make it more clear. Sorry.
You understand yet?

Stephen




It was a question to the other person. Not a statement. Try again.

Either you're really clueless about what you're doing or you are just
hoping no one else notices. Either way, I'm starting to feel sorry for
you, so I'll drop it.

Stephen


I think you're "dropping" it because you're giving up. But, you're not a
quitter, right? Are you related to Palin?

Ok, that was mean. Sorry.

So, you believe that guns are appropriate on a boat in foreign waters? Do
you have experience with this? If so (or if not), please tell us why you
think they're appropriate on recreational vessel. Or, don't I suppose.


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