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

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?

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

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.

I disagree with your assertion that you have them "on ..your.. person" at
all times, unless you never have to go on a plane trip, visit a Federal
(or State) building, or a bunch other places where they're restricted. Are
you a cop or in the military?

drug enforcement agent, retired in march. my office was in a federal
building. when flying, as long as i was carrying out my job, i carried. if
it was a pleasure trip i wouldnt. could have, but didnt.

When was the last time you needed a weapon to "keep
yourself or your family alive"? Where you on your boat? What were the
facts?

myself?? too many to count. the june before last my wife of 39 years and i
were out driving around in our z06. some mutt at a stop light thought he
wanted our car and my wife. for some reason known only to god, i didnt kill
him, but he wont be jacking anyone else for a while. i keep a shotgun on the
boat and my sidearm, a .45 acp.

its none of my business if you own weapons or not. this is america and the
choice is yours. thats your right. when you kiss your wife goodnight and
turn out the lights to go to bed, do me a favor. give a passing thought to
the people that carry weapons to keep you and yours safe. people like me.
now, call me anything you wish. sleep tight. regards, j.d.

"jds" ssss wrote in message ...


I disagree with your assertion that you have them "on ..your.. person" at
all times, unless you never have to go on a plane trip, visit a Federal
(or State) building, or a bunch other places where they're restricted.
Are you a cop or in the military?

drug enforcement agent, retired in march. my office was in a federal
building. when flying, as long as i was carrying out my job, i carried. if
it was a pleasure trip i wouldnt. could have, but didnt.

So, DEA retired. Do they still let you carry your weapon into Fed or State
buildings or get on a plane with one? I doubt it.

When was the last time you needed a weapon to "keep
yourself or your family alive"? Where you on your boat? What were the
facts?

myself?? too many to count. the june before last my wife of 39 years and i
were out driving around in our z06. some mutt at a stop light thought he
wanted our car and my wife. for some reason known only to god, i didnt
kill him, but he wont be jacking anyone else for a while. i keep a shotgun
on the boat and my sidearm, a .45 acp.

So, you weren't on your boat. You carry the shotgun and the sidearm on your
boat, but do you travel to foreign ports? I doubt it. If so, please let us
know which ones.

its none of my business if you own weapons or not. this is america and the
choice is yours. thats your right. when you kiss your wife goodnight and
turn out the lights to go to bed, do me a favor. give a passing thought to
the people that carry weapons to keep you and yours safe. people like me.
now, call me anything you wish. sleep tight. regards, j.d.

In my home? I'm not concerned about it, but as I've said before I own
several weapons. Not sure what this or honoring law enforcement personnel
has to do with taking boats with guns to foreign shores, but please feel
free to tell us.

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

In article lutions,
"Capt. JG" wrote:

So, you weren't on your boat. You carry the shotgun and the sidearm on your
boat, but do you travel to foreign ports? I doubt it. If so, please let us
know which ones.

Carrying a Firearm, aboard a Vessel in International Trade is no "Big
Deal" if you follow the International Conventions, and Treaties, put in
place by the IMO. (International Maritime Organization - part of the
United Nations) Specifically, you must have a "Customs Locker" that
meets IMO Requirements, you MUST Declare any Firearms, to the Customs
Officials, upon entering any Foreign Port, and comply with the IMO
Conventions for such situations. Is it a "Hassle", Yes, and, No, and
Maybe. Some folks do it, some folks don't. US Flagged, and US Military
Ships, routinely travel to many Ports of Call, in many different
Countries, and they don't seem to have much of a problem, complying with
the IMO Conventions. Of course what country would want a 5" Autoloader
Pointing at their Customs Shed, ready to reduce it to rubble.......

"You" wrote in message
...
In article lutions,
"Capt. JG" wrote:

So, you weren't on your boat. You carry the shotgun and the sidearm on
your
boat, but do you travel to foreign ports? I doubt it. If so, please let
us
know which ones.

Carrying a Firearm, aboard a Vessel in International Trade is no "Big
Deal" if you follow the International Conventions, and Treaties, put in
place by the IMO. (International Maritime Organization - part of the
United Nations) Specifically, you must have a "Customs Locker" that
meets IMO Requirements, you MUST Declare any Firearms, to the Customs
Officials, upon entering any Foreign Port, and comply with the IMO
Conventions for such situations. Is it a "Hassle", Yes, and, No, and
Maybe. Some folks do it, some folks don't. US Flagged, and US Military
Ships, routinely travel to many Ports of Call, in many different
Countries, and they don't seem to have much of a problem, complying with
the IMO Conventions. Of course what country would want a 5" Autoloader
Pointing at their Customs Shed, ready to reduce it to rubble.......


Yup... I never said it was impossible. I said that I thought it was a bad
idea and not worth the hassle. Also, I don't believe Zak was involved in
"International Trade" nor would most people here, but you never know.

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

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)

"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

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:02:09 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"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.

The paid captain of a 4 million dollar luxury yacht was just released
after 127 days in a mexican jail. Authorities, while conducting a drug
search, discovered his boss's gun.