"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.

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? 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?

I own guns and I see their place in society. I choose not to carry them
aboard, especially if I'm going to another country. You can choose
differently of course. The problem is that some people have decided that if
someone chooses not to carry a gun, that means they must be labelled as
weak, ineffectual, or "liberal," which is complete bs.

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

On Jul 13, 12:38*pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"jds" ssss wrote in .. .
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.

Spelling Nazi, what about this 14 YO that just passed away?
Was he mature enough?

Youngest Marine to get MoH dies

After lying about age to join Corps, he covered 2 grenades with his
body on Iwo Jima
By Chris Talbott - The Associated Press
Posted : Monday Jun 9, 2008 19:05:37 EDT

JACKSON, Miss. — Jack Lucas, who at 14 lied his way into military
service during World War II and became the youngest Marine to receive
the Medal of Honor, died of cancer in the pre-dawn hours Thursday in a
Hattiesburg, Miss., hospital. He was 80.

Jacklyln “Jack” Lucas was just six days past his 17th birthday in
February 1945, when his heroism at Iwo Jima earned him the nation’s
highest military honor. He used his body to shield three fellow squad
members from two grenades, and was nearly killed when one exploded.

“A couple of grenades rolled into the trench,” Lucas said in an
Associated Press interview shortly before he received the medal from
President Truman in October 1945. “I hollered to my pals to get out
and did a Superman dive at the grenades. I wasn’t a Superman after I
got hit. I let out one helluva scream when that thing went off.”

He was left with more than 250 pieces of shrapnel in his body and in
every major organ and endured 26 surgeries in the months after Iwo
Jima.

“By his inspiring action and valiant spirit of self-sacrifice, he not
only protected his comrades from certain injury or possible death but
also enabled them to rout the Japanese patrol and continue the
advance,” the Medal of Honor citation said.

In the AP interview, written as a first-person account under his name,
he recalled the months he spent in a hospital.

“Soon as I rest up, I imagine I’ll run for president,” the story
concluded. “Ain’t I the hero, though?”

Big for his age and eager to serve, Lucas forged his mother’s
signature on an enlistment waiver and joined the Marines at 14.
Military censors discovered his age through a letter to his 15-year-
old girlfriend.

“They had him driving a truck in Hawaii because his age was discovered
and they threatened to send him home,” said D.K. Drum, who wrote
Lucas’ story in the 2006 book “Indestructible.” “He said if they sent
him home, he would just join the Army.”

Lucas eventually stowed away aboard a Navy ship headed for combat in
the Pacific Ocean. He turned himself in to avoid being listed as a
deserter and volunteered to fight, and the officers onboard allowed
him to fight the Japanese.

“They did not know his age. He didn’t give it up and they didn’t ask,”
Drum said.

Born in Plymouth, N.C., on Feb. 14, 1928, Edwards was a 13-year-old
cadet captain in a military academy when the Japanese bombed Pearl
Harbor.

“I would not settle for watching from the sidelines when the United
States was in such desperate need of support from its citizens,” Lucas
said in “Indestructible.” “Everyone was needed to do his part and I
could not do mine by remaining in North Carolina.”

After the war, Lucas earned a business degree from High Point
University and raised, processed and sold beef in the Washington,
D.C., area. In the 1960s, he joined the Army and became a paratrooper,
Drum said, to conquer his fear of heights. On a training jump, both of
his parachutes failed.

“He was the last one out of the airplane and the first one on the
ground,” Drum said.

He was diagnosed with a form of leukemia in April and spent his last
days in the hospital with family and friends, including his wife,
Ruby, standing vigil.


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? 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?

Why doubt the man?


I own guns and I see their place in society.

I'm curious. If they are not for protection in the one place you only
yourself to rely on, where else is a more proper place?


I choose not to carry them
aboard, especially if I'm going to another country. You can choose
differently of course. The problem is that some people have decided that if
someone chooses not to carry a gun, that means they must be labelled as
weak, ineffectual, or "liberal," which is complete bs.


No the problem is if you carry a gun, some snot nose weak liberal
has a problem with it, and assumes you are a "right wing nut".

Joe

--
"j" ganz

"Joe" wrote in message
...
On Jul 13, 12:38 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"jds" ssss wrote in .. .
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.

Spelling Nazi, what about this 14 YO that just passed away?
Was he mature enough?

What's your problem joey. I didn't correct your spelling. Could you possibly
find an example of a rec. vehicle being attacked whereby it was protected by
a teenager with a gun in the last 10 years? I bet there's one or two.


unrelated crap removed

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? 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?

Why doubt the man?

Because it's sounds like bs. Why do you believe him? Last I checked this is
usenet.

I own guns and I see their place in society.

I'm curious. If they are not for protection in the one place you only
yourself to rely on, where else is a more proper place?

?? Their place in society is protected by the Constitution. I don't think a
boat in foreign waters qualifies, but as I've said many times, feel free.

I choose not to carry them
aboard, especially if I'm going to another country. You can choose
differently of course. The problem is that some people have decided that
if
someone chooses not to carry a gun, that means they must be labelled as
weak, ineffectual, or "liberal," which is complete bs.


No the problem is if you carry a gun, some snot nose weak liberal
has a problem with it, and assumes you are a "right wing nut".

?? Please show me where I said you're a right-wingnut with respect to this
discussion. I didn't. You're the one who starting flinging your sh*t.



--
"j" ganz



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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message
...
On Jul 13, 12:38 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"jds" ssss wrote in .. .
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.

Spelling Nazi, what about this 14 YO that just passed away?
Was he mature enough?

What's your problem joey. I didn't correct your spelling. Could you
possibly find an example of a rec. vehicle being attacked whereby it was
protected by a teenager with a gun in the last 10 years? I bet there's one
or two.


unrelated crap removed

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? 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?

Why doubt the man?

Because it's sounds like bs. Why do you believe him? Last I checked this
is usenet.

I own guns and I see their place in society.

I'm curious. If they are not for protection in the one place you only
yourself to rely on, where else is a more proper place?

?? Their place in society is protected by the Constitution. I don't think
a boat in foreign waters qualifies, but as I've said many times, feel
free.

I choose not to carry them
aboard, especially if I'm going to another country. You can choose
differently of course. The problem is that some people have decided that
if
someone chooses not to carry a gun, that means they must be labelled as
weak, ineffectual, or "liberal," which is complete bs.


No the problem is if you carry a gun, some snot nose weak liberal
has a problem with it, and assumes you are a "right wing nut".

?? Please show me where I said you're a right-wingnut with respect to this
discussion. I didn't. You're the one who starting flinging your sh*t.



Temper, temper! Ha ha! It looks like Gaynze forgot to take his meds again.
(Either that or an LSD flashback?)

Wilbur Hubbard

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:56:54 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Joe" wrote in message
...

No the problem is if you carry a gun, some snot nose weak liberal
has a problem with it, and assumes you are a "right wing nut".


In your case, it's an easy call.

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

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
news
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.


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

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

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

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