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




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