The issue is . . .
 

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.

The issue is . . .
 

"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

The issue is . . .
 

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

The issue is . . .
 

"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

The issue is . . .
 

"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

The issue is . . .
 

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

The issue is . . .
 

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.

The issue is . . .
 

"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.


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

The issue is . . .
 

"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

The issue is . . .
 

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.

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

The issue is . . .
 

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.

The issue is . . .
 

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.

The issue is . . .
 

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

The issue is . . .
 

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.......

The issue is . . .
 

"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

The issue is . . .
 

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.


Just as discussion of guns is more logically done in rec.guns.....

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

The issue is . . .
 

"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
...
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.


Just as discussion of guns is more logically done in rec.guns.....

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Well, that's true, but the discussion was about guns on boats, which is a
legitimate topic, as long as it doesn't (which it did) devolve into
political bs.

A better question would be... if you're decided to have a single gun aboard,
what should it be? I was thinking my .38 Special would be fine, but I would
put shotgun pellet rounds in it. No reason to blow a hole in the hull.

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

The issue is . . .
 

Capt. JG wrote:
"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
...
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.

Just as discussion of guns is more logically done in rec.guns.....

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Well, that's true, but the discussion was about guns on boats, which is a
legitimate topic, as long as it doesn't (which it did) devolve into
political bs.

A better question would be... if you're decided to have a single gun aboard,
what should it be? I was thinking my .38 Special would be fine, but I would
put shotgun pellet rounds in it. No reason to blow a hole in the hull.


We agree. My original point, that many didn't see my way, is that a
..357 is way too powerful to have on a boat. In the hands of a 16 year
old is a side issue.

You can do a lot of unintended damage with a gun that powerful. You
might be safer without it.

The issue is . . .
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:33:44 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
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.


Just as discussion of guns is more logically done in rec.guns.....

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Well, that's true, but the discussion was about guns on boats, which is a
legitimate topic, as long as it doesn't (which it did) devolve into
political bs.

A better question would be... if you're decided to have a single gun aboard,
what should it be? I was thinking my .38 Special would be fine, but I would
put shotgun pellet rounds in it. No reason to blow a hole in the hull.

Probably as good a pick as any. The point is that you can only defend
against one or possibly two people who come aboard and even then only
is they are unarmed. You simply aren't going to defend your boat
against a "pirate Boat" by yourself as any "pirate boat" is going to
have a couple of M-16's at a minimum and no matter what you have it
isn't going to be enough - unless you are awful, awful, lucky.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

The issue is . . .
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:33:44 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

A better question would be... if you're decided to have a single gun aboard,
what should it be? I was thinking my .38 Special would be fine, but I would
put shotgun pellet rounds in it. No reason to blow a hole in the hull.

Your shot load is for snakes inside a range of ten feet. If it won't
penetrate the average hull it isn't enough gun to defend yourself
with. The 38 Special is considered to be on the light side for
shooting people.

Casady

The issue is . . .
 

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:33:44 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

A better question would be... if you're decided to have a single gun
aboard,
what should it be? I was thinking my .38 Special would be fine, but I
would
put shotgun pellet rounds in it. No reason to blow a hole in the hull.

Your shot load is for snakes inside a range of ten feet. If it won't
penetrate the average hull it isn't enough gun to defend yourself
with. The 38 Special is considered to be on the light side for
shooting people.

Casady


People in the US keep saying that e.g. in the Cops show. "It's only a .38"
etc etc.

I have two of them, one is my target gun, the other a backup. I'd hate to
be anywhere in front of the two I shoot.

The proj is heavy and hard and doesn't half mess up the target.

By contrast, my .22 self-loader is fairly puny.

But I'd back my .38s to drop someone at 25 metres.

(24 meters or 26 meters I wouldn't know, but at 25 I'm good.)
Hoges in WA

The issue is . . .
 

"Hoges in WA" wrote in message
...

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:33:44 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

A better question would be... if you're decided to have a single gun
aboard,
what should it be? I was thinking my .38 Special would be fine, but I
would
put shotgun pellet rounds in it. No reason to blow a hole in the hull.

Your shot load is for snakes inside a range of ten feet. If it won't
penetrate the average hull it isn't enough gun to defend yourself
with. The 38 Special is considered to be on the light side for
shooting people.

Casady


People in the US keep saying that e.g. in the Cops show. "It's only a .38"
etc etc.

I have two of them, one is my target gun, the other a backup. I'd hate to
be anywhere in front of the two I shoot.

The proj is heavy and hard and doesn't half mess up the target.

By contrast, my .22 self-loader is fairly puny.

But I'd back my .38s to drop someone at 25 metres.

(24 meters or 26 meters I wouldn't know, but at 25 I'm good.)
Hoges in WA

I use to use "Norma" rounds in my .38 for a bit extra ummph. I was told that
they're a bit hotter than +P but less than the non-recommended +P+. Now, I
chamber either the +P or shotgun rounds. If I go target shooting, then I go
to the normal round, since it's easier on the .38.

I have to say that using the shotgun round on a person would not be pretty.
It might not kill them, probably wouldn't unless you got lucky, but it would
likely disable them, especially if they were hit in the upper-chest/face.

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