Guns on boats equals 5 years jail time

[Vipe6]

Originally Posted by trifan

Hmmm... such passion. Few things bring it to the fore. This must be one.
According to the US Dept of Justice (DOJ), if you take out the inner city black-on-black and hispanic gang violence, America is safer than all those other so-called "safe" countries we are measured against. The stats don't get into the "whys" or causes of the violence, just the numbers. Being s Texan I have had a concealed carry license for years and I always figure concealed means just that. Out of sight, out of mind, which isn't to say that one wouldn't be busted for smuggling with that attitude. Point being I try to keep a low profile as much as possible. +1 on killing a local. That never works anywhere. Furriners are the first to get hung. Arrogance belongs in yankeeland. Nuff said.

I guess what you say is correct. Most violence is done by people at the lower side of the income pyramid. That's because in a society where there's very little social security people need to literally fight to survive. Take away that need and the violence will subside. But then again, social security is seen by many americans as communism.

[Ribbit]

Originally Posted by Polux

Not talking about flare guns.

I am, because they are treated IDENTICALLY to pistols (eta: in some jurisdictions, so declare them as well, while they are on the boat).

Originally Posted by Polux

You may not be smuggling drugs but in some countries carrying a gun, if not declared, is equal to smuggling a gun and can have nasty consequences if the gun is found.

That's why I say declare it, while it is still on the boat (because there is a significant difference once that gun is off the boat, even for declaring it purposes), and in a secure cabinet that can be officially sealed by customs.

Originally Posted by Polux

With terrorism and all that I don't think gun control and search is going to be lessen, quite the contrary.

Because of terrorism and all that, I don't think you are aware of how thinking is developing rationally in that regard.

The Head of Interpol's views on the subject (unfortunately an infowars source, because the original at ABC has been heavily edited since publication, and the infowars source is far closer to the original):

"Interpol Chief: Arm Citizens Globally to Prevent Terror Attacks"

Interpol Chief: Arm Citizens Globally to Prevent Terror Attacks » Infowars Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

"Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble told ABC News that one of the only ways to prevent terrorists from hitting soft targets was to arm citizens globally, noting that the Westgate mall siege would have been averted far quicker if it had taken place in gun-friendly areas like Denver or Texas.

Noble’s statements are a powerful rebuttal to the anti-gun lobby, especially given his background. The Interpol chief was formerly the head of all law enforcement for the U.S. Treasury Department

Stressing that an “armed citizenry” was the only option besides turning soft targets like shopping malls into enclaves surrounded by “extraordinary security” perimeters, Noble suggested that the siege in Kenya, which dragged on for days and ended in the slaughter of 60 civilians, represented a huge public relations blow for gun control advocates.


“Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?” Noble said, referring to states with pro-gun traditions. “What I’m saying is it makes police around the world question their views on gun control. It makes citizens question their views on gun control. You have to ask yourself, ‘Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat of terrorism?’ This is something that has to be discussed.”

“For me it’s a profound question,” he continued. “People are quick to say ‘gun control, people shouldn’t be armed,’ etc., etc. I think they have to ask themselves: ‘Where would you have wanted to be? In a city where there was gun control and no citizens armed if you’re in a Westgate mall, or in a place like Denver or Texas?'”

As we reported last month, an off-duty SAS soldier armed with a handgun helped save at least 100 lives during the Westgate siege, returning to the building a dozen times to rescue hostages.

Noble’s argument that guns in the hands of responsible citizens can prevent bloodshed is backed by hard statistics.

According to a 1993 National Self- Defense Survey conducted by Gary Kleck, Ph.D., a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee, Americans use guns to defend themselves against a confrontation with a criminal up to 2.5 million times a year. This means that every day in America some 6,800 people use guns to protect themselves.

Scholars Clayton E. Cramer and David Burnett have documented how “a great number of tragedies — murders, rapes, assaults, robberies — have been thwarted by self-defense gun uses.”

Disarming citizens only guarantees more atrocities such as Paris.

How long did it take, and how many people were dead and wounded, before the Police showed up?

When seconds count, the Police are at least minutes away, and in my own case, when I was shot by a nutter in 1989, it took them 16 hours to turn up (and their reason for the delay? "Well, we didn't want him shooting at us as well" and this given they are LEGALLY BOUND to be on the scene within 15 minutes, which would still have been no use!).

[SaltyMonkey]

OMG LOOOK HONEY! ANOTHER GUN THREAD! SAVE YOURSELVES!!! GRAB THE ANCHOR!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES AHHHHHHHHHRRRRRRRRHHHHHHHGGGG!!!!

[Formosa Scott]

Originally Posted by Vipe6

It's actually this need that spawns the ill will I think. (and a tendency to be arrogant towards the rest of the world)

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? impossible to answer and mighty arrogant of you to assume you know the answer.

[Vipe6]

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

What happened with the Swiss policy of everyone being part of the civilian defense and all with a rifle in their home?

That is something completely diferent. As you say, the rifles are at home and stay at home and I believe it's only the rifle, not the ammo.

[Formosa Scott]

Originally Posted by SaltyMonkey

OMG LOOOK HONEY! ANOTHER GUN THREAD! SAVE YOURSELVES!!! GRAB THE ANCHOR!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES AHHHHHHHHHRRRRRRRRHHHHHHHGGGG!!!

Which anchor would be best?

[Valmika]

[QUOTE=zeehag;2020466] US is the only place to steer clear of is the
usa is only nation allows weaponry for its defense to be in hands of the citizens. think about it a while.



Really? Are you sure of that?

[Formosa Scott]

Originally Posted by Vipe6

That is something completely diferent. As you say, the rifles are at home and stay at home and I believe it's only the rifle, not the ammo.

Geesh, everyone owning guns there is completely different because it doesn't fit my agenda

[Vipe6]

Originally Posted by Formosa Scott

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? impossible to answer and mighty arrogant of you to assume you know the answer.

I don't think it's arrogance on my behalf. I actually used to be a fan of the us untill I came into contact with some of that arrogance. It cured me for good. (so there's your answer to the chicken and the egg)
For instance, we have perfectky good cars here in europe, no need for your president to bring his own car when he visits. We even have these desks for him to stand behind when he gives a speech. And above all, we have our own police, no need for american security personnel to push us out of the way in our own countries.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by Vipe6

What you call infringement is actually legal. It's called the monopoly of the use of violence. In most countries the citizens have given the state the monopoly to use violence to protect them, their families and communities. That's because we have not forgotten what happened in the middle ages when armoured gangs roamed. If the state has the monopoly of violence there is no need for individuals to bear arms therefore excluding the accidents that happen from carrying these things.

So then what do people do when a Stalin or Hitler or Mussolini comes to power?

Politely ask them to go away? Pray for another country to come along and save their unarmed asses? Just go along with the genocide and hope they don't get killed off as well?

Don't tell me it can't happen, it already did, and may happen again because the citizens couldn't stop it.

What a lovely way to live, like an ostrich or a chicken.

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by Formosa Scott

Which anchor would be best?

Obviously an automatic assault multihull anchor with twin steering stations in a central cockpit.

[alha]

Originally Posted by Vipe6

The us actually almost did send roses and hugs to hitler early on in the war. It was not until pearl harbor that the us got involved.

That's somewhat true, as we were very isolationist in the years after WWI, and especially in the 1930's. We thought we had bigger fish to fry (great depression) and took our eyes off the ball. Not everyone did, some saw WWII coming, and tried to prepare behind the scenes, and even after it broke out, we were still non-committal. If we had kept our eyes open, and on the ball, and had jumped in Full Force in 1940, the world would be a significantly different place than it is now. Possibly no nukes, even? Pure speculation on that one, but interesting to ponder.

[Formosa Scott]

Originally Posted by Vipe6

I don't think it's arrogance on my behalf. I actually used to be a fan of the us untill I came into contact with some of that arrogance. It cured me for good. (so there's your answer to the chicken and the egg)
For instance, we have perfectky good cars here in europe, no need for your president to bring his own car when he visits. We even have these desks for him to stand behind when he gives a speech. And above all, we have our own police, no need for american security personnel to push us out of the way in our own countries.

I apologize, I didn't realize your blanket statement about Americans was based on such solid evidence.

[Ribbit]

Originally Posted by Vipe6

That is something completely diferent. As you say, the rifles are at home and stay at home and I believe it's only the rifle, not the ammo.

Rifle and ammunition for it.

[Lizzy Belle]

Originally Posted by Formosa Scott

Which anchor would be best?