Guns on boats equals 5 years jail time

[Lizzy Belle]

Originally Posted by Polux

I am pretty sure he would consider an absolutely insane idea to have a gun on a boat

I crewed for an ex-army guy a couple of times. He knew his guns ... he sorta loves them, I think ... Anyway, on his cruise, he had 0 guns on the boat.

"Way too many different laws, too much of a hassle and so little chance I'd actually ever need a gun.
Also -- I'm trained to handle myself, with or without a gun. And trust me - I can, and I will."
Scary grin on his face on that last sentence I believe him.

[Sailing55]

Originally Posted by Scout 30

I think it's important to remember that all Americans aren't as thin skinned as some on this thread. I, for one, have found Zee's diatribes kind of entertaining. I've also found the constant complaining about people hating the US a little embarrassing. All too often we believe in freedom of speech until someone says something we don't agree with. This is a hugely diverse country which is what really makes it great.

So freedom of speech does not extend to "complaining about people hating the US"? If commenting about people hating the US violates their freedom of speech then what, exactly, is "freedom of speech"? If some speech is forbidden, then it is no longer freedom of speech.

Or am I missing something?

[landsend]

I'm out of popcorn.Be right back.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

...
Many of us do carry things that potentially could be used as defensive weapons. We've got ... even a spear gun (with sadly rotted rubber bands). ...

Thanks for the laugh

Having doing for many years spear diving I occasionally thought to buy one for the boat but on the med I never saw a fish I would shoot at. That's a sad spectacle to see the fish the traditional fishermen can get

Maybe when I get back to the Atlantic even if here the kind and size of fishes I used to saw 30 or 40 years ago is also a disappearing memory.

[Lizzy Belle]

Originally Posted by landsend

I'm out of popcorn.Be right back.

I bought extra, here you go:

[roland stockham]

Originally Posted by Jdege

Every individual, in every nation, throughout all of human history, has had the individual right to keep and bear arms for defense of himself, his family, and his community. The only question is whether this right is recognized by the government, or infringed by it.

Most, throughout history, have infringed upon it, to various degrees.

We need to recognize that infringement, and find ways to deal with it.

But we must never accept that that infringement can ever be justified.

Oh dear I have to challenge that one. The fundamental contract between the state and the citizen is that the citizen agrees to delegate the use of violence in the resolution of a dispute to the state. The state in return agrees to grant and protect certain rights and protect the citizen from external threats. Without this contract the state can have no justice system, cannot collect revenue or form an army. It would therefore not exist in any meaningful definition of a state. So to live in a country is to accept it's legitimate roll in removing the right to use violence in defense of the person, property and rights. The quest is not if but how much. Throughout political history whe have tended to equate greater restriction of personal violence with 'higher' civilization but not everyone agrees with that.

A brief point on 'ante-Americanism'. All the US citizens I have met have been great. The USA based global corporations, military and religious fundamentalist on the other hand scare me to death and are reeking havoc in the world. Given a choice between ending ISIS and ending Monsanto I would go for Monsanto every time. So it is not you, the individual US citizen, that others see as the problem but rather the corporate and military might other wield both in your name and with your consent, well with your consent to the degree that the USA is a democracy. (it is quite easy to argue it is not really democratic but rather an industrial oligarchy)

[Sailorbob8599]

I was 6 years of age when war was declared; I lived on the Isle of Wight on the south coast of England. Our home was directly across the short stretch of water from Portsmouth harbour, the biggest British naval dockyard.
This harbour was under constant bombardment by the Luftwaffe. Many's the time when German planes were being chased by R.A.F. fighter planes, they knew they couldn't reach the naval dockyard before becoming a casualty themselves and so, they would unload their bombs on our little town and immediate area.
During the chase, bullets and shell casings would rain down on our house. In daylight, much shrapnel was to be found on the ground, frequently smoking hot. Often the planes would scream over our home at roof-top height ... I also recall seeing flights of 1,000 bombers, (can you even imagine the sound of 4,000 aero engines?) both British &/or U.S. air forces, flying off to attack Germany or other targets. So yes, I've witnessed warfare as a child.
A short five years after the war ended, I found myself a member of the British Occupation Forces on the Rhine ... I've always considered myself as being very lucky I was not involved in the actual warfare.
I don't believe there are any "winners" in a war; Ask the parents of the young folk who never came back and I'm sure they will tell you. Yes, in dying for their country they are seen as hero's, but I'm sure their families would rather they had come home to them alive.
I now have a question for all of you: ... just WTF has all this got to do with sailing?

[Sailing55]

Originally Posted by roland stockham

Oh dear I have to challenge that one. The fundamental contract between the state and the citizen is that the citizen agrees to delegate the use of violence in the resolution of a dispute to the state. The state in return agrees to grant and protect certain rights and protect the citizen from external threats. Without this contract the state can have no justice system, cannot collect revenue or form an army. It would therefore not exist in any meaningful definition of a state. So to live in a country is to accept it's legitimate roll in removing the right to use violence in defense of the person, property and rights. The quest is not if but how much. Throughout political history whe have tended to equate greater restriction of personal violence with 'higher' civilization but not everyone agrees with that.

A brief point on 'ante-Americanism'. All the US citizens I have met have been great. The USA based global corporations, military and religious fundamentalist on the other hand scare me to death and are reeking havoc in the world. Given a choice between ending ISIS and ending Monsanto I would go for Monsanto every time. So it is not you, the individual US citizen, that others see as the problem but rather the corporate and military might other wield both in your name and with your consent, well with your consent to the degree that the USA is a democracy. (it is quite easy to argue it is not really democratic but rather an industrial oligarchy)

You make [some] great points, but please, just one question: do you feel it proper or "neighborly" [not referring to you] to express publicly "Anti-[any
country] comments if they can be seen as inflammatory?

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by sailingfarmer

I always thought it was so incredible that a 500 ton ship could be pulled over by a leaky skiff with 4 crazed Somalis with small arms weapons.... over and over again.... I think the Europeans have become overly domesticated with the Pax Americana. I think it is time to return to within the American borders and watch the inevitable lesson which will ensue. I think lessons have to be relearned as history recedes from short term memory.

Agreed!!

The first thing we need to do is stop spending billions every year trying to buy friendship with "foreign aid", it's obviously a huge waste of taxpayer dollars.

I can think of far better uses for that money in our own country, no need to give it away, especially to all of the Muslim countries, for obvious reasons.

[landsend]

Thanks Lizzy!!

[Polux]

Originally Posted by zeehag

there were NO attacks by me but were OBSERVATIONS of the manner in which my countrymen carry themselves when abroad.
ps abroad means out of usa.
tou are SHAMEFUL.
this is brought to my attention by the locals who live where i cruise as well as by officials and friends outside usa.
mebbe you need to travel some to understand.

life is an adventure meant to be LIVED!!!

Hum, you are exaggerating at least regarding what I see on Europe: some are really, well.... outstanding, meaning everybody can tell they are Americans, but I have found many nice Americans, I mean the kind you cannot tell immediately they are Americans and I am a friend of some.

They, like you, seem more disturbed than me for that kind of attitude some Americans have, that I think is what you are referring to.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Polux

Hum, like the British help to Portugal during Napoleonic wars?

By the way if you have nothing to do read the Sharpe series about the Napoleonic wars in Portugal. Great books by Bernard Cornwell
About the Sharpe Books | Bernard Cornwell

Great historical fiction.. followed all his adventures including India in the books and the excellent TV series..
Bussaco is just up the road.

[sailnow2011]

Originally Posted by zeehag

PRESUMING the rest of the world is as violent as is usa is arrogance.

Its actually ignorance, because most of the rest of the world is much more violent. Life is cheap in many countries. Its been shown time and time again.
Columbia, Venezuela, Brazil, panama, most of the African continent, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Indonesia, regions of turkey, many parts of philippines, Haiti,
These are all places that if you take the wrong turn, they would kill you in the alley for less then $20. These are places where criminals have guns, law abiding people live in fear, and governments care very little to not at all. I can walk down ANY alley in America, any time of day, and not be murdered.
The chance of me being killed in America is very very low.
It happens, and thats why protection is a great idea.

As for taking guns elsewhere, of course its not a right. However rules of the sea that were ratified say you can keep a gun on the boat, but good luck in court. This is why its a great idea to do research before you visit.

Most places in the world a long barrel, single shot, shotgun is legal. If declared its legal in about 95% of the places I have checked that are worth visiting. Even the good old UK, that said they would be happy to hold my, declared before arrival, gun for 30 days while I visit.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Bulawayo

This case is a lot more complicated than is apparent. I have been following it. Briefly, it was an anti-piracy escort vessel. There is a dispute as to whether the vessel was even within the territorial waters or that it was escorted into same. The vessel openly acknowledged it was armed for the purpose stated - the vessel was clearly identified with large painted signs acknowledging its purpose. It was not hiding.
Not withstanding, in my opinion the Indian Govt has over reacted to the situation - they shall certainly be gratefull when the vessel escorted vessels protecting others but now it is convenient to apply the law in a way in which is was not intended.

As I have said, I think that story with the Italian marines that killed two fishermen and that are to be judged by an international but whose judgment is dragging is relevant to the over sensitivity of the Indian government regarding this case.

The sentence seems to me exaggerated and a big fine and eventually the ship confiscation seemed to me a more logical measure.

[Freemind]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

Attacks? Hardly. It's only an attack if you feel threatened. Why do you feel threatened just by reading someone's opinions. The people who believe there is a "War on Xmas" tend to get that way...

boatman, here's what she said:

another hypocrisy i found was the attitude some have about alleged right to life--- seems only fetuses are allowed that by the spewers of this chant... they will murder physicians and kill staffing in clinics and yell about rights to bear arms--and kill whom they choose to kill in the name of right to life.
imagine how this all looks to the citizens of the nations in which we cruise--


Hypocrisy? Well and truly. "They" also don't support foster kids. Once they're born, those types tend to forget them. [Disclaimer: I'm a foster kid. What would I know? ]

Just some more opinions, not attacks.

I was responding to her calling someone , what was it, ...uncontributive or some such.
So, read the original post, then tell me what abortion has to do with an American owned vessel's crew doing something stupid.
I see that zeehag is popular, I don't care one way or another.
On second thought, don't tell me what you think. I've tried all I care to.