Let's just give the pirates our ships - bullets first, ARRGH!

Mike · Apr 11, 2009

imported post

Please CLICK & DIGG:

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m4d11-Lets-just-give-the-pirates-our-ships--bullets-first-ARRGH

SNIP

Continuing pirate attacks on American flagged ships on the high seas is a call to arms for commercial sailors and ship owners alike. And this weekend's Wall Street Journal took note of this call to arms in an article entitled "Attack Raises Debate on Guns for Sailors."

Unfortunately, the views of those interviewed by the Journal fell into the either/or propositions of either "[g]ive me mounted machine guns" or just keep those "fire hoses under pressure so they are ready to blast pirates." But there's a middle ground - let sailors carry the same arms at sea they can carryin their home townswhile shopping at themall or hunting in the woods. . . .

uncle jed · Apr 11, 2009

imported post

Sounds like a good idea. No need for the merchant sailors to be defenseless.

Shotgun · Apr 11, 2009

imported post

It's interesting how the media always puts this sort of thing in terms of a "debate." It seems to me that there's little to debate-- you can either give someone the means to try to defend oneself, or send them among the wolves with a hope and a prayer. It's a no-brainer.

TheWarrior · Apr 11, 2009

imported post

While not really surprised, I was nonetheless appalled to hear that they had nothing but HOSES (speaking of the recent event in particular). They can't even repel a couple measly small-town boarders? Lead is in order!

The whole hostage situation, OTOH, is, IMO an international embarassment...just my 2c....

kimbercarrier · Apr 11, 2009

imported post

Why can't they at least throw them a cocktail; from molitov of course:shock:. Those pirates aren't fire proof.

Grapeshot · Apr 12, 2009

imported post

Advocating meeting violence with violence? That only begets more violence. What would the Rev. Col. Cooper say about that?

Yata hey

Tomahawk · Apr 12, 2009

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Advocating meeting violence with violence? That only begets more violence. What would the Rev. Col. Cooper say about that?

Yata hey

"Lock and load!" or some variation on the theme.

Grapeshot · Apr 12, 2009

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

Advocating meeting violence with violence? That only begets more violence. What would the Rev. Col. Cooper say about that?

Yata hey

Click to expand...

"Lock and load!" or some variation on the theme.

“One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that ‘violence begets violence.’ I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure—and in some cases I have—that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.”
– Cooper vs. Terrorism

Yata hey

Task Force 16 · Apr 12, 2009

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

Advocating meeting violence with violence? That only begets more violence. What would the Rev. Col. Cooper say about that?

Yata hey

Click to expand...

"Lock and load!" or some variation on the theme.

Click to expand...

“One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that ‘violence begets violence.’ I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure—and in some cases I have—that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.”
– Cooper vs. Terrorism

Yata hey

Now your talking about a "fair trade" situation. That simply can't be tolerated! :cuss:

(sarcasm in full bloom)

:banghead:

Shotgun · Apr 12, 2009

imported post

The headline read:
"US sea capt. freed from pirates in swift firefight"

XD-GEM · Apr 12, 2009

imported post

My Dad is a Maritime Law attorney - that's a lawyer who deals with legal issues arising from seafaring. He says that having armed crews is problematic for international ships because it would be illegal in some ports of call for there to be any weapons on a mechant vessel. Military vessels making ports of call in such places must be granted waivers in order to enter the territorials waters of such places. Those places are not likely to grant waivers for merchant ships.

U.S. policy regarding piracy on the high seas was established by President Thomas Jefferson and AFAIK has not been officially changed since - no tribute (ransom) paid and no quarter given.

CaptainFinn · Apr 12, 2009

imported post

I was watching the news on the hijacking all week. One question that never got asked (or answered) was...

How the hell did a bunch of pirates on a tiny little pleasure boat manage to get aboard a whopping big container ship in the first place ? Do these pirates actually use grappling hooks or get the ship to lower cargo nets ? Do they wave a few AK-47's at a massive steel frieghter and cower the crew into lowering boarding ladders or bosun's chairs ?

LAst year when the ship carrying munitions got hijacked, they said the pirates forced the ship to stop by flashing an RPG-7 at them. First, assuming the pirates could even HIT the frieghter with an RPG-7, what is it gonna do ? Blow a 2 or 3 inch hole in the hull above the waterline ? Hardly. Even a HE shaped charge is only gonna cause minor damage unless they hit a fuel tank. And I don't think some Somali goon is gonna knpow the pinpoint positions of vulnerablilty on a frieghter. it isn't the friggin Death Star; a hit from an RPG isn't gonna blow it into a million pieces.

Mike · Apr 12, 2009

imported post

XD-GEM wrote:

My Dad is a Maritime Law attorney - that's a lawyer who deals with legal issues arising from seafaring. He says that having armed crews is problematic for international ships because it would be illegal in some ports of call for there to be any weapons on a mechant vessel. Military vessels making ports of call in such places must be granted waivers in order to enter the territorials waters of such places.

OK, but seems to me there is a difference between military vessals and crews with garden variety guns on board - ask your dad which ports would refuse entry or board and inspect an American flagged vessal looking to seize or prosecute for ordinary rifles and shotguns?

doug23838 · Apr 12, 2009

imported post

I'm sure you all have noticed how :what:big eyed the media is that merchant marine ships are sailing the seas completely unarmed. They (the main stream media) are beside themselves that sailors would go "where Pirates are" unarmed. I've heard more than one talking head ask "why don't they have guns on board these ships?"

Its almost as if the media suddenly thought...."hey... a gun might be useful if pirates were attacking you." Do they not see that some other form of pirate robs banks, convenience stores, jewelry stores, hotel clerks, taxi drivers, people out for a jog, ...

Is this the same media that questions why I need to carry a gun?

Why is a gun suddenly the obvious tool for a sailor on a ship, but not for a citizen wanting to protect his self and family?

Shotgun · Apr 12, 2009

imported post

doug23838 wrote:

Why is a gun suddenly the obvious tool for a sailor on a ship, but not for a citizen wanting to protect his self and family?

That is an excellent question, and one that I hope will be asked often.

Grapeshot · Apr 12, 2009

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

doug23838 wrote:

Why is a gun suddenly the obvious tool for a sailor on a ship, but not for a citizen wanting to protect his self and family?

Click to expand...

That is an excellent question, and one that I hope will be asked often.

One of the talking heads who was a guest consultant on Fox News stated, "That every person has the right to self-defense." Don't wonder if he is never invited back.

No cite avail. I watched this part in between my flu/med induced naps.

Yata hey

Shotgun · Apr 12, 2009

imported post

XD-GEM wrote:

My Dad is a Maritime Law attorney - that's a lawyer who deals with legal issues arising from seafaring. He says that having armed crews is problematic for international ships because it would be illegal in some ports of call for there to be any weapons on a mechant vessel. Military vessels making ports of call in such places must be granted waivers in order to enter the territorials waters of such places. Those places are not likely to grant waivers for merchant ships.

That's fine, then those countries can just look elsewhere to get the stuff they want.

Task Force 16 · Apr 12, 2009

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Shotgun wrote:

doug23838 wrote:

Why is a gun suddenly the obvious tool for a sailor on a ship, but not for a citizen wanting to protect his self and family?

Click to expand...

That is an excellent question, and one that I hope will be asked often.

Click to expand...

One of the talking heads who was a guest consultant on Fox News stated, "That every person has the right to self-defense." Don't wonder if he is never invited back.

No cite avail. I watched this part in between my flu/med induced naps.

Yata hey

Well, Grapeshot, it's obvious that you experienced a fever/med's induced halucination.

(sarcasm applies)

Seriously

I don't think these liberal pundits have the foggiest clue as to what they say from one minute to the next.

CaptainFinn · Apr 15, 2009

imported post

Over on A15.com someone posted an article regarding a US-flagged merchant ship named 'The Black Eage' (Nice name !)

There were pics of the ships' armory. Racks of military-grade body armor, four pump twelve gauge shotguns, two M1A's (or maybe M14's) and a half-dozen pistols, beretta M92's IIRC.

I think two reasonably-trained ship's crew armed with scoped M1A's could eliminate any pirate threat bopping about on the waves from a safe distance before the leeetle boat could come within AK47 range--especially 'Somali Grade' AK47 range, which appears to be about twenty feet.

Tomahawk · Apr 15, 2009

imported post

CaptainFinn wrote:

I think two reasonably-trained ship's crew armed with scoped M1A's could eliminate any pirate threat bopping about on the waves from a safe distance before the leeetle boat could come within AK47 range--especially 'Somali Grade' AK47 range, which appears to be about twenty feet.

That's mostly true, for now perhaps. It assumes that a huge ship with a crew of only 20 men can spare a lookout all the time. The pirates could bring more men and more firepower, but they'd be better off looking for an unarmed ship to plunder.

The Obama administration, like all these modern idiot presidents, is talking big about "ending piracy" blah blah. They're missing the point.

The US government should be concerned with protectng US vessels, and the hell with the rest; they can handle it themselves. The goal here should be a situation where a pirate runs the other way as soon as he sees the stars and stripes flying from a merchant ship's mast. That flag should mean nothing but trouble for a pirate, the threat of the armed men aboard that ship should convinve the pirate that he would be better served finding some other ship to go after.

Id we can reach that point (and it really wouldn't take much), then the US government has fulfilled its duty.

Let's just give the pirates our ships - bullets first, ARRGH!

Site Co-Founder

Regular Member

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Campaign Veteran

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Site Co-Founder

Regular Member

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

Legendary Warrior

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member