The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 45

Thread: Somali Pirates

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Port St. Lucie, Fl
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianW View Post
    While I understand your point (I think), what is the logical extension of that?
    Does Obama, through the Navy, need to put extra reources there in the Gulf to protect Americans/intersts?
    And even if he does, don't you think the situation would be similar to court rulings here, that the polce have no legal obligation to respond to protect you?

    Or does it make even more sense to for private parties, who legally can't be armed & have no commercial intersts in being there, to stay the hell out of that area if at all possible?
    {Though I would venture a 'guess" that, as in many gun controlled areas in our country, there are some that do carry "illegal" weapons and would rather take the risk of being "tried" than "buried".}

    And how should we decide the priorites of who gets the protection of the limited resources?
    I wouldn't mind seeing (or not seeing as the case may be) some American submarines patroling the area and taking out a "Mother ship" or two.

  2. #22
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hew View Post
    Exactly. Another consideration is if they're caught with illegal weapons or ammunition they face confiscation of their sailboat. The vast majority of cruisers go unarmed.
    That's not true. On international waters, there is no governing body to make arms "illegal". Upon entering a port, you must declare your weapons, pharmaceuticals, fresh fruits, or whatever else the host country requires for entry. Some will issue a permit for posession, others will not allow at all. It differs for each country.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    I saw an interview with the ex-husband of one of the women. He said she was aware of the danger. He said she contacted him and gave him instructions on what to do if something happened to them. If it was that dangerous, why go?

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IowaBayDog View Post
    Unless you are a recognized military entity, it is a violation of Maritime Law to be armed on International waters especially if you want to have free pass into foreign ports. Going into another countries port armed will get you a really long stay in that country. This is why even the large cargo ships don't hire mercenaries to protect them. So their being completely unarmed really wasn't a choice but a necessity.
    Personally, I would rather be caught with my gun than without it. If I can't carry weapons, then I'm not going.

  5. #25
    Senior Member Hew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    That's not true. On international waters, there is no governing body to make arms "illegal". Upon entering a port, you must declare your weapons, pharmaceuticals, fresh fruits, or whatever else the host country requires for entry. Some will issue a permit for posession, others will not allow at all. It differs for each country.
    I have no idea what you find to be untrue in what I said. Very few countries that cruisers go to will allow you to clear in weapons and allow you to keep them on board. Most ban them alltogether. Some will keep them for you until you check out of the country (which might not be at the same location you checked into the country or they may conveniently become "lost"). So, if you're not allowed to keep the weapons on board they're useless for self-protection. To be useful for self-protection, you must keep them; thus making them illegal. If you get caught with an illegal firearm or ammunition, most countries will confiscate your sailboat. Because of all those hassles, there are very few cruisers who bother with weapons. Because of all those hassles, there are very few commerical vessels (tankers, freighters, etc.) that bother with weapons. I'm not sure what you think is untrue about any of that.
    I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.

  6. #26
    Senior Member M&K's Retrievers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Royse City, TX
    Posts
    5,168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hew View Post
    I have no idea what you find to be untrue in what I said. Very few countries that cruisers go to will allow you to clear in weapons and allow you to keep them on board. Most ban them alltogether. Some will keep them for you until you check out of the country (which might not be at the same location you checked into the country or they may conveniently become "lost"). So, if you're not allowed to keep the weapons on board they're useless for self-protection. To be useful for self-protection, you must keep them; thus making them illegal. If you get caught with an illegal firearm or ammunition, most countries will confiscate your sailboat. Because of all those hassles, there are very few cruisers who bother with weapons. Because of all those hassles, there are very few commerical vessels (tankers, freighters, etc.) that bother with weapons. I'm not sure what you think is untrue about any of that.
    'cause he said
    M&K's HR UH Tucker of Texoma JH
    M&K's SHR Prime Black Angus
    M&K's Miss Jessie Girl JH
    Sir Jacob of Lakeview-Jake
    Freeway JYD

    Mike Whitworth

  7. #27
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hew View Post
    I have no idea what you find to be untrue in what I said. Very few countries that cruisers go to will allow you to clear in weapons and allow you to keep them on board. Most ban them alltogether. Some will keep them for you until you check out of the country (which might not be at the same location you checked into the country or they may conveniently become "lost"). So, if you're not allowed to keep the weapons on board they're useless for self-protection. To be useful for self-protection, you must keep them; thus making them illegal. If you get caught with an illegal firearm or ammunition, most countries will confiscate your sailboat. Because of all those hassles, there are very few cruisers who bother with weapons. Because of all those hassles, there are very few commerical vessels (tankers, freighters, etc.) that bother with weapons. I'm not sure what you think is untrue about any of that.
    I'm sorry. Since the thread was about a private cruising yacht, I assumed your comments referred to private boaters, when you said "cruisers". If you were referring to Carnival Cruise Lines or the like, then I'll take your word for it.

    As for the "vast majority", I don't know if there are even any stats to check, but if you follow the "firearms on board" threads on the sailing nets, I'm not so sure about that. Just like here, to a lesser extent, there are those who are passionate about self defense and right to carry. I wouldn't say they're a "vast minority".

    take care

    ps...I'm not sure four people could have successfully defended themselves against 20+ pirates anyway....maybe could have taken a few with them, but who knows?

    pps...MK, thank you for your intelligent, useful comments, again.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  8. #28
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackstone View Post
    Personally, I would rather be caught with my gun than without it. If I can't carry weapons, then I'm not going.
    If I were going to sea, in those waters, I'd prefer a .50 cal.
    (been there, done that)


    The equalizer, you know, reach out and touch someone!

    RK
    Stan b & Elvis

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Eastern NC
    Posts
    2,755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    ps...I'm not sure four people could have successfully defended themselves against 20+ pirates anyway....maybe could have taken a few with them, but who knows?

    Depends on the arsenal on board...


    As far as the no weapons thing, do most countries search your boat upon entry? I suspect on a boat that size, there are PLENTY of places to hide a few AKs. There is no way in hell that I would venture that direction unarmed, regardless of laws, because the pirates sure don't care what any law says.

  10. #30
    Senior Member BrianW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Athol, North Idaho
    Posts
    885

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    ...I'm not sure four people could have successfully defended themselves against 20+ pirates anyway....maybe could have taken a few with them, but who knows?
    Quote Originally Posted by ducknwork View Post
    Depends on the arsenal on board...
    And if they followed Col. Cooper"s "Principle of Personal Defense" ie
    Be Alert; Act with Decisiveness, Aggressiveness, & Speed; Keep your Cool; Be Ruthless; Achieve tactical Surprise - one might be surprised what a minority of defenders could do!
    (Though a Barrett 82A1 wouldn't hurt to have at all )

    There is no way in hell that I would venture that direction unarmed, regardless of laws, because the pirates sure don't care what any law says.
    That's what all "goblins" count on, that the "law abiding" will remain that way and "if we just do what they say Martha, maybe they won't hurt us?!?"

    Ok so now the pirates are vowing revenge -
    Pirates vow revenge (from MSNBC)
    Two Somali pirates who spoke with Reuters by telephone Tuesday said the hostages were ordered killed since the pirates themselves were under attack by U.S. forces.
    "Our colleagues called us this morning, that they were being attacked by a U.S. warship," Mohamud, a Somali pirate, told Reuters. "We ordered our comrades to kill the four Americans before they got killed."
    Pirate leader Farah, speaking from Bayla, a pirate haven in the northern semi-autonomous region of Puntland, vowed to avenge the deaths and capture of his comrades.
    "I lost the money I invested and my comrades. (awww) No forgiveness for the Americans. Revenge. Our business will go on," he said, adding he had spent $110,000 so far in the hijacking, including on weapons and food and salaries.-

    In my view that's a declaration of war, whether it's from a recognized leader of a country or not. So what does the CinC do now?

    Inform Congress, followed by an EO declaring the pirates "a clear & present danger"?
    Maybe then have one of our "highly ethical reporters" (like the one that called Gov. Walker) call Farah for an "interview" followed by a Predator/Hellfire lock on to his cell phone signal?
    I hate to say it but Roger's suggestion of having a mother ship "develop a mysterious & permanent leak" doesn't sound half bad either.
    "It's not that government is inherently stupid, although that's a debatable question."
    Rand Paul CPAC speech 2011

    I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791
    ________________________________________
    Proud partner of (HR) WR SR Brian's 44Magnum Monster
    co-owned by HR Rianne's 2nd Chance Hurricane Rebel

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •