| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
More Pirates
Now they have attacked a US owned tug that was towing a barge or something. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090411/..._af/piracy_152 Eisboch |
More Pirates
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:23:34 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote: Now they have attacked a US owned tug that was towing a barge or something. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090411/..._af/piracy_152 Eisboch I cannot understand why these ships don't have .50 cals on the bow and stern. The damn things will reach out and touch someone a mile away. -- John H "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson |
More Pirates
On Apr 11, 11:57*am, John H wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:23:34 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Now they have attacked a US owned tug that was towing a barge or something. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090411/..._af/piracy_152 Eisboch I cannot understand why these ships don't have .50 cals on the bow and stern. The damn things will reach out and touch someone a mile away. -- John H "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." * Thomas Jefferson I keep hearing that armed ships are not allowed in some ports.. Seems those ports should be empty for a while till they change their attitudes... Another solution might be for these companies to hire a couple of BlackWater types for each vessel. If a certain port wanted to keep arms out, evacuate the BW guys just outside the ports "security zone" and let the port security take the ship in... When the ship leaves the security zone, have the BW guys placed back on board.. Just a thought... I have also considered the cost and logistics, weather, port security, etc... I know this would not be easy... |
More Pirates
On Apr 11, 12:50*pm, HK wrote:
wrote: On Apr 11, 11:57 am, John H wrote: On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:23:34 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Now they have attacked a US owned tug that was towing a barge or something. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090411/..._af/piracy_152 Eisboch I cannot understand why these ships don't have .50 cals on the bow and stern. The damn things will reach out and touch someone a mile away. -- John H "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." * Thomas Jefferson I keep hearing that armed ships are not allowed in some ports.. Seems those ports should be empty for a while till they change their attitudes... Another solution might be for these companies to hire a couple of BlackWater types for each vessel. If a certain port wanted to keep arms out, evacuate the BW guys just outside the ports "security zone" and let the port security take the ship in... When the ship leaves the security zone, have the BW guys placed back on board.. Just a thought... I have also considered the cost and logistics, weather, port security, etc... I know this would not be easy... It's nice to see the Assholes of the Universe...you and Herring...unite. -- Palin & Bachmann in 2012 - All Stupidity All the Time- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Don't be a hater. |
More Pirates
wrote:
On Apr 11, 12:50 pm, HK wrote: wrote: On Apr 11, 11:57 am, John H wrote: On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:23:34 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Now they have attacked a US owned tug that was towing a barge or something. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090411/..._af/piracy_152 Eisboch I cannot understand why these ships don't have .50 cals on the bow and stern. The damn things will reach out and touch someone a mile away. -- John H "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson I keep hearing that armed ships are not allowed in some ports.. Seems those ports should be empty for a while till they change their attitudes... Another solution might be for these companies to hire a couple of BlackWater types for each vessel. If a certain port wanted to keep arms out, evacuate the BW guys just outside the ports "security zone" and let the port security take the ship in... When the ship leaves the security zone, have the BW guys placed back on board.. Just a thought... I have also considered the cost and logistics, weather, port security, etc... I know this would not be easy... It's nice to see the Assholes of the Universe...you and Herring...unite. -- Palin & Bachmann in 2012 - All Stupidity All the Time- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Don't be a hater. Projecting again? Built any little pond boats lately? Been boating lately? No? Why are you here? -- Palin & Bachmann in 2012 - All Stupidity All the Time |
More Pirates
On Apr 11, 11:14*am, wrote:
On Apr 11, 11:57*am, John H wrote: On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:23:34 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Now they have attacked a US owned tug that was towing a barge or something. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090411/..._af/piracy_152 Eisboch I cannot understand why these ships don't have .50 cals on the bow and stern. The damn things will reach out and touch someone a mile away. -- John H "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." * Thomas Jefferson I keep hearing that armed ships are not allowed in some ports.. Seems those ports should be empty for a while till they change their attitudes... Another solution might be for these companies to hire a couple of BlackWater types for each vessel. If a certain port wanted to keep arms out, evacuate the BW guys just outside the ports "security zone" and let the port security take the ship in... When the ship leaves the security zone, have the BW guys placed back on board.. Just a thought... I have also considered the cost and logistics, weather, port security, etc... I know this would not be easy... i was thinking the same thing. Have an armed security boat out in Int'l waters, When the cargo ship gets out in the clear zone, then security forces would load up on the vessel. And before it reached it's POD, and while still out in Itn'l water another security boat picks up the security forces and arms and the ship sails into it's port. No defenses going out nor coming in, but in between? well..... |
More Pirates
"Tim" wrote in message ... i was thinking the same thing. Have an armed security boat out in Int'l waters, When the cargo ship gets out in the clear zone, then security forces would load up on the vessel. And before it reached it's POD, and while still out in Itn'l water another security boat picks up the security forces and arms and the ship sails into it's port. No defenses going out nor coming in, but in between? well..... ------------------------- During WWII it was determined that convoys was the safest means of transiting hot zones. Perhaps all the shipping companies should coordinate their ship's movements. Eisboch |
More Pirates
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:32:22 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote: On Apr 11, 11:14*am, wrote: On Apr 11, 11:57*am, John H wrote: On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:23:34 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Now they have attacked a US owned tug that was towing a barge or something. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090411/..._af/piracy_152 Eisboch I cannot understand why these ships don't have .50 cals on the bow and stern. The damn things will reach out and touch someone a mile away. -- John H "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." * Thomas Jefferson I keep hearing that armed ships are not allowed in some ports.. Seems those ports should be empty for a while till they change their attitudes... Another solution might be for these companies to hire a couple of BlackWater types for each vessel. If a certain port wanted to keep arms out, evacuate the BW guys just outside the ports "security zone" and let the port security take the ship in... When the ship leaves the security zone, have the BW guys placed back on board.. Just a thought... I have also considered the cost and logistics, weather, port security, etc... I know this would not be easy... i was thinking the same thing. Have an armed security boat out in Int'l waters, When the cargo ship gets out in the clear zone, then security forces would load up on the vessel. And before it reached it's POD, and while still out in Itn'l water another security boat picks up the security forces and arms and the ship sails into it's port. No defenses going out nor coming in, but in between? well..... Another option - an Apache helicopter, or any chopper with a mini-gun. Then the chopper could leapfrog from ship to ship. -- John H "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson |
More Pirates
"John H" wrote in message ... On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:23:34 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Now they have attacked a US owned tug that was towing a barge or something. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090411/..._af/piracy_152 Eisboch I cannot understand why these ships don't have .50 cals on the bow and stern. The damn things will reach out and touch someone a mile away. I have to concur. If a 28 foot boat is coming at a freighter, I can't see why they can't just blow them right out of the water and just make a log entry. If I was the captian, I wouldn't even stop even if I saw them swiming. Helping good people on the high seas is one thing, rescuing a pirate is best left to the sharks. Maybe even put the US satelites to good use, and forward them that boats are leaving dock and intercept them with prejudice. Why take the time, risk and effort on these pirates? After it is know that they will be routinely shot up, they will cease. |
More Pirates
wrote in message ... On Apr 11, 11:57 am, John H wrote: On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:23:34 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Now they have attacked a US owned tug that was towing a barge or something. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090411/..._af/piracy_152 Eisboch I cannot understand why these ships don't have .50 cals on the bow and stern. The damn things will reach out and touch someone a mile away. -- John H "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson I keep hearing that armed ships are not allowed in some ports.. Seems those ports should be empty for a while till they change their attitudes... Another solution might be for these companies to hire a couple of BlackWater types for each vessel. If a certain port wanted to keep arms out, evacuate the BW guys just outside the ports "security zone" and let the port security take the ship in... When the ship leaves the security zone, have the BW guys placed back on board.. Just a thought... I have also considered the cost and logistics, weather, port security, etc... I know this would not be easy... --- Easy then, don't go there until they can secure the ports. |
More Pirates
"John H" wrote in message ... On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:32:22 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Apr 11, 11:14 am, wrote: On Apr 11, 11:57 am, John H wrote: On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:23:34 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Now they have attacked a US owned tug that was towing a barge or something. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090411/..._af/piracy_152 Eisboch I cannot understand why these ships don't have .50 cals on the bow and stern. The damn things will reach out and touch someone a mile away. -- John H "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson I keep hearing that armed ships are not allowed in some ports.. Seems those ports should be empty for a while till they change their attitudes... Another solution might be for these companies to hire a couple of BlackWater types for each vessel. If a certain port wanted to keep arms out, evacuate the BW guys just outside the ports "security zone" and let the port security take the ship in... When the ship leaves the security zone, have the BW guys placed back on board.. Just a thought... I have also considered the cost and logistics, weather, port security, etc... I know this would not be easy... i was thinking the same thing. Have an armed security boat out in Int'l waters, When the cargo ship gets out in the clear zone, then security forces would load up on the vessel. And before it reached it's POD, and while still out in Itn'l water another security boat picks up the security forces and arms and the ship sails into it's port. No defenses going out nor coming in, but in between? well..... Another option - an Apache helicopter, or any chopper with a mini-gun. Then the chopper could leapfrog from ship to ship. Or a training game for the US navy. Fly supersonic in a F18 about 80 feet above them in a tag and run. Probably make them deaf but so what. No shots fired, no UN BS to worry about. |
More Pirates
Canuck57 wrote:
"John H" wrote in message ... On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:23:34 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Now they have attacked a US owned tug that was towing a barge or something. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090411/..._af/piracy_152 Eisboch I cannot understand why these ships don't have .50 cals on the bow and stern. The damn things will reach out and touch someone a mile away. I have to concur. If a 28 foot boat is coming at a freighter, I can't see why they can't just blow them right out of the water and just make a log entry. If I was the captian, I wouldn't even stop even if I saw them swiming. Helping good people on the high seas is one thing, rescuing a pirate is best left to the sharks. Maybe even put the US satelites to good use, and forward them that boats are leaving dock and intercept them with prejudice. Why take the time, risk and effort on these pirates? After it is know that they will be routinely shot up, they will cease. Merchant ships are not usually armed. Apparently you and your crap-for-brains buddy, Herring, aren't aware of that. Patrolling the seas is a job for the navies and coast guards of the world, not the merchant ships. The world is a bit too complex for simpletons like you and Herring. -- Palin & Bachmann in 2012 - All Stupidity All the Time |
More Pirates
On Apr 11, 3:50*pm, HK wrote:
Maybe even put the US satelites to good use, and forward them that boats are leaving dock and intercept them with prejudice. *Why take the time, risk and effort on these pirates? *After it is know that they will be routinely shot up, they will cease. Merchant ships are not usually armed. No **** Sherlock Holmes, that's what we are talking about.. Too bad you were to busy trolling to read the thread. Apparently you and your crap-for-brains buddy, Herring, aren't aware of that. See above, you should not have dropped out of school so young... Patrolling the seas is a job for the navies and coast guards of the world, not the merchant ships. Or private security firms, which is what... oh forget it, you wouldn't understand... The world is a bit too complex for simpletons like you and Herring. -- Palin & Bachmann in 2012 - Bring American Pride back to Washington.. |
More Pirates
|
More Pirates
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 13:39:29 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote: wrote in message ... On Apr 11, 11:57 am, John H wrote: On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:23:34 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Now they have attacked a US owned tug that was towing a barge or something. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090411/..._af/piracy_152 Eisboch I cannot understand why these ships don't have .50 cals on the bow and stern. The damn things will reach out and touch someone a mile away. -- John H "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson I keep hearing that armed ships are not allowed in some ports.. Seems those ports should be empty for a while till they change their attitudes... Another solution might be for these companies to hire a couple of BlackWater types for each vessel. If a certain port wanted to keep arms out, evacuate the BW guys just outside the ports "security zone" and let the port security take the ship in... When the ship leaves the security zone, have the BW guys placed back on board.. Just a thought... I have also considered the cost and logistics, weather, port security, etc... I know this would not be easy... --- Easy then, don't go there until they can secure the ports. I heard that also. Here. I've never heard that small arms used for protection were not allowed aboard ships in port. A .50 cal can be put in a locked wall locker when in port. What horse****. -- John H "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson |
More Pirates
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 13:42:30 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:32:22 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Apr 11, 11:14 am, wrote: On Apr 11, 11:57 am, John H wrote: On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:23:34 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Now they have attacked a US owned tug that was towing a barge or something. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090411/..._af/piracy_152 Eisboch I cannot understand why these ships don't have .50 cals on the bow and stern. The damn things will reach out and touch someone a mile away. -- John H "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson I keep hearing that armed ships are not allowed in some ports.. Seems those ports should be empty for a while till they change their attitudes... Another solution might be for these companies to hire a couple of BlackWater types for each vessel. If a certain port wanted to keep arms out, evacuate the BW guys just outside the ports "security zone" and let the port security take the ship in... When the ship leaves the security zone, have the BW guys placed back on board.. Just a thought... I have also considered the cost and logistics, weather, port security, etc... I know this would not be easy... i was thinking the same thing. Have an armed security boat out in Int'l waters, When the cargo ship gets out in the clear zone, then security forces would load up on the vessel. And before it reached it's POD, and while still out in Itn'l water another security boat picks up the security forces and arms and the ship sails into it's port. No defenses going out nor coming in, but in between? well..... Another option - an Apache helicopter, or any chopper with a mini-gun. Then the chopper could leapfrog from ship to ship. Or a training game for the US navy. Fly supersonic in a F18 about 80 feet above them in a tag and run. Probably make them deaf but so what. No shots fired, no UN BS to worry about. Well, that would get pretty costly pretty quickly, especially with a Hornet. That thing is a gas hog. The F-14 would be more economical, but still costly as hell. I really think this would do the job, and they're pretty cheap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Machine_gun_M2_1.jpg -- John H "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson |
More Pirates
"John H" wrote in message ... On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 13:42:30 -0600, "Canuck57" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:32:22 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Apr 11, 11:14 am, wrote: On Apr 11, 11:57 am, John H wrote: On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:23:34 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Now they have attacked a US owned tug that was towing a barge or something. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090411/..._af/piracy_152 Eisboch I cannot understand why these ships don't have .50 cals on the bow and stern. The damn things will reach out and touch someone a mile away. -- John H "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson I keep hearing that armed ships are not allowed in some ports.. Seems those ports should be empty for a while till they change their attitudes... Another solution might be for these companies to hire a couple of BlackWater types for each vessel. If a certain port wanted to keep arms out, evacuate the BW guys just outside the ports "security zone" and let the port security take the ship in... When the ship leaves the security zone, have the BW guys placed back on board.. Just a thought... I have also considered the cost and logistics, weather, port security, etc... I know this would not be easy... i was thinking the same thing. Have an armed security boat out in Int'l waters, When the cargo ship gets out in the clear zone, then security forces would load up on the vessel. And before it reached it's POD, and while still out in Itn'l water another security boat picks up the security forces and arms and the ship sails into it's port. No defenses going out nor coming in, but in between? well..... Another option - an Apache helicopter, or any chopper with a mini-gun. Then the chopper could leapfrog from ship to ship. Or a training game for the US navy. Fly supersonic in a F18 about 80 feet above them in a tag and run. Probably make them deaf but so what. No shots fired, no UN BS to worry about. Well, that would get pretty costly pretty quickly, especially with a Hornet. That thing is a gas hog. The F-14 would be more economical, but still costly as hell. I really think this would do the job, and they're pretty cheap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Machine_gun_M2_1.jpg -- John H Agreed, that would work great. Maybe the real answer is for the shipping insurance companies to mark the entire coastal area out to 600km as uninsurable unless armed with 4-8 of these on each ship with ex-marines and the like. Since ports don't allow armed ships, don't dock there. When they starve long enough they will change the rules. |
More Pirates
"HK" wrote in message ... Canuck57 wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:23:34 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Now they have attacked a US owned tug that was towing a barge or something. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090411/..._af/piracy_152 Eisboch I cannot understand why these ships don't have .50 cals on the bow and stern. The damn things will reach out and touch someone a mile away. I have to concur. If a 28 foot boat is coming at a freighter, I can't see why they can't just blow them right out of the water and just make a log entry. If I was the captian, I wouldn't even stop even if I saw them swiming. Helping good people on the high seas is one thing, rescuing a pirate is best left to the sharks. Maybe even put the US satelites to good use, and forward them that boats are leaving dock and intercept them with prejudice. Why take the time, risk and effort on these pirates? After it is know that they will be routinely shot up, they will cease. Merchant ships are not usually armed. Apparently you and your crap-for-brains buddy, Herring, aren't aware of that. Patrolling the seas is a job for the navies and coast guards of the world, not the merchant ships. The world is a bit too complex for simpletons like you and Herring. Yes, I know merchant ships are not routinely armed. But in southeast Asia they had issues there too until some found out they were dead meat when they tried to board certain ships. They learned quick to avoid them. If I recall correctly, there were a few publicied incidents some 10 years ago or so, the pirates were left for dead. There is nothing preventing them from being armed. And I don't see anyone trying them for shooting up pirates. |
More Pirates
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:33:24 -0400, John H
wrote: I heard that also. Here. I've never heard that small arms used for protection were not allowed aboard ships in port. A .50 cal can be put in a locked wall locker when in port. What horse****. Actually, even handguns are a no no most places. A fifty is not a small arm. Casady |
More Pirates
On Apr 11, 9:20*pm, Richard Casady
Actually, even handguns are a no no most places. A fifty is not a small arm. Casady in fact, a ma-duce (M-2) isn't classified as a "machine gun" By the BATF, it is classified as a "destructive device" And justifiably so... |
More Pirates
"HK" wrote in message ... Canuck57 wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:23:34 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Now they have attacked a US owned tug that was towing a barge or something. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090411/..._af/piracy_152 Eisboch I cannot understand why these ships don't have .50 cals on the bow and stern. The damn things will reach out and touch someone a mile away. I have to concur. If a 28 foot boat is coming at a freighter, I can't see why they can't just blow them right out of the water and just make a log entry. If I was the captian, I wouldn't even stop even if I saw them swiming. Helping good people on the high seas is one thing, rescuing a pirate is best left to the sharks. Maybe even put the US satelites to good use, and forward them that boats are leaving dock and intercept them with prejudice. Why take the time, risk and effort on these pirates? After it is know that they will be routinely shot up, they will cease. Merchant ships are not usually armed. Apparently you and your crap-for-brains buddy, Herring, aren't aware of that. Patrolling the seas is a job for the navies and coast guards of the world, not the merchant ships. The world is a bit too complex for simpletons like you and Herring. For years merchant ships were armed. Cannons. Problems with Pirates and Privateers. Seems as if we need to regress to arming them again. |
More Pirates
"Tim" wrote in message ... On Apr 11, 9:20 pm, Richard Casady Actually, even handguns are a no no most places. A fifty is not a small arm. Casady in fact, a ma-duce (M-2) isn't classified as a "machine gun" By the BATF, it is classified as a "destructive device" And justifiably so... All machine gun are a "Destructive Device" according to the ATF rules. |
More Pirates
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ... For years merchant ships were armed. Cannons. Problems with Pirates and Privateers. Seems as if we need to regress to arming them again. They weren't carrying millions of gallons of flammable cargo. Somewhere I was reading that even the coal carriers had to be very careful with firearms due to the coal dust. Wooden warships had to be careful also. It was interesting taking the tour of the USS Constitution in Boston. When they went to battle stations, one of the crew's jobs was to man the manually operated bilge pumps and pump water up to cover the two gun decks to prevent them from catching fire due to spilled powder around the cannons. Eisboch |
More Pirates
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:20:00 -0500, Richard Casady
wrote: On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:33:24 -0400, John H wrote: I heard that also. Here. I've never heard that small arms used for protection were not allowed aboard ships in port. A .50 cal can be put in a locked wall locker when in port. What horse****. Actually, even handguns are a no no most places. A fifty is not a small arm. Casady Sounds like a good place to have a .50 Cal rental business. Anchor offshore, rent out the baby cannons, have another boat on the southern end waiting to pick 'em up. -- John H "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson |
More Pirates
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 19:42:23 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote: On Apr 11, 9:20*pm, Richard Casady Actually, even handguns are a no no most places. A fifty is not a small arm. Casady in fact, a ma-duce (M-2) isn't classified as a "machine gun" By the BATF, it is classified as a "destructive device" And justifiably so... Yeah, but they're sure fun to shoot, and you know it! -- John H "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson |
More Pirates
"Richard Casady" wrote in message ... On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:33:24 -0400, John H wrote: I heard that also. Here. I've never heard that small arms used for protection were not allowed aboard ships in port. A .50 cal can be put in a locked wall locker when in port. What horse****. Actually, even handguns are a no no most places. A fifty is not a small arm. Casady How about a cross bow and tear gas? Drop in into the boat, and there are arrow tips that will do at least as much damage as a magnum 45. But I guess I couldn't be a Captian, I would fight. Makes me wonder if some of this isn't staged for insurance money. |
More Pirates
wrote in message ... On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 22:15:09 -0700, "Calif Bill" wrote: in fact, a ma-duce (M-2) isn't classified as a "machine gun" By the BATF, it is classified as a "destructive device" You are going to have to cite that. "Destructive devices" start at over .5" bore and M2s are listed in the machine gun registry. I know someone here in Ft Myers who has one and there was one for sale on subguns.com last year. (actually a nice piece, the "Pearl Harbor" movie water cooled model) I understand you have to get a Federal Destructive Weapons Permit for any fully auto gun. They are considered Title II weapons, along with silencers, Short Barrel shotguns. |
More Pirates
On Apr 12, 11:29*am, wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 22:15:09 -0700, "Calif Bill" wrote: in fact, a ma-duce (M-2) isn't classified as a "machine gun" By the BATF, it is classified as a "destructive device" You are going to have to cite that. "Destructive devices" start at over .5" bore and M2s are listed in the machine gun registry. I know someone here in Ft Myers who has one and there was one for sale on subguns.com last year. (actually a nice piece, the "Pearl Harbor" movie water cooled model) Here's what I was agreeing with: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/top...l_Firearms_Act 5. Destructive Devices (DDs) - there are two broad classes of destructive devices. The first contains devices such as grenades, bombs, poison gas weapons, etc. The second contains any non-sporting firearm with a bore over 0.50" (many firearms with bores over 0.50", such as 12-gauge shotguns, are exempted from the law because they have been determined to have a legitimate sporting use). |
More Pirates
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 19:22:40 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote: On Apr 12, 11:29*am, wrote: On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 22:15:09 -0700, "Calif Bill" wrote: in fact, a ma-duce (M-2) isn't classified as a "machine gun" By the BATF, it is classified as a "destructive device" You are going to have to cite that. "Destructive devices" start at over .5" bore and M2s are listed in the machine gun registry. I know someone here in Ft Myers who has one and there was one for sale on subguns.com last year. (actually a nice piece, the "Pearl Harbor" movie water cooled model) Here's what I was agreeing with: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/top...l_Firearms_Act 5. Destructive Devices (DDs) - there are two broad classes of destructive devices. The first contains devices such as grenades, bombs, poison gas weapons, etc. The second contains any non-sporting firearm with a bore over 0.50" (many firearms with bores over 0.50", such as 12-gauge shotguns, are exempted from the law because they have been determined to have a legitimate sporting use). Wouldn't the 'over 0,50" ' exclude the .50 calibre? -- John H "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson |
More Pirates
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 12:50:03 -0400, HK wrote:
wrote: On Apr 11, 11:57 am, John H wrote: On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:23:34 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Now they have attacked a US owned tug that was towing a barge or something. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090411/..._af/piracy_152 Eisboch I cannot understand why these ships don't have .50 cals on the bow and stern. The damn things will reach out and touch someone a mile away. -- John H "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson I keep hearing that armed ships are not allowed in some ports.. Seems those ports should be empty for a while till they change their attitudes... Another solution might be for these companies to hire a couple of BlackWater types for each vessel. If a certain port wanted to keep arms out, evacuate the BW guys just outside the ports "security zone" and let the port security take the ship in... When the ship leaves the security zone, have the BW guys placed back on board.. Just a thought... I have also considered the cost and logistics, weather, port security, etc... I know this would not be easy... It's nice to see the Assholes of the Universe...you and Herring...unite. About fifteen thousand ships a year. Not cheap, to say the least. Casady |
More Pirates
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 04:35:03 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote: Wooden warships had to be careful also. It was interesting taking the tour of the USS Constitution in Boston. When they went to battle stations, one of the crew's jobs was to man the manually operated bilge pumps and pump water up to cover the two gun decks to prevent them from catching fire due to spilled pow Constitution has one gun deck, like all frigates. Casady |
More Pirates
"Richard Casady" wrote in message ... On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 04:35:03 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Wooden warships had to be careful also. It was interesting taking the tour of the USS Constitution in Boston. When they went to battle stations, one of the crew's jobs was to man the manually operated bilge pumps and pump water up to cover the two gun decks to prevent them from catching fire due to spilled pow Constitution has one gun deck, like all frigates. Casady Picky, picky. Yes, there was one *gun* deck, that had 30 cannons (15 per side). But the main deck (or "spar deck") also had 22 larger cannons. Both decks were flooded during battle by pumping the bilge water onto them to prevent fires. Eisboch |
More Pirates
"Tim" wrote in message ... On Apr 15, 4:19 pm, "Eisboch" wrote: "Richard Casady" wrote in message ... On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 04:35:03 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Wooden warships had to be careful also. It was interesting taking the tour of the USS Constitution in Boston. When they went to battle stations, one of the crew's jobs was to man the manually operated bilge pumps and pump water up to cover the two gun decks to prevent them from catching fire due to spilled pow Constitution has one gun deck, like all frigates. Casady Picky, picky. Yes, there was one *gun* deck, that had 30 cannons (15 per side). But the main deck (or "spar deck") also had 22 larger cannons. Both decks were flooded during battle by pumping the bilge water onto them to prevent fires. Eisboch Wow. i didn't know that, but did they actually "flood" the decks to wet down the floor[s] for fire control? Either way the extra water/weight would hinder the ships maneuverability and speed. Or at least that's how I see it. BTW, can you imagine the racket the gunners mates put up with down below while firing those things off? so much for loss of hearing compensation.... The gun fire was what caused the impressment of sailors in to duty on military man of wars. After a battle so many were deaf that they had to get a new gunnery crew. They could not hear orders being issued. |
More Pirates
On Apr 15, 9:19*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message ... On Apr 15, 4:19 pm, "Eisboch" wrote: "Richard Casady" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 04:35:03 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Wooden warships had to be careful also. It was interesting taking the tour of the USS Constitution in Boston. When they went to battle stations, one of the crew's jobs was to man the manually operated bilge pumps and pump water up to cover the two gun decks to prevent them from catching fire due to spilled pow Constitution has one gun deck, like all frigates. Casady Picky, picky. Yes, there was one *gun* deck, that had 30 cannons (15 per side). But the main deck (or "spar deck") also had 22 larger cannons. Both decks were flooded during battle by pumping the bilge water onto them to prevent fires. Eisboch Wow. i didn't know that, but did they actually "flood" the decks to wet down the floor[s] for fire control? Either way the extra water/weight would hinder the ships maneuverability and speed. Or at least that's how I see it. BTW, can you imagine the racket the gunners mates *put up with down below while firing those things off? *so much for loss of hearing compensation.... The gun fire was what caused the impressment of sailors in to duty on military man of wars. *After a battle so many were deaf that they had to get a new gunnery crew. *They could not hear orders being issued. I can believe that. i wonder how many toes got squished by getting run over by those steel wheels during recoil? |
More Pirates
"Tim" wrote in message ... On Apr 15, 9:19 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... On Apr 15, 4:19 pm, "Eisboch" wrote: "Richard Casady" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 04:35:03 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Wooden warships had to be careful also. It was interesting taking the tour of the USS Constitution in Boston. When they went to battle stations, one of the crew's jobs was to man the manually operated bilge pumps and pump water up to cover the two gun decks to prevent them from catching fire due to spilled pow Constitution has one gun deck, like all frigates. Casady Picky, picky. Yes, there was one *gun* deck, that had 30 cannons (15 per side). But the main deck (or "spar deck") also had 22 larger cannons. Both decks were flooded during battle by pumping the bilge water onto them to prevent fires. Eisboch Wow. i didn't know that, but did they actually "flood" the decks to wet down the floor[s] for fire control? Either way the extra water/weight would hinder the ships maneuverability and speed. Or at least that's how I see it. BTW, can you imagine the racket the gunners mates put up with down below while firing those things off? so much for loss of hearing compensation.... The gun fire was what caused the impressment of sailors in to duty on military man of wars. After a battle so many were deaf that they had to get a new gunnery crew. They could not hear orders being issued. I can believe that. i wonder how many toes got squished by getting run over by those steel wheels during recoil? Probably not many. That was most likely part of the 30 minutes training class. |
More Pirates
On Apr 15, 11:32*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message ... On Apr 15, 9:19 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote: "Tim" wrote in message .... On Apr 15, 4:19 pm, "Eisboch" wrote: "Richard Casady" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 04:35:03 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Wooden warships had to be careful also. It was interesting taking the tour of the USS Constitution in Boston. When they went to battle stations, one of the crew's jobs was to man the manually operated bilge pumps and pump water up to cover the two gun decks to prevent them from catching fire due to spilled pow Constitution has one gun deck, like all frigates. Casady Picky, picky. Yes, there was one *gun* deck, that had 30 cannons (15 per side). But the main deck (or "spar deck") also had 22 larger cannons. Both decks were flooded during battle by pumping the bilge water onto them to prevent fires. Eisboch Wow. i didn't know that, but did they actually "flood" the decks to wet down the floor[s] for fire control? Either way the extra water/weight would hinder the ships maneuverability and speed. Or at least that's how I see it. BTW, can you imagine the racket the gunners mates put up with down below while firing those things off? so much for loss of hearing compensation.... The gun fire was what caused the impressment of sailors in to duty on military man of wars. After a battle so many were deaf that they had to get a new gunnery crew. They could not hear orders being issued. I can believe that. i wonder how many toes got squished by getting run over by those steel wheels during recoil? Probably not many. *That was most likely part of the 30 minutes training class. if anything else, it probably happened only once per man.... |
More Pirates
"Tim" wrote in message ... On Apr 15, 4:19 pm, "Eisboch" wrote: "Richard Casady" wrote in message ... On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 04:35:03 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Wooden warships had to be careful also. It was interesting taking the tour of the USS Constitution in Boston. When they went to battle stations, one of the crew's jobs was to man the manually operated bilge pumps and pump water up to cover the two gun decks to prevent them from catching fire due to spilled pow Constitution has one gun deck, like all frigates. Casady Picky, picky. Yes, there was one *gun* deck, that had 30 cannons (15 per side). But the main deck (or "spar deck") also had 22 larger cannons. Both decks were flooded during battle by pumping the bilge water onto them to prevent fires. Eisboch Wow. i didn't know that, but did they actually "flood" the decks to wet down the floor[s] for fire control? Either way the extra water/weight would hinder the ships maneuverability and speed. Or at least that's how I see it. BTW, can you imagine the racket the gunners mates put up with down below while firing those things off? so much for loss of hearing compensation.... ------------------------------------------------- Not really. When they say "flood", it isn't really flooding. They just kept the decks wet by pumping the water up from the bilge. It probably improved speed because the water was in the bilge anyway and when they pumped it onto the decks, the excess ran overboard through the many scuppers located on the decks. If you ever have the opportunity to visit "Old Ironsides", they give a very interesting tour and describe the various operations used when in battle. The tour we took resulted in my learning of why the "bathroom facilities" on a boat are referred to as "the Head". I never knew why before. Eisboch |
More Pirates
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Tim" wrote in message ... On Apr 15, 4:19 pm, "Eisboch" wrote: "Richard Casady" wrote in message ... On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 04:35:03 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Wooden warships had to be careful also. It was interesting taking the tour of the USS Constitution in Boston. When they went to battle stations, one of the crew's jobs was to man the manually operated bilge pumps and pump water up to cover the two gun decks to prevent them from catching fire due to spilled pow Constitution has one gun deck, like all frigates. Casady Picky, picky. Yes, there was one *gun* deck, that had 30 cannons (15 per side). But the main deck (or "spar deck") also had 22 larger cannons. Both decks were flooded during battle by pumping the bilge water onto them to prevent fires. Eisboch Wow. i didn't know that, but did they actually "flood" the decks to wet down the floor[s] for fire control? Either way the extra water/weight would hinder the ships maneuverability and speed. Or at least that's how I see it. BTW, can you imagine the racket the gunners mates put up with down below while firing those things off? so much for loss of hearing compensation.... ------------------------------------------------- Not really. When they say "flood", it isn't really flooding. They just kept the decks wet by pumping the water up from the bilge. It probably improved speed because the water was in the bilge anyway and when they pumped it onto the decks, the excess ran overboard through the many scuppers located on the decks. If you ever have the opportunity to visit "Old Ironsides", they give a very interesting tour and describe the various operations used when in battle. The tour we took resulted in my learning of why the "bathroom facilities" on a boat are referred to as "the Head". I never knew why before. Eisboch You also learned why most sailors were short people. |
More Pirates
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ... You also learned why most sailors were short people. with brass balls. Eisboch |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:37 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com