To be armed when cruising?

[Cruisingdad]

Originally Posted by Freesail99

You still have to ask yourself why the founders felt it was so important for Americans to bear arms and isn't limiting the kind of arms we can bear, counter to why we have that right in the first place?

A different debate, perhaps, but the days of the ordinary citizen bearing arms to protect himself from his government are long since over. You, right this second, could be killed and you would never even know what hit you. In fact, should they so wish, the governmemnt of the US could watch everything you are doing from space. They have unmanned droids that could target you and you would not even see them and certainly would have no chance to fight back. The list goes on.

And I will tell you this: I consider myself an above average marksman (contrary to what the skeet says!!!!). I can dove and quail hunt (the latter being the most difficult) with the best of them. Give me a 4-10, and I can do a number on a squirell (especially with some dogs). But come on... me against anyone in the military, a trained soldier, a trained killer??? Give me a break. I wouldn't stand a chance. Neither would 99.99999% of the people out there. I don't care how many points you got on that buck last week.

SO why do we bear arms? Well, I am sure everyone has their own answer. Personally, for me, I bear arms for protection of person and property. I do live on a fair piece of land. However, I always carried them in the city too (not on me, always in the house). I am not opposed to a citizen bearing arms. In fact, quite the contrary. Responsible use of firearms not only keeps the person safe, but those under their protection. Such a concept seems to be difficult for those who live without firearms to understand. I wonder how many of them own a ranch? I wonder how many of them have been hunting for food? I wonder how many of them have been raised, and raised their kids, on the proper use of firearms and protection. In fact, it surprises me that so many from Australia do not bear firearms. They have sprawling ranches there and they certinaly have issues with wild animals too. I would think they don't just use harsh language and rocks???

So whatever anyone here reads, do not discount my beliefs that we, as US Citizens, in the US, should bear arms. Like the most arduent member of the NRA, I would stand and fight against anyone who tried to take them. It is our right, it is our country, it is our consititution, it is our law. And if you don't like it, there's the next plane out just waiting for you.

But when I leave these borders, I become a guest in another man's house. If he doesn't want me walking on his lawn, I will walk on the sidewalk. If he doesn't want me wearing my shoes in his house, I will take them off at the door. If he does not want a woman to show her face but through a scarf, then Kris will wear a Burka. And if he does not want guns on his property, they are left at home in the closet. It is a simple matter of respect for another man's house. If I cannot abide by his rules, I do not go to his house. He may come to mine, but then he had better darned good and well mind MY rules.

Brian

[chall03]

Originally Posted by erps

According to Noonsite, it's perfectly legal to sail into your country bearing arms. That's evidence that your country recognizes the right to bear arms or incoming sailors would be arrested on the spot. Sailors just have to be aware that Australia restricts that right.

http://www.noonsite.com/Countries/Au...s#Restrictions

Absolutely right erps. Be aware that the info on noonsite may soon be outdated as I am lead to believe this is under review.

I was objecting more to the extreme view that someone had a 'god given right' to enter OZ or anywhere for that matter bearing whatever arms as they please.

I actually have no problem with Cruisers who choose to be armed, I believe it is a very individual decision. I as an individual wouldn't be armed, but thats only me.

CD well said. You ask some interesting questions of us aussies and raise very some good points.
Like I said above this is very cultural issue and as such is fascinating because there is such a difference between the US and OZ.

Down here we never talk about the right to bear arms at all. We do have very restrictive gun laws that allow firearms essentially only for sport and hunting. Even then it is very tightly controlled.
I will be totally honest here, I am an australian city boy and have never fired a gun in my life. 90% of my friends would of never seen a gun in there life. I don't know anyone who owns a firearm other than my Father in law who is a farmer on the land with a rifle that is licensed and used to cull kangaroos predominantly. So yeah CD the situation on the land is a bit different than my story, but still when my Father in law and brothers in law go hunting more often than not they tend to use crossbows. Im not actually sure why...

Now honestly?? When I was dating Josie, the first time I saw her Dad's rifle I nearly shat myself......because you are absolutely right CD I wasn't raised on the proper use of firearms and protection at all. Guns are totally foreign to me. Maybe that is wrong and naive, i'm not sure because I have never known anything different.

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by chall03

I was objecting more to the extreme view that someone had a 'god given right' to enter OZ or anywhere for that matter bearing whatever arms as they please.

I feel yours is the extreme view.

You've also taken what I wrote out of context and changed the meaning.

[chall03]

Originally Posted by wind_magic

I feel yours is the extreme view.

You've also taken what I wrote out of context and changed the meaning.

Please explain then what you mean't?

[erps]

Please explain then what you mean't?

Chall03, I hope Windy answers you directly, but I think this is the relative point he was making:

The question you are answering is not whether we have the natural right to defend ourselves, but instead whether it is worth the risk of punishment.

The way I interpreted that is that sometimes, the law is not right. Take for instance the case of Mr. Martin in England. His house had been burglarized several times and he ended up in a situation where he shot an intruder in his home. England put him in jail for that. The right to self defense is an instinct among animals. Although they taught us in grade school that humans don't have instincts, the urge to preserve ones life is very strong. A person put into a life/death situation will do what they have to do to survive it. That a government would penalize a person for doing so may be legal, but it doesn't make it right.

Here in the states, self defense was recognized as a pre-existing natural right before our federal government existed. That right does not come from the government, our government just codified preserving it. Imagine what it was like in Australia before your government was formed. Did the natives have a right to self defense? If so, where did it come from? Did that right disappear when the immigrants formed a government?

In the interest of disclosure, I've been in law enforcement for 24 years now and I'm a firearms instructor. I didn't have firearms in the house until I got into law enforcement. It didn't take long on the job to realize that each citizen is responsible for their own protection. My wife has a concealed carry license and carries almost all the time.

A quick question for you, why do your law enforcement officers carry guns? It's to protect themselves isn't it. Is their life more valuable than any other citizen in Australia? That citizens choose not to take responsibility for their own defense is fine by me. That a government would deny their citizens the means to defend themselves is outrageous IMO, an I'm not singling out your country, as there are a lot of world governments who do not trust their citizens with firearms. I'm just glad the U.S. isn't one of them yet.

Best wishes.

[chall03]

Thanks for the response erps.

I took both of Windy's posts up above to mean just what I was suggesting.........that he feels he has the right to enter a country such as OZ armed as he sees fit....

When it comes to a debate on the right to bear arms in general, I don't actually disagree with you necessarily, I guess I just don't know what I think yet. You are right here it is illegal to carry a firearm to defend yourself. Period.

I guess I worry about the practical ramifications of all of this, yes in theory it is great to say everyone has the right to carry firearms to defend themselves but how do you reconcile the fact that this means everyone is carrying firearms including the idiots and that statistics show that because of this you have alot of gun related violence?

[lostappilation]

This thread is very interesting to me. I am new to sailing, and had never thought about he problems related to being armed when cruising. I am a former Marine, and self defence insructor. I havn't been out of arms reach of at least one firearm at any time in the past 16 years. I have carried leagaly in Mexico and Belize, and just assumed simalar arrangements could be made everywhere. Has anyone on here tried?

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by chall03

Please explain then what you mean't?

Chall03's post says a lot of what I meant.

The core of what I mean is that there is a natural order to things beyond what mankind codifies into law - call it natural law if you want, with natural justice, but whatever you call it, it doesn't come from man himself, it instead comes from man's basic situation in this world.

You could make a law that people can't breath air if you want to, but people will breath, so all you are doing is creating criminals where there were none. The threat of punishment will not cause people to stop breathing air because the dangers of not breathing are greater than the punishment for breaking the law. People will also defend themselves if attacked, you might not like it, but that's just how it is.

People throw off oppressive governments, they fight apartheid, they stand in front of tanks, break chains, knock down walls, etc, not because the law allows it, but because it is the right thing to do.

Natural law is not to be judged by the whims of the day, it is instead the measuring stick by which all of man's laws are to be judged. Natural law is the people's law, every single person's law, every single person's right by virtue of being a human being on the earth. As the founders of the United States wrote ...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Natural law doesn't go away just because you are in Australia.

If you put someone in jail using laws that are contrary to natural law, who is the real criminal ?

[chall03]

I do understand your point.
I think on this though we may just have to agree to disagree.

[erps]

I have carried leagaly in Mexico and Belize, and just assumed simalar arrangements could be made everywhere. Has anyone on here tried?

Cruisers have successfully traveled the world with firearms but in many countries they have to be turned over to the government during your visit. A good reference is noonsite.com, which lists the requirements by country. Some cruisers decide that it's just not worth it, depending on their cruising itinerary.