Forget the gun - take a bomb!
 

A.K.A. a 1980 Yam LC350 :rofl:

The ultimate troll!
 

Did any of you notice that KLDaniels only posted the one time - the start of this here thread? and you all have been going on and on about this? Of course, ol' Max stuck a couple on here to really get you wound up.

good one, KL!

Well spoken.

This is precisely my reasoning even though I consider the right to weaponry to be even more fundamental than the right to free speech.

Pepper spray while it has its limitations is a very reasonable compromise.

Pepper Spray can confer a substantial advantage even in the case of multiple adversaries or blunt or edged weapons. (carry a big can and be ready to spray and run)

Fox Labs makes the best hottest stuff available.

How about the Vietnamese? Remember those scenes of the US ambassador clinging to a helicopter as he fled the scene of the crime in Saigon?

I think this is another wind up, but in case it is a practical though:

Pepper spray (and Tazer before anyone else suggests the things) is an offensive weapon in most of the world. You go to prison for owning it, you go to prison for assault if you use it, you go to prison for murder if you spray someone who's body can't handle it and they die. You also have the same issue you'd have with a small gun; injured/sprayed/fried people scream for their mates, call the police and go get their own weapons to look for the bloke who did it and stands out like a sore thumb even if he has made it thirty miles down the road.

Without getting into political debate (we'd no doubt disagree) which is for another site, the practicalities say no to any weapon, especially anything that has no other purpose.

If people really are that insecure, maybe do a self defense course or take up boxing or something? The men with guns can't confiscate your hands or head at the first border post.

Andy

I know Andy,my intention is not to start another flame war on such nice subject.I think outside the USA most people central and south called you guys "gringos" and "yanquis".
No one can tell you how you define yourself,that is your own choice.For me and if you look at any book or for the internet case(wikipedia) america is a continent,named after Amerigo Vespucio(italian cartograph).American is an inhabitant of this continent(argentinians,canadians,mexicanos and carrie on and on).
Enjoy our continent and if you drive by i spent a cold cerveza and a nice asado!
CU
Karl

Robert you forgot "central america"
 

Hopefully no one from Mexico or Nicaragua,El Salvador etc was reading here.....it would be a gigantic water canal .....joking.
Karl

My goodness, did that make me laugh.....probably a wind up, but just in case...:

Probably translates as "Shoot first, ask questions later"?

So, does that mean you were obliged to type that with the barrel of a Magnum, otherwise it doesn't count?

The greatest thing about McDonalds is in fact a French invention - the fact that you can get a beer with your BigMac in Paris.

In much of Central and South America (which is the forum we are in) pepper spray is legal.

I´ve had a bottle lashed to my vest for the last 35,000 km without problems.
Also have met half of dozen other riders doing the same thing.

Frankly, I can´t even begin to wrap my head around a society so feminized as to consider pepper spray an offensive weapon.



Psychobabble. The fact someone is armed gives you no insight into their mind.

I´ve done a good bit of Krav Maga and numerous oriental styles. I still prefer to have a can of pepper spray on hand to tip the scales in my favor.

In fact, many people who legally carry concealed weapons keep some pepper spray around so they have a less than lethal option on hand.

You can´t legally shoot an unarmed aggresive drunk but you can spray him.

This is actually viewed as a de-escalation of force in many States.

I´m entirely serious.

Governments are instituted among men to protect their rights. Collective rights are merely extensions of individual rights. This includes the right and means of self defense.

Just because you work for Hugo Chavez or George Bush doesn´t give you any magic powers or privileges the rest of us do not have.

Very Well. We are all Americans.

But I want all of you Mexican, Central, and South ****Americans**** to make me a promise.

If you are ever on an airplane hijacked by Islamic terrorists and the hijackers while wildly waving their weapons scream "All of the Americans stand up and get into the center" I want you to promise you will shout out, "Hey, I´m an American too"

Only when the american do the same when the terrorists are shouting for the evil mohamed drawing danes. Uhhhh we are truly evil.

Any weapon upscales the situation. Period.

You have the police to deal with aggersive drunks and it is their job, not yours.

I´m with you 100%.

If only Americans were as enthusiastic about free speech rights and uh, restraining the powers of the Executive Branch as they are about the 2nd Amendment. The world would be a better place.


Yes, when seconds count, the police will be there in minutes.

Order a pizza and call the police and see which one shows up first.

The last time I called the police it took them 20 minutes to arrive. The situation did involve deadly force on the part of the assailant and I was wearing a sidearm with which I was profficient.

I didn´t shoot the guy. Didn´t need to. But I´m glad I had the option because the police were way to late to be of assistance.

Many of the students I´ve trained have not been so lucky.

Honestly, your explanation above does little to explain your perspective to me. All the same, I was not raising any questions about the "right to bear arms" per se, although I do think its out-dated and should be irrelavant in a well-balanced society, but that's just me...

What I was questioning was the logic of your remark that I then quoted. You essentially stated that as far as you were concerned the right to bear arms was more important than the right to free speech.

I find it ironic that without free speech no one would be even able to voice objection to, or support for, fire arms.

Does it not seem strange that these priorities mean that you place expression of opinion lower than being able to shoot someone?

That is a scary thought to me. Personally, I think guns do nothing for security in a society, they only up the stakes but I don't want to be drawn into a guns are good/bad debate.

However, in Britain I am not allowed to carry a gun. I do not feel disempowered by this. I am allowed to express my opnions and loosing this would disempower me.

Bottom line, I don't get the impression you really thought about what is meant by what you wrote...