Can you please state your name?
 

L J
I would of course,but i have the impression you underestimate those guys!They would check my passport as they allways do.They would find out quickly i am an argentinian.
All fligth high jackers where allways highly educated people.I think they would ask first for all US citizens to lift their hands......and check with the papers
But in any case this is not the place to talk about this things.There are propper forums for that.
In regard to defense methods i would carry a nice ax or machete(on the inner pannier frame)as those are considered tools.If hide properly but handy could do a good defence job.
And good you could see we both are americans,it will make your US identity stronger!
I personaly have guns,practice shooting with rifles on a range.Done properly and with responsabilty is an excellent activity.More people get killed by knifes then fire weapons.
Pepper spray...maybe i would take Tabasco extra hot!
Ok i will finish this here.
Karl

The NRA has never defended the other 9 'Bill of Rights' as intensely as they do the 2nd Amendment. In fact, they don't even defend the Constitution as much as they defend their 2nd Amendment to that Constitution. It's not about preserving rights, its about preserving the right to have guns, in order to? .... preserve rights?

I don't think so.

:offtopic:NRA=National Rifle Association is a firearm special interest group nothing more. There privately funded to support privit gun ownership in the USA. There suport of the 2nd amendment is part of this. Dont let there "defending the costitution" fool you. Other amendments have other suporters. Rights and responsibilities have little to do with any special interest group.

All I ask is you also declare yourself an American in such circumstances. Sort out the papers later.

I think anybody who has ridden through Guatemala´s backroad has asked themselves, "Why am I the only person here who is not wearing a machete?"

I thought about getting one but settled on pepper spray because I didn´t think a machete would be a good defense against another machete (can´t effectively parry) and a machete is rather conspicious to carry around in urban areas once you are off the bike.

So join the ACLU (which does nothing to protect the 2nd).

Don´t recall mentioning the NRA which was founded 137 years for the purpose of promoting firearms instruction. Ulysses S. Grant certainly didn´t act as president of the organization for lobbying reasons.

Strongly prefer to fund GOA, JPFO or RMGO for political purposes. The NRA is far too wimpy when it comes to politics.

The majority of societies are not well balanced for any significant period of time, say, 200 years.

I mean it more even broadly. Free speech is predicated on personal security.

In the extreme case, if you are dead you can´t exactly express yourself.

A more subtle variation: If you depend on another entity for your personal security then that entity can dictate the terms of your speech.

Ask the Estonians how that works. They should still remember.

Feminized society? Are you kidding me? Pepper spray sitting on a shelf is innocent. Pepper spray sprayed into somebody's face is a weapon. Same logic applied to guns, and BitTorrent...its all how you choose to use.

Hell if you limit yourself to guns, pepper spray, etc. as your options to escape tense/hot situations; then you're equally guilty as those folks that think overland bikes must have a the GS suffix or knobby tires to make it around. You underestimate the cleverness of the human mind to the same extent you'll never understand the intention of someone brandishing a weapon: the possibilities are infiinite.

Bottom line: if you choose to carry a weapon you better be prepared to kill the person and deal with the consequences. Because if you don't, whatever may happen to you could be viewed as self defense/preservation;)
;)

Well, that is a little hard to substantiate, given that the world has changed infinitely in the last 100 years alone. There is no society that has been as much flux as the western world is today. Is it unstable: not especially, it is merely morphic....


That extreme case you cite is a fair point but in response to your more subtle perspective: Firstly personal security is a subjective thing. Some people just lock their doors, some sleep with a crow bar under the pillow, some an MP5.
Secondly, if you say that an entity that provides your security also controls your freedom of speech, you are saying that democracy does not work, as which ever entity is set to govern, it cannot be trusted to protect your rights.

I do not feel, living in Europe that our rights are not protected, that we are not protected or that our freedom of speech is curtailed as a result of not being armed.

Thirdly, I do not feel that the Estonian occupation by Soviet forces is an appropriate example. The dependency of which you speak was enforced, not chosen. Estonian security was not high on the agenda, as 60% were carted off to the Gulag. That bears no comparison to say "a USA" where you elect a president using a consitution where the 2nd amendmetn has been repealed.

More realistic would be other democracies where people have elected their protecting body but do not, themselves, own weapons eg most of Europe, Japan (as far as I'm aware) etc. Are these places full of oppressed opinion?

A state where one's rights are ultimately upheld by one's ownership of a deadly weapon sounds a few too many steps close to anarchy...

Now you´re getting nasty. ;-)

The best protection I regularly carry with me on the bike is probably a grin and a handshake. Easy to get out, disarming, weighs nothing and carries no legal liability. Has got me out of a lot of tricky situations and even turned what looked like trouble into a free meal a few times. Looking like shit probably helps too.

I would far rather live in a limited dictatorship with rigorously restricted powers than an absolute unrestricted democracy....which is where most of the Western World is headed. Democracy and freedom are not synonymous.

But yes, this is the fundamental problem in designing ANY system of government. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Given the blood soaked recent (last 100 years) history of Europe I think there is a very strong case for owning weapons despite the recent brief bout of tranquility.

Furthermore, Europe exists in its current form due to multiple misguided American interventions and a willingness to use force to defend nation states that were no longer inherently capable of preserving themselves.

But yes, possessing arms is no guarantee of free speech nor is the absence of arms a guarantee of the lack of that freedom. I never said there were.
There are other factors...other failure modes.

However, individual freedom is ultimately rooted in the willingness to use force to protect your life, liberty and property. There is a place, hell, a moral obligation to use violence to protect these things. This is true in both the collective and individual case which are equally legitimate.


Everybody´s an anarchist when push comes to shove.

I agree entirely and would add good situational awareness.

What´s your backup plan?

bike lock and a tyre iron

Plan A: Smile and Handshake
Plan B: Negotiate
Plan C: Give up something really minor (Cigar/swig of Jamesons/bung money)
Plan D: Run like B*****y.
Plan E: Give up something that's worth more than the alternative (cash/bike)
Plan Z: Tyre Iron/D Lock/boot in their bits followed by plan D

With the exception of knowing not to carry certain items at certain borders (Cuban cigars US, Jamesons Saudi, Moroccan snuff UK etc.) you can't actually get into trouble of your own making with any of the above.

Andy

I very much doubt a shot gun, a can of MACE and a .32 pistol would have much positive effect on a Nazi/Soviet/Napoleonic army. Same goes for bands or Colombian drug growers, African rebels etc. Serious men with serious guns will do serious damage if you start a shooting war. Blow their minds with paperwork or come across as just another mindless bumpkin wandering the countryside and they soon get bored with you or simply want to talk.

I was in Spain during one of the ETA campaigns. I was lost and the only person left at a checkpoint was a squadie with a .50 cal Browning, covering the traffic in the search area. A friendly Ola and request for directions in really bad Spanish got me a simple and friendly response and a reccomendation for a cracking hotel. The lad might have worked for one of Franco's generals, but he really didn't care about English idiots and was happy to talk to someone he didn't have to salute. Anyone sat in that checkpoint clutching their pistol and trying not to look shifty was in way more trouble.

Andy