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...

__________________
Adventure: it's an experience, not a style!
(so ride what you like, but ride it somewhere new!)

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.

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...

__________________
Adventure: it's an experience, not a style!
(so ride what you like, but ride it somewhere new!)

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 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

Thanks for the tip.

This is why I have a 50 bmg, fn-fal, HK91, etc. in my safe. Many of my friends legally own 20mm anti-tank guns (solothurns) and even howitzers.

I had the pleasure of experiencing some urban riots and find a Fn-Fal quite adequate for such problems.

The original game plan for America was a citizen militia with equal access to every horrible weapon of war possesed by the government. No standing army to go on foreign adventures or for domestic repression.

I still think this a good idea.

[QUOTE=Laser Jock;190941

The original game plan for America was a citizen militia with equal access to every horrible weapon of war possesed by the government. No standing army to go on foreign adventures or for domestic repression.

I still think this a good idea.[/QUOTE]




Hasn't worked since Vietnam, has it?

NO...

__________________
Javier...
Dakar Motos “ ”

3Wheelbonnie beat me to it, but I agree that personal gun ownership would have done little to avert those situations.

Firstly, I must say that is a slight Hollywoodism. I do not think it sound to suggest that the outcome of the World Wars (I assume you refer to these conflicts) were settled entirely due to the intervention of the States. The tide turned in Europe following Stalingrad and the advance of the Red Army from the East. On top of which, I think it fair to say that the US has also initiated a number of fairly catastrophic offensives since that period too (also nations pretty unable to preserve themselves, if I recall)....

All the same, history aside, I do not see, as Andy stated earlier, how personal gun ownership, which is what this discussion arose from has to do with the political history of the last 100 years in Europe. Indeed, even the right to defend oneself. I can defend myself, with reasonable force, if needed. I am however, not allowed to own a gun, nor do I feel I need one. That will not change the course of things to come in Europe or the world, but it does mean that the bloke I have a disagreement with about ritht of way in a car park is not likely to try and shoot me...

I disagree: I think, first and foremost the best way to ensure one's own personal freedoms is care as much about everyone elses, too: it comes from mutual respect, and giving a crap about those around you. That is what cements a society. Why is it small town life seems far more relaxed that the city swell...?

In any case, I never said that using force to protect ones life was not acceptable, I simply said that owning a gun is not the route to personal security one thinks it is. The appalling school shootings that we hear about once or twice a year (it seems) are just one very sad example of what widely accessible guns can lead to IMO...

I think "moral obligation" and "use of violence" together is as fine an oximoron as I ever read. Morality usually teaches us that violence should be avoided; that a peaceful solution is best sought. Violence is not often a solution, but usually begets more... Northern Ireland, Israel, Rwanda, etc.
Not that personal gun ownership would have changed these situations much either.

My view is that a gun in every home brings that possibility one step closer than is needed.

__________________
Adventure: it's an experience, not a style!
(so ride what you like, but ride it somewhere new!)

Not my point. My point was that these conflicts including the recent brush fire in the Balkans (which Europe was incapable of handling) were no more our problems than the Napoleonic Wars.

Stalinist bootleather, Nazi bootleather whatever they want to lick its not our problem.

Indeed the transformation of the United States from a mostly noninterventionist power to a highly centralized Federal Authority domestically and Globo-Cop internationally is a directly result of us sticking our nose in other people's business.

With any luck our government will financially collapse and we might return to a more traditional domestic and foreign policy.

When food riots in the developing world triple Islamic immigration to Europe or Russia decides to annex Ukraine or China the Straits of Malacca perhaps we can manage to stay out of that for once as well.

The only thing wrong with Latin America are the outrageous Yanks who move in and terrorize the place. I won´t get into too many examples that I witnessed of absolute stupidity with the exception of one.

While celebrating 2007 New Year´s Eve in Mexico with quite an international gathering of travellers, a two bit punk of about 40 years old from San Diego, CALIFORNIA sucker- punched me because he was jealous of my cruiser. So I beat the s**t out of him. I had no gun or pepper spray.NICE WAY TO START THE NEW YEAR:

What , also, pi**sed me off were the number of Yanks trying to pass them selves off as Canadians. I am a Canadian.

Since I managed to ride from the arctic circle in Alaska, all the way to Ushuaia, and one of my citizenships is USA, I'll chime in.

Don't take a gun. It's dumb.

Do take pepper spray. It saved my ass in JuJuy, Argentina. Mine was actually bear spray, left over from Alaska. It was legal in Canada (guns are NOT legal in Canada) and if it wasn't legal from Mexico south, not a single cop told me it wasn't. I'd have to guess, but I'd say my bear spray was commented on by at least one cop in every country. If it was illegal, none of them said anything.

In JuJuy, in a hostel, I was confonted by 3 drunk argentinia 20-somethings. They tried to rob me. Lucky for me, they were drunk. They told me to give them my money. I told them it was in my tank bag. It took me some time to fumble through it and find the pepper spray that I hadn't thought about in ages. I couldn't even remember how to use it. They had no idea what it was, probably because it didn't look like any regular pepper spray. I gave them one little warning shot off to the side. That was all it took, and I was safe.

I like Laser Jocks idea of having it clipped to my riding jacket, but I don't know where I'd put it. Bear Spray comes in a pretty big bottle.

In Alaska and northern Canada I rode with it clipped to the outside of my tank bag. Around camp I wore it on a belt, gun-slinger style. Lots of other campers (Canadian and American) also wore it on their belts.

What I really liked about the pepper spray is that it's non-lethal. The consequences were not the kind that would take me to jail. I didn't bother calling the police. I just got on my bike and rode away. The boys I sprayed had runny noses and teary eyes- not holes in their bodies.

I am 100% sure that, if I'd had to make a police report, I would have been vindicated. It was me against three.

I am 100% sure that if I had not used the bear spray, I would have been robbed, and probably beaten up. It was a very tense situation.

I've traveled, pretty much solo, to about 35 countries. I don't own a hand gun. I don't support the NRA but I do agree with pretty much everything that Laser Jock said.

By the way, if any of you haven't met Laser Jock... he's a pretty cool guy, he's traveled all ove the world, and there is no way I would ever pick a fight with him. I don't think he stopped smiling during the entire two hours I met him. He's as good an ambasador for his country as any other travelar I've met.

__________________
Latin America Ride Report
Wisconsin to Alaska Ride Report

Canxcape and Bananaman -
you couldn't just let this f'ing thread die, could you? Had to stick another damn comment in this thread, bring it back from the dead.

__________________
quastdog
Chiang Mai, Thailand

I think its ok to talk about this issues Chuck.I agree with Bananaman with the use of non deadly security.I have seen on his ADR tread he is travelling with female company.And you know i would have at least one way of protection when travelling with female company.(beside rubers hahahaha)
Now to the size of the can is the issue.Most problems i have heard happend in towns(bars,discos,streets) so carrying a big can all the time.....
I would have mine in the tank bag.Fast to find and use.
Of course avoiding trouble is the best recipe.
Now travelling allone....just a humble look and friendly caracter is the best way.

__________________
http://vientoderipio.blogspot.com/
America is a nice continent,not a country.All people who lives in this continent are americans.Discover it in peace!

I think all of us who've done any travelling have had to use "the humble look," the "friendly character," and probably a few other little tricks to get out of a tight place. I promise I tried all of those to get out of the spot I found myself in in JuJuy when I was almost the victim of a mugging.

Probably for the next few days I was chuckling to myself about how much better pepper was for the situation. The assholes who wanted to rob me didn't deserve to die, but they did deserve to cry. Pepper worked!

As for travelling with a woman... I recomend it!

__________________
Latin America Ride Report
Wisconsin to Alaska Ride Report