[SPAM-Low] Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet access a"human right"
Mike.Rae at sjrb.ca
Mon Jun 6 11:17:39 CDT 2011
Hi All :
How is this an operational related discussion ?
Perhaps it can be taken to more appropriate forum.
From: Nick Olsen [mailto:nick at flhsi.com]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 10:15 AM
To: Andrew Kirch; nanog at nanog.org
Subject: re: [SPAM-Low] Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet
access a"human right"
I've got a 4 inch Springfield XD service model in .45ACP, I actually
the .40 round. Its a bit better at inducing Hydrostatic shock just
of its velocity:energy ratio.
The handgun just to get me to the bigger guns :D
From: "Andrew Kirch" <trelane at trelane.net>
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 11:42 AM
To: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: [SPAM-Low] Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet access a
nothing like 40 short and wimpy! Might I interest you in a 45? :)
On 6/6/2011 11:37 AM, Nick Olsen wrote:
> Don't leave the house without my Glock 23 on my side. Truck always has
> loaded 12ga in it. In the house, I've got a handful of pistols and my
> SR-556 (AR-15) in the "Guns and servers" closet.
> I've had people call me Paranoid more then once. My stance is "Better
> have it and not need it, Then need it and not have it."
> By banning guns from a community, Your only taking them out of the
> law abiding citizens. Not like most criminals get guns via legal
> in the first place.
> -Nick Olsen
> From: "Daniel Seagraves" <dseagrav at humancapitaldev.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 10:34 AM
> To: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet access a "human
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
>> Nice try, but the human right you just made a case for is "the right
>> yourself of criminals and despots". A "fundamental right" for
> to have
>> firearms does *not* automatically follow. Yes, despots usually need
>> removed by force. What Ghandi showed was that the force didn't have
>> military - there are other types of force that work well too...
> I believe that as a law-abiding citizen, I should have the right to be
> least as well-armed as the average criminal. If the average criminal
> access to firearms, then I should have that option as well. I should
> forced into a disadvantage against criminals by virtue of my
> with the law. Once law enforcement is effective enough to prevent the
> average criminal from having access to firearms, then the law-abiding
> population can be compelled to disarm. This stance can result in an
> escalation scenario in which criminals strive to remain better-armed
> their intended victims, but the job of law enforcement is to prevent
> from being successful.
> At present, the average criminal in my area does not have firearms,
> I do not own one. Gun crime is on the increase, however, so this
> may change.
More information about the NANOG