[SPAM-Low] Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet access a"human right"
jason.duerstock at gallaudet.edu
Mon Jun 6 11:38:30 CDT 2011
Don't tell me you didn't see the name of the list when you subscribed:
Naturally, All Nuts Over Guns
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Mike Rae <Mike.Rae at sjrb.ca> wrote:
> Hi All :
> How is this an operational related discussion ?
> Perhaps it can be taken to more appropriate forum.
> -----Original Message-----
> 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
> -Nick Olsen
> 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
> "human right"
> 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
> > right"
> > 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
> > rid
> >> yourself of criminals and despots". A "fundamental right" for
> > to have
> >> firearms does *not* automatically follow. Yes, despots usually need
> > be
> >> removed by force. What Ghandi showed was that the force didn't have
> > be
> >> 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