[SPAM-Low] Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet access a"human right"

Arthur Clark fsck100 at gmail.com
Mon Jun 6 11:47:27 CDT 2011


I agree.  I am a gun owner (Glock model 19, Remington semi-auto 12 ga., ...)
and staunch supporter of 2nd Amendment rights, but this is not the place to
have this discussion.  To some, it will be spam messages, and to others,
whose opinions should be respected, this discussion will be very irritating
and offensive.  This is one of many political issues upon which very smart,
well informed people can disagree vehemently.



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.
>
> thanks
> Mike
>
> -----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
> prefer
> the .40 round. Its a bit better at inducing Hydrostatic shock just
> because
> 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
> a
>
> > 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
> to
>
> > 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
> hands
> of
> > law abiding citizens. Not like most criminals get guns via legal
> channels
>
> > 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
> to
>
> > rid
> >> yourself of criminals and despots".  A "fundamental right" for
> citizens
>
> > to have
> >> firearms does *not* automatically follow.  Yes, despots usually need
> to
>
> > be
> >> removed by force.  What Ghandi showed was that the force didn't have
> to
>
> > 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
> at
>
> > least as well-armed as the average criminal. If the average criminal
> has
>
> > access to firearms, then I should have that option as well. I should
> not
> be
> > forced into a disadvantage against criminals by virtue of my
> compliance
> > 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
> than
>
> > their intended victims, but the job of law enforcement is to prevent
> them
>
> > from being successful.
> >
> > At present, the average criminal in my area does not have firearms,
> and
> so
> > I do not own one. Gun crime is on the increase, however, so this
> situation
> > may change.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>



More information about the NANOG mailing list