Hence the (OT) tag. -Nick Olsen
---------------------------------------- From: "Mike Rae" <mike....@sjrb.ca> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 12:20 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: [SPAM-Low] Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet access a"human right" 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:n...@flhsi.com] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 10:15 AM To: Andrew Kirch; nanog@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" <trel...@trelane.net> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 11:42 AM To: nanog@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" <dseag...@humancapitaldev.com> > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 10:34 AM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet access a "human > right" > > On Jun 6, 2011, at 8:41 AM, valdis.kletni...@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. > >
