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

["Mike Rae" <Mike.Rae () sjrb ca>]

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 () 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" <trelane () 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" <dseagrav () 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.Kletnieks () 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.