[141206] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: [SPAM-Low] Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet access
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Rae)
Mon Jun 6 12:25:17 2011
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 10:24:22 -0600
In-Reply-To: <15c5228a$63990108$25fbe4d2$@com>
From: "Mike Rae" <Mike.Rae@sjrb.ca>
To: <nick@flhsi.com>,
<nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Hi :
=20
Fair enough, missed that,
=20
Thanks
Mike
=20
=20
From: Nick Olsen [mailto:nick@flhsi.com]=20
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 10:22 AM
To: Mike Rae; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: [SPAM-Low] Re: (OT) Firearms Was: UN declares Internet
access a"human right"
=20
Hence the (OT) tag.
-Nick Olsen
________________________________
From: "Mike Rae" <Mike.Rae@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:nick@flhsi.com]=20
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=20
the .40 round. Its a bit better at inducing Hydrostatic shock just
because=20
of its velocity:energy ratio.
The handgun just to get me to the bigger guns :D
-Nick Olsen=20
----------------------------------------
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=20
> loaded 12ga in it. In the house, I've got a handful of pistols and my=20
> 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=20
> 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=20
of=20
> law abiding citizens. Not like most criminals get guns via legal
channels=20
> 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=20
> 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=20
> rid
>> yourself of criminals and despots". A "fundamental right" for
citizens=20
> to have
>> firearms does *not* automatically follow. Yes, despots usually need
to=20
> be
>> removed by force. What Ghandi showed was that the force didn't have
to=20
> 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=20
> least as well-armed as the average criminal. If the average criminal
has=20
> access to firearms, then I should have that option as well. I should
not=20
be=20
> forced into a disadvantage against criminals by virtue of my
compliance=20
> with the law. Once law enforcement is effective enough to prevent the=20
> average criminal from having access to firearms, then the law-abiding=20
> population can be compelled to disarm. This stance can result in an=20
> escalation scenario in which criminals strive to remain better-armed
than=20
> their intended victims, but the job of law enforcement is to prevent
them=20
> from being successful.
>
> At present, the average criminal in my area does not have firearms,
and=20
so=20
> I do not own one. Gun crime is on the increase, however, so this=20
situation=20
> may change.
>
>
