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.
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.
Don't tell me you didn't see the name of the list when you subscribed: Naturally, All Nuts Over Guns ? Jason On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Mike Rae <Mike.Rae@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@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.
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@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@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.
participants (4)
-
Arthur Clark -
Jason Duerstock -
Mike Rae -
Nick Olsen