Sell me on the 2nd ammendment!

**Jim_Jude** · Posted On: 3/13/2010 2:09am

Originally Posted by Hooded Justice

And I was just trying to pointing out how "fit" is relative to the environment with my Hilton example.

That's EXACTLY what I was saying, that's why I specifically said "survival of the fittest in the SYNTHETIC environment"!!!!!! It just seems to me that you are bitching about the situation.

CEO's don't need ethics classes. They understand the ethics perfectly. They also understand that "ethics" are not the same as "laws". If all people needed was ethics then we wouldn't need laws. They are more what you would call... guidelines than hard and fast rules.

Wait. You're saying that ethics are just guidelines? I hope not

**gregaquaman** · Posted On: 3/13/2010 2:13am

Right or wrong that is the Darwinian model isnt it?
animals change their behavior or phisicality to adapt and thrive under the present environment. Nowdays for humans food and power equals money and there will allways be different methods to get it. Paris Hilton is perfectly adapted to her environment she makes money by being Paris hilton that is sucessfull evolution.
And also very scary.

right to bear arms? dammed I dont know and am kind of glad I dont have to deal with the problem

**Cy Q. Faunce** · Posted On: 3/13/2010 2:18am

Originally Posted by Hooded Justice

I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with a self made millionaire as long as they did it legally. But more and more of the wealth is becoming inherited, or earned via non work related methods.

Who gives a **** what you have a problem with? Who asked you? And what gives you the right to decide for others what is legitimate and what is not?

**Jim_Jude** · Posted On: 3/13/2010 2:20am

Originally Posted by gregaquaman

Paris Hilton is perfectly adapted to her environment she makes money by being Paris hilton that is sucessfull evolution.
And also very scary.

LOL! Man, that made me laugh. Quite accurate!

**Cy Q. Faunce** · Posted On: 3/13/2010 2:21am

Originally Posted by Hooded Justice

Do you think that the founding fathers would have added stipulations on gun ownership if they had known that slaves would eventually be free? Perhaps fearing retribution?

Hm, maybe. Do you think we should withdraw guns from all existing slaves in America on this basis? Would that include sex slaves abducted by serial killers?

**Hooded Justice** · Posted On: 3/13/2010 2:39am

Originally Posted by Jim_Jude

**** no. Some of the founding fathers wanted to free the slaves then. Man, crack a book why don't ya?

Just because some wanted to doesn't mean that those who didn't had no influence obviously as it took nearly 100 years and a war to get it to happen. Since slaves were not considered equal at the time it seemed like a valid idea.

Originally Posted by Jim_Jude

only truly violent felons should be barred from owning firearms, those who have proven that they will never be anything but a burden on society.

If you are willing to deny them the right to arms and they are proven to be only a burden then why not just kill them?

Originally Posted by Jim_Jude

Logic can be bent all over the place. Plenty of people think that it's "logical" that 9/11 was planned by a guy hiding out in a cave on the other side of the planet who we can't find with all of our technology. There are some asshats who can make anything seem logical...

I was asking in regards to specifically, legally how do they deny felons their legal right to bear arms? Did the ACLU fight against that? And logic as in their thinking and justification using the law.

Originally Posted by Jim_Jude

NO. The Founding Fathers wouldn't have banned ****. Civilians used to own artillery pieces (of the time period)!

True but at the time population density was such that you could fire a cannon and not even hit your closest neighbors land.

**Cy Q. Faunce** · Posted On: 3/13/2010 2:43am

Originally Posted by Hooded Justice

True but at the time population density was such that you could fire a cannon and not even hit your closest neighbors land.

Have you ever visited Boston?

**Hooded Justice** · Posted On: 3/13/2010 2:45am

Originally Posted by Jim_Jude

That's EXACTLY what I was saying, that's why I specifically said "survival of the fittest in the SYNTHETIC environment"!!!!!! It just seems to me that you are bitching about the situation.

Wait. You're saying that ethics are just guidelines? I hope not

I guess I was confused by your use of synthetic environment. I am not trying to bitch, just trying to give examples to illustrate my point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics Like I said... Guidelines(think captain barbosa voice here). Notice how politicians don't get fired for ethics violations?

**Hooded Justice** · Posted On: 3/13/2010 2:54am

Originally Posted by Cy Q. Faunce

Who gives a **** what you have a problem with? Who asked you? And what gives you the right to decide for others what is legitimate and what is not?

Um nobody? Jim_Jude and Chainpunch asked. I didn't intend it to be taken that my blessing had to be given. I was stating that even though I have a problem with some lesser aspects of acquiring wealth it was not all of them. And I never said I had the right to decide what is legitimate. I said if they made it legally that I had no problem. " I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with a self made millionaire as long as they did it legally." Absolutely no fucking grey area in that statement. And since the topic was self made wealth vs inherited/luck wealth it is legitimate to say that by being born into money you invalidate the idea that money is a reward for societal excellence. If they break laws, lie, cheat and bribe their way into their fortune I have a big fucking problem with that and so should you because it undermines the whole system. I am reading some hostility here that I don't really understand.

**Hooded Justice** · Posted On: 3/13/2010 3:03am

Originally Posted by Cy Q. Faunce

Hm, maybe. Do you think we should withdraw guns from all existing slaves in America on this basis? Would that include sex slaves abducted by serial killers?

I mentioned slaves because at the time they did not have the same legal status and rights as their owners. And no it is the slaves that need the guns the most. I have said time and time again I AM 100% PRO 2nd amendment. I am simply trying to engage in an intellectual debate that some seem to think is me being pro slavery and anti everything not socialism. Have I ever said we should take guns from anyone? At worst I have said that taking into account population density and the possibility of casualties via friendly fire from full auto weapons might be a good idea. I was simply saying that salve owners were those in power and people in power usually try to keep it. If you already think of a man as property it isn't a huge stretch to think that you would craft laws to keep him that way.