A Audio and hi-fi forum. AudioBanter.com

Go Back   Home » AudioBanter.com forum » rec.audio » Pro Audio
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Can you ID these headphones?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 24th 19, 03:15 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
Les Cargill[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default Can you ID these headphones?

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Don Pearce > wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 11:27:12 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>>
>>> She supports the entire amendment as intended by those who wrote it. You're making a common error of interpretation. There are issues of context, history and meaning that won't be obvious to 21st century eyes - and through a particular misguided bias. It doesn't say "people may possess arms only as members of a government militia" which is how many want to interpret it. Any argument you might against this has been made and is wrong and been officially declared as such by the SCOTUS.

>>
>> That ruling was made under pressure from the gun lobby, and is not an
>> interpretation of the first part, it is flat out ignoring it. So less
>> of the bull**** please.

>
> The initial intention of the second amendment was to preserve the ability
> to have a revolution; that is, it exists to protect the right to form an
> independent militia. As such, it really shouldn't apply at all to handguns,
> which are of little military use,


Oh, c'mon. Randolph Scott demonstrated clearly that handguns were to be
used to shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand.

> and it should instead protect your right
> to own tanks, bomber aircraft, and nuclear weapons, which are the current
> state of the art military hardware in much the way that guns were in 1789.
>
> The thing is, modern military hardware can make asymmetric warfare very very
> effective, and there are some good arguments why one might not want to allow
> private ownership of nuclear weapons, for instance.
>
> So we are kind of stuck in a difficult place that was never really forseen
> by the founding fathers, and which people on both sides of the aisle today
> persist in ignoring.
> --scott
>


--
Les Cargill

Ads
  #22  
Old December 24th 19, 08:53 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
James[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default Can you ID these headphones?

On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 9:10:47 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> The initial intention of the second amendment was to preserve the ability
> to have a revolution; that is, it exists to protect the right to form an
> independent militia. As such, it really shouldn't apply at all to handguns,
> which are of little military use, and it should instead protect your right
> to own tanks, bomber aircraft, and nuclear weapons, which are the current
> state of the art military hardware in much the way that guns were in 1789..
>
> The thing is, modern military hardware can make asymmetric warfare very very
> effective, and there are some good arguments why one might not want to allow
> private ownership of nuclear weapons, for instance.
>
> So we are kind of stuck in a difficult place that was never really forseen
> by the founding fathers, and which people on both sides of the aisle today
> persist in ignoring.
> --scott



It's not just to preserve the ability to form a militia. When the 2A was written firearm ownership was ubiquitous. People used them for hunting for food and for recreation, for self-defense. I.e. basically the same reasons they own them today. Sure, resistance against tyranny was also part of it - the British made efforts to confiscate arms and ammunition to maintain control over the population. Dictatorships are famous for confiscating firearms.

True, today most people don't have to hunt for food, and there aren't many indian raids these days but there are plenty of criminals and clowns like Eric Swalwell and Beto O'Rourke around to remind us there are those happy to usurp our rights.

It was also made clear that the 2A didn't grant people a right, it was explicitly acknowledging a natural right. The correct answer to "why do you need a gun?" is "it's none of your damned business" if someone doesn't have a history of behaving criminally, isn't mentally deranged. And by criminally I mean robbery, murder, etc. I don't mean because a government has criminalized firearms.
  #23  
Old December 27th 19, 01:31 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,749
Default Can you ID these headphones?

James > wrote:
>On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 9:10:47 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>=20
>> The initial intention of the second amendment was to preserve the ability=

>=20
>> to have a revolution; that is, it exists to protect the right to form an
>> independent militia. As such, it really shouldn't apply at all to handgu=

>ns,
>> which are of little military use, and it should instead protect your righ=

>t
>> to own tanks, bomber aircraft, and nuclear weapons, which are the current
>> state of the art military hardware in much the way that guns were in 1789=

>.
>>=20
>> The thing is, modern military hardware can make asymmetric warfare very v=

>ery
>> effective, and there are some good arguments why one might not want to al=

>low
>> private ownership of nuclear weapons, for instance.
>>=20
>> So we are kind of stuck in a difficult place that was never really forsee=

>n
>> by the founding fathers, and which people on both sides of the aisle toda=

>y
>> persist in ignoring.

>
>It's not just to preserve the ability to form a militia. When the 2A was wr=
>itten firearm ownership was ubiquitous. People used them for hunting for fo=
>od and for recreation, for self-defense. I.e. basically the same reasons th=
>ey own them today. Sure, resistance against tyranny was also part of it - t=
>he British made efforts to confiscate arms and ammunition to maintain contr=
>ol over the population. Dictatorships are famous for confiscating firearms.=


It doesn't actually say that, though. What it says is that because citizens
have a right to resist, therefore they have an inherent right to have arms.

All of that stuff about hunting, recreation, and self defense isn't actually
written on the paper. Much of it has been inferred by the courts, but court
interpretations change.

>It was also made clear that the 2A didn't grant people a right, it was expl=
>icitly acknowledging a natural right. The correct answer to "why do you nee=
>d a gun?" is "it's none of your damned business" if someone doesn't have a =
>history of behaving criminally, isn't mentally deranged. And by criminally =
>I mean robbery, murder, etc. I don't mean because a government has criminal=
>ized firearms.


Yes, but that's how the constitution works. Right in the preamble, it points
out that all rights are natural, and that rights cannot be granted by a
document, only taken away.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #24  
Old December 29th 19, 11:02 PM posted to rec.audio.pro
James[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default Can you ID these headphones?

On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 8:31:19 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> James wrote:


> >It's not just to preserve the ability to form a militia. When the 2A was wr=
> >itten firearm ownership was ubiquitous. People used them for hunting for fo=
> >od and for recreation, for self-defense. I.e. basically the same reasons th=
> >ey own them today. Sure, resistance against tyranny was also part of it - t=
> >he British made efforts to confiscate arms and ammunition to maintain contr=
> >ol over the population. Dictatorships are famous for confiscating firearms.=

>
> It doesn't actually say that, though. What it says is that because citizens
> have a right to resist, therefore they have an inherent right to have arms.



Yup, they have a right to resist unlawful force - whether it's the gov't overstepping their bounds or someone breaking into your home or trying to attack you on the street.



> All of that stuff about hunting, recreation, and self defense isn't actually
> written on the paper.



It doesn't need to be. It's already been established that it doesn't restrict firearm possession to participating in a gov't militia. You've acknowledged the point that people have the right to resist - the gov't confiscating firearms deprived people of a capacity to obtain food, to defend themselves.

Ergo "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.




  #25  
Old January 5th 20, 04:01 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
nickbatz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 152
Default Can you ID these headphones?

Who cares what headphones a terrorist spokesperson poses with.

"The only issue
they are even more conservative than whites on is LGBTQ. "

The canard that black people are homophobic is just that. And while only self-loathing black people vote for conservatives, black people are not all the same person. Either are white people, nor are we all conservative.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Headphones? Ger High End Audio 4 June 11th 08 12:10 AM
does anyone like the AKG K-400 headphones? andrejs eigus Pro Audio 3 September 28th 07 12:54 AM
USB Headphones hack - Soldering a 3.5mm plug instead of the headphones [email protected] Tech 10 September 17th 07 11:39 PM
[eBay] FS: Headphones AKAI ASE 22, nice headphones vintage ... very low starting price ... 2 Euro!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Meadow_61 Marketplace 0 November 11th 06 09:00 PM
Seeking Recommendations for Open Headphones and Closed Headphones Mike Audio Opinions 1 September 1st 06 01:51 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.