Free Republic

From personal experience I know it is true. I made the mistake one time of getting involved with a woman without getting to know her very well first. He goal was to get pregnant so she would be eligible for welfare and the job training benefits. After I got to know her a little better I discovered that she had the timing of her ovulation charted on the calendar and timed events to maximize the chance of pregnancy. Once she was pregnant she had no interest in a relationship. The only saving grace from my perspective was shortly after she told me she was pregnant and what her plans were she had a miscarriage. The momentary pleasure of getting laid twice was not worth the subsequent agony of worrying what kind of a monster such a woman would raise and with the way our legal system is currently structured I would almost assuredly have been limited to occasional visitation and paying child support.

The crooks in Tacoma were selling weapons under the counter without proper paper work and deserve to get sued. If Bushmaster had any inkling of what was going on then they also deserve to be sued. Nobody can make the legitimate claim that Bullseye by ignoring normal procedures before transferring a weapon used ordinary care in conducting their business and they are definitely negligent. Negligence is ample proof for a civil suit to be decided against them.

It is funny to listen to Savage bitch and moan about how he was treated half as bad as he treats those who call his show. Like Clinton he attacks others for using the very techniques he has perfected on his own show to silence all who might disagree with Savage. Savage is quite the hypocrite to complain about others who can’t debate, he is so chicken of being shown up on his own show that he immediately cuts off any caller who it appears is about to make a point with which Savage disagrees.

You brought up the apartment bombings in your first reply, but I guess you wouldn’t want to break your streak by getting a fact straight.

I have read your reply and I can't find a valid point contained there in. We also seem to have been sidetracked by the issue of the Russian Leaderships potential involvement in the apartment bombings. Even if the leaders aren’t concerned with the citizens well being it still helps to have their support instead of opposition.

The original point for which there is ample evidence is that the Russians have in the past and continue today to terrorize the civilian population of Chechnya. An Acquaintance of mine grew up in Chechnya before escaping the old Soviet Union. He still has friends and family in the region who would like nothing better than to be left alone by all sides but they fear the Russians far more than the rebels. Even ethnic Russians living in the area have been slaughtered by the Russian military while enforced observation of sha'riah law was for the most part confined to the more rural villages.

Repeating the same lines and ignoring the points made doesn't do anything to advance the discussion.

The Russian’s are so adroit at dealing with the Muslim terrorists, why just look at the total lack of problems within Russia itself or for that matter how they have cured the problems in Central or South Asia.

The Apartment bombings would not have been carried out for foreign consumption but rather for domestic purposes. The mothers of Russia had grown tired of watching their son’s come home in body bags fighting a far off conflict that did not affect them. Bringing the conflict directly the heart of the Russian people would overcome the opposition that had been organized by the Russian Mom’s of dead soldiers during the first Chechen conflict. It is hard to disprove a conspiracy simply because none of the participants have come forward to expose it. If there were a government conspiracy to bomb the apartment buildings then the Russian Mob would almost assuredly have been involved. The Russian Mafia’s power and connection within the Russian society would make it possible to intimidate or silence most exposure of the truth.

As for most people or Russian soldier being hesitant to kill innocent civilians, history is and even are current time are full of examples to the contrary. The western press when it covers the story of the Chechen war is full of examples of indiscriminate slaughter on the part of Russian soldiers. While the western press is not perfect it still does much better at presenting the truth than does the Arab press.

I had hoped that after you toned down your pompous attitude that an exploration of ideas surrounding the NJ law might be possible; I now see that I was mistaken. You will have no more luck finding a court case where the state was required to prove that a particular law did not infringe a right than you had finding a case supporting your contention that any court had ruled that a reasonable restriction amounted to an infringement. Every case where a law was ruled unconstitutional had a specific instance presented to the Court where the law violated the rights of at least one person. Unless your rights are violated you don’t have standing to file a suit that would prevent enforcement. When you start imagining what flaws will be in a technology that is not yet available you yourself have left reality and are dealing with the hypothetical. Until the technology is available and the law takes effect we won’t know what flaws may be present. If the Technology works flawlessly your lack of arguments won’t have a hope of convincing anyone that an infringement exits.

Do you write copy for the Russian media? Your version of events could be taken right off the official Russian Government Party line.

The old Soviet Union was not above slaughtering their own citizens if it advanced the goals of the Communist Party and it’s leaders. The KGB would have been quite capable of bombing Russian civilian apartment buildings. The people who were taught by and then joined the Communist Party and occupied its positions of power are the same people still running Russia. Do you believe that such ideas would no longer cross their mind? If the Government was not directly involved then many corrupt government officials took a payoff to allow the acquisition and transport of explosives into Moscow.

The Russian military tends to be poorly trained under equipped and staffed by recruits who don’t want to be there. The field officers like to file positive reports. What tends to happen is that a military unit moves into a village and indiscriminately slaughters those present because they are easier to find and put up less resistance than the rebels. Then a report is filed claiming all Chechens killed were rebels. Unless you have been reading and believing Arab propaganda you can’t make any serious comparison with how Israel operates. Even if the Russians are on the same side in a fight against Radical Islam that does not excuse their indiscriminate slaughter and often-counterproductive efforts to exert control over Central Asia.

First off an explanation; have you ever argued a point because you wanted to explore the ideas involved, not necessarily out of total support for the position taken?

Even with your understanding of footnote 11 it does not mean that an early Court ruled reasonable restrictions would amount to an infringement. I think we are debating what constitutes an infringement not on whether any and all reasonable restrictions are forbidden.

It won’t work to place the burden on the State prove that no possible infringement occurs. If that were the standard then no law that might even tangentially touch upon guns would be Constitutional because it might in some unforeseen fashion infringe on somebody’s rights. Try proving that all crows are black; the observation of a million black crows doesn’t prove that all crows are black but the observation of even a single white crow would disprove the contention. What the Court will look for is even one example of where the law does infringe.

Is there a mention in the NJ law about allowing law enforcement to disable your gun because nothing in this article mentions such a thing? For the sake of my argument I am assuming low additional cost and that the smart gun technology works flawlessly in always allowing friendly use. I realize that the technology is unlikely to be perfect and that imperfection will form the bases for a Constitutional challenge. Absent an excessive cost burden or any flaw in the smart gun technology, it will be hard to argue an infringement exits. If during your use of a smart gun it performs identically to how it would perform without the smart technology how would it be an infringement.

It might help if you could read a little of what you linked, but I know you are to smart and busy to be bothered. Simply by asserting the claim that you have me "outclassed" does not hide your inability to offer an argument. If you had followed the debate and read a little of what you linked you would not have made the assertion that "dbwz" expansive interpretation of infringe has any bases in any legal court decision. From your link "What the Supreme Court Has Said about the Second Amendment" footnote 11:
This modern Standard Model is similar to the position embraced by every known legal scholar in the nineteenth century who wrote about the Second Amendment: the Amendment guarantees an individual right, but is subject to various reasonable restrictions.

If reasonable restrictions are allowed then you can’t seriously claim that infringe should be interpreted as preventing all rules laws and regulations that might touch upon Guns.

I always know when I am debating someone who knows their arguments are weak; they resort to insults and totally evade responding to the assertion that the Russian troops are every bit as deserving of the label terrorists as any Chechen Rebel.

First off follow the whole debate and second you have not offered any court case to back up your assertion.

Understanding the meaning that you meant to convey is not entirely the responsibility of those you address comments to; it requires some care in how you express yourself.

As to whether the KGB taking over and running the Russian government constitutes a regime change; that could be debated. Even if we limit consideration to Russia since Yeltsin far more Chechen civilians have been killed by Russian troops than Russian Civilians have been killed by Chechens.

All legitimate government is based on the consent of the governed and the Chechen people have never voluntarily given their consent to Russian rule. I support the right of the majority of the population in any region to secede if that is their desire. If the Majority of the population living in Chechnya desires autonomy then they should have been allowed to form their own independent government and not some pretend version of "de-facto" independence.

The Russians have succeeded in terrorizing the population and creating chaos in the region so that a secession of hostilities is probably impossible. The Russian military’s continued intentional targeting of Civilians instead of fighting rebels makes them as deserving of the title "terrorist" as does the rebels actions.

Simply claiming that it is an infringement does not make it so. If the technology works every useful feature of every weapon currently available would still be allowed. If a gun manufacturer won’t make and sell the gun that you want in your home State, how is that an infringement or are you claiming that the Constitution requires gun manufacturers to cater to you?

I don’t believe that any court at any time in this Country’s history has ever upheld such a broad interpretation of what would constitute an infringement as you have offered. Do you consider all rules as to who can buy sell and possess any weapon of any kind in any location at any time to be an unconstitutional infringement?

Weapons’ being stolen and used by the enemy is a common occurrence, a weapon that could only be used by friendly partisans could be advantageous for militia use. Being useful for the Militia could actually be a reason to require this technology.

Read reply # 27.

So if the Taliban had implemented a 13% flat tax in Afghanistan then you would no longer consider them or Al Qaeda to be terrorists?

You and Hugin are the one’s who claim that the NJ law violates the Constitution. I have offered a couple of potential challenges but they are dependent on problems with the cost and/or reliability of the technology. If you want to claim that the law is unconstitutional you are going to have to come up with some reason for that claim.

Will you also call the brutal Russian regime, which as terrorized and brutalized far more civilians than the Chechen Rebels, "terrorists"?