I'm driving over to Gander Mountain first to grab a gun!

Do you think it might be easier for someone to disarm the public if all their guns are consolidated like that?

Printer manufacturers use the same pricing model (they lose money on the printer and make it back with the ink/toner). You tend to see this anywhere a product is tied to a single recurring cost that can some from a monopoly provider. If it were legal for a real-estate developer to sell a house at a loss and gouge you on utilities, you can bet they'd do that too.

Blocking access to a service someone has paid for is "damage." The extent of the injury is mostly financial, and hard to quantify because there are a lot of injured parties who were effected over a two year period (none of whom will actually be receiving compensation). However, it easily could have contributed to personal injury and it would be very hard to know.

The purpose of the fine is not to compensate the injured parties, that would be very hard to do. It is meant to dissuade him and others from undertaking these kind of activities in the future. The jamming was a nuisance and a potential hazard.

Cars are screened for safety before they are allowed on the road, there are a number of safety regulations manufacturers have to meet before they can legally sell a car. Manufacturers are required to recall and remediate defects when they become aware of them, and they are fined if they fail to do so, so this isn't a double standard. Unfortunately, car manufactures sometimes learn of defects from accidents, and they don't always report them. That is a crime, it is not legal for them to do that. But sometimes they do get away with it, much the same way this asshole got away with operating a jammer for two years.

Do advertisers own TV and radio stations?

This this a trick question? I suppose technically they don't, but for all practical purposes they certainly do.

I really doubt our founding fathers had protecting junk mailers in mind when they penned the Constitution. I don't want to receive junk mail, and I don't know anyone who does. I doubt there even is such a person. Even junk mailers probably hate receiving junk mail. I'm happy to pay FexEX or UPS to carry my mail, they do a fine job and they can get it there tomorrow morning. I only send a few letters a year, and several dollars isn't much in that context. The claim that private businesses can't do parcel delivery as efficiently as the USPS is absurd. The USPS is totally obsolete. We don't need them for anything at all.

The problem you're having is that you don't understand how memory works. Your brain isn't a tape-recorder. You remember some of the ideas expressed, and then use those to reconstruct the conversation after the fact. Everything you remember is paraphrased. It's not creative license, nor is it a lie. You simply don't remember the precise details.

You would have no way to know the call failure was the result of jamming.

30 years ago you had to wait for someone to go get help, which could take quite a while. A lot more people died in car accidents back then. . .

If you read the article, you'll notice he was operating the jammer from his car while driving. It's a lot harder to track down a moving jammer than a stationary one.

There's no way to know, because a blocked call wouldn't have gone through. . .

I don't know if this has occurred to you or not, but not everyone inside a car is driving a car. And if you do get into a car accident, it would be nice if you or someone in the area could call emergency services.

I've found many meat substitutes to be palatable in the past. But ultimately I couldn't stomach the higher cost.

A group of businesses have lobbied their state legislature to enact laws to prevent a new company (and a new way of selling cars) from competing with them and making them obsolete. That's an anti-trust violation. There is absolutely no way NJ would stand a chance in court, they have obviously used this law for anti-competitive purposes.

I'm not saying that at all. Of course New Jersey can regulate sales of cars in their own state. But the commerce clause gives the feds authority to say what rules New Jersey can an can't make, and it gives them the authority to make their own rules, which would take precedence over any rules made by the state of New Jersey. This is pretty basic stuff. I hope you either aren't a US citizen, or haven't yet graduated High School, because your understanding of how the US government works is deficient, to say the least.

The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." That doesn't sound like they're just talking about goods passing through states that aren't a party to the trade to me. To me it sounds like they're definitely saying the feds have the authority to make rules about how car made in California can be sold sold in New Jersey.