It could also have to do with HUGE break between the first half of the season and the second... Just sayin'

The consent rules only apply for communications where there is an expectation of privacy, like a phone call. In a public place there is no such expectation so the consent rules do not apply.

Aside from this seriously being a sudden outbreak of common sense, it only affects residents of Maryland. In order to affect the whole of the United States this would have to be a decision made by SCOTUS. Should this go to them? It shouldn't have to. Our state and local governments should be bright enough to figure this out on their own.

So if guns cause crime, do cameras cause child porn?

I've never really seen it as a game myself. To me it is just a way to turn your own grief in to someone's joy. Is that really so bad? While I do not possess a donor card, I've made my wishes perfectly clear to those who would be making decisions on my behalf should something happen.

Yes, yes, and yes. You have to remember that the religious leaders in biblical times were the law. Even if how they interpreted the word of God was horribly inaccurate and plainly only for their benefit, people went with it. Even in modern times, these "leaders" still seem to be nothing more than a cleaned up version of a mob boss.

The gun laws for Clark County are a bit odd, but they have provisions that we forced on them by Nevada that allow people to not register their firearms for 60 days IIRC. This keeps people who are visiting from having to jump through hoops.

It is interesting how some airports pay closer attention to luggage than others, isn't it? I've only been to one (PHX if I'm remembering right) that actually has someone verifying the bag you grab is actually your own. At the time I was much younger and thought it a huge waste of my time. Now that I'm older and have better toys (firearms, expensive cameras, computers, etc), I wish more airports would check.

He almost went out with a bang.

Until I see all categories of Japanese animated pr0n on Idle, I'll have to respectfully disagree.

In a crime of passion, you are correct, the assailant will use whatever is at hand. This only proves my point that anything can be a weapon when the intent is to cause harm. After all, a weapon is "any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war..." (dictionary.com)

With the UK basically outlawing firearms, the only two things that could happen, did; for the most part only criminals have guns, and those that don't moved to knives. Now knife crime is up. I don't see that as helping crime at all.

Let's entertain the idea of the UK banning pointed knives. Two things will happen: criminals will file the rounded tip to a point, or they'll replace stabbing with slashing. And since you can't very well outlaw knives (what would cut meat with?), you're stuck. Criminals will always find creative ways of making weapons work better for them.

Yes, modifying something to make it a better weapon gives evidence of premeditation... Or does it? In order to answer that, we must first ask ourselves what the function of the police is. Their job is not the protection of the individual, but the community as a whole. If a crime is committed against you, the police are only there to pick up the pieces. So an otherwise law-abiding citizen may break the law to ensure their safety. Does this mean that when they are forced to defend themselves and they use the illegally modified knife that the were looking for trouble? No, it certainly does not.

Pragmatists don't write laws. Pragmatists don't enforce laws. And pragmatists do not prosecute those who break the laws. Laws are written by people who want to make the worst-case scenario illegal, regardless of how it could affect everyone else. Look no further than New York's or California's firearm laws for proof of this.

I'll be blunt, if I'm a criminal and they outlawed knives, I'd still carry one. Laws only affect those that follow them.

The problem has never, and will never, be the availability of "weapons". The fact is, there are weapons all around us. Sitting here at my desk I have a multitude of tools that could easily be used to kill someone: a pen, a pencil, a flashlight, tape, an allen wrench, my keys, the lanyard on my keys, and the list goes on. Perhaps I should step outside... I'll add my car to the list of things that I could easily kill someone with. If I had a wood chipper, I'd add that as well. These items will never be outlawed.

Edged weapons, firearms, and bows/crossbows/compound-bows have real uses. If you want to go hunting, I would suggest bringing a knife and at least one firearm. Want to carve a turkey, you're going to need a knife (no, I do not support the electric knives). Marksmanship requires a firearm or bow of some sorts. I'll concede the fact that these items were originally designed for war, but they have found legitimate uses in every day society.

The real problem is the people who would wield these "weapons". Give a kid a piece of string an they might start playing Cat's Cradle. Give a serial killer that same piece of string and they'll strangle someone with it. The government (UK, US, etc) should be going after the criminals-- dare I say it, with a vengeance. Remove the people from society who would wish harm upon others. These people will find weapons where you might not think them to be; it's in their nature.

I love UltraEdit. I'm still waiting for the Linux version.

Back when I worked at REI a coworker decided to grow a beard so his face would stay warm when he went snowshoeing. Unfortunately, the beard only managed to collect moisture, which consequently froze and only made him colder. I don't think his problem was quite as bad as the pictured gentleman, but it definitely was not pleasant.

Prison Security Systems for Dummies