Even if the gun is not registered to an owner, the serial number is tied to the sale from the licensed dealer. Also, if a state does not require purchased handguns to be registered, they may require registration if you move into the state and are then "importing" the handguns.
Now that you have the gun and the dog you really should get some training for both. You and your wife need training with the firearm, even if said training is only practice at a firing range, so you can be familiar with it that you can use it in a tense situation. The shot groupings you get at the range will double in size when you are under pressure, that means if your shot pattern is as wide as the silhouette target at the range, a significant portion of your shots will miss. If you have a pistol look at glaser safety slugs, they will not penetrate your drywall and endanger your neighbors. If you have a shotgun, even better. If you have reason to feel that your life is threatened, you have at that point a moral and legal right to kill an intruder if that is the only apparent way to end the confrontation. Of course, if you do not believe you could ever pull the trigger (a opinion one really can't form until they have given it much thought and used the weapon several times, at a range of course) then sell the firearm, it will only be a liability and a danger to you, although many burglaries have been averted by the simple sound of a shotgun pump sliding back and forth.
Also remember that the gun is only useful if you are home to wield it. If someone breaks in while you are away, you may be held criminally liable for allowing it to be stolen, depending on where you live.
The dog also needs to be trained so that it cannot be distracted by any treats that an intruder might present, and instead attack when necessary.
I would also carry a folding knife with me in case I should come home early and meet an intruder, in such a scenario, don't brandish the weapon in an attempt to dissuade someone. An intruder may be a career criminal and much more used to violence than you are. If you have to use a knife, have it ready but as hidden in your hand as you can make it.
Now of course all of this only applies to an actual confrontation. If there are no children to protect it is best to avoid any such confrontation.
Good luck, I sincerely hope a camera and a call the the police are all it takes to stop whoever it is from trespassing in your home while you are away.
Infringing upon copyrights is not harmful. It is the current state of copyright law that is harmful in reality. Violating copyrights by file sharing pretty much always helps small artists and may or may not lower revenue for large artists. Diminishing an entitlement granted to some is not harmful.
I know it's nitpicky but its' hard to have honest discussions on this topic and it's one of my pet peeves. Nothing against you, I am just having a digital outburst.
The problem for companies is that they might have lost track of what patents cover a given product, or might have forgotten to update packaging to remove numbers of patents that had expired.
I see no reason to claim this is trolling as the article does (yeah i read it, find the guy that patented RTFA and have him sue me). Marking a product with a patent number is a claim not that you will sue someone for producing a similar item, but a claim that you clearly have legal grounds to do so. Marking a product with an irrelevant patent number then is essentially extortion (i'm unsure if the term 'extortion' can apply to pressuring one into inaction. If there is a more appropriate term, let me know please). Any company putting a patent number on a product has a responsibility to make sure their claim is valid. Not updating packaging perfectly on time should certainly be a more forgivable offense, but totally forgetting what patents cover your products is just unacceptable. How many seperate patents or products could any given company have? I realize the number could get quite high, but nothing a simple database even such as SQlite can't handle. Patents are a legal construct designed to give an innovator a monopoly long enough to capitalize on innovations. I don't know why it would ever need to even be said explicitly but if you are unsure, don't make claims that have legal implications.
The real trolls here are the companies putting false numbers on products.
The tactics the Soviets used were more dangerous that all the money and guns the US ever threw at anything. Go watch his videos. You have no idea what you are poo-pooing. It's not about guns and money, it's about dissolving the fabric of a society from the inside over a generation or two before you create a crisis and move in. The soviets not only had offensive plans, they were enacting them. The Soviets were invading South Vietnam and South Korea, using the northern counterparts to each to provide the muscle. The Soviets were attempting to conquer the world with a poison ideology. Why? Because that's what they did. The Soviet Union was 1984's Eurasia, but they had no Oceania to prevent their expanse.
I'm not saying the United States never backed the wrong people or got involved with something we should have avoided altogether. I am not denying that evil was done by our government and military. But the evil done by the Soviet regime far out-weighs that, and even the fact that the US supported the Tzar's cannot negate this imbalance. Further, the potential for evil the soviets represented post WWII adds even to the rest. They were a massive threat to the world, far greater than we were.
By the time Russian tanks rolled into the capital of a newly conquered nation, that nation had been under invasion for at least a full generation. Soviet expansion worked in the following way: The KGB would send agents to bribe or persuade educators, politicians, media personalities, anyone of influence to spread socialist propaganda. Any who refuse, any idealists who really believe din a socialist or any who vocally oppose soviet ideals are carefully noted and tracked over 15 or 20 years. The idealists because they will oppose the realities of the socialism that will come, the rest because they opposed it from the start and will continue to do so. Any opportunity is taken to devolve political discourse into shouting matches is taken. This is not hard as people have strong tendencies towards it anyway. Once things have progressed far enough, a crisis is instigated and soviet forces roll in welcomed as saviors while simultaneously rounding up and executing everyone on their list as they are all potential dissidents or insurgents. This is gone into in much greater detail in the interview and lecture given by Yuri Bezmenov. This is essentially how North Vietnam became communist, how can you say that the Soviets had no hostile intentions. I'd say that is pretty damned hostile. It is in this light that I say the Soviets always represented a greater danger in the world than the United States did.
This is not revisionist. This is information to the contrary and it doesn't even come from US intelligence. It comes from one of the men who did it. He was a KGB station cheif in India. This has been publicly available for at least 25 years now.
I repeat: The evil perpetrated by the Soviets outweighs the evil perpetrated by the United States, but I will not speculate on the narrowness of the margin.
As far as faked intelligence, David Kay, the very man who finally said Iraq likely did not have WMD's said also that invading Iraq was the proper course of action because Hussein had weapons programs ready to be started up on short notice. Also I cannot find a record of David Kay admitting Iraq likely did not have WMD's before the invasion. What was found would be consistent with Saddam hastily moving stockpiles over the border into Syria. It cannot be disputed that we still do not know conclusively whether or not Iraq had any stockpiles of chemical weapons. Even if the circumstantial evidence indicates he did not, Saddam still had the pieces to start weapons programs as soon as the UN stopped looking for them. US soldiers found executed nuclear scientists at various places around Iraq. The only reason I can think of to kill nuclear scientists is that if captured, they would confirm the pretense upon which your country had been invaded.
Dude, look at a map of Russia, and then look at a map of the USSR. All of those countries that are the difference between the two had their governments overthrown by the Soviets and literally thousands of people executed in a single night in a wash-rinse-repeat cycle all through Europe. Go watch the Yuri Bezmenov videos and remember while you watch them that he was one of the people orchestrating the process. With all of the bad things the US has done, the Soviets were always more dangerous.
Hell, the rounds are almost more expensive than the drones you'd be shooting down. Taken into consideration how many rounds it might take to actually hit an RC plane with a rifle it might actually cost more.
I can see a new round for the m203 grenade launcher (or any grenade launcher) with a proximity fuse, much like those developed in WWII to shoot down Japanese planes.
Actually, the Korean, Vietnam and all the cold war related skirmishes are related to defense. The soviets were actively engaged in subverting governments and taking them over and we were the great big prize target for them. When you picture the scenario i describe and think to yourself "there is no way the threat the soviets posed to us was that sinister and involved," know that in fact i was that sinister and convoluted and involved. The soviets were truly trying to take over the world in such a manner that if one understood it they would no longer believe in any way that the US had ever made any attempt to do the same.
The war in Iraq and Afghanistan are related to defense as well. Iraqi intelligence has been giving aid to Al Qaeda since the early 90's as they have waged a war against us. The Afghanistan Taliban gave them safe haven from which to plan and conduct this war. Is that enough reason to go to war? That's were the debate starts, but to say that there has been no provocation on any level since WWII is naive. Though i can see claiming that since a lot of it has not been direct provocation it doesn't count, but i would disagree on that point.
Since the end of World War II the US has faced some form of constant threat. Whether or not these threats have been severe enough to warrant the actions we have taken is a separate discussion, but the threats have been there. Those parties that have threatened us have always tried to conduct themselves in such a way that they could always claim any retaliation was unwarranted.
All in all, I think we should have given up Global Super Power status when the soviets fell. It's just not worth it anymore, but I think we were needed while they were standing.
We should stop bothering with foreign entanglements, but there are a lot of people who aren't going to like the fact that that would mean no help for Darfur, or Haiti, no more aid like we gave after the tsunami.
I know people want to believe the US is some big bad boogey man ruining the lives of innocent foreigners, and we have done some really nasty things. But if you look back at all of the nations that have been the big superpower through history, the US really does set the gold standard for benevolence in global politics.
It's not a bad idea to have some notion of efficient evacuation before the blueprints are done, just to be sure that the finished design does not hamper evacuation, making it a deathtrap. Much like mandating outward opening doors before pen hits paper.
Communist infiltration and subverstoin was a real phenomenon. McCarthy rected with far less finess than he should have, but he wasn't making up the danger.
Heating the water drives it into the rice faster, surrounding it with water provides more available water for rice to soak up. Rice will absorb moisture, that is why it is fatal to birds. The rice expanding from absorbing moisture in the birds stomach (gullet?). Room tempurature air would not contain enough moisture or propell the water mollecules with enough heat to truly cook rice. Sure there are better things for the job, but people have rice handy. The absolute best thing would probably be severely refrigerated air that was then dryly heated back up before passing over and through the device. The cooling would lower the vapor pressure, removing the moisture, the heat would allow it to evaporate the moisture from the device more readily.
Think of what those words mean, what they refer to. Historically, profane is anything that's outside of the church. Grocery shopping is profane, because it's not part of worship. Now notice that all the topics they refer to are things that have little place in church services. Fuck, shit, bitch. You can talk about sex during a church service, you can mention feces, even female dogs but it would be done in a mature and respectful manner and done in relation to God, Jesus and the Gospels. However, referring to these topics in such crass and crude terms, such as talking about fucking, shit or referring to women as bitches, would really never have a place in church services and therefor would always be profane. Couple that with the puritanical roots of the United States and you can see how they are considered 'bad.'
To be fair though, excessive use of such words is a sign of immaturity, gratuitous and generally pointless. I do quite like the way many of them sound, their abruptness...they are like little verbal gunshots to my ears, and i do like to go shooting. A sentence filled with profanity is likely to be devoid of thought as well. I do approve of them being considered "bad" words at least for children as i would rather my children (when i have them) learn to express themselves thoughtfully over using expletive filled tirades.
As far as not being allowed to use profanity stifling "free expression," well that is totally false. You can invariable express your thoughts more accurately and clearly without the use of profanity. Consider the following phrases: "Fuck you pal!" and "Sir, if i ever gained the approval of a man such as yourself, i would hang myself in shame." Which is more expressive?
In fact, a ban on profanity does not infringe upon ones first amendment rights. Even if profanity is illegal you can still advocate any political view legally, one may have to achieve a higher level of eloquence however. I am vehemently against such a ban as that is not a power granted to the Legislature (federal i know for sure, pretty sure about CA state, and yes i do know this is not a ban). As far as the problem with allowing profanity on daytime TV, ask instead what would really be gained by allowing it. Are you really missing out on anything because of the FCC's ban? Likely not. I do not mean to dismiss the question you pose, however it alone is not sufficient to properly illuminate the topic.
OK, i couldn't let this go. I have adopted a policy of avoiding inflamitory or overly confrontational statements, but you're just plain wrong. At least in one jurisdiction where I heard the name of the actual charged brought in a child porn case it was "exploitation of a minor," and that is exactly the heart of the kiddie porn issue. Ask any psychologist and they will likely tell you that sexualizing an individual before they have any first hand experience with the hormonal realities of sexuality is quite traumatic. You can often even tell the age a girl was molested at by listening to her voice and figuring out what age she sounds like. All rational people can agree that causing such psychological and emotional harm to a child is a heinous crime and that about the only way to top that is to do it for monetary gain instead of, or as well, as ones own personal gratification. And that is the root of anti child-porn laws. Child porn originally was both a record of such abuse and an enterprise based upon it. An entire industry based upon causing harm to others who are innocent. Child porn was essentially in the same league as a brothel specializing in the rape of the unwilling or a contract assassin agency.
Today we have a few hiccups thrown into the mix. There is a popular form of animation in which girls of ages that are indeterminate other than to say they are 'too young' (unless hentai characters are given specific ages, are they?). These images are not created upon the suffering of innocents. None of the rationals for criminalizing child porn work with hentai images. The only rationals that people try to apply to hentai are that those who enjoy it are 'sick' or that they 'might' do something bad if allowed to view it. What a horrible reason to outlaw something.
Another frightening trend with child porn laws has been the arrests of individuals who are underage for exploiting themselves by taking nude self-images. Or the arrests of their significant others for receiving the same. I can see no rational argument to lock up an 18 year old boy because his 17 year old girlfriend texted him a picture of her breasts, an image he had no chance to refuse before seeing it's content.
As an aside i think a reasonable way to treat teen "sexting" in the legal system is to treat it the same as consent laws. If it's legal for two individuals to have sex, they should be able to privately share images of themselves. However once those images become more widely distributed, the distributor should face some form of penalty, provided the distributor is not the same as the person in the image and willingly posed for it. No one should EVER be criminally liable for taking a nude photo of themselves and showing to another, unless it becomes a harassment case and not a sex crime. Moving on.
The common denominator here is that no action should be prosecutable unless it involves one individual causing harm or presenting a danger to another individual. Mix in "informed consent" as necessary if you believe it is necessary to keep things like tattoos, "branding", and anything that people purposely do that could be considered "harmful" legal.
It is neccessary in any free society to allow others to do things you dissprove of if it is not harmful to others. I see no reason for a nations legal code to violate the simple principle of "live and let live."
Now lets see what i get accused of for "defending child porn."
Slashdot Mirror
Even if the gun is not registered to an owner, the serial number is tied to the sale from the licensed dealer. Also, if a state does not require purchased handguns to be registered, they may require registration if you move into the state and are then "importing" the handguns.
Now that you have the gun and the dog you really should get some training for both. You and your wife need training with the firearm, even if said training is only practice at a firing range, so you can be familiar with it that you can use it in a tense situation. The shot groupings you get at the range will double in size when you are under pressure, that means if your shot pattern is as wide as the silhouette target at the range, a significant portion of your shots will miss. If you have a pistol look at glaser safety slugs, they will not penetrate your drywall and endanger your neighbors. If you have a shotgun, even better. If you have reason to feel that your life is threatened, you have at that point a moral and legal right to kill an intruder if that is the only apparent way to end the confrontation. Of course, if you do not believe you could ever pull the trigger (a opinion one really can't form until they have given it much thought and used the weapon several times, at a range of course) then sell the firearm, it will only be a liability and a danger to you, although many burglaries have been averted by the simple sound of a shotgun pump sliding back and forth.
Also remember that the gun is only useful if you are home to wield it. If someone breaks in while you are away, you may be held criminally liable for allowing it to be stolen, depending on where you live.
The dog also needs to be trained so that it cannot be distracted by any treats that an intruder might present, and instead attack when necessary.
I would also carry a folding knife with me in case I should come home early and meet an intruder, in such a scenario, don't brandish the weapon in an attempt to dissuade someone. An intruder may be a career criminal and much more used to violence than you are. If you have to use a knife, have it ready but as hidden in your hand as you can make it.
Now of course all of this only applies to an actual confrontation. If there are no children to protect it is best to avoid any such confrontation.
Good luck, I sincerely hope a camera and a call the the police are all it takes to stop whoever it is from trespassing in your home while you are away.
Sorry I don't have advice on the camera set up.
"What's your password?"
"Umm....let's see. Del Monte canned peaches in light syrup, kraft macaroni and cheese, hunts canned pizza sauce, campbels chicken and noodle soup"
"We need a Safeway, tape, scissors and a barcode reader!"
Infringing upon copyrights is not harmful. It is the current state of copyright law that is harmful in reality. Violating copyrights by file sharing pretty much always helps small artists and may or may not lower revenue for large artists. Diminishing an entitlement granted to some is not harmful.
I know it's nitpicky but its' hard to have honest discussions on this topic and it's one of my pet peeves. Nothing against you, I am just having a digital outburst.
The problem for companies is that they might have lost track of what patents cover a given product, or might have forgotten to update packaging to remove numbers of patents that had expired.
I see no reason to claim this is trolling as the article does (yeah i read it, find the guy that patented RTFA and have him sue me). Marking a product with a patent number is a claim not that you will sue someone for producing a similar item, but a claim that you clearly have legal grounds to do so. Marking a product with an irrelevant patent number then is essentially extortion (i'm unsure if the term 'extortion' can apply to pressuring one into inaction. If there is a more appropriate term, let me know please). Any company putting a patent number on a product has a responsibility to make sure their claim is valid. Not updating packaging perfectly on time should certainly be a more forgivable offense, but totally forgetting what patents cover your products is just unacceptable. How many seperate patents or products could any given company have? I realize the number could get quite high, but nothing a simple database even such as SQlite can't handle. Patents are a legal construct designed to give an innovator a monopoly long enough to capitalize on innovations. I don't know why it would ever need to even be said explicitly but if you are unsure, don't make claims that have legal implications.
The real trolls here are the companies putting false numbers on products.
Perhaps a good reason people should not bother worrying about what 'normal' behaviour is and instead aim for ethical behaviour.
You really should watch them, people like you are perfectly accounted for.
The tactics the Soviets used were more dangerous that all the money and guns the US ever threw at anything. Go watch his videos. You have no idea what you are poo-pooing. It's not about guns and money, it's about dissolving the fabric of a society from the inside over a generation or two before you create a crisis and move in. The soviets not only had offensive plans, they were enacting them. The Soviets were invading South Vietnam and South Korea, using the northern counterparts to each to provide the muscle. The Soviets were attempting to conquer the world with a poison ideology. Why? Because that's what they did. The Soviet Union was 1984's Eurasia, but they had no Oceania to prevent their expanse.
I'm not saying the United States never backed the wrong people or got involved with something we should have avoided altogether. I am not denying that evil was done by our government and military. But the evil done by the Soviet regime far out-weighs that, and even the fact that the US supported the Tzar's cannot negate this imbalance. Further, the potential for evil the soviets represented post WWII adds even to the rest. They were a massive threat to the world, far greater than we were.
By the time Russian tanks rolled into the capital of a newly conquered nation, that nation had been under invasion for at least a full generation. Soviet expansion worked in the following way: The KGB would send agents to bribe or persuade educators, politicians, media personalities, anyone of influence to spread socialist propaganda. Any who refuse, any idealists who really believe din a socialist or any who vocally oppose soviet ideals are carefully noted and tracked over 15 or 20 years. The idealists because they will oppose the realities of the socialism that will come, the rest because they opposed it from the start and will continue to do so. Any opportunity is taken to devolve political discourse into shouting matches is taken. This is not hard as people have strong tendencies towards it anyway. Once things have progressed far enough, a crisis is instigated and soviet forces roll in welcomed as saviors while simultaneously rounding up and executing everyone on their list as they are all potential dissidents or insurgents. This is gone into in much greater detail in the interview and lecture given by Yuri Bezmenov. This is essentially how North Vietnam became communist, how can you say that the Soviets had no hostile intentions. I'd say that is pretty damned hostile. It is in this light that I say the Soviets always represented a greater danger in the world than the United States did.
This is not revisionist. This is information to the contrary and it doesn't even come from US intelligence. It comes from one of the men who did it. He was a KGB station cheif in India. This has been publicly available for at least 25 years now.
I repeat: The evil perpetrated by the Soviets outweighs the evil perpetrated by the United States, but I will not speculate on the narrowness of the margin.
As far as faked intelligence, David Kay, the very man who finally said Iraq likely did not have WMD's said also that invading Iraq was the proper course of action because Hussein had weapons programs ready to be started up on short notice. Also I cannot find a record of David Kay admitting Iraq likely did not have WMD's before the invasion. What was found would be consistent with Saddam hastily moving stockpiles over the border into Syria. It cannot be disputed that we still do not know conclusively whether or not Iraq had any stockpiles of chemical weapons. Even if the circumstantial evidence indicates he did not, Saddam still had the pieces to start weapons programs as soon as the UN stopped looking for them. US soldiers found executed nuclear scientists at various places around Iraq. The only reason I can think of to kill nuclear scientists is that if captured, they would confirm the pretense upon which your country had been invaded.
I can understand the
Fry's has an annual "Come dump your old crap here for free" day. Of course it's also an annual "buy replacements while you're here" day.
Really, the other guns don't get jealous? Or do you rotate them out night after night? Gun safe = harem!
Dude, look at a map of Russia, and then look at a map of the USSR. All of those countries that are the difference between the two had their governments overthrown by the Soviets and literally thousands of people executed in a single night in a wash-rinse-repeat cycle all through Europe. Go watch the Yuri Bezmenov videos and remember while you watch them that he was one of the people orchestrating the process. With all of the bad things the US has done, the Soviets were always more dangerous.
It also implies that the charges cannot possibly have any basis in reality. A line McCarthy did not cross.
Household level power in the middle of the Afghan Desert?
If the people dying have no respect for others, yeah.
Hell, the rounds are almost more expensive than the drones you'd be shooting down. Taken into consideration how many rounds it might take to actually hit an RC plane with a rifle it might actually cost more.
I can see a new round for the m203 grenade launcher (or any grenade launcher) with a proximity fuse, much like those developed in WWII to shoot down Japanese planes.
Actually, the Korean, Vietnam and all the cold war related skirmishes are related to defense. The soviets were actively engaged in subverting governments and taking them over and we were the great big prize target for them. When you picture the scenario i describe and think to yourself "there is no way the threat the soviets posed to us was that sinister and involved," know that in fact i was that sinister and convoluted and involved. The soviets were truly trying to take over the world in such a manner that if one understood it they would no longer believe in any way that the US had ever made any attempt to do the same.
The war in Iraq and Afghanistan are related to defense as well. Iraqi intelligence has been giving aid to Al Qaeda since the early 90's as they have waged a war against us. The Afghanistan Taliban gave them safe haven from which to plan and conduct this war. Is that enough reason to go to war? That's were the debate starts, but to say that there has been no provocation on any level since WWII is naive. Though i can see claiming that since a lot of it has not been direct provocation it doesn't count, but i would disagree on that point.
Since the end of World War II the US has faced some form of constant threat. Whether or not these threats have been severe enough to warrant the actions we have taken is a separate discussion, but the threats have been there. Those parties that have threatened us have always tried to conduct themselves in such a way that they could always claim any retaliation was unwarranted.
All in all, I think we should have given up Global Super Power status when the soviets fell. It's just not worth it anymore, but I think we were needed while they were standing.
We should stop bothering with foreign entanglements, but there are a lot of people who aren't going to like the fact that that would mean no help for Darfur, or Haiti, no more aid like we gave after the tsunami.
Iraq-Al Qaeda stuff: http://www.amazon.com/Connection-Collaboration-Hussein-Endangered-America/dp/0060746734
Soviet stuff: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-RS8LA-5fmrs/g_edward_griffin_interview_of_yuri_bezmenov/
Yuri Bezmenov was one of the guys doing it until he defected. There is also a series of 7 videos where he gives a university lecture and goes into detail on this process. He is wearing a powder blue blazer in that series.
I know people want to believe the US is some big bad boogey man ruining the lives of innocent foreigners, and we have done some really nasty things. But if you look back at all of the nations that have been the big superpower through history, the US really does set the gold standard for benevolence in global politics.
It's not a bad idea to have some notion of efficient evacuation before the blueprints are done, just to be sure that the finished design does not hamper evacuation, making it a deathtrap. Much like mandating outward opening doors before pen hits paper.
Communist infiltration and subverstoin was a real phenomenon. McCarthy rected with far less finess than he should have, but he wasn't making up the danger.
Heating the water drives it into the rice faster, surrounding it with water provides more available water for rice to soak up. Rice will absorb moisture, that is why it is fatal to birds. The rice expanding from absorbing moisture in the birds stomach (gullet?). Room tempurature air would not contain enough moisture or propell the water mollecules with enough heat to truly cook rice. Sure there are better things for the job, but people have rice handy. The absolute best thing would probably be severely refrigerated air that was then dryly heated back up before passing over and through the device. The cooling would lower the vapor pressure, removing the moisture, the heat would allow it to evaporate the moisture from the device more readily.
It's real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mateba_Autorevolver
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0zxgyim_g4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR26h-7ZBCM
Think of what those words mean, what they refer to. Historically, profane is anything that's outside of the church. Grocery shopping is profane, because it's not part of worship. Now notice that all the topics they refer to are things that have little place in church services. Fuck, shit, bitch. You can talk about sex during a church service, you can mention feces, even female dogs but it would be done in a mature and respectful manner and done in relation to God, Jesus and the Gospels. However, referring to these topics in such crass and crude terms, such as talking about fucking, shit or referring to women as bitches, would really never have a place in church services and therefor would always be profane. Couple that with the puritanical roots of the United States and you can see how they are considered 'bad.'
To be fair though, excessive use of such words is a sign of immaturity, gratuitous and generally pointless. I do quite like the way many of them sound, their abruptness...they are like little verbal gunshots to my ears, and i do like to go shooting. A sentence filled with profanity is likely to be devoid of thought as well. I do approve of them being considered "bad" words at least for children as i would rather my children (when i have them) learn to express themselves thoughtfully over using expletive filled tirades.
As far as not being allowed to use profanity stifling "free expression," well that is totally false. You can invariable express your thoughts more accurately and clearly without the use of profanity. Consider the following phrases: "Fuck you pal!" and "Sir, if i ever gained the approval of a man such as yourself, i would hang myself in shame." Which is more expressive?
In fact, a ban on profanity does not infringe upon ones first amendment rights. Even if profanity is illegal you can still advocate any political view legally, one may have to achieve a higher level of eloquence however. I am vehemently against such a ban as that is not a power granted to the Legislature (federal i know for sure, pretty sure about CA state, and yes i do know this is not a ban). As far as the problem with allowing profanity on daytime TV, ask instead what would really be gained by allowing it. Are you really missing out on anything because of the FCC's ban? Likely not. I do not mean to dismiss the question you pose, however it alone is not sufficient to properly illuminate the topic.
Now:
"Hell, Damn Fart. Boobs Fart Boobs!"
Good point. So officially the Higgs Boson is still cheating at twenty questions?
I hope i don't get his vanity license plate by mistake.
OK, i couldn't let this go. I have adopted a policy of avoiding inflamitory or overly confrontational statements, but you're just plain wrong. At least in one jurisdiction where I heard the name of the actual charged brought in a child porn case it was "exploitation of a minor," and that is exactly the heart of the kiddie porn issue. Ask any psychologist and they will likely tell you that sexualizing an individual before they have any first hand experience with the hormonal realities of sexuality is quite traumatic. You can often even tell the age a girl was molested at by listening to her voice and figuring out what age she sounds like. All rational people can agree that causing such psychological and emotional harm to a child is a heinous crime and that about the only way to top that is to do it for monetary gain instead of, or as well, as ones own personal gratification. And that is the root of anti child-porn laws. Child porn originally was both a record of such abuse and an enterprise based upon it. An entire industry based upon causing harm to others who are innocent. Child porn was essentially in the same league as a brothel specializing in the rape of the unwilling or a contract assassin agency.
Today we have a few hiccups thrown into the mix. There is a popular form of animation in which girls of ages that are indeterminate other than to say they are 'too young' (unless hentai characters are given specific ages, are they?). These images are not created upon the suffering of innocents. None of the rationals for criminalizing child porn work with hentai images. The only rationals that people try to apply to hentai are that those who enjoy it are 'sick' or that they 'might' do something bad if allowed to view it. What a horrible reason to outlaw something.
Another frightening trend with child porn laws has been the arrests of individuals who are underage for exploiting themselves by taking nude self-images. Or the arrests of their significant others for receiving the same. I can see no rational argument to lock up an 18 year old boy because his 17 year old girlfriend texted him a picture of her breasts, an image he had no chance to refuse before seeing it's content.
As an aside i think a reasonable way to treat teen "sexting" in the legal system is to treat it the same as consent laws. If it's legal for two individuals to have sex, they should be able to privately share images of themselves. However once those images become more widely distributed, the distributor should face some form of penalty, provided the distributor is not the same as the person in the image and willingly posed for it. No one should EVER be criminally liable for taking a nude photo of themselves and showing to another, unless it becomes a harassment case and not a sex crime. Moving on.
The common denominator here is that no action should be prosecutable unless it involves one individual causing harm or presenting a danger to another individual. Mix in "informed consent" as necessary if you believe it is necessary to keep things like tattoos, "branding", and anything that people purposely do that could be considered "harmful" legal.
It is neccessary in any free society to allow others to do things you dissprove of if it is not harmful to others. I see no reason for a nations legal code to violate the simple principle of "live and let live."
Now lets see what i get accused of for "defending child porn."
Either i have had too much vodka or some of those words are not English.