Obviously that is not expected.
What is expected is a horde of hipsters making a spectacle and attempting to cause pain for the gun owner through his/her family and/or work and livelihood. People organizing maliciously to bully your kids and cause you trouble at work can actually be a lot harder to deal with than a physical assault.
"If anything, this seems like a list of "houses not to hit" for potential burglars."
See it's a double-edged sword that way. It's a house you definitely dont hit on a whim - cause you could get shot. But on the other hand, if you are a serious burglar, this marks it as a high value target. They'll watch for a chance and once sure nobody is home, they want to get in to steal those weapons.
No one wants to go through the background check because that creates a paper trail that any future administration could then use as a list of people that need to be rounded up. So quite naturally people are not willing to go through it in a situation where it is not legally required.
You are required to keep a record of the transaction with the serial number. If the weapon you sold were used in a crime later, it will be traced back to you. The original retail sale is on record, that person (if not you) will then produce the name of the person he sold it to, which is either you or will lead to you via reiterating the same process. If you cannot produce the weapon or produce a receipt showing who you sold it to, then you're in trouble. But until and unless there is a criminal investigation to justify the intrusion, that information is no one's business.
"The moment he stopped letting them in (and he did stop)"
Not true, and even fox news reported otherwise (though that report went in the memory hole and did not inform subsequent reporting from them.)
Context and timeline:
Facts. So inconvenient for your comfortable fiction.
If such a thing existed, and the central government fell as has happened in Kiev, yes, it would be far from inconceivable given those circumstances. Particularly if our hypothetical autonomous Maine were actually an autonomous Newfoundland say, which had been part of Canada for 150 years before being shifted into Maine as an administrative move during a period when Canada and the US were both subsumed in a third entity roughly 50 years ago.
Yes, you have to go into fantasy-land pretty far to tweak the circumstances enough to actually make it analogous but once you do it would be sensible and expected.
"I don't think it is really their decision to make unilaterally."
Well that's absurd. It's not unilateral, it's bilateral - Crimea requests and Russia accedes. What third parties do you think should be involved here?
"It's not a "putsch" if the parliament has the power to remove an official and does so."
But it is a putsch when armed hooligans, many of them frankly neo-nazis, many openly supported by foreign governments, take over the streets, cow the police, and run the elected government out of town, leaving a rump of opposition representatives (the ones that LOST free and fair elections recently) to simply invent a new government more to their liking. Quit being coy.
Yanukovych is apparently quite a putz but he is still the legally elected President of the Ukraine, and I believe he is in Russia, requesting assistance.
"I'm not sure where you think the US is displaying greater chutzpah compared to the Russians. After all, it is Russian troops invading and not the US. All the US is doing is talking, and condemning Russian actions like most of the world."
But again, there has been no invasion. Russian action has been remarkably restrained. They havent rolled on Kiev, they havent shot or bombed anyone, they have secured Crimea at the request of the Crimean government. If you are going to denounce their invasion you need to wait until it actually happens, surely!
The US has been doing most of the invading lately, it's the height of hypocrisy for the nation that invaded (really invaded, bombing and shooting and not invited) Iraq looking for WMDs to be pointing fingers at Russia and threatening sanctions and so forth.
"Is there a limit you would support on Russian action? Annex Crimea - OK, annex Ukraine - No? What about just Eastern Ukraine? Maybe a city or two?"
You misunderstand me, I dont support Russian action, I simply understand it well enough to see through the cheap propaganda. The Russian actions are Russian actions, my concern is with our own. What stake do we have in this mess? Why should our prestige, and eventually our blood and treasure, be on the line here?
I support self determination for all peoples. If it's good for the Ukrainians, why not for the Crimeans too? And if borders, modern borders drawn for particular political reasons in the last century, are so sacrosant that they trump this right, then how do we explain Kosovo, hmmm?
Or possibly he simply knows someone there. Serbs in Kosovo are routinely abused by the 'authorities' who are in many cases 'former' KLA terrorists.
The point is that you can make noise about the sanctity of the administrative lines the Soviets set 50 years ago, or you can try to justify seizing Kosovo and separating it from Serbia (which it has been part of for centuries) but you cannot logically do both simultaneously. The hypocrisy is undeniable.
Well let's talk about that.
John Kerry, with no apparent sense of irony: "You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext."
Now does that describe the Russian movement into Crimea? The 'pretext' was actually a request from the legitimate authorities in autonomous Crimea, and the Russian troops moved in peacefully, not violently. Does not sound like what Kerry is talking about at all.
However it fits what the US did a few years ago in Iraq to a T.
Oh, and when was this vote authorizing annexation? Perhaps I missed it but it seems more likely you are talking about the authorization to use force. Not the same thing as annexation at all, and you should know that.
The Crimea, however, seems very likely to request annexation, and when they do the Russians will not be able to refuse. The sentiment in Crimea in favor of returning to Russia is at least as strong as the sentiment in Western Ukraine to pull away from Russia. Remember Crimea is historically Russian, it was shifted to the Ukraine administratively back in the 1950s when it would still be part of the Soviet Union either way so no one cared. When the Soviet Union broke down, the Crimea attempted to secede and join the Russian Federation immediately. The Ukrainian government negotiated them down to autonomy to keep them, and at this point with the elected Ukrainian government having been overthrown in a putsch, it's hardly surprising they are back on it.
That does not mean I think the Russians are angels - far from it. But the people of the Ukraine and the Crimea are getting screwed here too, played as pawns by both the US and Russia to some degree, and if I am more focused on the US it's because they are the ones that tax me and claim to act in my name.
The spin that mainstream US sources are putting on this is shameless though. The Russians seem to be more honest about what is going on, if only because they lack the level of Chutzpah the US sources can muster.
The former is certainly closer to the truth (flash monstrosities posing as websites are a dead give away that behind them lies abject ignorance and incompetence) but really you would have to go beyond appearances anyway when checking out a company, for this or another purpose.
As I understand it, there is really no need to trust any of these exchanges to begin with in order to use BTC (dont use it myself.) If it's not necessary to use them then it sounds like incompetence on both the part of the exchange and the customers.
Article and Section numbers please.
Why cant we have a market for testers? That way if one gets too cozy with the people they are supposed to be testing, when it gets out, they can lose their customers and go out of business - providing a good lesson to the remaining competitors.
With a state monopoly provider, they can screw up over and over again without any real consequences.
But then this modern notion of a regulatory agency intervening in the market. With only the best intentions, of course. Justified, necessitated, by the imperfections in the market. But this is a fatal error because such an agency, in the long run, will follow two iron laws - like any beaureacracy it will only grow, and on top of that it will exacerbate the basic problems at play! Intended to solve a problem, they render that problem insoluble, every time. Because now the ambition and greed that the market would channel into mostly constructive pursuits, has a brand new target. Instead of scheming to screw their competitors or their suppliers or their customers (the normal garden variety corruption we can deal with) they will now scheme to control the regulatory agency, and with it, the market as a whole. With it, they can screw their competitors, their suppliers, and their customers, all together, and MUCH more effectively.
And the agency will always be captured, more likely sooner than later. Where on Earth, outside of the companies it's supposed to regulate, would such an agency find a pool of potential employees with the qualifications needed to understand a particular market well enough to be more effective than a bull in a china-shop, hmmm?