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 points you make, but more arms, defense spending and a more belligerent foreign policy still did not make the US more dangerous than the USSR. There is a whole side to the history of this issue that has been ignored. Money and guns simply do not settle the issue.
There has been this meme going around that the evil United States has been just ruining the day for all the other countries of the world, if it weren't for the US we'd have a utopia. It's just not true.
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.