Possible workaround for universal BG check?

[Clint45]

I don't think that the statute recognized "civil unions," only people who are married . . . but in Colorado "common law marriage" basically equates with two people who cohabitate and present as married.

[Milt]

"Of course, everyone always has the option of committing a crime but when they ask a question, they are asking for help in not committing a crime"

Correction: 'crime' is NOT the correct term to use in this context. The statute being discussed is itself illegal; on the state level, it clearly, "calls into question" the "right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state" and it "infringes" on a U.S. Constitutionally protected right - it is therefore not a 'law', but a statute enforced 'under color of law'.

From a purely conceptual perspective, if there is no victim (someone harmed against their will) there is no crime; it might be 'against the law', but it is not a crime.

[spqrzilla]

Milt, the semantic game is not useful.

[Bailey Guns]

"Of course, everyone always has the option of committing a crime but when they ask a question, they are asking for help in not committing a crime"

Correction: 'crime' is NOT the correct term to use in this context. The statute being discussed is itself illegal; on the state level, it clearly, "calls into question" the "right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state" and it "infringes" on a U.S. Constitutionally protected right - it is therefore not a 'law', but a statute enforced 'under color of law'.

From a purely conceptual perspective, if there is no victim (someone harmed against their will) there is no crime; it might be 'against the law', but it is not a crime.

[Milt]

"Milt, the semantic game is not useful,"

Actually, it is not a game and, in fact, precise thought is impossible without clearly understood concepts and definitions. Sloppy semantics and fuzzy 'thought' is partially responsible for the decline of Liberty in the United States - people who 'feel' instead of think are easily manipulated; people who are capable of precise, logical thought are rather difficult to mislead. Just look at what passes for political or philosophical 'discourse' today...

[Bailey Guns]

You seem to think you have the authority to determine what is law and what isn't. Why don't you go out and openly violate some of those statutes and see what happens. You can be the test case that saves the rest of us.

Furthermore, society or the state is often the victim in many offenses. I'm sure it makes you feel good to believe the way you do but I seriously doubt your willingness to put your convictions (so to speak) to the test.

[Milt]

" You seem to think you have the authority to determine what is law and what isn't."

The 'authority' is to be found in the Declaration of Independence and, to the extent that it follows the principles laid out in that Declaration, the Constitution of the United States. The fact that the government is in the hands of scofflaws and outright criminals such as your beloved Barry Sotero and similar statist trash from both parties does not make illegal statutes legal.

Your response seems to indicate an excessive devotion to 'authority'. Are you or were you by any chance a cop? If so, you might consider the difference between 'law enforcement' and being a 'Peace Officer'. The first is content to let 'higher authority' sort it out. The second (the true Peace Officer) honors his or her oath, actually reading and understanding the Constitutions of both the United States and of their own state and refusing to enforce illegal statutes or regulations. Federal drug and all firearms 'laws' are obvious examples of illegal statutes. Absent a Constitutional amendment giving Congress authority to prohibit/regulate drugs, the Tenth Amendment makes it quite clear that such 'authority' does not exist (alcohol prohibition required an amendment, if you recall). 'Infringed', as in 'shall not be infringed.' along with the Fourteenth Amendment's application of the Bill of Rights to all citizens against all levels of government rather clearly puts ANY restrictions on firearms out of bounds at ALL levels of government.

"Furthermore, society or the state is often the victim in many offenses."

Bullshit. Your statement implies that 'society' or the state have rights that can be violated. There are NO collective rights; only individual human beings can have rights. While force can be additive, rights by their nature cannot be collective - one person's rights are equal to ten people's rights (otherwise, lynch mobs would be perfectly 'legal').

"I'm sure it makes you feel good to believe the way you do..."

Sorry, but all this 'feel good' thoughtless crap is how we got into this mess in the first place. If more people would think instead of 'feel', perhaps fewer statist assholes would be elected and fewer government intrusions on our Liberty would be tolerated. If you want to see who else 'felt that way', you might want to read what our country's Founders had to say about this stuff; the Declaration of Independence would be a good place to start...

[Bailey Guns]

Like I said...put your money where your mouth is. If your wallet's as fat as your mouth that shouldn't be a problem. Let us all know how all your big talk works out for ya.

ETA: Saw your ad in the TP...looks like you're more than willing to follow those pesky illegal laws, huh?

[Bailey Guns]

All your self-righteous preaching to the rest of us is interesting but I'd say it's also coming from a typical internet blowhard:

You don't, "get my guns restricted" by voting for or against any political scumbag. You allow your guns (or any other right) to be restricted/infringed by failing to defend those rights through integrity-driven action - "Come and take them." Until Liberty (the government fears the citizens) replaces tyranny (the citizens fear the government), this crap will only get worse. The people must, once again, teach our would-be masters to fear us. At this late juncture, civil disobedience (with teeth) is the only way to deliver that lesson. Unfortunately, I find that the great majority of my 'fellow travelers' lack the courage of their so-called convictions. If you are not willing to risk 'conviction', you can make no real contribution to winning this fight.

Must do background check; can be at Liberty Arms in south Ft. Collins or your LGS.

Please PM or call Milt at (970) 207-1596

Why not "teach our would-be masters to fear us", Milt, by saying to them, "Shall not be infringed! I'll sell to whomever I want without following your illegal statutes,"?

As one of those who believes in and worships my "beloved Barry Soetoro" (my bad...found the reference) I could use a good role model. [/sarcasm]

[Milt]

"All your self-righteous preaching to the rest of us is interesting but I'd say it's also coming from a typical internet blowhard:"

Thanks for showing your true colors with this ad-hominem attack substituting for any real argument in defense of your position. Seems to me to be a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black... By the way, you did not answer my question, are you or have you been a cop?

I am not 'preaching to the rest of (you)'; but simply pointing out the undeniable fact that all that voting for the lesser of two evils nonsense has not worked out so well. The Republican party and The Democratic party are merely two wings of the same predatory bird. It is past time for a different approach if we are serious about reclaiming Liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

"Why not "teach our would-be masters to fear us", Milt, by saying to them, "Shall not be infringed! I'll sell to whomever I want without following your illegal statutes,"?

The rules of this forum (a voluntary, private sector service) require that language and procedure for all who choose to use the 'Trading Post' function. When I am a guest on someone's property, I follow their rules; When someone is on my property, they follow my rules. What I do outside this forum regarding my right to dispose of my property as I choose is nobody's business but mine.

The 'Barry Sotero' reference was still on my post as of this morning. What prompted that comment?

One last thought: it is a bad sign that even on a forum primarily dedicated to something high on the statist's 'ban real soon' list, some people's panties get in a bunch over the mere suggestion that blind obedience to the 'law' might not be the best course of action.

Attachment 32815