Connecticut: “No Guns, No Gold”

To bad Connecticut folks are scared of themselves.
http://teapartyeconomist.com/2013/04/26/connecticut-no-guns-no-gold/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

tea party?

 

So everyone in Connecticut is "scared of themselves" because the state gov't wants to enact some laws to protect buyers and sellers of gold? And to try to move forward with some practical gun laws to make people a bit safer?

I seriously doubt the state wants to "shut down all coin stores".

It seems to me that people might need to be protected from Gary North's sensational headlines and radical views.

 

Freedom is hard to understand for many. Fact, freedom is scary and hard. Dependency is easy.

 

Best reply to the posted article from that site:


Did anyone actually read the bill or the information about what is being required? http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/BA/2013SB-00928-R00011.... GO TO THE LINK!!! This requires BUYERS (Pawn Shops / Jewelry Stores) purchasing from a seller, to list the details of the transaction. The details include the description of the item purchased (with photo, if no identifying marks) and who they purchased it from, including info from a photo ID with their home address. Why would this need to be recorded??? So that the police can find your stolen property and the person that sold it to the PAWN SHOP. This has NOTHING to do with you as a buyer walking into a store, including that same PAWN SHOP, and buying gold or anything else. How about you READ before you comment. AND, how about reporting something with at least a grain of integrity.

 

Well, it does mean more work for the dealer. But I agree, such a regulation should make it more difficult to sell stolen coins (and certain other valuables) to a dealer. The link above seems to be abridged and does not work for me, but this seems to be the text of the bill: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/2013SB-00928-R02-SB.htm

Christian

 

I think it is actually, you who does not get. Yes, we may be dependent on such things as say a Police Department, but we were free to choose to organize our communities in such a way to put things in place like a Police Department, Fire Department, etc. to improve our lives.

As Topcat said, if you actually read the bill, it only makes business owners get identification from "sellers". It is obvious the intent was only to make it harder for two-bit thugs to fence their stolen property. This is exactly why we chose to organize in the first place.

If seems to me your idea of freedom is for every man to be an island and to be sitting on your front porch, night after night with a shotgun to protect you own borders. Well, good luck with that, I'm going on vacation.

 

You don't seem to believe in the first or second amendments? Sad.....

There was a reason this country was great and it was because of the founding fathers and the laws they instituted. Freedom leads to prosperity, unfortunately now it seems the average person wants freedom restricted. Well they might get what they want, but they will also get the poverty and tyranny that accompanies it.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin

 

Gold and silver dropped dramatically over the course of two days this month. A 10 day minimum holding period is problematic in a business where prices change daily.

 

I'm interested in where the Ben Franklin quote came from. Can you post the original writting or document it is sourced from? Thanks.

 

More government regulations on businesses?

I don't think the govt is the answer to all our problems. CT is a small state. A thief can steal coins in CT and drive somewhere else to sell them in no time.

 

Maybe that is the reason why the text explicitly says "other than bullion or coins" ...

Christian

 

I don't know how you get that result from what I said.

"Those who make up quotes in an effort to prove their point online are a little more insane with every quote" Freud

 

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
This was written by Franklin, within quotation marks but is generally accepted as his original thought, sometime shortly before February 17, 1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly, as published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818). A variant of this was published as:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
This was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759); the book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard Jackson, but Franklin did claim responsibility for some small excerpts that were used in it.
An earlier variant by Franklin in Poor Richard's Almanack (1738): "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
Many paraphrased derivatives of this have often become attributed to Franklin:
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.
Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.
Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security."


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

 

And, of course, we will continue to argue endlessly over what constitutes "essential liberty" or "a little temporary safety" -- in political forums, I hope.

 

Green18: One of the more complete responses I have every received!

 

Well, actually I can't take credit for it, but I did cite the source.........

 

Well then you obviously have not read the constitution. First you were saying something about practical gun laws. The second amendment protects the rights of American citizens to bear arms. It mentions nothing about only being able to keep firearms that are inferior to those used by the military. The guys who wrote the constitution were pretty smart, there is a reason they didn't include any such language.

Secondly, you suggested we might need to be protected from the views of people like Gary North. While not explicitly saying it, you do seem to suggest in that sentence that you don't believe everyone should have the right to free speech which is guaranteed by the first amendment.

 

So again, you are telling me how I think? And what I have and have not done? It's good you are around to let everyone know what I am saying.
And because I don't like some headlines or someones radical beliefs - that means I'm against the second amendment?

You are a bully.

You make it sound like if someone doesn't agree with you, they are against what you have to say. If that is true, I'm sorry you feel that way.

 

1. So what do you think then, if what I posted doesn't reflect your views?

2. What did I say you have done or not done?

3. Feel free to clarify if what I said doesn't reflect your beliefs.

4. When you are saying we may need to be protected from their (so called radical) beliefs, it would seem you aren't for the first amendment. How exactly are we going to be protected from their views without violating the 1st amendment?