Connecticut: “No Guns, No Gold”

Oh, this is funny. In the thread about the stainless steel bar being sold as silver, the general consensus seems to be the police wouldn't do anything because it's a civil matter. What makes you think they would do anything for you if you went to them complaining that your coins have been stolen. Especially if they're BU ASE's and have no distinguising characteristics. Do you really think they'll dig through all the dealers' records looking for your coins? No, of course they won't. This bill isn't about recovering stolen property, it's about discouraging tax fraud. It's every bit as much the dealers they don't trust as their customers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Assuming you meant here "FIRST amendment", no, I think it's because you said "It seems to me that people might need to be protected from Gary North's sensational headlines and radical views."

I'm sorry, but I really can't figure out what you meant to say here.

 

If people have the Constitutional right to bear "arms" without restriction, do they also have the right to keep and bear biological and chemical weapons? Surface-to-air missiles? Nukes?

Please don't interpret this as a rhetorical question. I think there's a national consensus that some weapons fall outside of Second Amendment protections, and much of the argument centers around where that border is drawn. If you disagree, I'd like to understand your reasoning.

 

Maybe it wasn't wise to include "guns" right in the first post. But could you guys try and talk about coins/PM here, and take the weapons elsewhere?

Christian

 

No matter what amendment is up for discussion here this is not the correct place to do so. As this is a coin forum not one for political views. With that said the first link is to a now political party known in the USA for it's right wing views. No matter right ,left or middle of the road again this is a coin forum and such views should be taken to a forum that allows such views to be discussed in an open forum. I remind all that this forum is open to posters world wide, and they need not be bored by views or laws that do not effect them.

 

This thread it becoming too political for my delicate sensitivities...bye. :vanish:

 

This will be my last input in this thread mods. I'd like to answer since I was asked the question......

My take is that the 2nd amendment was intended to give the people the ability to defend themselves. I think you can make the case that weapons that are essentially ONLY offensive in nature aren't/shouldn't be protected by the constitution. Nukes and biological/chemical weapons are really only effective as attacks, not defense.

 

A fair response. Perhaps we can pursue the discussion in another forum some other day.

 

You have been asked nicely above to stop with the political, constitutional interpretations, and weapons, Next one to post such will have a direct responsive action. Thanks. Jim

 

its always these lil **** any New England, middle Atlantic states that come up with this dung. I suppose the rest of us will have to go up there and burn them to the ground. God bless the USA. :thumb:

 

Ahem, I'll be in the US soon - New England next week, California right afterwards. Just wait with the hostilities until I'm back in Europe. Now CT and gold, anyone?

Christian

 

We'll try to keep the 'wild west' at a minimum for ya, Christian.........

 

Just California, or are you going other places out west?

 

Christian, you are coming at a great time of year. Not too hot and not too cold. The leaves are just starting to come out here in mid and northern New England. Southern New England is blossoming. It's a beautiful time of year - that is unless you have allergies.

 

deleted

 

deleted

 

Deleted

 

I am closing the thread for not heeding the previous warnings, and removing posts.