Call David Linsky Day

Called and left a message that also included the fact that his mandatory liability insurance and 25% surcharge on ammo will severely impact the low income, and elderly that live on modest and fixed incomes and may, in fact, act to disarm them and not allow them the same God given right of self defense as the wealthy.

I would think that it would be unconstitutional to pass laws that discriminate against the poor or lower income populace.

Sounds like the right approach. Don't necessarily identify yourself as a 2A supporter but more as a concern citizen with reservations about the racist overtones in his ammo tax and liability insurance requirement proposals.

The poll tax was widely seen as racist and was ruled unconstitutional for creating an unreasonable barrier to exercising a constitutional right and one that fell disproportionately on poor minorities. In much the same way, Linsky's proposals create a similar barrier to exercising a right that falls disproportionately on poor urban minorities, who by the way happen to live in the most unsafe neighborhoods. Isn't that the definition of racism?
 
Sounds like the right approach. Don't necessarily identify yourself as a 2A supporter but more as a concern citizen with reservations about the racist overtones in his ammo tax and liability insurance requirement proposals.

The poll tax was widely seen as racist and was ruled unconstitutional for creating an unreasonable barrier to exercising a constitutional right and one that fell disproportionately on poor minorities. In much the same way, Linsky's proposals create a similar barrier to exercising a right that falls disproportionately on poor urban minorities, who by the way happen to live in the most unsafe neighborhoods. Isn't that the definition of racism?

In regard to these facets of the legislation, I agree with this approach - we have to emphasize these impacts in any communications with our reps. The insurance and taxes would only hurt the poor, not the wealthy and, therefore, would disproportionately impact the less affluent.
 
Last edited:
In regard to these facets of the legislation, I agree with this approach - we have to emphasize these impacts in any communications with our reps. The insurance and taxes would only hurt the poor, not the wealthy and, therefore, would disproportionately impact the less affluent.

Do you think he cares even a small amount? There is no reasoning with these people, who want to make more anti-2A laws, regardless of who it may hurt, or how much it will cost to actually implement or enforce. They only care enough to make a statement big enough to get more campaign donations so they can stay in office.

I'm tired of hearing that we need to address these people with respect as well. I give them my comments, thoughts and opinions in a civil manner, however, I have no respect for a politician that supports these types of bills.

They show their respect for us by making these over-the-top proposals, and then refer to us as gun nuts, crazy, paranoid, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Just called and spoke with a young lady. She did not have one answer to any of my questions. Kept repeating Mr. Linskey has talked to he coworkers and this is what he came up with. And also she stated several times that "it is not the intent of this to hurt legal gun owners" WTF FU its not.
me: what will the process for me to get my own guns from a club?
her: never really answered this !!!!!
me: is there going to be a place were gang bangers can buy their insurance?
her: we have not worked that out, but Mr. Linsky has been talking to many people that he works with. WHAT??????
me: will the robber leave the 25% tax on my nightstand for the ammo he my takes.
her: no response (nothing)

The best was I asked her about the one gun a month.
me: how does stopping me from buying more than one gun a month going to help, example criminal uses gun in crime and throws in river, ya think he is gonna wait 30 days to buy another one.
her: I have got a meeting to go to, good bye.
 
Sounds like the right approach. Don't necessarily identify yourself as a 2A supporter but more as a concern citizen with reservations about the racist overtones in his ammo tax and liability insurance requirement proposals.

The poll tax was widely seen as racist and was ruled unconstitutional for creating an unreasonable barrier to exercising a constitutional right and one that fell disproportionately on poor minorities. In much the same way, Linsky's proposals create a similar barrier to exercising a right that falls disproportionately on poor urban minorities, who by the way happen to live in the most unsafe neighborhoods. Isn't that the definition of racism?

Is this the best you guys got? Using the poor and racism card? Of course that's what they want. They want to make it so expensive to own guns and buy ammo so that no one can afford to own them - no one except the elite.

The issue here is "How do any of these proposed laws affect how criminals obtain their weapons?"
They can't answer that. Don't let them dance around it.
If, and I do mean IF, the AWB stays off the floor at the national level, ask them for their justification for it in this state ON TOP OF THE AWB WE ALREADY HAVE HERE. A lot of voters in this state do not know that we already have most of the laws that the US Senate is now considering. Point out that MA aready has an AWB. MA already has a 10-round mag limit and doesn't need to dial it down to an arbitrary 7. Point out that straw purchases are illegal already and that not a single case has been prosecuted. Point out that you can't just go to NH and buy a handgun and bring it home. Point out that out of 130 Million gun owners in the US, only 5 million belong to the NRA -and ask them to ponder what might happen politically if ALL of those gun owners are awakened.

Most importantly, point out that the people don't want congressional interference where lawful gun ownership is concerned. They want Crime Control. All the money and wasted time on curbing the law abiding would be better spent on coming up with a means to fight the criminal element. That is something we ALL can get behind.

Those of you calling this guy and spouting off, being belligerant and or rude...only reinforces his attitude of the white knuckled gun-hugger. All those voice mails are his evidence that he is indeed surrounded by thugs. Armed thugs. He can cherry pick those and do anything he wants with them.
 
Last edited:
Is this the best you guys got? Using the poor and racism card? Of course that's what they want. They want to make it so expensive to own guns and buy ammo so that no one can afford to own them - no one except the elite.

The issue here is "How do any of these proposed laws affect how criminals obtain their weapons?"
They can't answer that. Don't let them dance around it.
If, and I do mean IF, the AWB stays off the floor at the national level, ask them for their justification for it in this state ON TOP OF THE AWB WE ALREADY HAVE HERE. A lot of voters in this state do not know that we already have most of the laws that the US Senate is now considering. Point out that MA aready has an AWB. MA already has a 10-round mag limit and doesn't need to dial it down to an arbitrary 7. Point out that straw purchases are illegal already and that not a single case has been prosecuted. Point out that you can't just go to NH and buy a gun and bring it home. Point out that the people don't want congressional interference where lawful gun ownership is concerned. They want Crime Control. All the money and wasted time on curbing the law abiding would be better spent on coming up with a means to fight the criminal element. That is something we ALL can get behind.


Very well put!
 
Back
Top Bottom