Lawful Online Firearms Trade on WBZ Channel 4 News at 11pm on March 19th

[Len-2A Training]

Mr. Linsky is trying to make a name for himself. He is completely misinformed and on a power rush. I really hope the house debates this with reason. There is no foundation to Mr. Linsky's reasoning. He cannot be farther from reality. There no worse blind than the one that does not want to see.

Agreed, which makes him the perfect candidate for AG in MA!!

Oh trust me, he knows better. Don't let these people fool you into thinking that they don't. Their goal has nothing to do with "reducing gun violence" because they know that solving that problem has nothing to do with guns or citizens owning guns as a concept; it has everything to do with a long term plan to try to shut down citizen gun ownership- either through passing byzantine laws or getting shooting ranges shut down, or even generically, demonizing firearms and those who own them at every opportunity. In recent years the gun control movement has shifted towards the latter two things more than anything else, as linsky's little spiel has so many tells on it that play
this out. He knows his stupid bills won't ever pass, so he's trying to take the "antis consolation prize" of trashing gun ownership among the public.

-Mike

Exactly right. The average low information voter will view this and say that since we don't know, we MUST do something about it . . . just in case . . .

Sadly these tactics in MA play very well.

Well done. Every time Linksy appears in public he looks and sounds like a douche. How does anyone take this guy seriously? Says a lot about the voters in Natick.

Watch the election results for AG and you'll see that if he doesn't win, he'll still take a large chunk of the sheeple vote.

 

[MA_Shooter]

Exactly right. The average low information voter will view this and say that since we don't know, we MUST do something about it . . . just in case . .

Sadly, in other places, the questions might be 'let's find out how bad the problem really is before we jump into this feet first'.

 

[atilla]

linsky is a filthy piece of shit.

well done, ted. you're one of the good ones.

ultimately this got me banned from his facebook page some time ago:

though i think this one was better:

 

[murf4321]

linsky is a filthy piece of shit.

well done, ted. you're one of the good ones.

ultimately this got me banned from his facebook page some time ago:

though i think this one was better:

That coward Linsky is quick to ban/block people. He's a coward who has no viable retort to legitimate arguments. He's a bad handjob.

 

[retroLS1]

WE'RE FAMOUS! In the words of Ted the talking teddy bear... OOOOHHH YAAAAHHHHHH!!!!

I saw that too and chuckled

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Agreed, which makes him the perfect candidate for AG in MA!!

Disagree.

Linskey is not stupid; he just has a value system regarding the relationship of the individual to society and government that is different than ours.

He probably understands how heavily regulated sales actually are, however, his goal is to ban as much as possible. As such, repeating untruths to the masses that do not understand Mass gun laws is more effective at advancing his agenda that speaking accurately.

and he will get re-elected

He only needs two words to be virtually assured of a landslide at any re-election "democrat, incumbent".

 

[BostonFJ40]

I just sent Rep Linsky a message challenging him to go out and try to buy an illegal handgun. Here's his link if anyone else would like to do the same...

http://www.davidlinsky.org/

 

[leewongfei]

Well done. Every time Linksy appears in public he looks and sounds like a douche. How does anyone take this guy seriously? Says a lot about the voters in Natick.

I just dont understand Natick. Arent there 3 shops within a 2 mile radius in Natick? Why dont more people vote that putz Linksy out?

 

[Mike S]

Just emailed this to the producer:

Hi Jon,

Just saw the piece online, nice job.

Follow up thought; Rep. Linsky cited an unknown, and before now never heard of statistic from 2011 about 62% of online transactions being illegal.

Given that there are millions of firearms sold online every year, that makes 600K+ firearms illegally in the hands of criminals, and there is no record of prosecution anywhere.

Seems kind of impossible doesn’t it?

We wish Joe had thought to call him on that “stat”.

 

[LittleCalm]

I just dont understand Natick. Arent there 3 shops within a 2 mile radius in Natick?

One of which is a Class III dealer!

 

[BigDaddy-Oh]

Mr. Linsky is trying to make a name for himself. He is completely misinformed and on a power rush. I really hope the house debates this with reason. There is no foundation to Mr. Linsky's reasoning. He cannot be farther from reality. There no worse blind than the one that does not want to see.

His stupidity is only surpassed by his willingness to act upon it!

 

[Permanent Waves]

Rock on Ted - excellent efforts on your part!

Linsky - The libs only heard that there are "trunks full of guns", and that he was going to somehow put a stop to it = RE-election coming up. That doesn't mean that we can't help his challenger Doug Grindle be a giant pain in his ass. Which by the way if you have not met Doug Grindle - solid 2A guy that I hope stays in Mass politics, we could use him.

100% agreed - If Linsky had any sack, he would actually track down and go after the "trunk full of guns" criminals. But let's be honest here David, it's just easier to throw unproven facts & speculation out there, conjure up some words to disarm honest people, wildly bloviate your lies enough that the sheep will believe you, than to do the hard work of actually proving your existence.

"We have a civilized society here, okay, and when we don't like our government, we have something called elections, every 2 years and every 4 years. Where if we don't like what our rulers are doing, our elected officials..." - D. Linsky, Foxboro Safety Room, March 2013.

 

[cmcgraw2]

Ha! "our rulers..."- I forgot about that quote! Lets hope Grindle can get that soundbite on the air if there's a contest, I think even low-information voters would reject that characterization.

 

[Quiet]

I just dont understand Natick. Arent there 3 shops within a 2 mile radius in Natick? Why dont more people vote that putz Linksy out?

One of which is a Class III dealer!

I know of:
B&K
GFA
Outdoor Store

Which is Class III?

 

[Roy Rogers]

GFA.

 

[Quiet]

GFA.

Didn't know that, and wifey bought her first gun there. lol

 

[expedition03]

Great Job Jim and Ted! Dave's a piece of work, he believes everyone is buying firearms out of car trunks, maybe he is, 99% of gun owners aren't.

 

[30Mauser]

linsky is a filthy piece of shit.

well done, ted. you're one of the good ones.

ultimately this got me banned from his facebook page some time ago:

though i think this one was better:

Those are priceless!

 

[ColdDayInHell]

Ted that was awesome. He's such a fool it's hard to watch him spew bullshit. Repped.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Linksys such a piece of shit.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

Why the thread drift? I've always been happy with Linksys products.

I do think a slightly better response from Jim would have been "Buying a gun online in Massachusetts is illegal unless the seller verifies the license for which the buyer had to get a background check to receive.

I don't actually think that's the right way to frame it. When we talk about the internet and gun sales we're talking about advertising. It's a way to connect buyers with sellers. The actual transaction is still subject to the same federal and state laws as any other gun transfer. The is reminiscent of the 'gun show loophole' BS. They want to curtail people access to firearms by preventing people from advertising them. And advertisement is covered by the First Amendment.

As I mentioned in another thread. They know what they're doing, this is just a cynical effort to pander to a special interest group and maximize the state's Brady Score without incurring too much backlash.

Overall it was a decent and fair story. Big shout-out to Ted for a job well done!

 

[MisterHappy]

To all the posters with the "Linsky is a fool," remember this: he was elected by a plurality of voters that agree with his stands, and opinions. He's doing his job: getting elected.

 

[xero2099]

To all the posters with the "Linsky is a fool," remember this: he was elected by a plurality of voters that agree with his stands, and opinions. He's doing his job: getting elected.

the greatest trick the devil ever did was convincing the world he did not exist

 

[CockedAndLocked]

..
http://boston.cbslocal.com/video/9965373-battle-over-internet-gun-sales-heats-up-on-beacon-hill/

I'm in CT and this is the first time I've seen your Linsky guy. What a douche! He reminds me of some of the commie shits we have here in CT.

 

[Quiet]

As I mentioned in another thread. They know what they're doing, this is just a cynical effort to pander to a special interest group and maximize the state's Brady Score without incurring too much backlash.

I completely disagree. They want all sales to go through dealers. This is a real want, not a pander. They want that control, they can't have gun sales outside of dealerships. He said it: 'We just don't know!"

If there are legal sales happening outside of a dealership, there could be sales going on outside of a dealership that aren't legal. That's the fear.

To stop the trade (the ultimate goal) they have to corral it first. They want to corral it. This isn't window dressing.

Claiming that a license has performed a background check is a potential losing tactic because at the end of the discussion they will ambush with "Not a CURRENT background check. Things could have changed over the last 5 years, especially with an out of state incident, blah blah blah." Anyone arguing that must be prepared for that tactic with a discussion on MICRS and revocations and background checks, or you'll sit there dumbfounded.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I completely disagree. They want all sales to go through dealers. This is a real want, not a pander. They want that control, they can't have gun sales outside of dealerships. He said it: 'We just don't know!"

If there are legal sales happening outside of a dealership, there could be sales going on outside of a dealership that aren't legal. That's the fear.

To stop the trade (the ultimate goal) they have to corral it first. They want to corral it. This isn't window dressing.

Claiming that a license has performed a background check is a potential losing tactic because at the end of the discussion they will ambush with "Not a CURRENT background check. Things could have changed over the last 5 years, especially with an out of state incident, blah blah blah." Anyone arguing that must be prepared for that tactic with a discussion on MICRS and revocations and background checks, or you'll sit there dumbfounded.

You're giving the legislature way too much credit.

 

[Quiet]

You're giving the legislature way too much credit.

My post may have been complicated but the bottom line is they really want all sales (to the extent that they must allow ANY sales) to go through dealers where they can be tightly controlled. It is the basic drive from the federal AWB bill on down with bans on internet advertising and closing gun show loopholes and all the rest.

How can you in one post talk about how they want a high score from Brady so they draft a bill that does x-y-z and but really won't alienate voters, then in the next post say that I'm "giving [them] way too much credit" for simply writing a bill that all sales to go through dealers? lol

Just my opinion. They might be totally fox-like in a daft way.

 

[Dr. CCW]

Ted, what? You bought a cop killer illegal Glock on the internet and boasted about it on television? Their coming for you!

 

[crazymjb]

To all the posters with the "Linsky is a fool," remember this: he was elected by a plurality of voters that agree with his stands, and opinions. He's doing his job: getting elected.

Technically their "job" isn't to get elected. If an elected representative thinks their "job" is to get elected they are clearly a fool or a scumbag.

Their job is to represent their constituency while being mindful of the constitution, and the fact that the "popular" opinion is not always the educated opinion... hence why representatives are elected in place of a simple majority democracy.

Mike

 

[30Mauser]

I completely disagree. They want all sales to go through dealers. This is a real want, not a pander. They want that control, they can't have gun sales outside of dealerships. He said it: 'We just don't know!"

If there are legal sales happening outside of a dealership, there could be sales going on outside of a dealership that aren't legal. That's the fear.

To stop the trade (the ultimate goal) they have to corral it first. They want to corral it. This isn't window dressing.

Claiming that a license has performed a background check is a potential losing tactic because at the end of the discussion they will ambush with "Not a CURRENT background check. Things could have changed over the last 5 years, especially with an out of state incident, blah blah blah." Anyone arguing that must be prepared for that tactic with a discussion on MICRS and revocations and background checks, or you'll sit there dumbfounded.

I have absolutely heard this argument and it's easy to counter for most circumstances.

209a? You will be immediately escorted to your home to turn over all firearms, and your license will be suspended/confiscated on the spot.

Convicted of any other disqualifying felonies in MA? I'm willing to bet the same thing would happen

Only item I'm not sure about is out of state convictions, but would NICS necessarily catch those either?

Add to this the fact that people who are granted LTCs in this state commit crimes at an infinitesimal rate in the first place, and you have a complete non-issue, assuming we have opportunity to have this perspective heard.

 

[Quiet]

I have absolutely heard this argument and it's easy to counter for most circumstances.

209a? You will be immediately escorted to your home to turn over all firearms, and your license will be suspended/confiscated on the spot.

Convicted of any other disqualifying felonies in MA? I'm willing to bet the same thing would happen

Only item I'm not sure about is out of state convictions, but would NICS necessarily catch those either?

Add to this the fact that people who are granted LTCs in this state commit crimes at an infinitesimal rate in the first place, and you have a complete non-issue, assuming we have opportunity to have this perspective heard.

Yes, within MA your chief is notified electronically of an arrest/209A/whatever (I believe) and then *probably* suspends your ticket immediately, or as soon as they get around to it. (And it's kind of funny/fortuitous that while we bitch about the death of the paper FA-10, it now gives us argument to fight against deal-only transfers)

It's the out-of-state that I was talking about. And yes, the rate is small but it's the argument that is powerful and the debater needs to be prepared to address it powerfully. Arguing that a federal check might not catch it either is extraordinarily weak as an argument.

A better argument would be that an MICRS check does an instant federal check. I thought I had read a discussion about that on NES, but I can't find it.