What's this Linsky's problem with guns?


Old post about this weasel from 2017;

I met Linsky about two years ago, he was standing outside of Roche Bros in Natick handing out pamphlets and trying to smooze people walking by for votes.


He struck up conversation about voting as I was walking into the store, so I said I have one question for you, do you support the 2nd Amendment? He danced around it a bit and wouldn't give me a yes or no, being the typical pol. I said hey it's a pretty easy question, either you support it or you don't. Where are you on this?


His real self came out and he got pissy with me and said “I'm not talking to you about this here, I'm busy, goodbye!” So I said hey pal you f**king stopped me, I was courteous enough to stop for you and see what you had to say, but now that I see what you're all about, I'll tell you what, I'm a disabled American Veteran, I'm fairly well known in this community and now I'm going to tell everyone I know what a little bitch you just became over answering one simple question. Good luck with those votes.


He was not happy and I was doing everything I could to not choke slam him on the pavement, that's how much attitude he was putting out when he "dismissed" me. Ya, I hate David Linsky too.


I've seen a pick up truck around town with a bumper sticker that actually says I Hate David Linsky or something similar to that, makes me laugh every time I see it and think, yep, me too pal, me too.
 
Let me get this straight....

You've been on here since 2012, and you don't know who David Linsky is? [rofl] I call him linstain. He is an insufferable anti gun moonbat and has been for years, it's practically his entire platform. The only problem is compared to his earlier contemporaries like Jarret Barrios, or Cheryl, "Jacques rhymes with fakes", he sucks at writing gun control legislation because he has the IQ probably somewhere around Maxine Waters. [rofl] So he writes this outlandish bills that have no chance of passing to attention whore himself to the world...

-Mike
This!
You can’t find a better description of him.
 
Tread carefully folks. Linsky hates guns and individual freedom, and he's willing to "bend the truth" (lie) and omit details he finds unfavorable, but do not for a moment believe that he is stupid. I've seen him explain nuances of the law, e.g. Heller and McDonald, accurately, correctly, and concisely.

Most of the stuff he proposes has insane overreach, and he knows it. I have a recording of him admitting in a forum that he proposed some high tax on (guns or ammo, I don't recall) to "just see what kind of reaction I'd get from the other side" (paraphrasing). He knows most of the crazy proposals won't pass, and he's trolling. The anti-gun people in Natick eat it up and thank him for all the work he's doing.

This new proposal is dangerous precisely because it's not as "crazy" as his usual bills. The "non" reps (not anti and not pro-gun) that usually brush aside his proposals may give this some traction if they buy his line about "closing a loophole" and lie about being out of sync with federal background checks. Keep in mind that the Speaker of the House pretty much controls everything on the House side. On the Senate side - Spilka is now in charge, and since they share districts there might be some give-and-take from her on letting some of his "less crazy" things through the senate to "close a loophole".

I still think he’s an idiot, most of the gun control foot soldiers are, if they weren’t at least partly mentally defective, they wouldn’t be pushing gun control. It’s pretty much a requirement for someone to be partially brain dead to support it. If they weren’t dumb, we’d be in a lot worse shape.... Idiots, however, can still be very dangerous politically, particularly if he’s got somebody from Bloomberg telling him what to do... (which exactly is what this smells like)....
 
I still think he’s an idiot, most of the gun control foot soldiers are, if they weren’t at least partly mentally defective, they wouldn’t be pushing gun control. It’s pretty much a requirement for someone to be partially brain dead to support it. If they weren’t dumb, we’d be in a lot worse shape.... Idiots, however, can still be very dangerous politically, particularly if he’s got somebody from Bloomberg telling him what to do... (which exactly is what this smells like)....

Maybe. I think it's more that he's a big government socialist kind of idiot, which is different than "stupid" kind of idiot. These kinds of people believe that moar government is the solution to everything, that every problem requires government intervention, that individuals cannot have responsibility and the freedom that goes along with it.
 
Maybe. I think it's more that he's a big government socialist kind of idiot, which is different than "stupid" kind of idiot. These kinds of people believe that moar government is the solution to everything, that every problem requires government intervention, that individuals cannot have responsibility and the freedom that goes along with it.

Well, that, but that also implies a flat earther level of stupid because he doesn't understand individual rights, the constitution, or the value of such things in our
society.... OR the other possibility if he's not stupid... then it's borne out of intentional malice.

-he uses gun control and gun owners as a plank/expendable asset to advance his political career
or
-he wants government to exterminate or incarcerate any of the "kinds of people" that are likely to own guns etc.

Given the level of virulence he puts into his legislation and the way he interacts with the public etc regarding this issue I'd be more inclined to believe it's because he is malicious more than just stupid. Or his usual pile of shit legislation is so over the top that he uses it as a flag to curry favor with certain moonbat demographics etc but he makes it so absurd as to not be concerned about advancing the legislation.... EG, normally if it had a chance in hell of passing he would have to do real work to get support to pass it instead of simply sending out an email to his distribution list with the 30 something other anti gun moonbats on it. In other words, most of his legislation is virtue signaling. This bundle of shit, however, though, has Bloombergs fingerprints all over it....

-Mike
 
I met Linsky about two years ago, he was standing outside of Roche Bros in Natick handing out pamphlets and trying to smooze people walking by for votes.

I've also mentioned before that he tried to hand my wife an Obama brochure at a Natick Days festival in Natick Center during the time of Obama's first campaign. She wouldn't take it, and he was incredulous. I think it's because she's ethnically Mexican. Racists that these types of people are, he assumed she'd be receptive because of how she looked, and when she wasn't, he couldn't quite believe it. He kept holding it out, almost like a battle of wills, and she never did more than look at it with arms at her side. She'd never met him, and just based on her intuition of who he was on that day, she hated him. That was long before we knew anything else about him. There's something uncanny about how well my wife can read people. He's certainly proved her right over and over again in the years since.
 
he's just another liberal politician who has never held a job outside of .gov! A politician should at least be required to have a year or more of real world experience in the private sector so they can appreciate how bad most pols are.
 
Apparently Linskt's gun dosen't work and he wants no one else to have one.
Close.
I've noticed that the anti-gun crowd is full of people who simply can't control themselves. They lash out when upset or just insulted. They know, inside, that if they had a gun they would use it in a criminally aggressive way. They simply lack self control. The leader of the antis in the NH legislature is just this type of person, having assaulted another legislature who had the gall to disagree with her. Since they believe this lack of control can't possibly be them, therefore it must be everyone, so no one is safe with a gun, and we must ban them all. See how nicely that fits together.

Of course Linsky directs his aggression.........differently.[thinking][rolleyes]
 
One needs to remember that Linsky was an ADA and worked under Tom Reilly. When Reilly was the DA for Middlesex County, as did, Jacques, Coakley and Healy. They are all just following the plan that was set out by their master.
 
The anti-2A crap in this state +/-1998 forward has been largely driven by a handful of people whom themselves are puppets for a very small number of influential donors and power brokers known to NES as the Cabal. They nearly are all from the same little self serving social circle on the cocktail party and country club circuit. If we were lucky some of them would move out of state and their little racket would collapse.
 
Close.
I've noticed that the anti-gun crowd is full of people who simply can't control themselves. They lash out when upset or just insulted. They know, inside, that if they had a gun they would use it in a criminally aggressive way. They simply lack self control. The leader of the antis in the NH legislature is just this type of person, having assaulted another legislature who had the gall to disagree with her. Since they believe this lack of control can't possibly be them, therefore it must be everyone, so no one is safe with a gun, and we must ban them all. See how nicely that fits together.

Of course Linsky directs his aggression.........differently.[thinking][rolleyes]

THIS EXACTLY. I actually heard Jim Braude admit this on the air once. They know that if they had a gun, they would most likely use it in some type of nefarious way. They simply assume that all people are broken in the same way they are, so GUNZ MUST BE BANNED.
I strongly believe that this is the motivation of most banners.
 
THIS EXACTLY. I actually heard Jim Braude admit this on the air once. They know that if they had a gun, they would most likely use it in some type of nefarious way. They simply assume that all people are broken in the same way they are, so GUNZ MUST BE BANNED.
I strongly believe that this is the motivation of most banners.

either that or they're afraid of their own shadows.
 
can you quote it so we can read? paywall

Massachusetts should require gun liability insurance​

Mandatory gun liability insurance increases the chance that people who should not have firearms do not obtain them for two main reasons.​

By Deborah Ramirez, Sen. Michael Barrett, Rep. David Linsky, Jacqueline Bohatch, and Anna OlssonUpdated July 29, 2022, 4:38 p.m.

124
A woman puts her head down during a moment of silence during a vigil honoring those killed in the attack on an Independence Day parade in the  Chicago suburb, at the Highland Park City Hall Lawn in Highland Park, Ill., Wednesday, July 13, 2022.
A woman puts her head down during a moment of silence during a vigil honoring those killed in the attack on an Independence Day parade in the Chicago suburb, at the Highland Park City Hall Lawn in Highland Park, Ill., Wednesday, July 13, 2022.ANTHONY VAZQUEZ/ASSOCIATED PRESS
San Jose, Calif., recently became the first city in the nation to pass an ordinance requiring gun owners to purchase and carry liability insurance. Drafted and passed by the city council, the law goes into effect in August. Massachusetts should pass a similar bill.
Currently, red flag laws are a key tool for keeping guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. Most red flag laws involve seeking a court-ordered restraining order against an individual if they “pos[e] an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself” or others. A restraining order can last between two weeks to six months, during which time an individual may not purchase or possess firearms. Red flag laws, as well as many of the typical gun control measures, such as universal background checks and minimum age laws, represent important steps forward but sometimes fall short of preventing gun-related injuries and death.
Advertisement



Take the example of Robert Crimo III, the alleged Highland Park, Ill., shooter — a walking red flag. Highland Park police visited his home twice in 2019 — once when Crimo attempted suicide and again when he “said he was going to kill everyone.” The second visit was so alarming that Highland Park police filed a “clear and present danger” report to Illinois State Police and confiscated 16 knives, a dagger, and a sword. Additionally, Crimo had a troubling social media presence. A video he created featured a heavily armed cartoon soldier opening fire in a school before being gunned down by police. Despite these red flags, Crimo never received a restraining order to prevent him from buying guns. And shortly after the second 2019 home visit, Illinois State Police issued Crimo the firearms permit that allowed him to legally purchase the semiautomatic rifle that was allegedly used to kill seven and wound dozens.
Get Weekend Reads from Ideas
A weekly newsletter from the Boston Globe Ideas section, forged at the intersection of 'what if' and 'why not.'
Enter Email
Sign Up
So, what happened? How did Crimo obtain a permit within a year of displaying mental health warning signs? The fact is that most red flag laws permit only law enforcement or family members to directly petition courts for a restraining order. Between 2019 and 2020, only 53 firearms restraining orders were obtained in Illinois. Contrast this to the 3,112 firearm deaths that occurred in the state during this time period. There is no doubt that red flag laws, if expanded, can be part of a comprehensive public safety strategy. However, Highland Park highlights the need to expand our system for screening people who wish to purchase a gun.
Advertisement



Mandatory liability insurance for gun owners, requiring them to absorb the full costs associated with their gun ownership, would be a giant step forward in the Commonwealth to combat gun violence. “An Act to Require Liability Insurance for Gun Ownership,” sponsored by Representative David Linsky and Senator Michael Barrett, is currently up for debate in the next legislative session.
Mandatory gun liability insurance is analogous to car insurance. All 50 states require car owners to purchase car insurance, so if a driver is in an accident that damages property or injures or kills another person, a victim will be able to receive compensation for their costs and injuries. In addition, if a driver engages in reckless driving behavior, their premiums will rise. If this behavior continues, their premiums will rise higher, and they will eventually be priced out of driving. Similarly, if a gun owner’s gun is used in the commission of any illegal offense, they will be held liable for the cost. To have the financial means to pay for damages to the victims, gun owners must purchase insurance. These premiums can be set by the insurance companies by weighing the factors of age, the number of guns owned, the type of gun being purchased, and previous offenses.
Advertisement



Insurance companies in many states offer policies for gun owners who want to insure themselves voluntarily. Because the infrastructure is already in place, it would not be a heavy burden for insurers to perform background checks when determining what the appropriate amount of coverage would be.
Mandatory gun liability insurance increases the chance that people who should not have firearms do not obtain them for two main reasons. First, it alleviates the burdensome duty of screening potential gun owners away from police and onto insurance actuaries. Police are primarily focused on dealing with crime. Inevitably, overworked officers may not always find all the relevant evidence or evaluate it accurately. In contrast, insurance actuaries only have one job: assess the risk of their policyholders. Actuaries are fully trained and skilled at doing complete investigations of this nature. Further, unlike family and friends who witness violent threats or concerning behavior but fail to take action — either out of love or obliviousness — insurance actuaries have the professional incentive to assess a situation objectively and will respond to these clear red flags.
Advertisement



Second, mandatory gun liability insurance is a system designed to respond to risk. If a gun owner had a series of red flags that indicate a serious risk of harm posed by the owner, the type of gun, or the number of weapons owned, the insurance company would raise their premiums and price them out. Insurance companies are highly incentivized to engage in accurate risk assessment because failure to do so will result in the payment of significant financial costs.
Thus, this solution would both compensate victims and prevent, deter, and detect people like Crimo from getting a gun.
Deborah Ramirez is a professor of law at Northeastern University School of Law and co-director of the school’s Center of Law, Equity and Race. Senator Michael Barrett represents the Third Middlesex District and is cosponsor of Bill S.1537. Representative David Linsky represents the Fifth Middlesex District and is cosponsor of Bill H.2487. Jacqueline Bohatch and Anna Olsson are law students at Northeastern Univ
 
can you quote it so we can read? paywall

Massachusetts should require gun liability insurance​

Mandatory gun liability insurance increases the chance that people who should not have firearms do not obtain them for two main reasons.​

San Jose, Calif., recently became the first city in the nation to pass an ordinance requiring gun owners to purchase and carry liability insurance. Drafted and passed by the city council, the law goes into effect in August. Massachusetts should pass a similar bill.

Currently, red flag laws are a key tool for keeping guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. Most red flag laws involve seeking a court-ordered restraining order against an individual if they “pos[e] an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself” or others. A restraining order can last between two weeks to six months, during which time an individual may not purchase or possess firearms. Red flag laws, as well as many of the typical gun control measures, such as universal background checks and minimum age laws, represent important steps forward but sometimes fall short of preventing gun-related injuries and death.

Take the example of Robert Crimo III, the alleged Highland Park, Ill., shooter — a walking red flag. Highland Park police visited his home twice in 2019 — once when Crimo attempted suicide and again when he “said he was going to kill everyone.” The second visit was so alarming that Highland Park police filed a “clear and present danger” report to Illinois State Police and confiscated 16 knives, a dagger, and a sword. Additionally, Crimo had a troubling social media presence. A video he created featured a heavily armed cartoon soldier opening fire in a school before being gunned down by police. Despite these red flags, Crimo never received a restraining order to prevent him from buying guns. And shortly after the second 2019 home visit, Illinois State Police issued Crimo the firearms permit that allowed him to legally purchase the semiautomatic rifle that was allegedly used to kill seven and wound dozens.

So, what happened? How did Crimo obtain a permit within a year of displaying mental health warning signs? The fact is that most red flag laws permit only law enforcement or family members to directly petition courts for a restraining order. Between 2019 and 2020, only 53 firearms restraining orders were obtained in Illinois. Contrast this to the 3,112 firearm deaths that occurred in the state during this time period. There is no doubt that red flag laws, if expanded, can be part of a comprehensive public safety strategy. However, Highland Park highlights the need to expand our system for screening people who wish to purchase a gun.

Mandatory liability insurance for gun owners, requiring them to absorb the full costs associated with their gun ownership, would be a giant step forward in the Commonwealth to combat gun violence. “An Act to Require Liability Insurance for Gun Ownership,” sponsored by Representative David Linsky and Senator Michael Barrett, is currently up for debate in the next legislative session.

Mandatory gun liability insurance is analogous to car insurance. All 50 states require car owners to purchase car insurance, so if a driver is in an accident that damages property or injures or kills another person, a victim will be able to receive compensation for their costs and injuries. In addition, if a driver engages in reckless driving behavior, their premiums will rise. If this behavior continues, their premiums will rise higher, and they will eventually be priced out of driving. Similarly, if a gun owner’s gun is used in the commission of any illegal offense, they will be held liable for the cost. To have the financial means to pay for damages to the victims, gun owners must purchase insurance. These premiums can be set by the insurance companies by weighing the factors of age, the number of guns owned, the type of gun being purchased, and previous offenses.

Insurance companies in many states offer policies for gun owners who want to insure themselves voluntarily. Because the infrastructure is already in place, it would not be a heavy burden for insurers to perform background checks when determining what the appropriate amount of coverage would be.

Mandatory gun liability insurance increases the chance that people who should not have firearms do not obtain them for two main reasons. First, it alleviates the burdensome duty of screening potential gun owners away from police and onto insurance actuaries. Police are primarily focused on dealing with crime. Inevitably, overworked officers may not always find all the relevant evidence or evaluate it accurately. In contrast, insurance actuaries only have one job: assess the risk of their policyholders. Actuaries are fully trained and skilled at doing complete investigations of this nature. Further, unlike family and friends who witness violent threats or concerning behavior but fail to take action — either out of love or obliviousness — insurance actuaries have the professional incentive to assess a situation objectively and will respond to these clear red flags.

Second, mandatory gun liability insurance is a system designed to respond to risk. If a gun owner had a series of red flags that indicate a serious risk of harm posed by the owner, the type of gun, or the number of weapons owned, the insurance company would raise their premiums and price them out. Insurance companies are highly incentivized to engage in accurate risk assessment because failure to do so will result in the payment of significant financial costs.

Thus, this solution would both compensate victims and prevent, deter, and detect people like Crimo from getting a gun.

Deborah Ramirez is a professor of law at Northeastern University School of Law and co-director of the school’s Center of Law, Equity and Race. Senator Michael Barrett represents the Third Middlesex District and is cosponsor of Bill S.1537. Representative David Linsky represents the Fifth Middlesex District and is cosponsor of Bill H.2487. Jacqueline Bohatch and Anna Olsson are law students at Northeastern University School of Law.
 
Back
Top Bottom