Thank you, Rep. Linsky. These are smart, bold, and frankly common-sense regulations that *will* make us safer. It's nice to see some of the same requirements we have for our cars - which are *not* designed to kill people - applied to our guns, which are.

Making insurance companies insure illegal acts ? OK. Might drive a few companies to leave Massachusetts. Maybe that is the point. Linksy loves the limelight and to hear himself speak.

David Linksy is a fascist and it is clear that he wants to confiscate all firearms so that a true police state can emerge. He is an enemy of the constitution and should be arrested for Sedition immediately. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting but about keeping a free state. David Linsky is an attorney and knows this. " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" This bill clearly infringes the people's rights. Hey do you all remember Oabama saying they wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class? How is your paycheck the last 2 weeks. I am warning you that this step by Linksky is orchestrated and will be one more step to control YOU.

I have serious concerns about this:

Section 4 is incredibly vague on the insurance requirement. Will my homeowners insurance cover the requirement or do I have to buy entirely separate insurance policies? If its anything like car insurance this could be an extra $100 a month. Preposterous!

Will licensing of Class B licenses for shotguns and rifles be "shall" or "may" by the chief of police in a city or town? This could be a serious problem for FID holders to then be under the same rule as someone who wants a full LTC.

This legislation clearly has deterrent language in place to make it as difficult and onerous as possible to be able to purchase a firearm. A 25% tax?! For a well made hunting rifle this could be an extra $250-$500! It's not unheard of for a very high quality rifle to cost $1500-$2K... Again, as expensive and difficult as possible. This is mostly deterrent legislation and people should realize this.

Honestly, common sense regs and protections make sense. This appears to be nothing more than incrementalism towards a larger goal of complete disarmament. This legislation is an affront to all law abiding gun owners and those who have actual respect for the 2nd Amendment- whose main purpose has nothing to do with hunting or target practice. When I think of the number of freedoms and rights that Americans have lost in the last 13 years I get sick to my stomach.

How will this bill compel the criminals to undergo the provisions in this bill?

Oh, wait, the criminals WONT be affected by this bill because they don't obey the law.

The only people who will be affected by this onerous bill are the law-abiding citizens.

Linsky is a Statist, who wants the State to control all aspects of our lives. He is the very reason that the Constitution created restraints on Government.

This fella is a GENIUS, I tell you!
When someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I'll ask him to wait a few minutes, I'll have to run over to the range, to retrieve the rifle ....
And he MEANS it, this is supposed to be a SERIOUS proposal!
What does this tell you about the reasoning capability of this elected official?

Appalling to see Linsky using the CT tragedy to grab headlines for himself. Massachusetts already has some of the nations toughest gun laws on the books. We have a ban on assault weapons, high capacity magazines and a safe storage of firearms law already on the books. Why doesn't he focus his efforts of criminals and gun traffickers bringing in firearms from states with less stringent laws.

Yup, more junk to try and tack his name on the current hot topic. Did he care about this 6 months ago?

This is just one step closer to total disarmament of the American people.. Total control of the populace.. Keep in mind this is just not about assault weapons, its always been about taking all your guns..

I am sure an active shooter will worry about his insurance premiums going up, and that will deter him shooting anyone. Of course since Lanza STOLE his weapon I bet he wouldn't have insurance! I am not sure how the weapons were stored before he killed his mother BUT I am sure having weapons stored in unattended clubs where everyone will know there is a cache of weapons will not pose any sort of threat to public safety.

It seems to me that Rep Linsky wants all the guns in one place so that they can be seized more easily down the road.

"Section 1-Eliminates licenses for large capacity weapons except for gun clubs and target ranges; all such weapons and grandfathered assault weapons must be stored at gun clubs or target\ranges."

Folks, this means that 80% of your handguns become illegal to keep in your home. You keep it at the gun club or you surrender them to the Police. "large capacity firearms" in Massachusetts lingo include common handguns like the M1911, Beretta 92FS, Sig P226 and the alike. Anything with a detachable magazine. A direct violation of DC v. Heller (2008). Revolvers and shotguns are spared....until the next "crisis" and round of crazy legislation

anyone that voted for this BULLSHIT should know that this is political sucide. Voter turnout for gun owners will be at least 150%. back to the old ways of voting, lets find some dead liberals to vote these people out forever

Liberty lovers are always welcome in New Hampshire. Live Free or Die!
Learn the 101 Reasons You Should Move to New Hampshire (If You Love Liberty) http://freestateproject.org/101Reasons

And I thought that the new gun laws from Cuomounist were bad.... This is absolutely vile and llogical. Perhaps he is on Fanapt????

Inside the mind of a gun-grabbing Massachusetts liberal: "If we could only ban the sale of guns everywhere, we'll never have a problem with violence and our children will be safe from harm." Yeah. And rainbows, glitter, and unicorns will come shooting out of your organic cotton shorts as well. Their premise seems simple, right? Right up until the day guns are banned. If we can't stop illegal humans and drugs crossing our borders, how do you expect that we will stop illegal guns from crossing the borders? Gun running to criminals will run rampant and law abiding lemmings will turn into victims of violent crime. There is no better evidence than the flood of illegal arms trafficked into the UK and their violent crime rate following their complete ban on arms and self defense. But wait, there's more! Do you think that Liberals will all of a sudden come to their senses and down the borders? No way! In their world, allowing criminals to pillage the rich, unarmed people of the US will certainly become a patriotic duty.

Go Linsky! I'm curious which "well-regulated militias" you guys support?

Now, all these legislators across the country are basing their own assessments on a certain prejudice against guns, instead of investigating mental health issues. In particular, psychotropics(antidepressants) which can cause 'psychotic breaks' whenever the individual begins using the drug or change the dosage(+ or -). These drugs are being prescribed by family doctors without supervision. This class of drugs have been known to cause psychosis, violence and suicide. THIS IS the elephant sitting in the living room. http://ssristories.com/ Linsky's proposal means the poor will lose and pay more to protect themselves in the city. The poor will be forced to act illegally, hide their weapons because of the costs and the invasions of privacy. Once again, the law itself, creates a criminal which otherwise, would not be. Mental Health Evaluations? Who sets what standard? Also, I have heard, once you're in a government database, its nearly impossible to get your name out of it. Which means, any diagnosis of 'acute' depression will be registered permanently. Consider the soldier that comes home, after serving several tours of duty. He may be diagnosed with depression. Any soldier would face hardships, adjustments and cultural shock(returning to civilian life). Another important point - Criminals have always had illegal weapons. And finally - The 2nd Amendment says this RIGHT "shall not be infringed". This RIGHT is not open for debate, as said by our Founding Fathers.

Linsky said "even most gun owners believe that we need tighter restrictions on gun ownership"

Right there. He is not interested in illegal guns, he wants to restrict OWNERSHIP. He want to take guns away from law abiding citizens. This is a bill to disarm the people who are not the problem.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Some of you are forgetting the last 4 words,"shall not be infringed:.

This is punishing the law abiding citizen!! We have to pay more taxes, pay more for liability insurance and store our guns where he decides is safe??? The crminals are not going to do this, they don't follow the law now...that why they are CRIMINALS!!!

Mr LINSKY,, please go away,, leave me and my guns alone, you were elected by the same people that you are trying to punish,, I will work to insure that at re election time that you will have spent your last TERM,,,in office,,, PS: start looking for a new job,, one that dosent infringe on my 2 nd amendment rights,,,

Lets all march on his home on his home on sunday coming

This person needs to have his medical and psych records and those idiots who keep voting him in sent to a doctor for help.

Rep.DavidLinsky,the sponsor of the latest oppressive firearms legislation,drives an "assault car",that should be regulated by the state.(for our own safety)This 400hp,red convertible mustang,has custom aluminum wheels which are bigger in diameter to normal "non-assault type" wheels,with tires that are specifically rated for speeds>100mph.(Who needs to go faster than 55mph? There is such danger in this behavior)There is a frighteningly scary looking spoiler affixed to the trunk lid of this "assault car",which is specifically designed to facilitate aerodynamic stability at the deadly speeds,this "assault vehicle" travels. It is even a danger to the driver and ALL passengers because it is a convertible.No particular study has ever shown that convertibles are especially dangerous when they flip over during an accident,placing the occupants heads at grave risk for injury.These "Assault type vehicle,converting death machine options "should be outlawed and only hard-top,or "non-converting death machine type cars should be available to the public.We should ALL be driving a 52hp Zip-car for our own safety,which will be required to be stored at a state approved auto dealer when we are not using them for state approved errands or travel to and from work.We should pay additional insurance for these vehicles because if we offend anybody while we are driving them,they will be compensated for their emotional duress and injury.Red vehicles are more expensive to insure and should all be pink.

This will be the straw that has me relocate my business and house and remove any future tax that goes to the state of Massachusetts. It is ludicrous and is a direct attack on the Second Amendment.

Enacting such a policy is a punishment on law-abiding citizens. Mr. Linsky, are you aware that out of over 300,000,000 firearms in production that only 35 of them, over 30 years, were "assault weapons' used in mass shootings. That is .00001% for the mathematically challenged (are you listening Mr. Linsky). So exactly how is keeping them at a range going to change ANYTHING.

Liability insurance is an illegal tax. Mental health checks will turn Doctors into snitches (a la Soviet Union) and prevent those who truly need help, like veterans seeking treatment for PTSD, to getting the help they need because they are afraid of losing TS-SCI clearance and even their property. Registration merely puts gun owners on a government list, ripe for confiscation when the time comes.

The line has been drawn in the sand. We have seen this before and will not become desensitized to the "small" changes which do nothing more but chip away at our freedoms. If we do not learn from history we are doomed to repeat it: http://bit.ly/mfziaY

None of us wants to see more gun violence, but this will NOT help.

Are you insane. There is not one gun club in massachusetts that has the facility or security to store thousands of firearms at there club. All the clubs that i have been to. Do not store firearms. What a huge liability that would be on gun clubs.

Any elected official who doesn't uphold Constitutional principles should be impeached. Our country was founded on those ideals.

This man does not represent me. I did not vote for him nor will I ever vote for him.

Bandit
This Yahoo Does Represent Me , but I have Never Voted for Him.
At least this Bill isn't like the Animal Bill he Keeps Submitting .
( Look it up , I don't want to be banned for posting the subject )

we have to ensure our property against damage. there is a cigarette and liquor tax for health problems caused by smoking and drinking. people control guns and can inflict damage as a result. Look at sandyhook. why should society pay for your privilege and damages caused by guns. gun owners should pay.

Guys, please refrain from personal insults and profanity. We will delete those comments.

This forum obviously has a lot of gun advocates. I'm curious no one is proposing you cannot own a gun mainly the type of gun and ammunition. Why do you think your constitutional right to bear arms is violated? Do you really need an assault weapon?

Ktg, please detail what you deem to be an "assault weapon". That is a political term used to define COSMETIC features on a rifle such as a pistol grip, flash supressor (which prevents muzzle flash) or a bayonet lug. Certainly nothing there makes the rifle any more or less dangerous than a hunting rifle. In terms of magazine size, if a weapon is used for self-defense, how many bullets are "reasonable" to keep on hand? 10? 7? Assuming law enforcement and body guards are kept to the same standard, should that not be enough for them as well? Why should we let politicians make the call on regulations which, time and time again, have shown NO impact on overall gun violence?

I mean, why stop there. Too much alcohol leads to drunk driving, so to prevent even the possibility of one death, why not put a limit on the size of a drink. Perhaps 8 ounces is enough? Drunk driving is already illegal (as is gun ownership by convicted criminals) but should we not impose limits on EVERYBODY who drinks just in case?

It is not up to politicians to decide what I own or how many bullets I carry. Machine guns have been illegal since 1934 and most every other weapon is "semi-automatic". To place arbitrary limits for the sake of political pandering does NOTHING to the core of the problem which is economic disparity. Mass shootings are the exception. Most gun violence is crime related by people who cannot legally possess firearms anyway.

From Rep. David Linsky, nothing about the steps we should be taking to protect our school children. What about mental health and spotting and getting the right help. Remember Virginia Tech? What about security at our schools. What about the absence of the father in the home. More and more single mom's need firearms to protect themselves and their children from abusers. Massachusetts does have the most onerous firearm laws already. When the US assault weapons ban expired, Massachusetts keep it. If another terrible tragedy like this occurs again, and god forbid that it occur in Natick, the blood will be on the hands of Rep. David Linsky. for not taking action to provide security for our schools. Linsky makes me sick. Lets vote him out of office.

Michael in response to your complaints about insurance cost. You want to own a gun, but the gun you buy gets into the wrong hands because you didn't secure your gun properly. That gun is later used in a gun robbery. You want to own a gun so in order to do that guns need to be brought into the country and some of these guns end up in the wrong hands. There is a societal cost of gun ownership and I don't want to pay for it. I don't own a gun, it isn't fair that I have to pay for your gun and its associated costs especially if its my life or someone I love.

here is an interesting article on the cost to society, http://www.nber.org/papers/w10736.pdf?new_window=1.

To Ktg

Stop ducking questions. Answer this.

"There is a popular belief that gun control does not work. I don't think we've determined that case yet. The 1994 bill was littered with loopholes yes we happened to have a decrease in gun violence but no one could determine if the ban helped or not. "

What are you saying with "1994 bill was littered with loopholes"? What loopholes, what were they?

The criminaI, NOT the lawful citizen, problem, is with the repeat offender felon, going UN-punished by the liberal judges who repeatedly let these career criminals go free. I guarantee that there was a repeat offender felon, known gang-impact player, standing before a judge in court last week in this state, who went unpunished for his crimes, for whatever reason. Why aren't judges held accountable for their decisions? I believe the problem lies with the judiciary. Why is it that the matter of "judicial accountability", always gets shelved when it comes up?
Take the case of a recent home invasion that occurred in Loganville, GA. A person broke into a home and sought out the hiding mother and twin 9 year olds, he was shot 5 times and still managed to get down the street before passing out. How would this story have read if the mother had NO firearm? It seems that Dave Linsky prefers to persecute citizens rather than prosecute criminals. Such shortsightedness.
ANY lawmaker who isn't Constitutionally motivated and adherent, should be viewed as a traitor to our country and treated as such.

Additionally, I beleive we should judge politicians as they are judging firearms owners, like THEY are already criminals. Let's judge Linsky, Spikla, obama as though they were Tom Finneran, Sal Dimasi and Billy Clinton...already guilty of impeachable offenses. Wait...you say we cannot "judge", innocents without cause or evidence? Welcome to the Massachusetts politicians view of law-abiding citizenry.

For those who advocate gun control, I ask you to deeply question why government officials would intentionally exempt themselves from this new gun legislation. Why shouldn't they be held to the same laws? More importantly, what purpose does this exemption serve if the only intent is to make our streets safer? The answer is that these laws are only interested in ultimate control of the populace, and pays no mind to political ideology. A gun is the only thing that puts a 120 pound single mother on equal footing with a 6 foot 3 intruder trying to break in the house. Laws such as these serve only as a gateway to total control. Don't let the media take you for a fool.

Ktg and other grabbers- I took your advice and I tried to get my guns to go off. I yelled at them. I called them nasty words. I even had my German Shepard bark at them and guess what happened? NOTHING! You are more likely to get hit by lightning then to be shot. You can "what if" all night and every night". It is all part of life. If you don't want to die in an accident then stay in your home. But that doesn't work either because you are more likely to fall in a shower and die. So what next, have a tax on taking a shower? Or maybe we should require a doctors note before you take a shower to make sure you don't have weak knees? Or maybe require you have extra shower fall insurance because I don't want to pay for your fall in a shower. Get the idea? Well we all do, this is nothing to do with keeping kids save. This has everything to do you passing the UN Small arms treaty. Read up on this, it has everything to do with making 90% of all guns against the law so the USA can sign on to this treaty. Well, we are not going to let this happen. Even if they do make it law, at least 2/3'a of gun owners will not turn in their guns. What now? Are u going to let out the killers to make room for us?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/opinion/sunday/what-we-dont-know-is-killing-us.html?hp&_r=0

Thanks everyone listening to your opinions has been pretty interesting but I haven't changed my mind about gun control and other legislative measures to help curb gun violence in America. You may think me a victim of the modern media but I still have nightmares about newtown and other mass shootings. I especially think about that poor 5 year old who watched their friend get blown away in a bloody mess only to face the gun themselves. i guess at least they only had a second to think about it since the guns that are available can kill so many so quickly.

I'm a mom and I think about my kids, I start at home when it comes to violence. I don't own a gun, I don't purchase toy guns for my children (they are too young anyway) and I certainly don't let them watch any violent tv programs (jake and the neverland pirates is the most scary thing seen at my house).

I'm hoping there are more like minded people like me than the majority of the people in this forum.

We need to start looking inward in america, why is america so much more violent than other civilized countries? we have to start somewhere and gun control is the beginning.
http://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/01/some-factual-gun-statistics-part-2-of-a-cultural-comparison-gun-violence-in-the-us-and-europe/

Ktg, by becoming a parent you are obliged to defend your children. What is your plan of action in the event of a home invasion? You have three choices, beg for your life, try praying that the(most likely repeat offender felons) criminals don't hurt you or your children much or you could have a plan to fight back. Recently a home invasion in Loganville,GA ended when the invader sought out the mother and her twin 9 year olds who were hiding in a crawl space(what on earth did this invading criminal want with a woman who clearly relinquished turf to him by hiding and yielding there entire house to three criminals robbing desires?) the mother shot the criminal, thus saving her family. I feel this event would have ended horribly were she unarmed.
Like the previous poster, I offer my instructor services to you and your husband. Please consider experiencing the comfort and knowledge that self determination and education can bring.
The ONLY equalizing factor between you and a criminal, is equality of force. A cell phone(if you can dial while being assaulted or running), and a 5 minute wait for man with a gun is a poor alternative. Please Ktg, refuse to be a victim. I sincerely hope to help.

Ktg - On the line that Bob is talking about. What would you do if someone broke into your home to rape or murder you? Call 911? Ask the police what will happen if you call as the person is getting into your home. They will be there in 5 minutes at the very least, probably more towards 10. Look at the clock right now and watch it for 5 minutes. People think 5 minutes is nothing. When your life is on the line, it's an eternity.

Police rarely stop crime, especially a rape or murder. They investigate and stop future crime but they do not prevent the first. The police will be very honest, they cannot save you if someone is there as you call 911. You'd be dead or abused.

This happened two weeks ago in Georgia. Without a firearm, the woman and her two children may very well be dead. Also, she shot 6 times, hitting him 5. That is why magazine capacity limits are crazy. If there were 2 or 3 intruders, what do you do? Ask them for time while you reload?

http://www.therightscoop.com/shes-shooting-him-911-tapes-released-of-georgia-mother-who-shot-home-intruder/

I'll never own a gun if someone ever invaded my home I'd barricade my family in a room and call the police provided I had enough time. Even if you have a gun you'll need the same reaction time in order to react. I will never ever own a gun. I know plenty of people who go through their whole lives without needing one. I think owing a gun is unsafe and there are more gun owners who hurt or kill a family member than an intruder

For every story you find about someone protecting themselves I can find more saying father accidentally kills son , child gets hold of gun shots brother. Son kills mom and sister etc.

I don't think that gun control rally was advertised I didn't know about it. A gun show I'm sure was widely advertised gun selling is big business. Plus you have people thinking their guns are going to be taken away. Then you have others who just want to buy a military assault high capacity gun before they are banned. Why anyone would want one is incomprehensible to me. Protection from our govt? Please give me a break. Hunting? Yea right try a bow and arrow at least it's a challenge. You think I've been suduced by the media. Well I think gun owners have been seduced by the NRA and gun manufacturers. I've seen some of their ads and it's sad and frankly pathetic.

Ktg, thank you for at least listening, I appreciate that. I wish you well in the endeavors of your life and I hope you never have to barricade yourself anywhere, although I would suggest that you go to the barricade practice range at least practice barricading, for your family's own safety, that isn't something you'll want to be learning in a moment of need. Statistically, famliy's with firearms are safer than non-owner familys. Comparably, Chicago, Ill., with it's TOTAL gun ban, has the highest death rate in the country, more than Afghanistan. Total bans do not work, just as "gun free" zones don't work. They simply and immediately tell predators, "You'll encounter NO resistance here." Bow hunting should be a choice, just as say...yoga. Let's ban yoga because I believe that lifting weights is more effective and is more of a challenge. Dictating to ME, by YOUR choices isn't what freedom is about, if you don't want a gun, don't buy one, if you don't want a Corvette, don't buy one, do you see my "choice" position? This issue is about control, and Our Bill of Rights, it's certainly NOT about choice...where is Mr. Linsky's legislation making it harder and more painful to be a criminal? It's non-existant.

Cont'd: The innocent, firearms owning fellow Americans are being punished for the actions of the few deranged individuals. Should we judge all mothers by the actions of Honey boo's "parent." Maybe next will come legislation to take YOUR car away, because someone in Pittsfield got popped for a DUI last night, thereby making ALL cars capable of DUI like behavior. Blaming the object and not the individual is the wrong approach. I have read that all of the most recent shooters were either registered Democrats, Atheists or from family's that had registered Democrats/Atheists within the home AND were all heavily medicated...should we consider banning THEM next? Also, there are 33 colleges, 3 of which are here in MA, within the USA that offer scholarships for kids who sportshoot, I see that as a benefit.

Ktg - "Then you have others who just want to buy a military assault high capacity gun before they are banned."

First there are no civilian owned "military" guns. Military rifles are automatic, there is a ban on those since 1986 and 1934. You'll hear the gun grabbers say military "style", the key word being style. They are black and look like an M16, but they do not function the same way at all. I don't think you've been seduced by the media, I think you simply do not have much knowledge about firearms, which you probably agree. The media knows less than you probably as they screw up terms all the time. So called "assault weapons" are used in 0.6% of murders. They simply are not a choice of a murder. They look scary though, so politician play on the public who do not know the subject but see a black scary looking rifle.

"Why anyone would want one is incomprehensible to me. Protection from our govt? Please give me a break. Hunting? Yea right try a bow and arrow at least it's a challenge."

The most common black rifle you see on the news is an AR 15 platform. There are 3 million in the country and they are used for hunting. The round they fire is a .223 cal. The bullet is very small and cannot not be used for hunting in MA or most other states for Deer, moose, bear, etc. as the round to too small. It is illegal and you can be arrested, have your gun seized or fined for doing so.

Con't

You seem to think the AR 15 is either automatic or a very powerful gun. It is not. Rifles for deer hunting, moose, etc. and shotguns are much more powerful.

Bow and arrow? Yeah, try to take down a moose with an arrow, or a turkey, etc. The reason you cannot use an AR 15 .223 for deer, moose, etc. in many states is the animal will not die quickly. Instead of a quick humane death, the animal will suffer over time, maybe die weeks later of an infection.

And the 2nd amendment was not about hunting. If you did not hunt in the 1700's, you did not eat. There were no supermarkets, everyone hunted. The 2nd amendment was written because the British tried to take peoples firearms back then and disarm the public. The 2nd amendment is a protection against tyranny. This is not questioned by anyone.

Ktg - The NRA is about 5 millions members right now. They pay to join. There are over 70 million gun owners. People believe in the 2nd, they own firearms for their reasons, not the NRA.

If guns are dangerous why are there 100 million more guns than 15 years ago but gun deaths are down? The numbers do not support the gun control groups lies. The statistic say gun ownership has nothing to do with gun deaths.

Would you like to meet for coffee and either Bob or I could explain the facts? And the offer to go shooting is there. I think you would learn a lot and dispel these fears that you have. Would you be afraid to stand is a group of on duty police or military, all armed? No, right. Because the gun in their possession is harmless without the bad intentions. But would you feel safe in a room with Charles Manson unarmed, nothing. No. He's a nut and a killer.

You are not gong to keep guns from criminal with gun laws, you only disarm the public.

What do you think an "assault weapon" is? Bob nor I will attack you. We just want to see what you think it is then we can politely reply.

82 Year Old Shoots Intruder

01/29/13

KFVS12 News

From Gateway Pundit:

Every day we hear stories like this. A home owner protects his property from a violent intruder. An 82 year-old Missouri man shot a violent intruder who broke into his home Friday night. Unfortunately, our national media does not believe this is a major story.
It doesn’t fit their liberal narrative.

KFVS:

Police say an 82-year-old Ellsinore man shot a man who reportedly broke into his home Friday night.

It happened shortly after 7:30 p.m. on North Herren Street.

According to Carter County Sheriff Richard Stephens, Charles L. White, 30, of Ellsinore, broke into the residence and assaulted the 82-year-old. White reported fled after being shot.

After the sheriff’s office obtained a search warrant, White was found at a home in Ellsinore.

The 82-year-old homeowner was taken to a Poplar Bluff hospital and then by air ambulance to a St. Louis hospital with head injuries.

How important was a gun to this gentleman? Re-read the story and substitute "newly introduced anti-gun legislation", in the places where this man defended his life and tell me how much criminals care about the laws...

Hey Ktg,

http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/30/52-percent-of-americans-say-sandy-hook-i

Democrats, who normally count on the youth vote, may be surprised to find that 70 percent of 18-24 year-olds and 58 percent of 25-34 year-olds say “assault weapons should be allowed.” Similarly, Republicans, who usually rely upon the senior vote, will find that 57 percent of 55-64 year-olds and 61 percent of people over the age of 65 say assault weapons should be prohibited.

Gun control is a movement of old white people.

Ktg,

read this.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/gun-control-fails-rationality-test/article/2519971

Gun control is going no where except mental health. The proposals Linsky wants are equally unconstitutional.

Mr. Linksy is a representative, he is supposed to represent support for our rights, not to legislate against them. I am still waiting for someone to make it harder to be a criminal, not harder to be a law abiding citizen. I respect your choice not to own a firearm(voluntary helplessness is a choice), respect my choice and given(naturally, not governmentally), right to own one.

Amazingly, not a single proposal making it more difficult to be a criminal has been introduced, waiting...

Not only is this legislation useless and cowardly because it only targets legal firearms owners it also unfairly targets the poor. If they require for insurance then make that insurance prohibitively expensive it would make it impossible for the law abiding lower income families to afford. Is that your intention Mr Linsky? To target the poor so they can't buy firearms legally?

I assume illegals will still be free to carry as they don't have to follow any laws. i would also assume Linsky and his liberal buddies will give them guns for free so they can protect against the evil tax paying Americans. Linsky is the problem with Massachusetts.