Why getting a gun permit in Philly isn't exactly bang-bang | Stu Bykofsky

[Carson]

Actually, No, they didn't. Many Volunteer Fire Departments and Search and Rescue crews lost members, because, "all members must pass child abuse checks by...." so members that have applied for "Jobs, posts or other positions" now had to submit to intrusive background checks. Members with over 10 years service resigned, not because they had something to hide, but rather they didn't "Sign up for this", we've also had new members change their mind, "yea I paid my dues, but I got half way through this paperwork, and changed my mind, it's too intrusive". This doesn't even start to get into the Firearms side of the house. People ARE put off and Liberties ARE denied by government overreach and intrusion.

So what do you say to that? Not only has the .gov intruded in liberties, it HAS put public safety at risk based on the Jerry Sandusky <sp?> situation and knee jerk response.

yup, that's your *OPINION* we all get to have one, but the facts are, other people's opinion does find it intrusive to the point of NOT volunteering, in a time where volunteers are hard to find.

Yea, you are correct. It's my opinion. And you have yours.

And then we have stuff like this:

http://6abc.com/police-volunteer-fir...ately/2439483/

http://www.pennlive.com/daily-buzz/2...ed_of_sex.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.e94841b45d8d

http://citizensvoice.com/news/firefi...rges-1.2229956

[Carson]

not to take away from any of the Scouting groups (big supporter), but in my mind a more immediate threat, this *IS* directly impacting Volunteer Fire Companies (VFD)and Search and Rescue Teams (SAR). SAR gets 0 in support from Local, state or federal, everything comes out of the team member's pocket, and if you're lucky the team picks up costs of most your training. VFDs, also put a lot of time and overhead on their membership. In both cases since you "MIGHT" have to deal with Junior members you need the background checks. Some teams are eliminating junior membership (cutting off future members), others are loosing members because of the additional
intrusion' put on the members. In both cases, it's public safety that is at risk and as you put it, "government shooting itself in the foot". The downside, when you explain this to any member of the Congress, they all agree it's bad and against the law's intent, but no one want's to look like they are soft on child molesters so the law won't get changed.

What one individual sees as business as normal (I used to hold a TS+ level security clearance in the Army, that was intrusive) others see as over intrusion, the same way we see "common sense" laws proposed by freedom grabbers as lacking sense. The founders had it right (IMHO) the Government that Governs best governs least.

You are trying to compare service, whether voluntary or paid, in a public safety position (fire, EMS, SAR, etc.) to being a Scout leader, school chaperone, etc. Everybody states how we have to be held to a higher standard, well if you are going to be dealing with children, join the club.

[Sparks]

We should be held to a higher standard. Now we have the papers to prove it.

[Sgt.K]

But it keeps those who shouldn't be carrying guns on the streets of Philthadelphia from doing so!

[theshadow]

You are trying to compare service, whether voluntary or paid, in a public safety position (fire, EMS, SAR, etc.) to being a Scout leader, school chaperone, etc. Everybody states how we have to be held to a higher standard, well if you are going to be dealing with children, join the club.

I think you misunderstand. I HAVE done my checks, and as stated earlier, I've held a higher security clearance than many in this forum would ever envision, for me it's just another day. The problem is we ARE forcing people who don't see it that way to an invasive procedure, just because they MAY encounter a situation (hmmm officer are you going to start arresting people because they MAY commit a crime?) We are eliminating volunteers not because of a higher standard, by because they don't like intrusive government on an event that may or may not occur, and then you lecture because you don't find it intrusive, no one should, and you attempt to shoot the messenger for presenting facts that other people have opinions different from your own. Yup higher standards, logical thinking, what's next, "Papers Please peasant!"? Which one of us on this forum gets to DICTATE what is intrusive and what is not to everyone in the commonwealth?

BTW, everyone in Fire, EMS and SAR already undergo criminal background check when their application is submitted, so there is that. I don't know why some police officers want to look down their nose on other first responder's (if you'd like to compare resume's remember, there's always someone who WILL outshine you, so please check your ego).

[streaker69]

I think you misunderstand. I HAVE done my checks, and as stated earlier, I've held a higher security clearance than many in this forum would ever envision, for me it's just another day. The problem is we ARE forcing people who don't see it that way to an invasive procedure, just because they MAY encounter a situation (hmmm officer are you going to start arresting people because they MAY commit a crime?) We are eliminating volunteers not because of a higher standard, by because they don't like intrusive government on an event that may or may not occur, and then you lecture because you don't find it intrusive, no one should, and you attempt to shoot the messenger for presenting facts that other people have opinions different from your own. Yup higher standards, logical thinking, what's next, "Papers Please peasant!"? Which one of us on this forum gets to DICTATE what is intrusive and what is not to everyone in the commonwealth?

BTW, everyone in Fire, EMS and SAR already undergo criminal background check when their application is submitted, so there is that. I don't know why some police officers want to look down their nose on other first responder's (if you'd like to compare resume's remember, there's always someone who WILL outshine you, so please check your ego).

When my kids were still going to a regular school, I decided then that I wouldn't go through the intrusive nature of their checks just so that I could go on a field trip with them.

[bml215]

delco sucks ass too. I swear this is set up just to provide jobs to bitter old spinster clerks in the sheriffs department. I asked the clerk last time why it takes so long in delco when in other counties its a 10 minute process, She says some stupid crap like "Its always been this way, its how we have done it for years and we dont see the need to change it."
Yeah? We used to hunt fucking wooly mammoths using stone tools too stupid bitch. New invention, called the computer, ever fucking hear of it? Paper systems are bullshit. Run a NICS, Take my picture and print the card . How hard to understand is that?
Seriously the state must make the system uniform accross all counties. Or better yet do away with this ridiculous system all together

Pa is a commonwealth; which is why there isn't uniformity 😉

[internet troll]

That didn't take long.

After Vegas, this gun owner questions the right to own some guns | Stu Bykofsky

http://www.philly.com/philly/columni...-20171002.html

What do we say now?

What do we do now?

What do I, a longtime gun owner, say now?


The deadly barrage unleashed from above at one of America’s favorite playgrounds has taken dozens of lives. More may die, as some of the 500 injured succumb to grave wounds.


From what we know, the shooter was a 64-year-old white man firing from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel, using rifles, which are effective at a distance, to turn the country music Route 91 Harvest Festival into a killing zone.

I am a lawful gun owner and I am as sickened as you, maybe more, because this slaughter — modern history’s deadliest mass killing by gun by an American on American soil — will be used to recharge the batteries on calls for gun control.

I support some measures — such as universal background checks, closing all gun-sale loopholes and others — but some antigun forces will try to use the Las Vegas massacre as a battering ram to drive legislation to punch holes in the Second Amendment. That will create a backlash, because about one-third of Americans own guns.

Because the shots came so fast, there is speculation the shooter fired a machine gun. At the least, he used semiautomatic rifles, because the firing was too rapid to have come from a bolt- or lever-action rifle. Police said they found 10 rifles in his hotel room but have provided no specifics.

At the risk of ticking off — again — some of my fellow gun owners, let me say we should ban magazine clips that hold more than 10 bullets. That would slow down the shooter. I’d also ban so-called assault weapons, even though it was done once before with little positive result.

Real assault rifles, used by the military, are capable of automatic, continuous fire. Civilian versions require one pull on the trigger to fire one bullet and are dressed up with gimmicks like folding stocks, telescopic sights, flash suppressors, and the like.

These weapons were banned between 1994 and 2003, with little effect on gun violence for reasons that are argued to this day.

The next ban must be more comprehensive, banning not the look of the rifle, but its semiautomatic action. I say that reluctantly, fearing a slippery slope toward gun confiscation, but a semiautomatic ban still leaves a lot of choices in the hands of hunters and sport shooters.

In Las Vegas, police responded quickly and effectively. When they burst into the hotel room, they reportedly found homicidal gunman Stephen Paddock had also been suicidal and had killed himself. He apparently had no arrest record, and barring institutionalization for mental problems, the shooter legally could have bought a gun, or many guns.

Clark County Sheriff Joseph Lombardo described the attack as the work of a “lone wolf.”

A rabid wolf. A homicidal, suicidal wolf.

We don’t know how Paddock acquired his arsenal, the means of murder, nor do we know the motive for his crime. In the end, the motive doesn’t matter because he had the means.


So, what do we do about that?

As a lawful gun owner, as a defender of the Bill of Rights — all of them — I say you can’t saddle the 99.9 percent of gun owners who have done nothing wrong with the sins of the 0.1 percent who have criminal intent.

But it gets harder for me to say that, to believe that, each time something like this happens. It gets harder to justify those deaths as the cost of living free.

I still believe I — and you — have a right to self-defense and to own a gun, but not any gun.

So, reluctantly, I support prohibitions against high-capacity magazines and semiautomatic rifles.

Not because I want to. I feel I have to.

[pacodelahoya]

Because of what happened in Vegas is why I own guns.

I don't think stu(pid) blowjobski ever got within spitting distance of a gun based on his misuse of vernacular.

[RockIsland]

That didn't take long.

After Vegas, this gun owner questions the right to own some guns | Stu Bykofsky

http://www.philly.com/philly/columni...-20171002.html

"What do we say now?

What do we do now?

What do I, a longtime gun owner, say now?

I still believe I — and you — have a right to self-defense and to own a gun, but not any gun.

So, reluctantly, I support prohibitions against high-capacity magazines and semiautomatic rifles.

Not because I want to. I feel I have to."

Jeez, with gun owners like him, who needs Shira Goodman?

Gabby and Mark own guns too. Just sayin'.