It's a different world - Page 8

mstyrion 1 · ‎09-18-2014

@ChynnaBlue wrote:
No, it's the same world as it was before this event and the same world it was after the Sandy Hook event, after the Aurora shooting, after the Riverside shootings, after Gabby Giffords was gunned down in Arizona, after Columbine, after the Cleveland Elementary shootings, and after the UT Tower shootings. It will be the same world after the next mass shooting, too.

Because when you change nothing, nothing changes.

________________________________________________________________

If I could give you one hundred hearts for this post I would.

Very well said!

~Enough is enough~

Maudelynn · ‎05-08-2015

@Laura14 wrote:
@Maudelynn wrote:
@Laura14 wrote:
@Maudelynn wrote:
@Melania wrote:
Sighing and moaning about the past does not help us NOW or those that supposedly saw the future and are glad they are dead. I would rather have them here instead of dead to save them from hurt. They would handle it like we do.
I think most us realize that things have changed for a long time now.
Many of you choose to overlook that the that person did nothing at the time that was arrestable. Just like one of you toting your weapons...unless you do something that is a crime you are free.

Do you want a police state? You want your rights preserved but then *itch and moan about nothing being done to protect us?? It's laughable at the hypocrisy and ultimate selfishness.
What really boggles my mind is the notion that we have to demand stepped up security when attending large gatherings, stepped up security which disallows guns from being carried into an event- in essence, we should be guaranteed a "gun-free zone" in gathering places.
However, you're treading on rights when you demand that the same "gun-free" zone be applicable to the public at large.

I don't understand that rationale.
I don't understand it for a different reason. Since most gun owners are incredibly responsible, I could not help but think how things could have been different if people had been allowed to carry inside. I get guns and alcohol are not a great mix but when the one and only can't get a clear shot, it would have been nice if there were a few others carrying to at least give everyone another fighting chance.
Do you believe we should have stepped up security at airports and public gathering places? For example- the convention in Cleveland. Should attendees need to pass through metal detectors and such?
Don't know how you could get any stricter than the airport. They already see me naked.

But as for metal detectors at large events, works for me! They were already in place at the inner city schools in Philly back in the day before all of this nonsense. I don't see why all of us can't walk through them. We do every day at the stores with the anti-theft devices.

Works for me too. You know why? Because I know if people have to pass through metal detectors, they won't be armed.

You have sacrificed nothing and no one.

Mominohio · ‎08-08-2010

@Laura14 wrote:
@Maudelynn wrote:
@Melania wrote:
Sighing and moaning about the past does not help us NOW or those that supposedly saw the future and are glad they are dead. I would rather have them here instead of dead to save them from hurt. They would handle it like we do.
I think most us realize that things have changed for a long time now.
Many of you choose to overlook that the that person did nothing at the time that was arrestable. Just like one of you toting your weapons...unless you do something that is a crime you are free.

Do you want a police state? You want your rights preserved but then *itch and moan about nothing being done to protect us?? It's laughable at the hypocrisy and ultimate selfishness.
What really boggles my mind is the notion that we have to demand stepped up security when attending large gatherings, stepped up security which disallows guns from being carried into an event- in essence, we should be guaranteed a "gun-free zone" in gathering places.
However, you're treading on rights when you demand that the same "gun-free" zone be applicable to the public at large.

I don't understand that rationale.
I don't understand it for a different reason. Since most gun owners are incredibly responsible, I could not help but think how things could have been different if people had been allowed to carry inside. I get guns and alcohol are not a great mix but when the one and only can't get a clear shot, it would have been nice if there were a few others carrying to at least give everyone another fighting chance.

@Laura14

This makes too much sense for some posters here to grasp.

Each of these shootings has one thing in common, that there were no armed citizens to fight back, most often because of the regulations or laws for the location or venue, and sometimes because they occur in places where people don't normally think having a concealed carry would be needed.

We now see differently, that anywhere is now a target, and yet we continue to refuse to try the other side. Allow responsible trained people to have weapons that could conceivably stop or reduce the level of this kind of violence. Because if it did, they'd be proven wrong about their anti gun stance, and that is more important to them than saving lives.

Sooner · ‎03-10-2010

@Puzzle Piece wrote:
For some things, probalby it's a different world - but then it's supposed to be.

I remember my history and well and so should everyone else. Many Native Americans were slaughtered and killed in the past just to take their land and just to kill them, yet it wasn't considered terrorism. 50 is a small number compared to the many that were killed in the past.

We can't compare today to the past. The past was a different time and place, and different people. I am not responsible for the past. We are all responsible for today. The hatred for people BECAUSE of the past is what causes much of today's violence.

While we should not FORGET the past, we should not ascribe actions of the past to today's people. It just perpetuates hatred. People are people. All colors and all races and all nations. We should take each person for the individual THEY are TODAY.

Maudelynn · ‎05-08-2015

@Mominohio wrote:
@Maudelynn wrote:
@Melania wrote:
Sighing and moaning about the past does not help us NOW or those that supposedly saw the future and are glad they are dead. I would rather have them here instead of dead to save them from hurt. They would handle it like we do.
I think most us realize that things have changed for a long time now.
Many of you choose to overlook that the that person did nothing at the time that was arrestable. Just like one of you toting your weapons...unless you do something that is a crime you are free.

Do you want a police state? You want your rights preserved but then *itch and moan about nothing being done to protect us?? It's laughable at the hypocrisy and ultimate selfishness.
What really boggles my mind is the notion that we have to demand stepped up security when attending large gatherings, stepped up security which disallows guns from being carried into an event- in essence, we should be guaranteed a "gun-free zone" in gathering places.
However, you're treading on rights when you demand that the same "gun-free" zone be applicable to the public at large.

I don't understand that rationale.

I don't know for sure who you are addressing in this post, but when I called for people to demand business to provide better security, I in no way said that was exclusively making places gun free zones.

There are many ways to provide/enhance security. All the electronic means, more armed security, control size of venue, control the structure/setup of venue, and for some venues, allow concealed carry.

Which ones any entitly chooses to use would be up to them, what their customers/participants make known they prefer, etc.

Events in the private sector have many choices at their disposal, including and up to allowing the participants to participate in their own security.

So you never saw a demand for a 'gun free' zone from me, for private or public application.

Please tell me the purpose of metal detectors and wanding? I'm assuming you're talking about all means of security, right? Which would include the use of metal detectors/wands....

You have sacrificed nothing and no one.

Mominohio · ‎08-08-2010

@goldensrbest wrote:
@Laura14 wrote:
@Maudelynn wrote:
@Melania wrote:
Sighing and moaning about the past does not help us NOW or those that supposedly saw the future and are glad they are dead. I would rather have them here instead of dead to save them from hurt. They would handle it like we do.
I think most us realize that things have changed for a long time now.
Many of you choose to overlook that the that person did nothing at the time that was arrestable. Just like one of you toting your weapons...unless you do something that is a crime you are free.

Do you want a police state? You want your rights preserved but then *itch and moan about nothing being done to protect us?? It's laughable at the hypocrisy and ultimate selfishness.
What really boggles my mind is the notion that we have to demand stepped up security when attending large gatherings, stepped up security which disallows guns from being carried into an event- in essence, we should be guaranteed a "gun-free zone" in gathering places.
However, you're treading on rights when you demand that the same "gun-free" zone be applicable to the public at large.

I don't understand that rationale.
I don't understand it for a different reason. Since most gun owners are incredibly responsible, I could not help but think how things could have been different if people had been allowed to carry inside. I get guns and alcohol are not a great mix but when the one and only can't get a clear shot, it would have been nice if there were a few others carrying to at least give everyone another fighting chance.
No, more guns in there would not had helped with this type of weapon he had.

@goldensrbest

How can we know. It takes only one person, with good skill, to stop someone who is doing something like this. Those people are out there, everywhere, every day. But they are being prevented from having what they need, where they need it.

Mominohio · ‎08-08-2010

@151949 wrote:
You can spend your entire ife being paranoid every time you leave the house -- that is certainly ISIS's goal - to make us all fearful. OR you can put it in God's hands and go about living your life normally. Not having any tendency toward paranoia I will choose to do the latter. I believe the day we are going to die is predetermined by God in the instant we are concieved so I think be it a heart attack or a terrorist bullet - you will die that day and at that time, and there is absolutely nothing you can do to change that. Also, being a faithful Christian I have no fear of dying.

The whole point is we are in a new normal.

And situational awareness and security measures are not the same as paranoia.

AngusandBuddhasMom · ‎03-10-2010

@klajfakj wrote:
As I was driving to work this morning, FM97 played a rendition of 'Over the Rainbow' in respect. I have never heard this rendition before and I found myself crying. I ask myself when is enough enough.

Was it IZ's version?

Mominohio · ‎08-08-2010

@Maudelynn wrote:
@Mominohio wrote:
@Maudelynn wrote:
@Melania wrote:
Sighing and moaning about the past does not help us NOW or those that supposedly saw the future and are glad they are dead. I would rather have them here instead of dead to save them from hurt. They would handle it like we do.
I think most us realize that things have changed for a long time now.
Many of you choose to overlook that the that person did nothing at the time that was arrestable. Just like one of you toting your weapons...unless you do something that is a crime you are free.

Do you want a police state? You want your rights preserved but then *itch and moan about nothing being done to protect us?? It's laughable at the hypocrisy and ultimate selfishness.
What really boggles my mind is the notion that we have to demand stepped up security when attending large gatherings, stepped up security which disallows guns from being carried into an event- in essence, we should be guaranteed a "gun-free zone" in gathering places.
However, you're treading on rights when you demand that the same "gun-free" zone be applicable to the public at large.

I don't understand that rationale.

I don't know for sure who you are addressing in this post, but when I called for people to demand business to provide better security, I in no way said that was exclusively making places gun free zones.

There are many ways to provide/enhance security. All the electronic means, more armed security, control size of venue, control the structure/setup of venue, and for some venues, allow concealed carry.

Which ones any entitly chooses to use would be up to them, what their customers/participants make known they prefer, etc.

Events in the private sector have many choices at their disposal, including and up to allowing the participants to participate in their own security.

So you never saw a demand for a 'gun free' zone from me, for private or public application.
Please tell me the purpose of metal detectors and wanding? I'm assuming you're talking about all means of security, right? Which would include the use of metal detectors/wands....

You seem stuck on this metal detector thing. I'm saying that each venue/business chooses what they want, some of them, all of them or none of them, but their customers and they decide what works for them.

Laura14 · ‎06-09-2014

@Mominohio wrote:
@goldensrbest wrote:
@Laura14 wrote:
@Maudelynn wrote:
@Melania wrote:
Sighing and moaning about the past does not help us NOW or those that supposedly saw the future and are glad they are dead. I would rather have them here instead of dead to save them from hurt. They would handle it like we do.
I think most us realize that things have changed for a long time now.
Many of you choose to overlook that the that person did nothing at the time that was arrestable. Just like one of you toting your weapons...unless you do something that is a crime you are free.

Do you want a police state? You want your rights preserved but then *itch and moan about nothing being done to protect us?? It's laughable at the hypocrisy and ultimate selfishness.
What really boggles my mind is the notion that we have to demand stepped up security when attending large gatherings, stepped up security which disallows guns from being carried into an event- in essence, we should be guaranteed a "gun-free zone" in gathering places.
However, you're treading on rights when you demand that the same "gun-free" zone be applicable to the public at large.

I don't understand that rationale.
I don't understand it for a different reason. Since most gun owners are incredibly responsible, I could not help but think how things could have been different if people had been allowed to carry inside. I get guns and alcohol are not a great mix but when the one and only can't get a clear shot, it would have been nice if there were a few others carrying to at least give everyone another fighting chance.
No, more guns in there would not had helped with this type of weapon he had.
@goldensrbest

How can we know. It takes only one person, with good skill, to stop someone who is doing something like this. Those people are out there, everywhere, every day. But they are being prevented from having what they need, where they need it.