Skip to comments.Shelter In Place (vanity)
Posted on 04/20/2013 10:35:31 AM PDT by Lurkina.n.Learnin
In light of recent events in Boston I believe this should have implications on the raging gun control debate. The city issued a Shelter in Place order. This affected upwards of a million people. Now think about that. A definate bad guy is on the run with a massive police search going on to eliminate this menace to society. I have no bones about issuing the shelter in place order as people mulling around would complicated the search. I do have a problem with the people that would have you set there totally defensless at the mercy of events.
It is not credible to think that if this guy had come storming into someones house that the police would be able to get there in time to protect you. A best case scenario would be you would be taken hostage. I would love to see a poll of the greater Boston area today asking people if they would feel safer with a gun in thier home. The people that didn't have one still benefited from the bad guy not knowing if he kicked a door in if someone would be sitting there with gun in hand. I'm pretty sure that the people who owned guns were armed during this nightmare.
Now I think everyone should call their Senators and Congressmen and ask them "would you have felt safer being armed in a situation like this"
“Shelter in Place” is no different from the “Freeze” desensitization order issued by the TSA. Now the public is expected to “Freeze” over vast areas that are not even part of the search. Even public transit is halted. It’s sort of a mini martial law without the legal support. The other part of the Shelter in Place was the door-to-door searches by law enforcement. Imagine if that happened in your neighborhood. Would you welcome the SWAT team into your home? Maybe next time the authorities would pull a Shelter in Place for less dangerous reasons, like rounding up illegal firearms.
I don’t think I have ever seen such an overreaction in my life.
A whole multi-million person city shut down to catch 2 guys?
Up there with shutting a freeway down for 10 hours after a fatal accident.
Tragedies should never be used for political agenda...it only belittles the sufferings of the victims and the people who care for them.
>> I do have a problem with the people that would have you set there totally defenseless at the mercy of events.
You are only defenseless by your own choosing.
My Senator would tell me: “I feel fine, I have a gun myself, and you pay for my armed Federal and city officers 24 hours a day. It’s a pity you can’t have one yourself, but you have to matter to get one, and you don’t. I hope I can count on your vote next election.”
It wasn’t a legally binding order. For example some civilians opened restaurants to provide the police with coffee. It was just a strong suggestion.
That said, I would have abided the order. But the. I’m (back) in Texas, so I and my neighbors are all well armed.
Congress has been debating this recently. I’m going to ask mine to reconsider their positions. Being from California their positions would be to make a criminal out if anyone who wanted more than “911” for defense.
I’d carry and go on about my business...
I didn’t really have a problem with the order/suggestion. I do think this is going to change the gun control debate.
Thank you MSM for days on end showing terrified citizens huddled in their houses while a violent Madman is roaming and the police have no cue where he is! MSM was the best media PR for 2nd Amendment rights since ...well, since never before!
It’s illustrative to consider what a “shelter-in-place” might look like in two different cites, let’s say Boston and DFW.
To the perps, Boston would look like a lot of potential hideouts because very few people are armed. DFW would look like like a bunch of potential booby-traps with a shotgun blast waiting behind every door.
>> Congress has been debating this recently. Im going to ask mine to reconsider their positions. Being from California their positions would be to make a criminal out if anyone who wanted more than 911 for defense.
If the act of protecting myself and my family makes me a criminal, then so be it.
I’m in a small town in northern California and I would guess he would have a 90% chance of an armed welcome here also.
If nothing else, it was certainly an eye-opener as to how “city-folk” respond to “suggested” martial law.
Now imagine a compete military/LEO shutdown of undetermined duration.
Unarmed and unprepared, people will literally starve to death, or be murdered in their own homes.
Normalcy bias plus brainwashed MSM conditioning...a very bad mix.
This country is even more effed up than I thought, and perhaps the writers of books such as “One Second After” were entirely too optimistic.
Time to up the preps and lower the online profiles, FRiends.
The. should the then... Got iPhoned.
I concur 100%!
Small town California is a lot more like Texas than LA or San Francisco...
What about when the SWAT team shows up at your front door for a search without a warrant? What happens if you refuse? What happens if you agree and they do more than they say? What information did they gather extraneous to searching for the terrorists?
” What about when the SWAT team shows up at your front door for a search without a warrant? What happens if you refuse? What happens if you agree and they do more than they say? What information did they gather extraneous to searching for the terrorists?”
Good questions that I don’t have all the answers to but I do know that disarming all the law. abiding citizens is not the answer.
That's what many are asking themselves. I can see asking that people stay indoors for their own safety and so the cops can canvas the neighborhood. Letting them in my house.... that is a slippery slope. Will they be coming back to confiscate x,y,z they saw that I had? Will they plant something illegal and frame me later? If we become immune to letting them in without warrants in emergency situations then will they think they can come in any time they wish without reason and during non-emergency situations. Who defines a what an emergency is?
This episode might well have turned into a hostage holding situation and even more deaths had things gone differently.
I suspect a lot of Massachusetts gun haters are reconsidering things today, will be if they have any sense, anyway.
I am curious how many people are being punished for violation of the “Shelter-in-Place” order.
” I suspect a lot of Massachusetts gun haters are reconsidering things today, will be if they have any sense, anyway.”
I certainly hope so. And I hope it’s a lot more than just Massachusetts.
That has been on my mind too. The 4th and 5th Amendments seem to be all but dead now. Hopefully a significant percentage of the population would consider a "Shelter In Place" order for gun confiscation to be a more dangerous reason and immediately take action to make it more dangerous. By an order of magnitude.
Orin Kerr over at The Volokh Conspiracy started a discussion about this
House-to-House Searches and the Fourth Amendment
Look at it from the government’s point of view:
They can get a whole lot more money to do it this way!
Once disarmament of the populace is accepted then the taxes to pay for this kind of operation are obviously neccessary.
I bet Mass. eventually gets federal dollars- from the rest of us- for this fiasco of a response.
You probably saw it already.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.