Posted on 04/27/2013 10:28:35 PM PDT by Kartographer
you got that right, they are already sheltering in place, just not from swat teams ready to break their doors down. unless an unnamed criminal informant gave their address, then the swat will come and shoot the dog and tear the house up and terrorize everyone.
One has to wonder what would have happened....had this event in Boston occurred in Texas or Alabama.
My humble guess is that the entire state population would have been armed and prepared to take on the two characters, without much aide from the federal or state police.
There are exceptions to even that rule (See Dallas/Fort Worth MSA).
Great Post and absolutely true.
Shelter in Place is even worse than martial law.
What kind of authority can they use to order such a thing?
My answer to shelter in place is : Bite me.
Philadelphia...the home of cowards and “chicken littles.”
Political zombies who blindly follow the barks of their masters.
Won’t sheltering in place disrupt the Call to Prayer?
The Muslim Brotherhood could be offended!
Every time I read a government advisement that says "stock up on medications" I make one of those "yeah, right" snorty sounds.
You can't just "stock up" on medications. More and more pharmacists will not give give any more than the prescription dictates and they won't even let you overlap a new prescription until the old one is (by definition) complete.
Doctors really don't have much to say about it.
The best you can do if your prescription is going to run out while you're traveling is to find a pharmacy close to where you'll be staying and have your prescription filled there.
That’s what I call the abuse of the power of suggestion.
Nope. Not a snowball's chance in Hades will they give up Santa Clause.
Read the article, it sounds like they are worried about chemical weapons.
Those democratic parasite nests set the bar for everything the govt does, ignore them at your peril.
If each took only one step then the problem could be solved in short order.......
Shades of Nazi Germany!
It's part of what Sam Francis called anarcho-tyranny. In his depiction the citizens get endlessly harassed while criminals roam free. For example there would be prosecution on trumped up charges of "right wing extremists" who write about things like welfare reform under the 1st Amendment while promoting welfare payments for actual Muslim terrorists. One of the basic motivations for anarcho-tyranny is that it is much easier and safer for the cops to go after the nonviolent citizens than to confront dangerous terrorists or criminals. He only died a few years ago, but would probably still be surprised at the level of support for the current A-T, e.g. nullifying the fourth in Watertown is ok for a terrorist (who turned out to be unarmed) but walking safely down the street any other time is impossible thanks to the state-promoted criminal culture.
Yup. That was my first thought about Boston when they told people the day it happened to “stay inside.” It wasn’t just stay home, it was “stay inside.” One of my posts initially pointed the changed language.
On 9/11 many were told to go get your kids from school and go home. We were never told to “stay inside.”
We’ve had bombings before and have never been told to “stay inside.” Think about that...we’ve had bombers on the loose before these two jihadi nuts and have never been told to “stay inside” or “shelter in place.”
Something is more than up as far as I am concerned. They know something and are trying to not panic the public. They are nudging you to prepare, but many won’t and when it really happens...many will die from their lack of prepping.
And then when the third bomb happens the order will be to “shelter in place,” until they come for us. And many will be transported to “safety.” You will never return home again and you will be like a refugee in your own land.
Advice from the DHS: See an Active Shooter? Run and Hide
A four-minute instructional video released by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) entitled “Active Shooter Situation: Options for Consideration” is filled with numerous suggestions for people confronting an “active shooter,” including evacuating the area, hiding from the shooter, warning others about the danger, locking and blocking doors, and silencing cellphones. Only in the gravest extreme, however, is resistance recommended:
If you are caught out in the open and cannot conceal yourself or take cover, you might consider trying to overpower the shooter with whatever means are available.
Actually no it was not worse than martial law because the government cannot legally have dictated anyone to stay at home in the absence of greater circumstances. What happened in Boston was clearly called a voluntary advisory and not an order, and there were no reports of police harassment from residents who were traveling from one place to another in the Boston area. Another consideration in this particular case is that downtown Boston is relatively geographically small and densely populated and dependent upon public transit so it was probably prudent to shut train service down early as a precautionary measure. A more sprawling metropolis like Houston or Jacksonville would be completely different kind of demographic terrain for police and the public alike.
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.