Terrorists win at the Murat

[chipbennett]

Ran into a similar situation at bankers life for boy scout night tonight. At the present time my foot is broken and have to wear a boot. Needless to say they didn't check my boot or even make me lift up that pant leg. Good intentions (in their mind), terrible idea and deplorable follow through.

I wish everyone could see the illogical process of disarmament.

I've been to two Disney On Ice performances with my family in the past year, at Bankers Life. I didn't run into any issues either time. There was event security, but no inspections other than bag searches.

 

[chipbennett]

Most carriers only carry to protect themselves or their family and wouldn't bother engaging an armed attacker that wasn't focused on them whereas an armed off-duty officer would. That being said, every legal gun carrier should be able to carry everywhere, with just a few exceptions.

But I learned from the Antis that firearm-carrying citizens would rush into the fray, and make everything worse, leading to more friendly-fire casualties and confusion.

I think you have it right: we're not wanna-be heroes; we only want to be able to defend ourselves and our families.

From a risk-management perspective, we're more likely to face a criminal or lunatic than a terrorist. I believe the biggest benefit of not disarming us is removing the soft-target factor of an enforced "Gun Free Zone." The venue not targeted is one in which anyone carrying never has to act in self-defense. I realize that the motivations and decisions of terrorists would be different - but even then, I'd rather be armed (and have a chance) than disarmed (and be utterly defenseless). See also: the Bataclan.

 

[Thegeek]

Terrorists won at the Murat a long time ago since the building shares a name with a sultan and boasts a crescent moon atop.

Might as well start the call to prayer five times a day.

As a member in good standing of Murat Shrine Center (we changed the name after 9/11) I can assure you we are infidels to the most extreme level.

A bit of Shriner history. You must be a Free and Accepted Mason to be a Shriner. One of the tenants of Masons is charity. In the late 1800s, a few Masons decided that it was time to practice that tenant and established a sub-group with that tenant in mind. One of the things about Masons is we have a flair for the dramatic. Whether it be in the Masonic Lodge, Scottish Rite, York Rite, or Shrine, each initiation ritual (or degree) is basically an allegory; a play to impression the candidate with one of these tenants. For the Shrine, this allegory is based on the story of desert travelers in need of food, water, and shelter. The original name for Shriners was "Ancient Arabic Order Nobles of the Mystic Shrine". The founding members came up with the alegory first, then the name. They liked the flair and color of the Arabic garments and decorations and it also fit that allegory. That that steered them in the direction for the name. Masons also love their code and secrecy, or at least the appearance of it. As such, the name of the group came in the usual way. They first took a message, made it an acronym, then an anagram to be the acronym to fit the name, A.A.O.N.M.S. Shouldn't take you long to figure that one out......

Because of the global mess we're in today, a few of the hospital vans used to transport children and their parents who can't afford their own transport to the hospitals were run off the road after 9/11. It was at that time the legal name was changed to Shriners International and the vans were stripped of their markings. Today, our biggest problem is membership. One of the reasons being is the assumed association with Muslims and Islam. There are discussions to further distance our group from them, but it's not as easy as one would think.

 

[GIJEW]

But I learned from the Antis that firearm-carrying citizens would rush into the fray, and make everything worse, leading to more friendly-fire casualties and confusion.

I think you have it right: we're not wanna-be heroes; we only want to be able to defend ourselves and our families.

From a risk-management perspective, we're more likely to face a criminal or lunatic than a terrorist. I believe the biggest benefit of not disarming us is removing the soft-target factor of an enforced "Gun Free Zone." The venue not targeted is one in which anyone carrying never has to act in self-defense. I realize that the motivations and decisions of terrorists would be different - but even then, I'd rather be armed (and have a chance) than disarmed (and be utterly defenseless). See also: the Bataclan.

^^THIS^^ About the 'soft target factor' of GFZs, they have concentric circles of softness around them too: the aforementioned bottleneck at the door as a terrorist target, and for common criminals: all those unarmed patrons returning to their cars.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Looks like its time to invest in a good ol boy belt buckle and some thunderwear. (or simply not go to shows/games/etc)

I've seen numerous cases of ST where they are too lazy to actually screen a beeper.. "oh, yeah, I see its probably your belt buckle the size of a saucer. Go on through because Im too lazy/line too long to make you take off your belt and walk back through. Oh wait, I'll wand you... yep, it only goes off when I cover your groin area. Definitely the buckle. Move along"

I've had it happen to me at a courthouse, and not a small rural one. I walked though, it beeped the officer looked me up and down and asked "steel toe boots"?, I said yes and he waved me on.

The gun they're carrying? I have yet to see that.

Know about it? Probably. Proficient? Maybe.

[video=youtube;WzHEOSyMqug]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHEOSyMqug[/video]

I've been to two Disney On Ice performances with my family in the past year, at Bankers Life. I didn't run into any issues either time. There was event security, but no inspections other than bag searches.

Same thing when my wife and I went to see Wicked, but it was several years ago.

 

[ajeandy]

Know about it? Probably. Proficient? Maybe.

I love this one.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

Most carriers only carry to protect themselves or their family and wouldn't bother engaging an armed attacker that wasn't focused on them whereas an armed off-duty officer would. That being said, every legal gun carrier should be able to carry everywhere, with just a few exceptions.

I think Frank is right on target here. There is no need to bristle, he's telling the truth. If I was qualified to be a police officer then I might have been one. As it is now I have no experience or training on the subject, not to mention that I am hesitant to take the legal liability of shooting unknown guys. It's very possible to misunderstand a circumstance and thereafter find yourself in prison for your misguided heroism.

An Officer on the other hand is conversant on public safety, trained and qualified with his firearm, trained on active shooter scenarios and has to some extent an immunity from liability when acting or responding in good faith. And let's face it, for the most part Johnny Law just can't wait to break off on some bad guys.

We know that the police are not legally obligated to protect us. Now with that being the case, how often do we see citizens running into the fray while cops are running out? We see it the other way pretty often, with cops running in where everyone else is fleeing.

I'm OK with Officers getting the benefit of doubt. Just because I am held under restrictive tyrannical firearm laws is no reason to drag Johnny Law down with me. Let him enjoy his little bit of professional courtesy. Spend effort winning your own freedom without bemoaning someone else's. We see here Frank supporting our carrying our guns everywhere, do the same for him.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I think Frank is right on target here. There is no need to bristle, he's telling the truth. If I was qualified to be a police officer then I might have been one. As it is now I have no experience or training on the subject, not to mention that I am hesitant to take the legal liability of shooting unknown guys. It's very possible to misunderstand a circumstance and thereafter find yourself in prison for your misguided heroism.

An Officer on the other hand is conversant on public safety, trained and qualified with his firearm, trained on active shooter scenarios and has to some extent an immunity from liability when acting or responding in good faith. And let's face it, for the most part Johnny Law just can't wait to break off on some bad guys.

We know that the police are not legally obligated to protect us. Now with that being the case, how often do we see citizens running into the fray while cops are running out? We see it the other way pretty often, with cops running in where everyone else is fleeing.

I'm OK with Officers getting the benefit of doubt. Just because I am held under restrictive tyrannical firearm laws is no reason to drag Johnny Law down with me. Let him enjoy his little bit of professional courtesy. Spend effort winning your own freedom without bemoaning someone else's. We see here Frank supporting our carrying our guns everywhere, do the same for him.

View attachment 43070

Am I still on INGO?

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

View attachment 43070

Am I still on INGO?

I will still keep my cop haters international card. Just because I recognize police as skilled and educated professionals does not mean that they are not cocky arrogant JBT's. Those things arent mutually exclusive... Just take frank here. I don't know him personally, but I am sure that I can find a post of his that illustrates each and every one of the aforementioned qualities. I can visualize where being a jerk could even be a necessary asset for certain police work.

I just calls 'em as I see's 'em. There will be opportunity to bash with impunity another time. There's always tomorrow.

edit- um..... I wasn't meaning to call Frank a jerk. I was just casually using him as an example.... He COULD be a jerk and still be a skilled and professional Officer. It could have been any one of you......... You all could be jerks......... Damn, I should stop now.

 

[miguel]

Liberty,

How was the show other than all the gun funny business?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I'm OK with Officers getting the benefit of doubt. Just because I am held under restrictive tyrannical firearm laws is no reason to drag Johnny Law down with me. Let him enjoy his little bit of professional courtesy. Spend effort winning your own freedom without bemoaning someone else's. We see here Frank supporting our carrying our guns everywhere, do the same for him.

I agree with your post completely except perhaps this part. When Johnny law says gun owners back us up with this law and will return the favor (LEOSA) and then turns around later and stabs us in the back....(and I'm putting it nicely) Why should I support him?

And no I'm not referring to any specific officer on this board, I know several/most/almost all would back us up on it.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

I agree with your post completely except perhaps this part. When Johnny law says gun owners back us up with this law and will return the favor (LEOSA) and then turns around later and stabs us in the back....(and I'm putting it nicely) Why should I support him?

And no I'm not referring to any specific officer on this board, I know several/most/almost all would back us up on it.

The beatles sang "It's a fool who plays it cool by making his world a little colder". It means that you don't want equality by limiting others down to your level. Don't take reputation and perceived responsibility from cops and retired cops but rather lobby and promote that LTCH holders are by definition "proper persons" and should have the freedom to carry wherever firearms are legal to possess. You should bolster Johnny Law's rights because it s a stepping stone to your recovering your own rights. The more of us who have freedom the better, even if it means someone has more than I currently do.

Average LTCH holders still arent as likely to provide security as the typical police officer, but there is also little danger of them creating a problem.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Liberty,

How was the show other than all the gun funny business?

The musical interludes with the Steep Canyon Rangers were first rate (I saw the show which was JUST Martin with the Rangers and Edie Brickell last time).

The comedy interludes with him and Short were not nearly as good as I was hoping for.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I agree with your post completely except perhaps this part. When Johnny law says gun owners back us up with this law and will return the favor (LEOSA) and then turns around later and stabs us in the back....(and I'm putting it nicely) Why should I support him?

And no I'm not referring to any specific officer on this board, I know several/most/almost all would back us up on it.

Johnny Law didn't stab you in the back. Someone higher up on the food chain did.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Johnny Law didn't stab you in the back. Someone higher up on the food chain did.

Yup. I wasn't asked my opinion.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Yup. I wasn't asked my opinion.

Kind of like the USSC decision that police have no duty to protect. Now everyone thinks cops don't do **** to help the citizenry.

 

[abnk]

Because of the global mess we're in today, a few of the hospital vans used to transport children and their parents who can't afford their own transport to the hospitals were run off the road after 9/11. It was at that time the legal name was changed to Shriners International and the vans were stripped of their markings. Today, our biggest problem is membership. One of the reasons being is the assumed association with Muslims and Islam. There are discussions to further distance our group from them, but it's not as easy as one would think.

Wow. I had no idea people seriously made that connection. In case it wasn't clear, I was not serious in my previous post.

 

[96firephoenix]

It's pure security theater, plain and simple.

something something illusion of security.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Kind of like the USSC decision that police have no duty to protect. Now everyone thinks cops don't do **** to help the citizenry.

YEP. Just because they installed a legal relief valve, doesnt mean we dont all believe the bunk. While I give you especially grief, I know you and your brothers and sisters take your jobs seriously and do everything you can to protect us. Your service and sacrifices are not lost on me and my family. Thank you for running TOWARD the gunfire. It is appreciated. (I know I couldnt do it)

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

YEP. Just because they installed a legal relief valve, doesnt mean we dont all believe the bunk. While I give you especially grief, I know you and your brothers and sisters take your jobs seriously and do everything you can to protect us. Your service and sacrifices are not lost on me and my family. Thank you for running TOWARD the gunfire. It is appreciated. (I know I couldnt do it)

I think you still owe me coffee.