A local reporter interviews a gun guy about Peter Steinmetz:
Me: Do you need to be toting around an AR-15 on your shoulder in a busy airport?
Korwin: “Lots of people ask ‘Do you need this kind of gun?’ That’s the Marxist model. Do you need 10 pairs of shoes and somebody’s supposed to be in charge and decide whether you need things or not and whether you can have them or not.”
Me, trying again: Do you have a concern that a guy can freely and legally walk through the terminals of a busy airport with an AR-15 on his shoulder?
Korwin: “Let’s frame the question differently. Can he walk anywhere with an AR-15?”
Me, one last time. Do we need these things in an airport?
“There you go, back to need. That’s Marxism again. Each according to his need. Do you need 10 pairs of shoes? Do you need a refrigerator the size of a closet? And in America we’re starting to ask, do we need something and who’s in charge of deciding what you need? Do you need 10 pairs of shoes when there are people with no shoes? You don’t need 10 pairs of shoes and you’re asking me questions about need and in America, that’s not how we do things. That’s not how a free country operates.”
August 1st, 2014 at 12:33PM
Framing this as a matter of needs was a poor choice on the reporter’s part.
Better to think of it in terms of competing rights. The right of one person to carry a firearm in public isn’t the only right at stake here. There’s also the right of a much larger number of people not to have their safety placed in unnecessary jeopardy by the reckless behavior of one of their fellow citizens.
Given that there is absolutely no compelling reason to carry a loaded semi-automatic rifle into a secure public space like an airport other than “because I feel like doing it,” it’s simply a matter of justice that on this occasion the safety rights of the majority should have precedence.
August 1st, 2014 at 1:09PM
AA, no need good god man one never knows when a muslim sleeper cell agent or the ATF might come gunning for us, to be fair to the reporter this is a pretty novel twist on the red-scare tactics these loons usually employ.
August 1st, 2014 at 5:58PM
Prof. Steinmetz’s improper handling of his rifle led to his arrest. My understanding is that open carry was lawful in that part of the airport. At his local range, the same improper conduct may have led to a scolding, repeated instances to being barred.
Free advice to anti-gun folks. No snark, no ‘tude. Make your case. You’re selling Americans a new homicide rate, a new overall violent crime rate, and a new property crime rate. What are those new rates? You want to repeal the Second Amendment, confiscate guns through the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause, and prohibit any subsequent ownership by statute or amendment. How will you make the necessary arguments?
By temperament and education, I’m willing to listen to arguments that seem fresh and persuasive.
(BTW-I’m not a gun owner, although thirty years ago I was. About two months ago I thwarted a possible home invasion with a knife in hand and very serious talking through my front door. I thought about buying a handgun, but decided I wasn’t motivated enough to become a proficient shooter.)
August 1st, 2014 at 8:27PM
I will start taking Second Amendment zealots more seriously when they begin lobbying for the dissolution of the large standing army that that well-regulated militia was supposed to make unnecessary.
August 2nd, 2014 at 9:41AM
What I was getting at, Allan, is that the quality of the anti-gun lobby needs to get better if it wants to play honest ball. In the last ten days or so, I’ve read on one anti-gun blog that individual gun ownership conduces to anarchy, and on another, totalitarianism.
If, indeed, a standing army constructively vacates the Second Amendment, then that argument ought to be made, and we’ll all likely be better off for having it well made.
August 3rd, 2014 at 12:54AM
Well Alan, there’s no need to wait for the 2d Amendments “zealots” to lobby for the dissolution of a large standing army. The dissolving has been going on for some time now. Why do you think that of all the people who could have been appointed Secretary of Defense, our President appointed Chuck Hagel? So now you can start taking the Second Amendment seriously.
August 3rd, 2014 at 3:19AM
This may be nitpicking, but there is something called private property. The businesses at a public entity, such as an airport, pay rent for their retail space. Therefore, as long as the checks clear, the area belongs to them, they can ask anyone to leave, even those customers who are too stupid to not realize that property rights trumps the ability to bring a gun onto that property. For all the prattling about Marxism, Pete Steinmetz is the one who is doing more to get rid of the notion of private property than any commissar….