Posted on 08/04/2014 6:34:16 AM PDT by marktwain
| Arizonan with Rifle slung at local treat shop |
A controversial arrest in Phoenix, where police arrested a prominent local research doctor who was protesting, with a rifle slung on his shoulder, at the unsecured airport Starbucks, prompted this exchange between Mark Curtis, a 12News anchor and Marc Victor, the victims attorney.
The exchange occurs in the video from 1:55 to 2:22:
Mark Curtis, anchor, 12News:
"Someones carrying a gun, and they're with their children, and they see a man walk into a Starbucks with a rifle on his shoulder. What would stop them from blowing your client away?
Marc Victor, attorney:
Well, the fact that the law prohibits that unless there is an imminent risk of deadly physical force, or....
Mark Curtis, Anchor 12News:
You don't think that a man carrying a rifle in a Starbucks, after what we have seen in Aurora, Colorado, would be enough reason for someone that is carrying a gun to think that they are in imminent danger?
Video of the interview between Anchor Mark Curtis and Attorney Marc Victor
No charges have been filed against Doctor Steinmetz, and the hearings have been vacated. That did not stop the local, national, and international media from blaring headlines and his name around the world:
Doctor points AR-15 rifle at woman and teen in airport
Video from the airport security cameras now shows those charges to be false. If you look in the background in the interview video, you can see that Dr. Steinmetz never points his rifle at anyone. Clearly, Mark Curtis knows this, because he never mentions the previous charges, preferring to attack with his weird assertion that someone in a Starbucks, who sees a man enter with a rifle slung over his shoulder, would be justified in "blowing away" the open carrier.
Many of those who want a disarmed population advocate for death to armed citizens. Some have advocated calling 911 and lying. Some have advocated provoking panic when they see an open carrier. Some have said that they should leave without paying their bills. Some have said that they would try to provoke a confrontation between armed citizens and police. But this is the first case that I have seen where a prominent media person has claimed that being armed is sufficient cause to justify being "blown away".
This flies in the face of all the facts. Open carry protesters are exceptionally safe, at least as safe as police officers. This simply makes sense. They know they are in the public eye. Even an article at the NYTs notices that safety is not an issue at these events. The FBI notes that criminals almost never openly carry, and seldom carry in holsters.
I do not see how Mark Curtis can claim any credibility on second amendment issues, no matter how many "I believe in the second amendment, but.." statements that he issues.
©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch
A slung long gun is about as immediately dangerous as a doughnut.
Hoplophobes are stupid.
Could we apply that ‘logic’ to “Blowing away” people with other lethal objects?
Cars, trucks, tractors, baseball bats, knives, gasoline, flour……
"Is freedom anything else than the right to live as we wish?
Nothing else."~Epictetus
God bless this site, this Free Republic.
Please click the pic
They aren’t scared of the gun, they’re scared of the person’s ability to resist oppression.
I actually believe that these bent out of shape people about guns, don't give it a second thought when someone with a white or blue uniform is open carrying. And that would include a janitor.
“I actually believe that these bent out of shape people about guns, don’t give it a second thought when someone with a white or blue uniform is open carrying. And that would include a janitor.”
I think you are correct. Wear something that looks like a uniform, and you get a pass.
They assume you are an agent of the state, so in their mind, you must be benevolent.
And he was a former member of the Boston Celtics, Brooklyn Dodgers and drafted by (but never played for) the Chicago Bears. Tough guy.
With what?
A hair dryer?
< /sarc >
A pistol.
I believe he thought he was being clever, besmirching both pistol and rifle carriers with this hypothetical.
Some of them. Agreed.
For others, I’d rather attribute it to stupidity as that much human Evil frankly scares the spit out of me.
I can’t believe that the blind illogic of this statement has eluded everyone.
For this someone with kids to blow away the person with a rifle on his shoulder that person would have to be carrying a firearm.
So why would a person carrying a firearm immediately see this person as a threat? For a person to carry a firearm it almost a foregone conclusion that they do not view persons carrying a firearm as being an inherent threat.
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." ---USMC Maj. Gen. James Mattis
But why the guy with the shouldered rifle more than anyone else.
;)
Never said him more than anyone else...
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.
