Home > Right-Wing Extremism > Republican Politician Goes There

Republican Politician Goes There

July 23rd, 2012

And then some: Republican Arizona state senator Russell Pearce (recalled) blames gun control and the people being shot at directly. Emphasis in the former senator’s Facebook post mine (spelling is his):

This is certainly a time for prayers for the victims and the families of victims in this horrific crime in Colorado. I just had a call from a very good friend of mine in San Diego, California who’s neice Kim, Kim’s best friend Mikayla and Kevin were in the Theater in the front rows. Kim and Kevin got out and as he was trying to get Mikayla out she said she was shot. As the rush of the crowd exiting through the exit door pushed Kevin and Kim out they lost Mikayla.

As of my phone conversation they were not aware of her status. What a heart breaking story. Had someone been prepared and armed they could have stopped this “bad” man from most of this tragedy. He was two and three feet away from folks, I understand he had to stop and reload. Where were the men of flight 93???? Someone should have stopped this man. Someone could have stopped this man. Lives were lost because of a bad man, not because he had a weapon, but because noone was prepared to stop it. Had they been prepared to save their lives or lives of others, lives would have been saved.

All that was needed is one Courages/Brave man prepared mentally or otherwise to stop this it could have been done. When seconds count, police are ony minutes away. My prayers are with all of those suffering from this sensless act, may God be with them in this moment of pain and heartache.

Yep. He thinks that people should attend movie screenings armed, and if there is ever a mass shooting, people in the audience should return fire. If only!

As to where the “men of Flight 93” were, well, I am sure that if the Republican former state senator had been at the theater, he would have rushed the man shooting continuously into the crowd, no question. Right.

What is amazing is that he seems oblivious to the fact that he is, in fact, criticizing his friend, as his friend was not “prepared” and did not sacrifice himself to save others by trying to tackle the gunman.

Later, in response to the media printing his Facebook post verbatim and in full, Pearce complained that he was being “mischaracterized.”

All I did was lament that so many people should be left disarmed and vulnerable by anti-gun rules that try to create a sense of safety by posting a sign that says “No Guns”, when the only real effect is to disarm everyone who could have saved lives.

I think I should have ended my last post with, “And a crazy-ass conservative from Arizona will start spewing fanatical pro-gun rhetoric in three, two, ….”

Categories: Right-Wing Extremism Tags: by
  1. stevetv
    July 23rd, 2012 at 21:57 | #1

    By saying this, he also managed to criticize the passengers of the other three planes that went down on Sept. 11th. Since they didn’t storm the cockpits, they should be characterized as cowards too, at least according to Pearce.

  2. Troy
    July 24th, 2012 at 06:01 | #2

    good commentary from Jason Alexander:


    I think we should have the political maturity to just modify the constitution to say what we want it to say.

    Reagan was a pro-gun ideologue in the 1970s but signed the law banning some guns in 1986.

    The Federal Government is clearly involved here since thanks to our modern transit infrastructure intrastate gun commerce can easily become interstate.

    It’s really up to our friends on the right to come to their senses and figure out what needs to be done.

    I’m perfectly OK with California’s ban on assault weapons. If people want to play with military-style guns, they should buy “airsoft” replicas, like how it is in Japan.

  3. Kensensei
    July 25th, 2012 at 13:56 | #3

    Yeah, we always get this pro-gun “logic” from the Right after a tragic massacre involving guns. They believe some super-hero could save the day (like in the movies) if only he had had the presence of mind to pack a concealed gun in his pocket. The biggest flaw in that argument is that handguns for civil use would not have been able to pierce all the protective bullet-proof gear the shooter was wearing.

    The Right to bear arms is, indeed, a constitutional one, but the writer of the Constitution were not likely aware/supportive of modern warfare technology in use on public streets and theaters.

    But the most outrageous claim being propagated by some on the Right is that Obama “staged” the Aurora shooting in order to get Americans to turn around our lenient gun laws. Under that logic, I suppose Obama staged the Gabriel Gifford shooting as well? And what about Coloumbine?

    Needless to say, the burden of proof of such a claim would be a bit too great for the average GOP member to substantiate if their goal was to seek the truth, that is. But in fact, all they really need is a good conspiracy without a shred of evidence and they have the basis to assault Obama with it. We saw that with the birth certificate, for example, and look how long it took to dispel that nonsense.

    I also want to point out that, I believe the only way to get the dialog on revising current gun laws started is to change the language we use. Instead of calling it “Gun Law Legislation”, we need to use the terms “Anti-Assault Weapon Legislation” or “Ban of Military Weapons in Public Sector Laws.” Anything with the words “anti-gun” will automatically elicit a violent war-cry from the overly paranoid Gun Rights Coalitions.

    Well, nothing will be done until after the November elections, that’s for sure.


Comments are closed.