I’m sticking by my explanation of what it DOESN’T mean, certainly.
Actually, yes. What I said, I stand by. METAPHORICALLY, that’s what was meant.
Do you contend she actually was asking for a volunteer to shoot the Senate Majority Leader of the United States if she lost?
OK. No more comment on that in this thread – except to say that you can hardly expect to make my supposed absurd comments a building block of your case and not get a reaction.
Fair enough, I realize why I invited comment from you. I hope you can see why it added context, though - it shows the position I took in that thread which eventually lead to Oak’s crazy over the top WORTHLESS HUMAN BEING etc etc posts.
Well, they are a group, are they not? And they are most likely citizens, yes? Then it follows that they are a “citizen’s group”! Just like the Aryan Brotherhood is a group of like minded persons of a particular ethnic derivation, like any Irish-American group or Columbus Day enthusiasts! They probably share tips about sun-screen and the like.
And who knows what “second amendment solutions” might imply, they might be suggesting Sen Reid to join a “well ordered militia”! Simply because one urges someone to own a firearm does not mean they urge them to shoot anyone, or any thing! If I urge you to own a car, it does not necessarily follow that I am urging you to drive one, now does it!
One response, and I’ll honor the OP’s request to give this a rest.
I think her comment could mean a wide range of things, but all of them having to do with firearms. She left it open ended, and so I think “shoot the Senate Majority Leader of the United States if she lost” is within that range. If I’m being generous, I’d say she really didn’t think it through and was just referring to violent resistance in general. But since Reid lives in NV, and represents the federal government, he could easily be a target in that state.
No, that’s silly. She was implying that there might be a need for armed insurrection against the government, in the course of which omelet-making any number of Democratic and liberal eggs might need be broken. Senator Reid would have at least a fair to middling chance of survival, if he keeps his head down.
Leaving Sharron Angle and the Right to Bear Signs aside for a moment… am I the only one surprised to find out, (1) that people don’t like SenorBeef, and (2) that Oakminster is occasionally a crazy person?
What part of that are you surprised by - that there are times when he acts crazy, or times that he doesn’t act crazy?
I’d give it a 6/10 Senor. Well supported, but too long a read. 
Yeah Oak really comes off as an ass in those exchanges. Which is too bad - he oftentimes does post interesting bits, and it’s certainly nice to have more vocal conservatives on this board.
I’ve always thought you were pretty even handed Senor, and I would never describe you as partisan - not sure where Oak is getting that vibe. I’d be interested to see his response.
That’s a bit unfair to John I think. The other’s can make some dumb arguments in defense of some conservative policy or person, but I don’t think he’s one of them.
While I lazily didn’t read the thread in question and take no stand on Bricker, I wholeheartedly agree. I’m pretty far right and there are people that are Republican/Tea Party/Libertarian that I think are so nutjobbish that they’re actually having a net negative effect on the party. Palin and Beck first and foremost. I didn’t care much for the latter president Bush either. I don’t think either party has had any really good presidential candidates for a long time. I also have a lot of respect for a politician who criticizes some of the loonies in his or her own party when it’s not necesarily politically expedient for them.
That said, this isn’t just a Right thing, is it? You all on the Left have Dems that drive you nuts and you won’t support too, yes?
Yepper. I endorse these comments. As for Oakminister (again going with John Mace): he can be interesting, but is a goofball in ATMB. Almost as bad as pseudotriton ruber was.
Anyway… posters should try not to become obsessively angry with other posters. In theory, each post should be judged on it’s own merits, rather than viewed as part of the poster’s on-going stream of intellectual sickness.
(But realistically you’ve got to give some weight to someone’s posting history.)
That’s a good point. I know I try to do that, although I’m not always successful, especially with the newbie clowns we get in here so often. What I find more effective with regular posters here who are just nuts and post absurd shit is that I either don’t respond to them, or just say something like: “that’s an interesting opinion, not backed up by any facts” and then move on. It clarifies that I disagree, but doesn’t get me wrapped up in a multi-post exchange with an nutcase.
I’ve done my share of banging my head against a wall, and it just ain’t worth it.
Definitely. Sometimes some Lefties make me just close my eyes and cover my ears and silently say “Please please PLEASE shut UP!!111!!!”
I’ll just point out that “citizens groups getting together and getting involved in the political process” is a First Amendment remedy, not a 2nd. To get the two amendments in question all goofed up like that is disingenuous in the extreme.
I understood it to be a call to assassinate. I assume that was just one of the reasons she lost. Rep. Giffords was subject to an assassination attempt like the one called for. The other explanation just doesn’t make sense.
Gotta disagree there. Bricker I find educational frequently in style or arguments and Oak and Rand can be highly entertaining. Macedo pretends to be even handed in the text, but the subtext is always buying what some authority figure (conservative if there is a choice) is using to polish the turd of the moment and an affected surprise that the rest of the world doesn’t buy it too because it is such a reasonable turd to polish.
I hope he plans on using some lube.
I keep reading the thread title as hadron. Now I’m picturing Oakminster and SenorBeef being thrown at each other at near-light speeds in a tunnel under the France/Switzerland border…
Around these heah parts, when someone sez they’s gonna exercise their Second Amendment rights, it means that they’s gonna go shootin’ at somethin’.
I’m sure that’s what it means in Bricker’s part of the woods too. He’s so clearly dissembling that he’s got to feel real embarrassed privately or having a good laugh at the earnest lefties.
To the OP: Oakminster is definitely a braying jackass whenever I come across him in the Pit. I doubt he’s singled you out overmuch.
I’d definitely be careful about dropping the soap if you happen to be taking any showers in his vicinity then…
[QUOTE=Lynn Bodoni]
Around these heah parts, when someone sez they’s gonna exercise their Second Amendment rights, it means that they’s gonna go shootin’ at somethin’.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I agree. In generally I find Bricker’s positions to be fairly close to my own, but in this case it seems pretty silly…it was probably supposed to be the standard right wing babble from Palin (I doubt she SERIOUSLY wanted anyone to shoot anyone else), but that’s what the phrase means.
-XT