The rebuttal was the quote from Angle.
Never said it was. Posts here may take other forms, such as commentary.
If your original post’s a woosh, it’s a subtle one. 
Correct, she wasn’t exhorting anyone to commit murder. She said she hoped voting would do the trick because otherwise, armed resistance would be needed to stop a tyrranical government and its “Harry Reid problems.”
Bricker, un-ass your head. That’s not a fucking metaphor. Chrissakes, this isn’t even about rhetoric anymore but common language structures.
Who was it who asked what the meaning of “is” is? Which side of the aisle?
Got your balls in a vice now, haven’t I?
Sure it is. It’s more of an allegory, I suppose, but an allegory is simply an extended metaphor.
Euphemism. Learn it, love it, live it.
“That simply not true” not being “an unsupported gratuitous assertion in your own effort to hold up a debate”?
What made you think you could award points for good and bad arguments? I take it it doesnt come from your debating skills, at the very least not in this thread.
Even more moronic, “the simply not true” part means your dont even believe your own spin job of the Second Amendment. Dude, if you dont even believe in your own points, who’s gonna?
Something about arming the bears?
Nice to see Rush blaming heavy metal. Record sales are way down, and blaming it for society’s ills is really the only way to prop them up.
Yes, it can be a euphemism. It can also be a metaphor as Bricker is describing. If I was reading this in a book and the person uttering it was known to kill people, or even want to, I’d go with your interpretation. If the person uttering the quote was a politician with zero history of that, I’d have to go with Bricker’s interpretation.
So, I think the question is, do you really think that Angle was wanting Harry Reid to get shot if the ballot box didn’t serve to be his “remedy”?
In debate, a gratuitous assertion may be equally gratuitously denied.
Let’s review:
I never advanced this view of the Second Amendment. How is what you wrote “my spin job?”
I might be inclined to give, say, John Boehner the benefit of the doubt. Angle, however, is unquestionably a nutjob.
You seriously believe that Angle was calling for actual murderous violence?
I think this is evidence that we’re so far apart that we’re never going to find common ground. If this post is not a joke, then you’re seriously contending, literally, that Angle was urging her listeners to shoot Harry Reid?
Based on the other stuff she’s spouted…I wouldn’t rule it out completely.
ETA: Of course, to her and hers it would be an act of Justified Rebellion Against the Forces of Evil and Oppression and Upholding the Basic Liberties of Our Constitution and Society.
I believe she was advocating the violent overthrow of the duly elected government, for no other reason than it was enacting laws she disagreed with.
Yes, I do. But I don’t have to rely on my own beliefs. I have her words which unambiguously suggest shooting her opponent as a solution.
I’m not Really Not All That Bright, but I don’t buy what Angle said was a valid metaphor in the way that you argued. It was meant as threatening, violent, populist language–not some metaphorical allusion to solidarity–though I do not think she literally wanted anyone to kill Harry Reid. She wanted to sound intimidating and tough and rile up her supporters, essentially. Similar to how Palin has used violent rhetoric.
And the reason that I do not even remotely buy your argued metaphorical interpretation is because there is no such history of it being used in that way. Was Rosa Parks using her Second Amendment Rights? Was Martin Luther King, Jr.? What peaceful efforts that included citizen involvement and solidarity to oppose genuine tyranny were ever described as utilizing one’s Second Amendment Rights?