My take, FWIW: Angle wasn’t calling for Reid to be shot, but she was predicting, although not quite endorsing, armed violence, sooner or later, if Reid retained his seat and “Congress keeps going the way it is.”
And it’s absurd to read her use of the phrase “Second Amendment remedies” in context and think it means anything other than violent revolt.
I’ve been known to listen to metal, from way way back before it even had a name, back when the original Black Sabbath was still “trying to” invent it up to the current “Cookie Monster metal” variety.
FEAR ME!!!1111oneoneone
Limbaugh must be losing his grip on reality with that one. Explain, WHY does anyone take that guy serious??? :smack:
Sounds to me like she’s very concerned—afraid—that people are pissed off and "second amendment solutions might be in the country’s future. In even states that she hopes it’s NOT where we’re heading.
On review, that might very well have been the reason you posted what you did. Was it?
Because he is a light of sanity comapared to his audience.
No, I don’t, because I don’t think even she is that stupid.
What I do think she’s stupid enough to do is to use a euphemism (which can have no other interpretation than a call to arms, despite what **Bricker **says from deep in his own colon) without giving full weight to her words in some pseudo, tough-talking, Republican, Don’t Tread On Me, you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands, sort of way.
I posted to provide a little additional context for her use of the phrase. I think the third quote I posted comes closest to endorsement of “Second Amendment remedies” (as the next natural – or at least inevitable – step if the ballot box doesn’t work to oust Harry Reid), but I agree that her overall tone is not one of explicit approval of such tactics.
It seems to me to be fearmongering. What she appears to be saying is that if she is not elected, people will resort to armed insurrection.
She isn’t herself calling for armed insurrection, but she is threatening it as a consequence of not electing her.
I think “threatening” goes way to far. It also implies that she has some control of whether or not it will happen. I think “warning” is a better word, but in a way that she is merely an observer.
Yeah, but the “danger” here is, I assume, mostly a product of her imagination.
In that case, while I agree she’s not actually saying she will incite violence, I disagree that ‘threatening’ is inappropriate.
While is see “fear mongering”, I do maintain that “threatening” is flatly wrong. Even if she wanted Reid to get shot, got orgasms from fantasizing about it, she, I think you’d agree, 1) was not going to shoot him herself, nor 2) had the means to make the shooting happen. I think “threatening” implies that the person doing the threatening had the desire and means to follow through with the threat.
Noted with interest, the main thread from the Fort Hood shootings.
Posters are bending over backwards to assert that this was a nutcase, and that the shooter’s Muslim background might not have anything to do with anything. Best to wait and see, was the consensus, with a few people (like Diogenes) asserting confidently that Islam had nothing to do with it.
I guess we will just have to disagree about that.
My example (admittedly an extreme): if a politician were to say “vote for me - if you vote for my opponent, I’m really afraid my supporters will turn into zombies and eat your brains”, to my mind the politic is ‘threatening’ the voting public, even though s/he meets both your conditions. 
The reason: in spite of the fact that the politician is not threatening such brain-eating him or herself, or even saying s/he will encourage others to eat brains, s/he is saying that a dire consequence will occur if s/he’s not elected; that the dire consequence will arise because of her own support base; and the dire consequence is, in fact, not true - it is something s/he simply invented to scare people.
I’m contending that I don’t know if Angle was urging her listeners to shoot Reid, and if one of them did I would not have been surprised.
Mah heavy metal’s playin’ and Ah’m a firin’ mah lazors!!! 
Yeah, guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. But it’s not over a political point nor anything to do with the thread really. It cleanly has to do with the appropriate use of the word “threatening”. Thanks for the explanation, though.
So “our founding fathers put that amendment in there for a good reason” is not enough to conclude she’s advocating shooting her political opponent?
How about “I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out”?
How about this Manders guy? “If we needed it at any time in history, it might be now”. Granted, and as I’m sure our loveable right-wing lawyer would point out, technically in this case Angle doesn’t actually explicitly agree with Manders’ statement, though it sure sounds like the conversation is in the spirit of agreement.
Here’s a link with audio clips. (warning: Rachel Maddow).
I mean really, there’s no ambiguity here. I hardly know what more evidence anyone could want that Angle felt that violent revolt with guns was on the table and even desired (if she loses the election of course, which she did).
I DON’T believe she personally ever intended to be one of the shooters. I DO believe she was putting it out there to her base with more than a small wink.
The “Second Amendment solution” is probably not a metaphor, but metonymy. The concepts of the Second Amendment and gun violence aren’t similar, but in my interpretation, they are continguous. This is not a trivial distinction; the linguistic and cognitive difference is profound even if the line between them can be blurry. I definitely don’t think this is one of those cases. If you interpret the passage as metonymic, then the meaning becomes quite clear.
I don’t know what to think of Sharon Angel. OTOH, it’s hard to believe that she really wants people to take up arms against the government in this day and age and for what are common, everyday political disagreements. OTOH, we are left with her actual words, which basically says that she does. Political pandering certainly is one likely explanation, but I can’t think of any lower form of such pandering. She should be hounded out of the public sphere.
Isn’t she the one who also talked about bartering chickens for health care?
It’s hard to know whether she should be laughed out of the public discourse or booed out.
Why not, that’s where Bush lead us in Iraq.
If the party bigwigs do it, why not the small fry?