Er… I just picked two high visible, political, non-pure-fact instances. There are many others.
I was joking. Good on you for admitting you were wrong and changing your mind on those, BTW.
Are you sticking to your 2nd-amendment-remedies-as-metaphor bullshit?
Why are you suggesting you deserve credit for changing positions you never should have held in the first place?
When you came into this thread, your intent wasn’t “well, let me read what people have to say and form an opinion about it” - it wasn’t even “let me find where people say things I think are wrong and argue with them” - but rather, it was “no matter what, defend anything from anyone right-wing and be an apologist for any of their behavior”
The reason I can say this is because you seriously tried to propose the notion that “second amendment solution” was a metaphor for “citizen involvement and solidarity”. No reasonable person can do anything but laugh at this suggestion. I do think you to be a reasonable person, when not being blatantly biased - and you are certainly smart enough to know better. But you choose to make that argument, and stick with it, in what I can only deduce to be a rabidly partisan desire to defend your side no matter how wrong it is or how absurdly far you have to stretch it.
That is absolutely rabid partisanship above anything else, and it’s a shame that you waste your credibility saying stuff like that.
I realize that after a thread goes on for a few hundred posts few care about latecomers, and given the low opinion some have of me you’ll care even less, but I’ll state my opinion: I’m on record as a strong personal protection and pro-Second Amendment rights poster here, and I cringed the first time I heard “Second Amendment Remedies.” Applied in a political context, I can only read it as meaning “use arms to stop tyranny”, the definition of “tyranny” of course being apparently very flexible, but the implication being “liberals.”
It was an abominable turn of phrase, and don’t look to me to defend it for a second.
Right here. Me. Been there, done that.
Honestly? No. You are stubborn though, JUST like I am.
It seems to me that there are two basic possibilities:
A) Angle was being literal, and that she hoped/wanted people to pick up arms and take back the congress using guns
B) Angle was NOT being literal, which means she was being metaphorical. That she did not plan or desire that anyone would pick up a gun and shoot congresspeople.
Do you really think that A is more likely?
Can you suggest *what *metaphor she might have meant? If you can, do you really think it’s a reasonable possibility at all, much less the most reasonable?
Come on now.
I was thinking about all this (no jokes - yet). What bugs me about all this really is not the cartoons and grid squares and targets. That can be “wiped out” easy.
“We have decided that in light of recent events and the tragedy in Arizona that such graphics and references would be in poor taste. So we have taken those things off our website.”
There, you have acknowledged that yes they were there, you have said they are NOW in poor taste and have said they are gone. None of that other nonsense. Show some class, even if it is being faked.
Is that So difficult???
I think it was a very loose metaphor, a sloppy one even, indicating that if this wave of Democrat rule continues (bills being passed without being read and us knowing what’s in it and debated, etc.) that people will be pissed and rally together to make sure it stops. I take “second amendment solutions” to be sloppy, tough-talking way to point to the power that ultimately resides with the people. I believe this to be—far and away—the more likely interpretation. If not, then it’s A, the literal meaning, which seems beyond the pale. As far as I know, she has no history of being violent, or advocating violence. If, on the other hand, the words came from someone with a history of say, a leader of organized crime, I’d be much more inclined to go with A.
Do you really think that A is the more likely explanation? If so, why?
Guess that ammo is fucking metaphor too. :rolleyes:
CMC fnord!
“Bear arms” means “rally together”, huh? Ri-i-ight.
Even the Tea Party who put Angle forward as their kind of leader isn’t trying that desperate post-hoc line themselves.
Or, C) She intended to mobilize ignorant conservatives with scarey talk about tyrants, domestic enemies and second amendment remedies, without regard for unintended consequences of invoking violent imagery.
I think it’s more likely that it’s
C: She is a complete fucking moron, unfit to serve in office, and utterly clueless about how what she said would be interpreted by sane people or misinterpreted by crazy people.
I vote for C.
This.
I too am a very staunch believer in people’s right to own firearms. I believe it’s often essential for self and home protection, especially in rural areas (I’m from West Virginia), not to mention the interests of hunters and other sportsmen.
I’ve repeatedly put my life on the line in war zones in defense of my country, and was damn glad to have a weapon.
And yet, I have no intention to use guns to overthrow the US government. Twenty five years ago, I took an oath stating that I would not advocate violent overthrow of the US government, and have never had a problem going along with it. *Even when people I didn’t vote for were in charge. *
If anyone disagrees with me on this, it’s just another example of how diverse political culture is here in America.
But we’re on different sides of the issue.
If you ever back up your conviction with actions, don’t expect me to come to your defense.
But I think I might be able to refer you to a very good lawyer.
This “plus 1”. I also have a long record of being pro gun and saying so (which anyone who cares can probably check) and was never bashful about it. Yet, as should be obvious, I am also hopping mad at this stupidity.
I don’t think we need a head count of people who are pro-gun yet don’t advocate killing your political opponents. It would suggest that’s the default, or at least a common position, that we need to distance ourselves from…