Sharron Angle was not specifically talking about her Senate race against Harry Reid when she mentioned “second amendment remedies” in that infamous interview. She was not calling for Harry Reid to be assassinated. She was discussing how Americans are not happy with the way they are being governed at the time she made the comment. The comment was meant to hint that Americans may need to use force or the threat of force to protect themselves from the government. It was not a metaphor. She was advocating the position that it might be necessary to form citizen militias to overthrow the government. The comment was clear and left no room for interpreting it any other way.
Likely true.
I kinda doubt the militia interpretation. When Americans talk in favour of the second amendment, don’t they tend to frame it more as the freedom to personally own guns, rather than the freedom to form militias?
Hey Mosier, since you are such a talented mind reader and have such perfect understanding there’s a few crimes I’d like you help in solving please…
That pretty clearly set up “Second Amendment remedies” as one choice, and voting Reid out of office as another. I mean, come on, there’s really not much room for honest quibbling there. If you want to state that she also was, if not advocating, at least condoning violence against the federal government, that seems well supported too. But it’s not an either/or sort of situation.
I don’t understand the point of this thread…kind of late, innit? Like 5 months late?
The 2nd Amendment hasn’t expired yet.
She was urging her supporters not to accept losing a democratic vote if/when that should happen, but to turn to violence instead.
Cross-posted from the Oakminster Haterz Thread:
Yes, of course literally, the phrase refers to arms. But that’s not how she meant it. She meant to refer to to purpose behind the Second Amendment, not the literal use of firearms… which is why I made a point of saying “metaphorically.” As in: the right to firearms is a METAPHOR for the right of the people to act against government they abhor.
If someone says that we need to clear out the dead wood in Washington DC this election, I assume no one fears that axe-wielding men and chainsaw bearing women will descend on the capital city – because that’s the way you clear out dead wood.
Like, by first amendment remedies? Or elections? (Oops, she deliberately contrasted second amendment remedies with free and fair elections.)
At the point where you’re pretezling yourself to pretend that remedies involving the second amendment don’t involve guns, it’s just silly. This sort of partisan nonsense serves no purpose. The dishonesty of your apologia is made even more evident by the context. She makes clear that she’s talking about how “the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry” and that it is “intended this to stop tyranny. This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical”.
This is not a metaphor. This is not an allusion.
And you are not honestly confused as to whether or not she was suggesting a first amendment remedy rather than a second amendment remedy, let alone whether or not a “second amendment remedy” is the same sort of a phrase as “dead wood”.
Bricker is going to beat this dead horse until it’s nothing but raw hide.
The Second Amendment says nothing about acting against the government. It says, and I quote: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Angle was being absolutely idiotic in floating inflammatory rhetoric that can have no other interpretation than, “Pick up a gun if you’re unhappy.”
Calling it a metaphor for challenging your elected officials non-violently is a pathetic attempt to cut away anything sinister sounding in it.
It’s like if I threatened you with a knuckle sandwich and then said, that’s just a metaphor for challenging your assertions.
Pathetic.
Right. Now try to tell the NRA that the second amendment is metaphorical and that as long as you can vote you own a metaphorical gun and don’t need to own a real one.
Sorry, Counselor, not buying it. If that was her true aim, there were dozens of ways she could’ve said it without using the symbolism of firearms.
That’s the neat thing about metaphoric speech: it can mean exactly what it needs to mean to its target audience, while offering built-in deniability for the speaker.
By using the term “right of the people to act,” are you using the term literally (as in, the people have the right to stage Macbeth as a way to convince the government to reform itself), or metaphorically (as in shooting government agents in the head)?
Why would I say that? A burglar is not likely to be dissuaded by my metaphorical gun, nor are any clay pigeons at the trap shoot. And I’m pretty confident that any deer I may go after aren’t going to lie down and expire peacefully if the weapon I aim at them is metaphorical.
OK. Then we’ll agree to disagree.
Actually, she first talked about “2nd Amendment remedies” in January 2010 on Lars Larson’s radio show (broadcast from Portland, OR). The full audio clip is here. You can clearly hear that she is, if not downright advocating, at least accepting of the idea of armed revolution against the federal government. She then uses what could charitably be called a poor choice of words in saying that she thinks the first thing people need to do to turn the country around is “to take Harry Reid out”. Those less charitably inclined could make a good argument that she seems to mean “murder Harry Reid”.
The quote supporting violent revolution was not intended as a factual statement.
If you listen to the clip (link provided in my previous post), you’ll see that she is clearly talking about an armed revolution against the US government. There’s no other reasonable interpretation given her words.
ETA: Here, I’ll help you out. You don’t even have to listen to it. I transcribed it.
Fair enough. I prefer Twenty-First Amendment remedies, personally.