Angle's remarks about the Second Amendment and Reid came earlier this year on a conservative radio talk show, "The Lars Larson Show." She said that "if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, 'My goodness what can we do to turn this country around? And I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."
She did not explain what she meant by "Second Amendment remedies" in Tuesday's interview.
59 comments
2nd Amendment: An amendment to the US constitution that allows unimpeded access to guns for essentially anybody in the entire USA.
Harry Reid: Democratic Senate Majority Leader.
Angle is saying "Oh gosh durn them thar democrats! Folks better stockpile guns and ammo so we can kill the libruls, take back America and turn it into a 3rd world nation!"
"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."
Doesn't mention political assassination anywhere. Sorry to burst your little bubble of idiocy
It's ironic that people like this tend to deny evolution, since they are the most compelling evidence for the fact that we are derived from more primitive forms of ape.
Of course she wants to go around shooting people; apes are aggressively territorial creatures, humans included. The sad thing is that people tend to imagine that whatever emotion pops into their mind must somehow be justified, so when Sharron Angle's primate brian generates psychopathic hatred for "the other", she assumes that it MUST be a justified emotion, because she doesn't understand her own origins.
I don't really think there's any ambiguity in the phrases "Second Amendment remedies" and "take Harry Reid out." Especially when the two phrases are juxtaposed.
It's a death threat and needs to be taken seriously.
Well, that is her opponent. Not enough evidence to say she was calling for his assassination. probably an unfortunate choice of words.
edit - I was drunk when I wrote this (and I do drink and post often btw). So that pretty much explains it.
Could someone please find an alternate interpretation to the term "Second Amendment remedies?"
Because I cannot stomach the thought that a high-ranking politician in our country is calling on members of the public to assassinate their rivals in my country.
@ The L
Sorry. To those of us not in America it is very ambiguous.
Does she mean to take him out on a trip, for tea, to see Great Aunt Maude?
Or is this a death threat? If it is, why is she not already behind bars?
As a Brit, I can say that though I don't know who Reid is, I certainly know what the Second Amendment is, due to... I don't know, being vaguely aware of what's going on in the wider world?
It states, if I remember right, "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."
I don't think there's really any room for ambiguity there? "Take [someone] out" combined with a reference to guns... I honestly cannot see another interpretation of that.
Fuck you, that's not the way democracy is supposed to work. We dealt with 8 years of Dubbya AND a Republican congress without attempting to assassinate any of them despite all the damage they caused, why can't you ultra conservitards just suck it up until the next election like we had to?
@XotanOr is this a death threat? If it is, why is she not already behind bars?
Notice how the threat was phrased:if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, 'My goodness what can we do to turn this country around? And I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."
She's saying that this is what people are saying, not what she is saying so she is implying that this isn't her idea, which is a sneaky way of making a death threat without having to take personal responsibility for it and it also makes it seem like many people agree.
"She said that "if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, 'My goodness what can we do to turn this country around? And I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.""
Probably not the best way to phrase that, given the topic of debate.
"She did not explain what she meant by "Second Amendment remedies" in Tuesday's interview."
I'd be more interested in seeing her explain the "take Harry Reid out" bit myself.
JC Denton: "In a democracy, armed rebellion is criminal, not political."
Joe Greene: "Rebellion, as the Declaration of Independence tells us, is not only our "right" but our "duty" when we have suffered "a long train of abuses and usurpations."
Funny how people like this seem to be in favor of taking over the government by force, yet they claim that the Democrats and President Obama in particular are guilty of treason.
But I think it's fairly obvious that Angle is pandering to the tea party movement.
She's revised her comment [about 2nd amendment remedies to take out Harry Reid] to say she meant 'take out... of office'.
@ Dionysos
Thanks. That's a very fine line. In other countries even a veiled threat like that will get you locked up to answer for it. How liberal then America is, for all the screaming otherwise.
All the same, I'd feel more comfortable if people like Angle that were subjected to psychiatric examination and had gun embargo imposed on them.
I see a lot of non-americans asking what is Harry Reid and the Second Amendment.
If you want to understand the retardation of American fundies, start googleing. This is a highly concentrated example of it.
Harry Reid is the leader of the Democratic party in the senate. He is also a senator from Nevada. That makes him a target for fundie dumbshittery.
Two candidates from the Republic party challenged him. One was Sue Lowden who became famous for solving Americas health care problems by proposing to pay doctors with chickens. The other was Angle. She won the primary election, so instead of paying doctors with farm products we will shoot Harry Reid.
The campaigns of both of these people are full of FSTDT worthy material. Angle proposes to not allow abortion in case of rape, because the rape was gods plan. She wants to shut down social security and medicare but has the sense to use different words so she doesn't lose the election right then and there. She thinks it would be a good idea to outlaw alcohol in spite of the spectacular failure the last time we tried it. (google prohibition)
The Second Amendment is a fundie fetish in America. There is a terrorist watch list where people on it have their bank accounts and travel monitored, they can't buy explosives or chemicals used to make them etc.
Someone in the Obama white house suggested they not be allowed to buy assault rifles but the fundies shot that down because the Second Amendment says anyone can have a gun. These are the same fundies who think we should shoot everyone who looks like an arab.
Grab some popcorn and your googler and watch the show.
Nah, this is a Reid conspiracy!
Senator Reid invented Sharron Angle to win the Nevada election without too much stress or expending too much energy. It's so obvious, people! No one can be as dumb and clueless as this sockpuppet "Sharron Angle" makes herself out to be. It's all an act.
She's probably just some aspiring starlet (definitely past her prime) plucked from the chicken farm and promised a chorus line slot at Caesar's.
I'm about as left-wing as they come, but I don't think this gaffe is necessarily damning. I would paraphrase her comment like so:
From the standpoint of congressional public relations, this isn't that controversial an opinion-- just one phrased in an incredibly awkward way by an amazingly crazy candidate.
@Xotan
Thanks. That's a very fine line.
I agree, and the talking heads are very good at skirting that line without ever explicitly crossing it. Usually they take advantage of technicalities such as the one used here.
In other countries even a veiled threat like that will get you locked up to answer for it.
To be fair, you can make a veiled or implied threat and be locked up for it though our laws are a lot more lenient about it.
How liberal then America is, for all the screaming otherwise.
Actually, I think all of this screaming basically goes to show how desperate the ultra-conservatives are as they watch society become less and less like their fantasies of times that never were. Yes, they've won some battles but they're losing the war and are frantically shooting ammo left and right in desperation.
All the same, I'd feel more comfortable if people like Angle that were subjected to psychiatric examination and had gun embargo imposed on them.
I agree 100%. Unfortunately, we'd have to establish that this person is a threat and as long as she takes advantage of technicalities that'll be difficult to do.
Crime Statistics > Murders with firearms (per capita) (most recent) by country shows:
Rank Countries Amount
People living in civilized first world countries have around 80-95% less chance of getting killed by a crazy gun-nut.
She's so TRAITOROUUUUUUUUS (Traitorous)
<Insert rest of song, because... Meh, effort>
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.
To say that there should be a "second amendment remedy" to something means that guns and violence should be used.
She said that "if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, 'My goodness what can we do to turn this country around?
So what is she saying? Is she advocating armed revolution? What, besides the fact that maybe 10% of the lunatic-fringe right-wing loonies may agree, isn't this considered sedition, which includes:
"whoever ... shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any language intended to incite, provoke, or encourage resistance to the United States ... shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or the imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both ..."
@Reverend Jeremiah
What is fundy about this? Nothing!
So why is it on the board?
Uh, how about the fact that "second amendment remedy" and "take Harry Reid out" imply they want to kill Harry Reid? How the hell is that NOT fundie?
And there are assholes that are going to vote this bitch into the U.S. Senate.
She also thinks the Separation of Church and State is not mandated by the Constitution.
We are fucked. The largest thermonuclear arsenal in the world is on the verge of coming under the control of a bunch of right wing fundamentalist lunatics.
I'm beginning to think I better start exercising my 2nd amendment rights.
@Reverend Jeremiah
"A crowd of would-be assasins being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I think that's what it said. Or maybe it was "A well regulated militia being necessary..." I get those two confused all the time.
When someone who is political makes such a statement (as Angle has done) it is worrying. The gun has played a major role in American politics, not least in the assassination of presidents. So the wonder is that America does not appear to have a legal structure in place that requires people who make such statements to explain exactly what their comment means. It is a close to a death threat as would satisfy courts in other countries where the gun is not as freely available as in America.
Perhaps there is the kernel of a solution to guns' availability already there in the Second Amendment. I'm no lawyer, but I wonder if ownership/holding of a gun could legally, and constitutionally be made contingent upon being a member of a properly constituted militia, operating under military discipline and subsidiary to the US army, perhaps as a reserve force? Sadly I don't know enough about the US and its constitution to be able to say if something like this would stick. But I have the impression that the Second Amendment seems to envisage membership of some kind of disciplined body, not just an unattached citizen.
@ Xotan
The argument that that the 2nd amendment applies to state organized forces such as the National Guard has been around for a while and had some adherents in the 1960s & 1970s. But I think, I'm not sure but I think, its been rejected by the Supreme Court.
It's certainly been rejected by the Right Wing wackos that wield so much power in the U.S. today.
The US Constitution sucks donkey balls and needs to be completely overhauled.
The insanity of arming a population like in the US is seen in any US city morgue. I hope you all are prepared to pay the price of owning guns - your own or your loved ones lives. And when someone in your family gets killed by a gun, I hope you throw a second amendment party to celebrate the deadly shooting and if I hear one fucking complaint I will go postal on your sorry ass!
When did this become about gun rights, and not about some self-righteous wingnut?
A gun can be put on a table, and harm no one. It is only when a nutcase pulls the trigger at someone that it becomes dangerous.
I am all for people being free to get guns legally. But I am not for nutcases like Sharron Angle trying to goad people into shooting someone.
Headache: "I hope you all are prepared to pay the price of owning guns."
Most of us are. In the same way the majority of us are willing to "pay the price" and not use the power of government to impose our will in regards to dozens of other things that we can do but don't really "need". Whether it's tobacco use (over 400,00 deaths annually), alcohol (over 16000 annually just from car crashes), motorcycles (around 5,000 annually), swimming pools (over 3000 annually), or firearms* (over 25,000 annually).
If it involves allowing the populace to do or own what they want and paying for the consequences you can probably sign me up.
Note* Over half of firearms statistics are suicides. Gang on gang violence, people shot in self defense, and people shot by law enforcement are included.
What Sharron doesn't realize is that the same law gives those "Liberals" the same rights.
We in the UK live perfectly well without guns. The fact I can continue to walk down the street and not be caught in the crossfire of a drive-by is proof of that.
After all, I have a greater chance of not being hit by a stone or knife thrown at a distance, than a bullet fired at me. Oh, and before anyone mentions it:
Dunblane: 1996
Rothbury: 2010
Not exactly everyday shooting atrocities. Guns being banned. We're still here. Pun extremely intended.
NRA take note. Then Sharron Angle wouldn't be able to say what she did.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
