What exactly did Sharron Angle mean we she said they might need "2nd Admendment Remedies"?

Words have consequences. Sick people will react to those teabaggers and more deaths will occur.

It was a wildly foolish and irresponsible thing to say. Sadly, the lunatic right these days has been spewing lots of foolish and irresponsible crap--without, yet, having to pay much penalty.

Angle is not much of a thinker, so pondering what she "meant" might be a futile exercise. The fact that she got to close to the U.S. Senate is chilling. The woman she beat in the primary was perfectly reasonable and could have easily defeated Harry Reid.

What is interesting is how right wingers view an insanity defense as a liberal BS way of escaping responsibility for one's actions. But, when someone acts on right wing incitements to violence, that person is unstable and could not possibly be influenced by right wing rhetoric.

Hey old timer...ever listen to Mike Malloy? Were you paying attention in 2004 when Democrats put targets on campaign maps targeting Republican candidates? Did you see Democrat Joe Manchin's add where he put a target on the Healthcare bill and fired a rifle at it? How about the 8 years of Buck Fush and much much worse things, the book AND movie depicting his assasination? Did you hear the cheers from the Daily Kos and other sites every time Cheney had a heart issue? Did you hear Van Jones, Rev Wright, Piven and other leftists calling for revolution in the streets and Europeon style violence to make it's way here? Did you catch Sarah Palin's effigy hanging by a noose in West Hollywood? Lunatic right my ass you freaking depraved, irresponsible fool!!!! Go right ahead and pick out Ms Angle's foolish comments, but by FAR the hateful rhetoric comes from leftists. The examples of which could fill freaking VOLUMES! Knock it off! Do you have a penalty to pay by spewing such nonsense. Please....

Precious Roy wrote:

What is interesting is how right wingers view an insanity defense as a liberal BS way of escaping responsibility for one's actions. But, when someone acts on right wing incitements to violence, that person is unstable and could not possibly be influenced by right wing rhetoric.

I can't remember the last time I heard of bleeding heart right wingers coming to the aid of an insane criminal. I think you'll see the insane left wingers coming to this criminal's aid to make sure he gets to spend the rest of his days in the federal country club watching tv, exercising and reading, instead of frying in the electric chair as he justly should.

I bet outlawing swords during the Middle Ages would have prevented the Crusades, and any and all murders that took place then as well.

So, are you saying that what Sharon Angle said was OK? I'm confused.

I would suggest that a "target" is a different symbol than a cross hair in scope. I have instructed my runners that we have a target on our backs and that connotation is far less menacing than someone having a scope (gun implied) honing in you.

Captain Kirk wrote:

Precious Roy wrote:

What is interesting is how right wingers view an insanity defense as a liberal BS way of escaping responsibility for one's actions. But, when someone acts on right wing incitements to violence, that person is unstable and could not possibly be influenced by right wing rhetoric.

I can't remember the last time I heard of bleeding heart right wingers coming to the aid of an insane criminal. I think you'll see the insane left wingers coming to this criminal's aid to make sure he gets to spend the rest of his days in the federal country club watching tv, exercising and reading, instead of frying in the electric chair as he justly should.

Yeah, sorry but it isn't a simple one to one issue. Conservatives claim that the shooter was unstable and mentally ill and, thus, could not have been inspired by their not so very veiled incitements to violence. But when someone is able in a court of law to prove the same in order to meet the legal definition of insanity, conservatives can't stand it. Well, if someone who hears voices in their head and cannot differentiate between reality and their own dillusions can be criminally culpable for their actions, that same person could certainly be inspired by right wing incitements to violence. Sorry I can't put it in talk radio terms that you can understand.

If it wasn't for guns, Hitler would have finished the job.

True Story wrote:

If it wasn't for guns, Hitler would have finished the job.

Nor would he have started the job in the first place.

mez wrote:

Go right ahead and pick out Ms Angle's foolish comments, but by FAR the hateful rhetoric comes from leftists.

mez you've said a lot of dumb things on letsrun, but that's not only dumb it's a flat out lie.

You right wing nut-bags can't have it both ways. You spend half your time going on and on about how the left is a bunch of Volvo driving, latte drinking namby-pambys that spend all their time sitting around singing kum-ba-yah. Now you're saying that a limp-wristed rainbow coalition is spewing hate and driving fear into the hearts of all you ignorant wing-nuts. You need to zip your twat lips shut and grow a pair. What a whining sissy.

How many gun-totin' left-wing malicias are there? HMMM? How many left-wingers walked around with signs that said "by the ballot or the bullet"? How many left-wingers walked around toting guns at political rallies? How many with their "refresh the tree of liberty with blood" sign? The right-wing lives and breaths hate-speech. Anyone that denies that is a liar.

Malicias?

right to bear arms

The Answer My Friend wrote:

Malicias?

Mexican militias. ;-)