it's amazing that you believe her words weren't designed to impassion her base, and they were merely the worried musings of a concerned woman.
Oh, I'm sure her words as a whole were meant to impassion her base. I think Barack Obama's words about bringing a gun to a knife fight and because he's heard philedelphians like a good brawl were meant to impassion his base as well. I don't think his words were literally suggesting that they should bring guns to political arguments or that they need to literally brawl with their opponents, just like I don't think Angle was suggesting to her supporters that they needed to actively collectively use their second amendment currently to "Defend" themselves against Tyranny.
There's a LARGE difference between impassioning ones base and suggesting things that are the opposite of what you've stated or meaning your words literally.
ask yourself, why would she even be concerned that "second amendment remedies" would occur?
Because the person asked her a question about her beliefs of what the second amendment believes. She gave that answer by pointing out her belief that the second amendment is for the citizens, and was put there by the founders to give citizens the ability to fight back and protect themselves against a tyrannical government.
This is an entirely legitimate and reasonable position to have imho, and historically backable.
However, if you make a statement like that, it begs for misinterprtation. As if by advocating for strong support of the second amendment, and believing that was the purpose of the second amendment, that you are therefore advocating for that to happen.
So when the person who was interviewing her tried to actually make it about
TODAY rather than simply theoritical, Angle made it a point to suggest that no, she hopes its NOT something that is necessary in todays society.
in fact, she blatantly stated that a loss by harry reid would relieve those worries, didn't she? really, wtf did THAT mean? she's bat **** nuts. i don't blame her for actions others might take, but it's dishonest to pretend her words don't arouse emotions.
Worries that Reid and others in the democrat party had been pushing for some time that somehow the Tea Party movement's rhetoric was causing "violence". If I remember correctly that comment came after the town halls and other such things when the accusations of such things really started heating up on the left.
Was it stupid to say it in the way she said it? Absolutely. Was her entire statement supposed to rouse emotions? Well...duh...anytime a politician speaks there's a 95% chance that its being done in a way that's hoping to rouse emotions. Was it literally advocating that "second amendment remedies" was a "solution" for our current modern political situation? Not unless you stretch it to an absolute extreme and add context based on nothing but ones own bias, dislike, or belief that the woman is "bat **** crazy".