Ever since that phrase was used by Sharon Angle, I was curious exactly what it meant. Would you say the assassination of Representatives is an example of what a second amendment solution to political issues in this country would look like?
Well, here are Angle's words regarding it:
Angle: I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry. This not for someone who's in the military. This not for law enforcement. This is for us. And in fact when you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical...
...Well it's to defend ourselves. And you know, I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.
Bolded the portions that mattered. So, does this fit with what she's talking about. Well, first off...we have
zero indication so far that this had anything to do or was motivated in any way with "stopping tyranny". So right off, it would be extremely ignorant and premature to label this as being what Angle was saying that she "Hopes we're not getting to" since there's no indication at all as to what the man's motives was.
Now, assuming that somehow it does come out that he THOUGHT that he was fighting back against tyranny, that in and of itself doesn't really fit the bill either. She talks in plurals regarding the citizenry, about "us", and about stopping tyranny. The death, no matter how tragic, of one congressman is hardly a means in any way shape or form of "stopping tyranny".
It would seem then, given the actual comment she made and the context of what she was referring too, she is speaking to a much larger and collective attitude of large scale armed revolt against the government. Where large amounts of citizenry attempt to overthrow the government that has became tyrannical. This is a far cry from a lone gunmen, whose motives are completely unknown at this person, attempting to kill someone whose death would do little at all in regards to stopping or significantly changing the government from being a tyranny (if it was one).
So no, I don't think this is along the lines of what she was talking about, nor do I think its realistic nor even intelligent to suggest she was promoting or suggesting that violence SHOULD happen when she clearly states she the hope that we don't have that sort of thing happen.