The Return Of “Second Amendment Remedies”

The end of the 2010 election cycle began to descend into chaos as violence broke out all over the campaign trail.  Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle was advocating taking “second amendment remedies” if the wrong candidates were elected, advocates for opposing parties were stomped on the head by paid political staff, and threats to actual candidates and politicians abounded.

After the assassination attempt on Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in January of 2011, however, a large portion of the violent rhetoric disappeared.  But as election politics begin to get into swing again, the “second amendment remedies” talk is returning.

It started just a few months ago, when Oklahoma Republican John Sullivan claimed the only way to get the Ryan Budget passed is if a few Democrats were killed.  But now it’s once more left the legislature and is spreading to the campaign trail.

A Virginia Republican party newsletter is calling for “armed revolution” if President Barack Obama is reelected, saying he is an “ideologue unlike anything world history has ever witnessed or recognized,” and claiming that,” [W]e shall not have any coarse [sic] but armed revolution should we fail with the power of the vote in November. This Republic cannot survive for 4 more years underneath this political socialist ideologue.”

The party claims they don’t endorse the idea themselves, and that the author’s opinions are just his own. But it’s not as if this is the only example.

Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill is in a highly watched race to keep her seat, and Republicans are trying to do everything they can to get her defeated.  But one Tea Party activist has said they need to go even farther, and “Kill The Claire Bear.”

“We have to kill the Claire Bear ladies and gentlemen,” GOP activist Scott Boston said at a rally. “She walks around like she’s some sort of Rainbow Brite Care Bear or something but really she’s an evil monster.”

Boston claims he didn’t mean it literally, he only meant that it was time to end her political persona.  But it was seen as enough of a threat to garner extra security for the Democratic Senator, and to get even some Republican candidates to condemn the words.  Potential GOP nominee John Brunner said, “This type of rhetoric is unconscionable and I reject this kind of politics. Comments like these have no place in this U.S. Senate campaign, or any other campaign in this country, because they don’t represent American values.”

Whenever this type of comment occurs, the instigator always says he or she didn’t mean it.  And whenever real violence breaks out, it’s always a “lone wolf” who didn’t represent the rest of the group.

When are two and two finally going to be put together and we can admit that this rhetoric fans the flames that eventually become the real threats?  With 6 months until election day, let’s hope it’s soon.




Photo credit: Thinkstock


Huber F.
Huber F4 years ago


Jason Waldo
Past Member 5 years ago

The historic parallels are startling. Gridlocked Congress, polarizing politics over rights and freedoms, demonization of minorities, rampant nationalism, lack of compromise, all of this happened 1860. All we need now is a cane carrying Senator on a rampage on the Senate floor.

I think the right wing fascists would be very surprised at how much armed opposition they would encounter in an attempted armed takeover of the country.

Carl Oerke
Carl O5 years ago

The Republicans are talking about "Killing the Claire Bear." When I was younger we used to shoot a little at cans and bottles in the woods. So I can understand if someone would like to take some shots at Koch bottles. Bullets fly both ways when the rhetoric gets this nasty. Time to put an end to this kind of talk and duct tape Sharron Angle and Ted Nuggent's blowholes among others

Josephine T.
Josephine T5 years ago

Some progressives *are* armed. Not to stir up trouble, but to end it if need be. Why, yes, this country *has* gotten that bad.

Robert Fitzgerald

Our modern history is paralleling that of the late republic in Rome. Same directive energies that affect the collective.

The Gracchi brothers were two senators who advocated for land reform in the senate in order to help out the peasants and ex-soldiers who went landless because the senators were millionaires and owned of the land. They were afraid of losing what they had, and set about going after the Gracchi's. They were killed by their fellow senators for advocating for the people.

Republicans seem to be increasingly fearful of our present time period as an apocalypse of some type, and are trying by any means possible, even advocating violence and murder, to fight against the dreaded "satanic" liberal agenda of helping the poor and those in need, and re-establish a rigid Old Testament religious dictatorship so that God will not come down to smite us. This is a VERY real and VERY deep fear, and it is driving us to our own destruction.

Yes, these people mean exactly what they say, and it is not just a joke.

Charles P.
Charles P5 years ago

WOW!!! Treasonous comments go unpunished by the Constitution lovers. Nuff said.

Jeffrey H.
Jeffrey H.5 years ago

Remember, Republican tebagger Congressman Pete Sessions labelled himself and his fellow rethugs the "American Taliban" -- they hate America and representative democracy because people other than rich, white, conservative men have the same rights as they do.

Voter suppression is a major tactic of the Republican Party because the Party of the Rich (GOP = GREEDY Old Pricks) and their useful idiots couldn't get into elected public office and deny women, people of color, gays, the poor, and others their Constitutional and civil without it.
Talk about UNAmerican -- voter suppression is just that.
The Old Confederacy southern states aren't the only ANTI-American states which should be under the focused authority of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Barbara U.
Barbara U5 years ago

Sounds like they're advocating civil war. The repubs have done a great job at polarizing this country. Lies and propaganda falls from their mouths like diarrhea.

The Civil War polarized our country too (obviously). The conservative South (and yes I know they were democrats back then) believed it was their God-given right to enslave black folks. The liberal north, and Lincoln, who was a republican, believed slavery was wrong and inhumane.

It seems to me these Red states have not progressed much since the Civil War. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad, our country is split anyway. Let the Red states have their own conservative nation - they will end up like Somolia where church and state are one in the same, people running around with AK's because of "2nd Amendment Rights," women popping out baby after baby since God said to be fruitful and multply, only the wealthy could afford health care since it's socialism to provide healhcare for everyone. The Blue states would be the people for the people, while the Red states would be by the wealthy for the wealthy, send the peasents to mines to work.

Robert Ludwig
Robert Ludwig5 years ago

Gee, if only we had something like a Secret Service or an FBI to look into things like this. Instead we got Eric Holder.

John Mansky
John Mansky5 years ago

Thank you for the article...