Sharron Angle, the Tea-Party-GOP candidate for the U.S. Senate from Nevada is out of her mind with her notion that it is proper to apply 2nd Amendment remedies to political problems. The lady is calling for the use of guns to settle domestic political disputes. This is koo koo land stuff. She keeps defending the right of people whom are upset with their elected political officials to turn the guns on them, literally.

Last night Rachel Maddow asked this question, "What is over the line?" in politics these days. From the transcript --

What is over the line? What qualifies as an unacceptable position for a major party nominee to hold in this year's elections? What earns a reprimand from the party? What earns other politicians distancing themselves from a position that is too extreme? What's too extreme? This year a lot of positions that used to be politically over the line seem to be viable. positions like social security should be abolished. Women should be forced to bear their rapist's babies. The civil rights act of 1964 was a bad idea. Those positions, despite what they've been seen as in previous years, this year aren't necessarily seen as too controversial. but is there anything that is too far out there, too over the line? How about candidates saying if conservatives don't get what they want in this year's elections we should expect conservatives to use guns instead to get what they want?

Ms Maddow focused on Sharron Angle. Other GOP-Tea Partiers on the November ballot have similar wacko ideas.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy