Weak argument for violence

I’m not entirely sure why Cameron Schaeffer, in his recent column, finds it necessary to defend Gov. Matt Bevin’s comments about “spilling blood.” The governor said that he was referring to members of the military.

So he is calling the governor a liar, evidently. Or perhaps he is merely reflecting the confusion manifested on the right. He blames progressives for Bill of Rights amendments instigated and defended by conservatives and are most likely to be overturned by the future liberal Supreme Court justices that he fears.

Schaeffer says, “If a government agent gets killed trying to confiscate the gun of a law-abiding citizen, who initiated the violence?” It echoes the justification for violence by people who, for example, beat their wives and children: “Look what you made me do.”

Schaeffer has the freedom of speech to justify war against other citizens because they disagree with him if he wishes, but let’s remember that the two presidents who won the most popular votes in history were both named Barack Obama, and we are talking here about a lot of Americans.

Do any other people or groups around the world spring to mind that also think that this is justified?

This story was originally published October 13, 2016 at 7:44 PM with the headline "Weak argument for violence."