And part of the reason why is that I wanted to be clear I wasn't saying something like "kill them before they kill us111". Despite the fact that I was and am genuinely afraid of being murdered for my politics; when dozens of kids are murdered for the same politics just down the road from you it tends to have that effect. It was the worst shooting massacre in the history of the world, so don't tell me "your side does it, too" because that wouldn't justify it even if it were true, but it's NOT true and we both know it.

As to the rhetoric itself, it's VERY hard to avoid ANY language that CAN have a violent meaning; I know, because I habitually make that effort for that reason. Equating "beat them" with "don't retreat, reload" seems a bit of a stretch to me, particularly from parties who habitually invoke martial imagery (sometimes comically, as in the case of the Paul Revere reference). "Agressive sports references" are perfectly fine; explicitly violent military imagery is not, because it suggests not just confrontation or high emotion, but actual violence. "Beat" and "defeat" can and do have non-violent literal meanings; "don't retreat, reload", "lock and load" and crosshairs (or bullseyes) have no non-violent literal meaning.

I'm not saying people should avoid anything that can POSSIBLY have a literally violent meaning; again, I know from experience that's simply not an option, particularly not in terms of a competitive contest. I am saying that they should exercise at least a LITTLE self restraint, a little common sense, and not use strongly violent imagery when they know there are plenty of whackjobs out there waiting to take them literally. If they did, maybe they wouldn't so often need to preemptively deny accusations of responsibility for those whackjobs, sometimes even without waiting to be accused. It's not always easy to exercise caution and restraint, but expecting it from public servants isn't (or shouldn't) be expecting too much. Once again, if you can find an example of me using the kind of violently imagery I've so long condemned I'll own up to it, take my lumps and apologize if only to clarify that violence is never justified except in proportionate defence to violence, but I'm still waiting for such an example to substantiate charges of my hypocrisy.