If a person espoused and encouraged assassination as a means to achieve his political or philosophical goals then it's difficult to see how he could be surprised if he himself were to be assassinated or affected by violence. In a sense that would just be logical cause and effect.

But to my knowledge Kirk never did and 'live by the sword, die by the sword' wouldn't apply here. In fact I can't think of an instance in recent history where this would have applied - the logical implications inherent in such rhetoric are obvious to most people immediately. Even the Russians as a general rule don't murder their exiled former rulers - the new Czar figures he could be next, and wouldn't want to set a precedent.

What does 'preaching violence' mean to you? Because to some people, simply supporting the talking points of the political party they don't like counts as violence.

Your comment HERE could even be interpreted by some as preaching for violence - because you're implying that there's a line you can cross where the opinions you share justify your death.