Kirk pointed out that the answer to the violence and hatred that caused the assassin (and his potential co-conspirators) to take her husband's life is not to return that hatred in kind.

“The answer to hate is not hate. The answer we know from the gospel is love and always love. Love for our enemies and love for those who persecute us,” she said.

Donald Trump, also speaking at the memorial to Charlie Kirk, apologized to Mrs. Kirk, but said he did not quite agree with her.

Describing Charlie Kirk as "one of the brightest lights of our times, a giant of his generation, and above all, a devoted husband, father, son, Christian and Patriot," the President went on to describe his murderer as "a radicalized, cold-blooded monster."

He then explained that he holds a different view on his opponents than Charlie did. 

Kirk, "did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them," the President said. "That's where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent, and I don't want the best for them. I am sorry, Erika."

In these two responses we have in a nutshell the entire conundrum of coexistence with the radical left. They are willing to kill conservatives for their ideology. Conservatives just want to speak freely and to change minds. 

We should be ready and eager to forgive those who want to kill us. Like Trump, however, we can't help but feel rage over the incessant attacks from the left on conservatives. And, no one living knows more about those attacks, personally, than the President, having been targeted by lies and lawfare for years, he has also been mere millimeters from being assassinated himself, having survived at least three attempts on his life.

The violence from the radical extreme leftwing is no longer tolerable. Conservative Americans who merely seek dialogue and hope to live in peace while working to explain the core concepts of American conservatism should not have to live with the constant threat of violence and attacks against themselves and their families.

And, yet, this has been the reality of the situation now for many years.

The extreme left has waged a low-key Cold War against the American Constitution and law and order in this country for decades. Most of the time they have been in the ascendency in both political power and cultural influence. As the result of decades of argument, activism and political activity, conservative and constitutionalist Americanism is now on the upswing in both political representation and in cultural influence. As a result, the extreme left is moving from Cold War tactics to hot war activity. 

Though violence and intimidation are nothing new for the left-wing agitators, the assassinations of Charlie Kirk and of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, along with the assassination attempts on President Trump's life, are indications that extremists on the left are ready to kill their opponents. 

Unless something changes, the political left threatens an escalating campaign of violence and terror against innocent Americans. What can be done about this that is in keeping with Christian ethics and republican virtue?

In addition to preemptive forgiveness, the response to this must include the terror of the law.

First, it is absolutely necessary for both states and the federal government to recognize the central importance of the Second Amendment and armed self-defense. 

When criminals and terrorists alike believe their victims to be unarmed they understand themselves to have the upper hand against their prey. They are already willing to commit a crime, even murder, and are not terrified of the law. Their targets, meanwhile, are unarmed because they believe being armed to be potentially immoral at the least and, in many cases, understand that the law will not protect them, the Second Amendment notwithstanding, from being persecuted for carrying weapons and potentially using them in self-defense. The vast majority of Americans are, as a result, unwilling to carry the tools of self-defense because it is they who are fearful of the law.

This situation must be reversed. There is a natural right to self-defense that belongs to every individual that flows from the right to life itself. As a consequence, every person has the right to own and to carry with them the tools necessary to defend their life from the predators who may wish to take it from them.

People should be able to carry those tools surreptitiously if they wish, or carry them openly if they wish. 

Under the Second Amendment, both open and concealed carry should be allowed to every American. The terror of the law, should no longer prevent Americans from self-defense. 

Second, the terror of the law should fall heavily on the minds of those willing to commit terroristic atrocities and murder of the innocent. 

The death penalty may be insufficient for this but alternatives are often opposed on as being "cruel and unusual." The idea of "cruel and unusual punishment" as prohibited by the Eighth Amendment is often interpreted to mean that treatment of criminals should not exceed certain norms that are mostly uniform with the exception of duration of incarceration and the death penalty.

In the case of political terrorism of the sort used against Charlie Kirk, theoretically the death penalty is of disproportionate lenience. This is because the political or sometimes religious terrorist is willing to die -- or perhaps even eager to die -- as a consequence of their crime.

Conditions of incarceration as punishment for these crimes must be harsh, and be absent of any and all luxuries, however minor. Food, sleep, and shelter must be provided, along with basic medical care, but the incarceration should be accompanied by extremely hard and nearly unbearable physically degrading labor. 

Moreover, that those so punished live a base and dismal life with unremitting hardship and no possibility of escape should be made to some degree a public spectacle to instill doubt and fear into the minds of extremists who may wish to engage in their own campaign of violence against the innocent. 

The terror of the law must be made to weigh heavily on the minds of those who would commit the worst atrocities against the innocent. 

Here, as in so many relevant matters, it is to Thomas Jefferson that we can look for guidance. The author of the Declaration of Independence is widely considered to be also the author of Bill 64 which was submitted to the Virginia Assembly in 1779. The aim of the bill was to moderate punishments that had far too often come to include the death penalty, and Jefferson sought to replace that final punishment with those deemed more proportionate to the crime.

Bill 64 described the various punishments that should be meted out to those convicted of murder:

If a man do levy war against the Commonwealth or be adherent to the enemies of the commonwealth giving to them aid or comfort in the commonwealth, or elsewhere, and thereof be convicted of open deed, by the evidence of two sufficient witnesses, or his own voluntary confession, the said cases, and no others, shall be adjudged treasons which extend to the commonwealth, and the person so convicted shall suffer death by hanging, and shall forfiet his lands and goods to the Commonwealth.

If any person commit Petty treason, or a husband murder his wife, a parent his child, or a child his parent, he shall suffer death by hanging, and his body be delivered to Anatomists to be dissected.

Whosoever committeth murder by poisoning shall suffer death by poison.

Whosoever committeth murder by way of duel, shall suffer death by hanging; and if he were the challenger, his body, after death, shall be gibbeted. He who removeth it from the gibbet shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; and the officer shall see that it be replaced.

Whosoever shall commit murder in any other way shall suffer death by hanging.

And in all cases of Petty treason and murder one half of the lands and goods of the offender shall be forfieted to the next of kin to the person killed, and the other half descend and go to his own representatives. Save only where one shall slay the Challenger in at duel, in which case no part of his lands or goods shall be forfieted to the kindred of the party slain, but instead thereof a moiety shall go to the Commonwealth.

The same evidence shall suffice, and order and course of trial be observed in cases of Petty treason as in those of other murders.

Whosoever shall be guilty of Manslaughter, shall for the first offence, be condemned to hard labor for seven years, in the public works, shall forfiet one half of his lands and goods to the next of kin to the person slain; the other half to be sequestered during such term, in the hands and to the use of the Commonwealth, allowing a reasonable part of the profits for the support of his family. The second offence shall be deemed Murder.

These punishments, acceptable to one of the chief Founders of the Republic, generally exceed the punishments used in the modern day. But, they are not dispropportionate to the magnitude of the crimes involved. 

Note also that hard labor was offered as a potential punishment for manslaughter. By that standard, a life of hard labor with no possibility of parole or escape would not be dispropportionate for a killer who takes an innocent life. 

Such a punishment may, however, prove a powerful disincentive to those who may otherwise feel that the current criminal penalties that they may face for their crime would be tolerable. 

"Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord." In keeping with the Gospel, our nation should follow the next verse in Romans as well: "But if thy enemy be hungry, give him to eat; if he thirst, give him to drink. For doing this, thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head." (Romans 12:20).

To protect innocent Americans from further terrorist mayhem, let's encourage citizens to defend themselves against predators and terrorists in order to cast doubt and fear of their fellow citizens into the minds of the criminals. And let's keep the convicts alive and their hard-labor existence well-known so the monsters in our midst come to understand that they will suffer for their crimes if they choose to violate the lives and natural rights of citizens.