I implied in an earlier post earlier today that havoc (or some related type of unpleasantness if you find “havoc” too hyperbolical) might ensue if our elected officials decide to ignore the preferences of most of their constituents and override Governor Nixon’s veto of SB656, legislation that would largely deregulate gun ownership as well as decriminalize impulsive gun violence via a stand-your-ground provision. I quoted reports that the NRA views this legislation as a big stakes issue, a reasonable stance since the organization’s purpose is to lobby for the gun industry’s bottom line and widespread adoption of legislation like SB656 would surely promote that goal.

But who else stands to gain? How does the NRA and their favored politicians get so many every day, never-gonna-get-rich-off-guns citizens to take the bait?

The key to that question might lie in a consideration of some jaw-dropping remarks that Kentucky’s Republican Governor, Matt Bevin, made yesterday. Bevin implied that, in the words of TPM’s Allegra Kirkland, “there will be a bloody clash between ‘tyrants’ and ‘patriots’ if Hillary Clinton wins this year’s presidential election”:

I want us to be able to fight ideologically, mentally, spiritually, economically, so that we don’t have to do it physically,” the tea party politician said in a Saturday speech at the Values Voters Summit, an annual gathering of religious conservatives. “But that may, in fact, be the case.”

Bevin said he was asked in a recent if the nation could “survive” a Clinton presidency, and he responded that it would be “possible” but at a great “price.”

“The roots of the tree of liberty are watered by what?” Bevin continued. “The blood, of who? The tyrants to be sure, but who else? The patriots. Whose blood will be shed? It may be that of those in this room. It might be that of our children and grandchildren.”

Bevin tried to soften the impact of these words later, but we’ve heard them before. They’re the meat and potatoes of much of the 2nd amendment crowd, especially the well-armed patriot militias – which have proliferated in Missouri as in many red states after the election of the first black president.

And if we are to believe reports, the image of violent revolution that these words elicit reflect the paranoia, anger and racial anxiety that fuels many  Trump supporters. Trump’s advisor, Roger Stone, echoed the theme as he reinforced a Trump campaign effort to delegitimize a potential Clinton presidency by suggesting a conspiracy to “rigg” the election:

“If there’s voter fraud, this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience, and the government will no longer be the government,” Stone said. He also promised a “bloodbath” if the Democrats attempt to “steal” the election.”

Another word for this projected bloodbath? “Civil war,” “treason,” “sedition,” “subversion,” “mutiny,” or just run of the mill “criminal,” as in the Bundys’ armed takeover of a nature preserve in Oregon – you choose.

Essential ingredient for such a bloodbath? Guns.

What kind of people poke at the sore spots of poorly informed rightwing hysterics for personal and political gain? Could they be deplorables?

What is it about Republicans and rape? Todd Akin got it all started, but since his infamous “legitimate rape” rap, it seems like his peers in GOPland have been trying to one up him with stunning regularity. (Take a look at this Daily Kos GOP rape advisory chart if you don’t believe me; it’s snarky, sure, but it’s also on the money.) The latest slap in the face to rape victims was the pronouncement by Richard Mourdock, the GOP senatorial candidate from Indiana, who believes that pregnancy resulting from rape is a gift from God.

Mourdock’s accidental honesty about what he really believes was bad enough that at first blush it might seem like Missouri will have to surrender pride of place to Indiana when it comes to misogynistic nuttjobery. At this rate, Rep. Akin will lose his place as the premiere bogyman Democrats use to scare loose change out contributors’ pockets. Maybe the next fund-raising e-mail will dangle before me the horror that is Richard Mourdock.

But never fear, Todd has gone and done ’em all one better. He doesn’t just talk the talk, he walks the walk. What I’m referring is his arrest record during the eighties. We now learn that he was arrested at least three times for obstructing patients trying to enter clinics for abortions.

Bad as it is to try to impose your will on women who are exercising their legal rights, what’s even worse is the fact that, to steal a line from Sarah Palin, he was paling around with terrorists – and I mean the hardcore, homegrown variety:

… As Salon reported this morning, the previously disclosed arrest ties Akin to a radical antiabortion activist who was a member of a right-wing militia – which Akin praised in a letter – and who was later convicted of inciting violence against abortion doctors. BuzzFeed also reported today that Akin used his state representative office to defend a pro-life activist who was later convicted of battery against an abortion clinic nurse.

Akin seems to have tried to deny these politically inconvenient relationships, but the evidence is pretty clear that he was hand-in-glove with a group of fanatics who advocated violence. One example:

… Tim Dreste, the milita’s chaplain and captain, whom Akin worked with in the pro-life movement and who, as it turns out, may even have been arrested along with him. Dreste was one of the most infamous anti-abortion activists in the state, known for threatening abortion doctors, leading several invasions of abortion clinics in the late 1980s, and apparently celebrating the murder of abortion doctor David Gunn in 1993.

Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas. I don’t know about you, but thinking about this man in the Senate is scary stuff. I’ve always just laughed at Akin’s dim-witted excess, but, as far as those fund-raising emails go, this guy could inspire me to visit Claire McCaskill with a little green-backed love.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which monitors hate groups in the U.S., has issued a new report. It focuses on the “stunning” growth in the “Patriot” movement, defined as “conspiracy-minded groups that see the federal government as their primary enemy.” Members of the groups are prone to fantasies of government persecution and grandiose visions of heroic, armed resistance. Sound familiar? Some echoes from the Tea Party summer of 2010, perhaps?

Patriot groups documented by the SPLC have grown from a low of 149 known groups in 2008 to 1,274 currently active groups. In Missouri the SPLC names 28 groups that it considers to be part of the movement. They range from full-fledged militias to fringe political parties and various off-shoots of the Tea-Party. Some, such as the Oathkeepers, are part of larger, national groups.

There are those, such as sociologist James William Gibson, who argue that patriot militias and similar groups function as a safety valve for individuals who find themselves in a world that is changing in ways that they find frightening and incomprehensible. While the SPLC report cautions that inclusion in the list “does not imply that the groups themselves advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activities, or are racist,” it, nevertheless, views the growth of these poorly informed and easily inflamed groups with alarm. The SPLC report contends that:

… If the primaries generate more attacks on the nation’s first black president based on complete falsehoods – that he is a secret Muslim, a Kenyan, a radical leftist bent on destroying America – it’s likely that the poison will spread. And if he wins reelection next fall, the reaction of the extreme right, already angry and on the defensive as the white population diminishes, could be truly frightening.

It’s hard to be sanguine about folks who, in Gibson’s own words, “are focusing on the idea that America’s problems can be resolved into something that can be shot.”

I was struck, though, as I read through the list of patriot groups, to note that former State Representative Cynthia Davis has gone to roost in the shelter of one, the Constitution Party. She is running for Lieutenant Governor as the representative of that party. Davis was always on the fringe, but she, nevertheless, managed to get elected to a state office and even served as Chair of the Franklin County Republican Party.

I also remember the right-wing hullabaloo that ensued when an internal Missouri law-enforcement report on domestic terrorism was leaked in 2009. The report “profiled” what it characterized as potentially dangerous militia members. Among the traits that were cited as red flags were many that are in themselves innocent – Ron Paul supporters, for instance, were flagged. The report presented an overall portrait, however, of a domestic terrorist that is very similar to the paranoid, anti-government, conspiracy theorist that the SPLC report spotlights. That the report enraged many members of Missouri’s GOP political class was telling.  Several contended that they themselves were at risk of government persecution based on the document’s description of risk indicators.

Does this suggest that an important segment of the Missouri Republican Party occupies the same territory that the SPLC explores in their report on radical, potentially dangerous hate-groups? I don’ really think that any faction of the state’s GOP pols are necessarily violent or condone violence – but it is interesting that many of Missouri’s GOP political functionaries seem to share an intellectual terrain where the crazies are also in residence.

Certainly, such a supposition would go a long way toward explaining lots of things – such as a GOP Speaker of the House who wants to bestow state honors on America’s foremost spewer of right-wing invective and hate-talk. It would also help explain the failure of the Missouri legislature to function effectively over the past ten years. As the St. Louis Post-Dispatch noted in a recent editorial, Missouri seems to be falling way, way behind in almost every measure of citizen well-being, and the legislature seems to be hell-bent on accelerating the decline with policies that “keep so many of its residents in poor health, poverty or prison.” But then, fear-crazed, anti-government zealots shouldn’t be expected to do a good job of running government.

* Fifth and last paragraphs slightly edited for clarity.