Tucker Carlson, Fox News’ heir to Bill O’Reilly’s slot in their primetime cable lineup, often fills the hour with bewildered glances, engaging dialogue, and outright mockery of his typically-deserving opponents who he brings on to the program. Monday was no different as Carlson invited on Democratic strategist Jim Devine to defend the seemingly indefensible: his decision to tweet the hashtag #HuntRepublicanCongressmen in the wake of the attempted massacre of Republican representatives last week.

Watch the exchange below:

A number of funny moments came out of this, including Carlson badgering Devine as to whether his tweets would subject him to lose his gun rights, and the obvious insanity implicit in Devine’s attempts at defending this otherwise indefensible tweet.

There were a couple of instances in the interchange between the two men where Carlson either missed or deliberately ignored some of the absurd arguments being made by Devine, but their patent incredulity is worth highlighting.

Consider this portion:

CARLSON: So, what point are you making? That that’s okay?

DEVINE: What I am making the point is that after year after year after year of hearing the same kind of violent rhetoric from the right, the left has every reason to come forward and stand up. What I have learned in life is that --

CARLSON: With violent rhetoric?

Tucker took issue with the undergirding ethic in Devine’s thinking, which was clearly debased- if you perceive one side’s rhetoric to be violent and depraved, the solution is not to yourself reciprocate such behavior. The issue with Devine’s point is larger- the assumption he makes, that the Left has been docile in the face of a barrage of fear mongering on the Right is the second most unhinged statement Devine made all evening.

The Left has used fatalistic rhetoric for years on end now, and the results under this administration have been no different. The Left’s arguments for years have been about the personal depravity of Republicans, that their health care beliefs are a proxy for their dark desire for kids to die in the streets, Goldwater, Reagan, Romney and Trump were all Hitler, and all of the other hyperbole that pervade mainstream leftist circles are undeniable centerpieces of progressive argumentation and they have been for years. Devine’s assumption is irredeemably disconnected from political reality.

Later in the segment, Carlson and Devine engaged in the following bit:

DEVINE: I am saying that Democrats have to be more aggressive in the face of political issues and the face of the opposition. We have members -- one of the persons he was on that field who spoke --

CARLSON: What does that mean?

DEVINE: With Senator Rand Paul -- Senator Rand Paul re-tweeted something from Andrew Napolitano that said, the reason we have a Second Amendment is not so people can hunt deer, so that they can shoot the tyrannical government.

CARLSON: So, What is your point? Did he deserved it?

Actually, this is correct. We don’t have the Second Amendment for hunting. The Second Amendment is a safeguard of American liberty for the citizenry to be armed against governmental usurpation of constitutional guarantees. It continues:

DEVINE: My point, Tucker is very simply, no, absolutely not. But my point is that when you put up obstacles to people voting, when you secretly plot in the Senate to repeal health care that is keeping 50,000 Americans alive, and you are otherwise directing barriers to the democratic process, where we have elections, where the people that get the most votes don’t win --

CARLSON: That you should be shot?

DEVINE: What happens is -- no! But that is tyrannical government. That’s the point.

CARLSON: It’s understandable when you’re shot?

DEVINE: It is the natural culmination --

CARLSON: Stop with the talking points. Just get to what you’re saying. I want to know what you are saying. Are you saying that it’s understandable?

DEVINE: It is a natural culmination of the argument that was made by Judge Napolitano and Senator Rand Paul. If Senator Paul Rand would like to sit down and have a discussion--

CARLSON: But hold on. I am really here. You are not making sense. I will give you one last chance. What is your point?

DEVINE: My point is enough is enough.

CARLSON: So, it’s time to take up arms?

DEVINE: No. It’s not about taking up arms. It’s about coming together and fighting back.

As mentioned earlier, Tucker either missed or intentionally ignored Devine’s line of argumentation here. What Devine was arguing, specifically, was that opposing the Affordable Care Act, protecting the integrity of the franchise by preventing voter fraud, and upholding federalism with our constitutional republic’s Electoral College rather than using a pure popular vote are all incidents of the exact government usurpation Paul is talking about. This is so patently ridiculous and absurd a claim that it deserves to be underscored.

Devine, in full control of his faculties, insisted that policy disagreements on health care, preventing voter fraud, and the Electoral College, are precisely the abrogations of constitutional protections that require an armed response by the citizenry, so all told, Rand Paul and his conservative ilk are getting what they asked for. How warped must one’s perception of American politics be to utter such a ridiculous assertion?

Tucker finished the segment with a series of impolite interruptions, but its worth asking how much politeness Devine’s arguments warranted.

Check out the full June 20th transcript below: