And, as I pointed out, the people who have started this violent rhetoric are republican leaders

[Citation needed], because that's one hell of a claim. Republican leaders started "this" violent rhetoric? I think you'll find violent rhetoric in politics predates your country, and any attempt to put it in discrete categories or prove that figure X 'started' whatever you're defining as the the current (i.e. "this") period of violent rhetoric would be absurdly difficult, not to mention contrived.

to Rand Paul saying the 2nd amendment is for shooting tyrannical governments

Well, it is. This is no more violent rhetoric than explaining what the army or nuclear deterrent is for.

There are some shitty bloggers on the left, but, in reality, it's a vast minority of the left, especially when compared to Breitbart and Infowars

Another [Citation needed]. I don't see how Breitbart is any worse than, say, Huffington Post. Plus you have other forms of media, like left-wingers on Twitter. Arguably more influential than "traditional" media, given that it's a conversation you're actively participating in - and can you imagine how many left-wing Twitter users have called for political violence against, say, Trump?

PS - Your focus on leaders as opposed to grassroots members is entirely artificial, and seems to have been made up on the spot as you shifted the goalposts after I responded to your claim for sources. First of you were simply talking about "left wing violence," then once I gave sources you ignored the fact you'd lost that point and magically decided what really mattered was calls for violence from leaders.

PPS - Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comment comes to mind. Calling a quarter of the country evil racist sexist bigots, specifically saying they're beyond political discussion - what does that imply? If these people are evil and discussion is futile, what's left? What was that if not a call for violence, straight from the top of the Democratic party?

Looks like you're gonna have to move those goalposts again.