Man calls into C-Span and confirms that Trump supporters heard his 2nd Amendment comment as a call to arms if Hillary is elected.

Courtesy of Raw Story:

A C-SPAN caller from Michigan proved on Wednesday that even Trump supporters could interpret the GOP nominee’s comments about using the Second Amendment to stop Hillary as a call to gun violence. 

“Number one, Mr. Trump was not threatening assassination of Hillary,” Greg said. “But what he was implying and could happen is if Hillary got her way and did do away with Second Amendment rights (That's actually a false statement.), there are a lot of us who are gun owners who are going to object to that very strongly.” 

“And since we do have firearms, it might if it comes down to it be us having to defend our rights with those guns, just as the revolutionaries did in the Revolutionary War.” 

Greg said that he hoped “it never will come down to that.” 

“And I would point out that [Trump] said right afterwards that would be a horrible day when that happened,” Greg declared.

There have been a lot of people coming to Trump's defense and suggesting that what he said was taken out of context or that it was a joke, but none of that really matters.

What matters is how it was heard by the folks most likely to put those words into action.

Here was what Rolling Stone Magazine had to say about it:

But it's really irrelevant what Trump actually meant, because enough people will hear Trump's comments and think he's calling for people to take up arms against Clinton, her judges or both. Though most of the people hearing that call may claim he was joking, given what we know about people taking up arms in this country, there will undoubtedly be some people who think he was serious and consider the possibility. 

In other words, what Trump just did is engage in so-called stochastic terrorism. This is an obscure and non-legal term that has been occasionally discussed in the academic world for the past decade and a half, and it applies with precision here. Stochastic terrorism, as described by a blogger who summarized the concept several years back, means using language and other forms of communication "to incite random actors to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable."

Exactly.

If heaven forbid somebody were to actually make an attempt on Hillary's life right now, that would absolutely be blamed on this statement, whether fairly or unfairly.

Just like what happened to Sarah Palin after Gabby Giffords was shot.

However the underlying concern here is that the words spoken by Presidents, and presidential candidates, are heard all over the country. By the sane, the relatively sane, and those not even in the same ballpark as sane.

That means they have to choose their words with exceptional care, and as we know even when they do that they are misunderstood and mischaracterized by the media.

Simply put Donald Trump is somebody who NEVER seems to choose his words with care, and this last inflammatory statement is just the latest in a never ending stream of inflammatory statements.

All of that should have taken Trump out of the running for the Republican nomination, but since it failed to accomplish that back then it is up to the general election voters to stop him before one of his inflammatory statements causes the economy to crash, destroys diplomatic relations with our allies, or starts a potential nuclear war.

And if you think any of that is hyperbole, you have not been paying enough attention.