Why Trump’s ‘Second Amendment’ Attack on Clinton Is Even More Dangerous Than You Might Have Thought

Journalists Weigh In 

In the wake of Donald Trump calling for “the Second Amendment people” to “do” something if Hillary Clinton “gets to pick her judges” – a clear if thinly-veiled call to violence – journalists are working hard to place his comments in perspective, often historical perspective.

The New York Times’ Editorial Board early Wednesday morning published an editorial titled, “Further Into the Muck With Mr. Trump.” 

“Three months from the presidential election, and one day after his running mate promised ‘specific policy proposals for how we rebuild this country at home and abroad,’ Americans find themselves asking whether Donald Trump has called for the assassination of Hillary Clinton,” it begins.

“Seldom, if ever, have Americans been exposed to a candidate so willing to descend to the depths of bigotry and intolerance as Mr. Trump. That he would make Tuesday’s comment amid sinking poll numbers and a wave of Republican defections suggests that when bathed in the adulation of a crowd, Mr. Trump is unable to control himself,” it continues. 

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough penned a Washington Post op-ed today. Scarborough, you’ll remember, was accused of hanging out with Trump and being in the tank for him. No longer. In, “The GOP must dump Trump,” he writes that “the political ride will only get rockier for Trump in the coming days after he suggested that one way to keep a conservative Supreme Court after Hillary Clinton got elected would be to assassinate her or federal judges. Trump and his supporters have been scrambling wildly all day to explain away the inexplicable, but they can stop wasting their time. The GOP nominee was clearly suggesting that some of the “Second Amendment people” among his supporters could kill his Democratic opponent were she to be elected.”

Rolling Stone’s David S. Cohen, in, “Trump’s Assassination Dog Whistle Was Even Scarier Than You Think,” offers the perfect explanation, writing, “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.'”

Here, some tweets from journalists all too well aware of just how dangerous Trump’s comments were:

Talking Points Memo editor-in-chief Josh Marshall:

He’s referring to this:

Huffington Post editor-at-large and SiriusXM host Michaelangelo Signorile:

Referring to this:

Wall Street Journal Middle East columnist Yaroslav Trofimov:

Sopan Deb, CBS News reporter covering Trump, and one of the best who does, pointing to a NY Times column today from Tom Friedman:

And last but not least, ThinkProgress Justice Editor Ian Millhiser: