Reply #10: you see ...

[iverglas]

... just for clarification ... if the author of an "article" said something like this:

Instead of merely reauthorizing the ban, however, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-L.I.) seeks to ban more guns and implement a national registration scheme. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the assault weapons ban sponsor, said on CBS' "60 Minutes," "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate for an outright ban, picking up every one of them - Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in - I would have done it." The gun control agenda has never been stated more honestly.

... then s/he would expect to be fired, if s/he were working for a reputable newspaper.

We all know (yes we do, sigh) that the "them" in Feinstein's statement referred to assault weapons. And yet anybody less knowledgeable than us, reading that paragraph, would think that she was referring to "guns". After all, the abridged quotation from Feinstein immediately follows the sentence about McCarthy seeking "to ban more guns". What do we clever, informed, honest folks suppose the author was trying to make people think?

Would anyone at all informed, or rational, quote this statement --

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate for an outright ban, picking up every one of them - Mr. and Mrs. America, turn your assault weapons all in - I would have done it."

-- and then say:

"The gun control agenda has never been stated more honestly"

??

I wouldn't think so. Would you?

So could you explain why your pet author here said exactly that?