Originally Posted by BigMikey76
. . . .I can see taking what he SAID out of context and fearing that there is a gun control agenda on the horizon (though I don't agree that his statement implied that), but making assumptions based on what he DID NOT SAY is simply putting words in his mouth. . . . . .
I have to disagree here. It is very common among lawyers to examine not only what someone said, but what they did not say. If a legislative body wrote a law and said that "everyone has to do A, B, and C," we infer from the statute that the legislature intended to exclude D from the list of things everyone has to do. Given the process by which political speeches are drafted and vetted, I think that it is fair to say that both every word and every omission is intentional. I would not hold the speech to the same standards if it were, for example, a situation in which a candidate is simply fielding questions.