How A Journo Can Tell Me She Doesn't Know WTF She's Talking About, Without Telling Me She Doesn't Know WTF She Is Talking About

The trouble with Leftist Journalists is not so much their ignorance as the tremendous number of things they know that ain't so.  But their ignorance doesn't help, either. 

Let's take this intrepid Washington Post (as rebroadcast in the Detroit News) correspondent, who in the very first sentence of her article shows she has no idea what she is talking about:

Q: Why are Republicans not reading the sentiment of the country and cobbling together a bill to make automatic weapons of war illegal for civilians?

Yep, read that over again.  So much ignorance and smugness to unpack in one short sentence.  

The combination of the smug assumption as to "the sentiment of the country" combined with the pure ignorance of urging Republicans to support "a bill to make automatic weapons of war illegal for civilians" is rather indicative. Not sure she could have fit in another narrative-approved buzz-word about semi-automatic firearms that are lawfully possessed by millions of Americans for legal purposes if she tried.

It's a great way for the journo to let us know she has no clue what she is talking about, and to count her opinion accordingly. The problem is that she influences people who who have infinitely more things they know when it comes to crime, firearms, and firearms law in this country that ain't so.