Wow, Doors, slow news day? A lotta effort to dig out a conspiracy in a run-of-the-mill celebrity tabloid piece. You live in a very complicated world, dude.
As usual, troll, you’re a day late, a dollar short, and you didn’t trouble yourself to address the point. Par for the course for you.
K, I’ll try to follow you around and schedule my life around responding to all your posts in a manner timely enough to keep you satisfied. Cuz obviously anything else is trollery. :rolleyes:
Thanks for doing your part to make that word meaningless.
And also, apparenltly, I should be sorry that I addressed the point to simply and elegantly for you to grasp. The simple fact is that public figures are open to impertinent questions from the gossip press. Your OP’s point that the reporters had no legal right to demand the answers to such questions is laughably naive; childlike even. Since when does the gossip press only ask questions that it has a “right” to ask? What are you, new? The gossip press asks questions designed to put celebrities on the defensive; questions meant to embarrass.
Your OP makes it clear that you can’t tell the difference between a blowdried bimbo with a logo-laden microphone and a federal judge. Your OP, in other words, is stupid.
The point was not only that they had no right to ask the question, but the way the article was written was an attempt to make them look bad over a matter that is nobody’s business but their own.
The real shame of the ignore list is that I still have to see your name, which negates the entire point. Go show your haughty superiority in a thread about something you purport to know something about (although even that is questionable) and let the big people talk here.
Riiiiiiiight . . . and this has never, ever happened before in the tabloid press.
Again I ask: what are you, new?
Airman, from the forum rules:
This is a warning not to do it again.
Bwah. No wonder you see trolls around every bush, Doors: you’re entirely self-trolling!
Airman Doors, USAF
I really don’t see that article as castigating the players. Particularly when it concludes:
However, since you seem fervent about this issue, I guess I’ll join the discussion. As you know I’m one of the more liberal board members. However, I don’t see gun ownership as a conservative or liberal issue. As you probably know, I do own rifles mainly for … well heck, I don’t have to say why do I? 
Anyway, to me, it seems this “urgent” news item was reported because it was a slow news day and gun ownership in the media (and in general) is almost always viewed negatively. News tends to focus on the negative. When’s the last time you heard “This just in - every airplane landed safely today” ?
If these players donated some time or money to a homeless shelter would anyone have tracked them down for an interview? I don’t think so.
But once you are caught with a DWI, an underage female companion, etc wow the press just can’t get enough of that story. Applying for a concealed carry permit might not have the same negative news impact as that of a celebrity murdering someone, but heck it was a slow news day.