TexasCHLforum.com

ATDM wrote: The reporter, who came up with this title did NOT mislead anyone at all. He was able to see through the technicality of one law that would apply to reporters only, and then may be amended to apply to the citizenry. If this doesn't alarm you, you are nearsighted. The title stands! If you have experience with a totalitarian regime personally, share it. Maybe then I will change my opinion.

For now the title is true to the essence and it stands.

The title is inherently untrue.
Want me to feel persuaded? Tell the truth. Not the partial truth, the whole truth. Tell me about how easy it would be to amend a law designed to be reporters-only and apply it to the citizens of the USA. Then I understand your point of view and can be alarmed accordingly. Tell me that Feinstein said that the 1st Amendment is a Special Privilege and when I find that it isn't true, I'm going to write the entire thing off as grand-standing and theater. I'll let the sheep forward it around based on title only.

If you're really concerned with our Amendments, why aren't you up in arms about the fact that we can't carry a long gun in public? That right has already been eroded.

ATDM wrote: The title may not be accurate in the specifics, but it is DEFINITELY accurate in its generality.

Why re-post an title that is intentionally misleading if you know better?
I think stuff like this is done by sleaze-bag reporters (on both sides). It gets people to click and look at the coverage. Of course, many sheep just take the title on face value and push it across the internet.
It's no different than a car dealer advertising something that isn't available to get people into the dealership. It's about that ethical.

ATDM wrote: The Founders specified that "Congress shall make no law...." Too bad they didn't stop right there.

We'd probably be better off....