TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:If it wasn't for the abundant coupons in the paper saving me $$$, I would drop my subscription.

Keith B wrote:If it wasn't for the abundant coupons in the paper saving me $$$, I would drop my subscription.

Maybe I will stop buying Charmin and use the Dallas Morning News instead.

It is the policy of The Dallas Morning News not to accept advertisements for gun shows or for any type of assault, semi-assault or fully automatic weapon, silencer, or any type of explosive material in The Dallas Morning News, dallasnews.com or any of its affiliate products. Those wishing to sell handguns must have a federal license, be legally registered as an arms dealer with the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and provide their license number to The Dallas Morning News before the ad is published. Advertisements for rifles, shotguns, and related accessories are accepted. As with all submitted advertising, these ads will be subject to photo and copy control standards.

I have had a few days to calm down after first hearing of your ridiculous policy regarding gun show advertising, and I have some questions for you:

1. Do you realize that, in the state of Texas, an FFL is NOT required for any private party, face to face firearms transaction? Thus, any such transactions occurring at or in the vicinity of a gun show are entirely legal?

2. Do you realize that the gun show promoters are merely providing a venue for the show, but they are not actually selling the guns? Thus, the promoter is not required to have an FFL. By your logic, a promoter of a liquor industry trade show should be required to have a license to sell liquor - even though he/she is not selling liquor.

3. Do you realize that those vendors who purchase booths from which to sell guns at gun shows already have their FFL (or its equivalent if they are dealing in curios, collectibles, and relics) or they cannot buy or sell guns as a business at the shows?

4. Do you realize that, under current federal law, there is no "assault weapons" ban? So why do you not accept advertising for a completely legal activity, but you do accept advertising from an activity - personal escort - which is highly likely to be illegal?

5. Please define "assault" weapons. Teddy Roosevelt let the assault up San Juan Hill, of soldiers armed with single shot and primitive bolt action rifles. If I am today in possession of an accurized bolt action hunting rifle, is that an "assault weapon?" If I am to go hunting, you do want me to use an accurate rifle don't you, so that I may be better ensured a humane harvest?

6. Please define "semi-assault" weapons. I've been around guns most of my life, and nobody I know understands what that means. I suspect you don't either.

7. Since you have appointed yourselves as public watchdogs over whether or not gun commerce at gun shows is legal, have you also taken it upon yourselves to thoroughly vet your "Personal Escort" advertisers to make sure that they are providing ball-room dancing partners, and not prostitutes? (No? I didn't think so.) Similarly, are you vetting your restaurant advertisers to make sure that they are licensed to sell food and alcohol, or that they are in compliance with the board of health? (No? I didn't think so.) Similarly, when you accept advertising for Livestock, do you vet the seller to make sure that he/she did not rustle it or that it was raised in accordance with the state's agriculture laws? (No? I didn't think so.) Similarly, when you accept advertising for private party vehicle sales, do you vet the seller to make sure that he/she is lawfully in possession of the vehicle being sold, or that the vehicle in question is street legal? (No? I didn't think so.) In your classified section, under "Dining & Entertainment > Other," Casino gambling appears at the top of your list, ahead of concerts at the Dallas Arboretum, concerts by the Dallas Symphony Orchestra, and other, more culturally worthy occasions. As the self-appointed arbiters of what is good and acceptable in advertising, how do you justify that? ARE YOU BEGINNING TO GET MY DRIFT HERE???? Your advertising policies are contributing to the degradation of the culture - not its improvement.

I hope that you are beginning to understand that your advertising policy is without logic or merit. Years back, when I lived in California, I canceled my subscription to the Los Angeles Times - which used to be a good newspaper - for exactly the same kinds of reasons I've listed above. Although I am not currently a subscriber of yours, given the above, I likely never will be. The LA Times circulation has been tanking - as have the circulations of the New York Times, and other big city newspapers with overtly liberal slants in journalism - and it has not been all attributable to "The Internet", that big bugaboo that newspapers like to trot out to justify their falling circulations and stock share prices to their investors. That canard is largely debunked by the increasing traffic on news websites with more centrist or conservative editorial policies. In fact, if it weren't for the efforts of conservative leaning news aggregators like The Drudge Report and Brietbart.com which link to your websites, your Internet traffic would be even lower than it is. The fact is that the falling circulations of big city newspapers is largely due to the fact that you are out of step with the values of the communities you purport to serve. Your advertising policy is a mirror of that lack of synchronicity.

Fortunately, business commerce is very darwinian, and companies like yours will either have to adapt your policies, and your editorial biases, or die out.

Chris