Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Try to figure out this newspaper's gun advertising policy...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 10:51 AM
Original message
Try to figure out this newspaper's gun advertising policy...
From the Gainesville (Fla) Sun's classified ads policy for No. 7345, Guns & Rifles:

"We will no longer accept handgun or assault weapon advertising by private parties. Licensed gun dealers will be allowed to offer handguns and legal semiautomatic weapons for sale in the classified section, providing a dealer's license number is in the ad copy of their State or FL dealer's license is on file with the Star-Banner/Gainesville Sun. Private individuals can still advertise hunting rifles and shotguns in the classified. In no case will we advertise any weapon that is prohibited by law from being sold, including any 'semiautomatic assault weapon' or copies or duplicates thereof."

The Sun and the Star/Banner are both owned by the New York Times. When the Sun shrunk its page width by l.5" on Wednesday, December 2nd, the above policy was no longer present under the appropriate classified department for firearms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ogneopasno Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. Seems clear to me.
What's the question?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Contradictions and inconsistencies...
"We will no longer accept handgun or assault weapon advertising by private parties. Licensed gun dealers will be allowed to offer handguns and legal semiautomatic weapons for sale in the classified section, providing a dealer's license number is in the ad copy of their State or FL dealer's license is on file with the Star-Banner/Gainesville Sun. Private individuals can still advertise hunting rifles and shotguns in the classified. In no case will we advertise any weapon that is prohibited by law from being sold, including any 'semiautomatic assault weapon' or copies or duplicates thereof."

The Sun and the Star/Banner are both owned by the New York Times. When the Sun shrunk its page width by l.5" on Wednesday, December 2nd, the above policy was no longer present under the appropriate classified department for firearms.

Could an individual list this gun for sale, or not?



It is both a hunting rifle and a "semiautomatic assault weapon" according to the gun-control lobby. So it is both allowed and prohibited.

Ditto for hunting shotguns with handgrips that stick out, semiautomatic hunting rifles with screw-on muzzle brakes, etc. For example, this one:



Also, there seems to be the mistaken perception that "semiautomatic assault weapons" are "prohibited by law from being sold," when in fact they are "legal semiautomatic weapons", as are most handguns.

All in all, it looks like it was written by someone who got their knowledge of guns and gun law from watching CSI reruns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ogneopasno Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Ha! That's what I get for reading it as a newspaper employee,
and not checking on the guns. I didn't see that this was in the gun forum. My apologies, and my thanks -- next time I'm faced with something like this, I'll ask someone who knows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hoplophile Donating Member (72 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
2. So is there a board of some kind to decide
What semi-automatic hunting rifles will be allowed? Have they published a definition of what THEY consider assault rifles?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
4. The AWB expired
so why do they think "semiautomatic assault weapons" are prohibited by law? Ignorance seems to play heavily in this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Maybe why they dropped the policy: they didn't want to define terms (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. The problem with these sorts of policies
is that they're always meant to be left vague.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Vague, and the media doesn't want to confront itself, intellectually (n t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Howzit Donating Member (918 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. Maybe they know more than you think
Perhaps they have information on a new AWB being passed...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
7. Is the author stupid or just grossly ignorant? She or he is clearly a member of the beetle battalion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
10. have you tried asking it?

Novel idea, I know ...

I'm sure the paper would be deeply grateful for any and all comments about the policies it applies to the use of its private property, too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Why? They apparently deleted the ill-informed policy. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. oh?


It has apparently stopped printing it above published ads. Whether it has stopped applying it when ads are placed, I don't think we know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rangersmith82 Donating Member (274 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-06-08 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. You cannot stop someone from posting a ad
for selling perfectly legal personal property.

Just who in the fuck does the paper think they are???

Sounds like they are a bunch of Brady bunch supporters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-07-08 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. I give up

Just who in the fuck does the paper think they are???

The owners of private property who can do whatever the fuck they want with it, I would think.

Freedom of speech, y'know?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-07-08 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. I wonder if they refused ads to women or to muslims if you would feel the same?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-07-08 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. I wonder when you're going to get a hint of a shadow of a clue

There are laws that prohibit discrimination ON SPECIFIC GROUNDS in the provision of goods and services to the public.

Sex and religion, and race/ethnicity and national origin, and age in certain circumstances, and sexual orientation in civilized societies, are commonly prohibited grounds of discrimination.

Is the desire to sell a particular kind of firearm, or to sell anything else, a prohibited ground of discrimination?

I didn't think so.

As long as a newspaper doesn't, oh, allow purple men to advertise Item X in its pages while not allowing green women to do so, it has no problem.

And you have no point. As usual.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-07-08 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. So you were wrong when you said.....
"The owners of private property who can do whatever the fuck they want with it, I would think."

I guess the owners can't do whatever they want now can they. As usual, you get caught in a gross oversimplification.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. no

As usual, you have no point.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Yes, I'm right, you're wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HALO141 Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-08 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. I don't quite know what to say....
I find myself in complete agreement with iverglas.

The paper is, indeed, their property and they can print (or not) pretty much what they want to.

The whole problem with liberty is that people must be free to be jerks if they so wish. If they are not then none of us are really free in the first place.

Isn't anyone else familiar with the phrase, "You are free to do what we tell you?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-08 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. That wasn't the OP's point; the OP was deconstructing it, not criticizing it.
Edited on Tue Dec-09-08 02:13 PM by benEzra
The tone seems to be "try to figure out this clueless policy," not "they have no right to set ad policy," if I read it correctly.

It is very clear from reading it that whoever wrote it got their gun knowledge from watching CSI reruns and playing Counter Strike, and it shows.

Case in point, all three of the following guns are simultaneously prohibited and explicitly allowed by the policy:



Not to mention the misconception that "semiautomatic assault weapons" are something other than "legal semiautomatic weapons".

Yes, they have the right to set whatever policy they want, but that doesn't mean it is above critique.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 21st 2014, 08:02 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC