Certainly.
Carol Burnett sued the National Enquirer for libel because it implied she had engaged in drunken behavior.
She won.
Now look at the relevant paragraph:
Of course, they also sell guns. Did we mention the guns? Oh yes. How's that for a message -- hey kids, don't look at the impossibly pretty half-naked Photoshopped model on the cover of Elle because your undereducated little mind might get corrupted and you're just not ready for the word "sex" in bold 48-point Helvetica. But here, have a nice Remington .22. Now scamper off and go kill something, sweetie.
Here, Morford implies he is speaking for Wal-Mart, and then says (in simpler terms), "We won't let you see sex, but we will give you a gun."
He does not have to say it outright for it to be libel, as the above referenced case shows. He just has to imply it, which he is clearly doing.
But why do I have to tell you this, anyway? You claim to be a lawyer, and yet you did not know this? Then what the hell is your specialty? Tax law?
And by the way, if you are going to respond with, "Oh, he really did not say that," don't bother. I am not stupid and have an excellent comprehension of what I am reading.
Which is why when you do say that, we will both know you are being completely full of crap and just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.