Replies

We all know why. The news rooms in this country, ink and electronic, are patently and overwhelmingly against the second amendment and in favor of severe gun control.

You certainly won't hear much about in TIME magazine. Here's the form letter they sent out in response to people who wrote in complaining about their "Death by Gun" cover story, which was heavily slanted -- note that the letter admits this and describes it as a *good* thing:


August 1, 1989

The July 17 cover story is the most recent in a growing number of
attempts on the part of TIME editors to keep the gun-availability
issue resolutely in view.  Such an editorial closing of ranks
represents the exception rather than the rule in the history of the
magazine, which has always endeavored to provide a variety of
opinions and comment, in addition to straightforward news reporting,
as a way of engaging readers in interpreting the significance if
issues and events as they arise.  But the time for opinions on the
dangers of gun availability is long since gone, replaced by
overwhelming evidence that it represents a growing threat to public
safety.

          As we see it--and as we indicated in the report--our
responsibility now is to confront indifference about the escalating
violence and the unwillingness to do something about it.  Our appeal
is for consideration of reasonable control over gun ownership--not,
as some have charged, for an outright ban--as a means of making it
more difficult for individuals to become targets of their own or of
others' deadly violent impulses.  Not a panacea, to be sure.  And
indeed, we are not asking for a cure for all of society's ills, only
for relief from one of its most needlessly destructive symptoms.
Certainly, readers are entitled to challenge our approach or our
position on this matter, and we appreciate your taking the time to
share your sentiments with the editors.  Thank you for writing, and
best wishes.

Sincerely, Gloria Hammond, TIME Editorial Offices

Let's see, Time Magazine is clearly anti-gun. AOL has demostrated an anti-gun policy on a number of different occasions. Therefore, we can conclude that AOL/Time-Warner is probably very anti-gun at the highest levels and that the Board of Directors and chief officers must in either out of the loop or in favor of gun control:

I wonder if it is a company policy formally approved by the Board of Directors or if as in so many of the Board of Director lawsuits that are occuring these days if it is through lack of oversight an error of omission on the part of the officers of the company??? Inquiring minds want to know. Maybe a Freeper or two should ask some of them?

i) Principal Executive Officer Director and Chief Executive Officer
Gerald M. Levin
(ii) Principal Financial Officer
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Wayne H. Pace
(iii) Principal Accounting Officer Vice President and Controller
James W. Barge
(iv) Directors:
Daniel F. Akerson
James L. Barksdale
Stephen F. Bollenbach
Stephen M. Case
Frank J. Caufield
Miles R. Gilburne
Carla A. Hills
Reuben Mark
Michael A. Miles
Kenneth J. Novack
Richard D. Parsons
Robert W. Pittman
Franklin D. Raines
R.E. Turner
Francis T. Vincent Jr.

So that moron has never figured out that guns were plentiful, easily accessible, and commercially available to CHILDREN in stores, magazines, and catalogs within the last 40 years... and those 'symptoms' were totally absent.

Re: your #10

I view with ongoing pleasure the cratering of AOL/Slime-Warner stock values. It couldn't be happening to a nicer bunch.