An Open Letter to The Cowboy Chronicle

[Bugscuffle]

I am sure that this is going to draw all kinds of fire, but I just don't know of any other way to get my views before the membership.

 

I have written to Tex, the Executive Editor of The Cowboy Chronicle and to Col. Dan, the author of the monthly article that relates to politics. The responses that I have received varied from insulting to childish. I therefore put this up to the membership. Please excuse me referring to Col. Dan and Tex in the third person. Although this is an open letter to Tex, I write it to inform the membership of the happenings there at The Cowboy Chronicle.

 

My first letter was to Col. Dan. In that letter I expressed my displeasure with using my club newsletter, The Cowboy Chronicle as a forum to promote his own political ideas. I disagree with Col. Dan on almost every issue that he talks about, but that is not the reason that I wrote to him. I disagree with using The Cowboy Chronicle to advocate for ANY political point of view, not mine or his or Sarah Palin's or President Obama's or anybody's political preferences or points of view. The reply that I got from Col. Dan was, "If you don'tlike it, turn the page." No, Col. Dan, I will not hide my head in the sand as you suggest and pretend that you are not abusing a priviledged position as a writer for the monthly newsletter to advocate for your personal convictions.

 

I forwarded the response from Col. Dan to Tex, the Executive editor and he responded with a diatribe that included references to Wyatt Earp's problems in Tombstone and telling me that "Newspapers have always been at odds with one another". His advice was also to just ignore it. Tex, I'll remind you again that The Cowboy Chronicle is NOT a newspaper. It is the monthly NEWSLETTER to the SASS membership concerning the happenings of the club since the last newsletter. Political discourse has nothing to do with the monthly machinations of SASS. Stop it! Tex, you stated in your response to me that Col. Dan was merely protecting our Second Amndment rights. I have already pointed out to you that there has not been a single line in any of Col. Dan's rhetoric that adresses Second Amendment rights, abuses or government overreaches with respect to the Second Amendment. You told me that you have gotten letters praising Col. Dan's articles. So what? You would in all probability also get some letters praising th work of Herman Goering, Trotsky or Ghengis Kahn if you published them.

 

 

Last month I wrote to Tex again in the form of aletter to the editor. restating my opinion. Tex made the decision not to publish my letter. I understand that space limitations prohibit publishing all letters to the editor, but was it space or because you feared that reasonable members would agree with me?

 

Just to sum up and to make myself perfectly clear, I do NOT want to see a response from the liberal side. I do NOT want to see a debate between the oposing ideologies. I do NOT want to see ANY political discourse from anyonein my newsletter. If this space were relegated to ther reporting of clear examples and remedies to the supression of our Second Amendment rights, then yes, but lets limit it to that alone. I get enough politicalbickering from the news on T.V. And, yes, I said "MY NEWSLETTER", I am a paid up member and I hope to remain one. It is MINE just as surely as it is every members newsletter, not just Col. Dan's and yours, so just STOP IT!

[Kiowa Kid, SASS #69870L]

I am sure that this is going to draw all kinds of fire, but I just don't know of any other way to get my views before the membership.

 

I have written to Tex, the Executive Editor of The Cowboy Chronicle and to Col. Dan, the author of the monthly article that relates to politics. The responses that I have received varied from insulting to childish. I therefore put this up to the membership. Please excuse me referring to Col. Dan and Tex in the third person. Although this is an open letter to Tex, I write it to inform the membership of the happenings there at The Cowboy Chronicle.

 

My first letter was to Col. Dan. In that letter I expressed my displeasure with using my club newsletter, The Cowboy Chronicle as a forum to promote his own political ideas. I disagree with Col. Dan on almost every issue that he talks about, but that is not the reason that I wrote to him. I disagree with using The Cowboy Chronicle to advocate for ANY political point of view, not mine or his or Sarah Palin's or President Obama's or anybody's political preferences or points of view. The reply that I got from Col. Dan was, "If you don'tlike it, turn the page." No, Col. Dan, I will not hide my head in the sand as you suggest and pretend that you are not abusing a priviledged position as a writer for the monthly newsletter to advocate for your personal convictions.

 

I forwarded the response from Col. Dan to Tex, the Executive editor and he responded with a diatribe that included references to Wyatt Earp's problems in Tombstone and telling me that "Newspapers have always been at odds with one another". His advice was also to just ignore it. Tex, I'll remind you again that The Cowboy Chronicle is NOT a newspaper. It is the monthly NEWSLETTER to the SASS membership concerning the happenings of the club since the last newsletter. Political discourse has nothing to do with the monthly machinations of SASS. Stop it! Tex, you stated in your response to me that Col. Dan was merely protecting our Second Amndment rights. I have already pointed out to you that there has not been a single line in any of Col. Dan's rhetoric that adresses Second Amendment rights, abuses or government overreaches with respect to the Second Amendment. You told me that you have gotten letters praising Col. Dan's articles. So what? You would in all probability also get some letters praising th work of Herman Goering, Trotsky or Ghengis Kahn if you published them.

 

 

Last month I wrote to Tex again in the form of aletter to the editor. restating my opinion. Tex made the decision not to publish my letter. I understand that space limitations prohibit publishing all letters to the editor, but was it space or because you feared that reasonable members would agree with me?

 

Just to sum up and to make myself perfectly clear, I do NOT want to see a response from the liberal side. I do NOT want to see a debate between the oposing ideologies. I do NOT want to see ANY political discourse from anyonein my newsletter. If this space were relegated to ther reporting of clear examples and remedies to the supression of our Second Amendment rights, then yes, but lets limit it to that alone. I get enough politicalbickering from the news on T.V. And, yes, I said "MY NEWSLETTER", I am a paid up member and I hope to remain one. It is MINE just as surely as it is every members newsletter, not just Col. Dan's and yours, so just STOP IT!

 

WOW

[Grizzly Dave]

Just to point out one detail, just because Tex did not print the letter you sent 'last month' does not mean it won't be printed. I have written several articles for the Chronicle and each has taken 4 or more months to appear.

[Gold Canyon Kid #43974]

Since SASS is a privately owned company and Tex is one of the owners, I expect the Editor believes the CC is his not yours. Being a member gives you no rights except as the Wild Bunch provides.

[Dubious Don #56333]

See if I got this right;

You have a difference of opinion with an author in the Chronicle. You express your opinion and are politely told off by both the author AND the editor. Did I get that right so far?

 

When the issue is pressed, the editor declines to print further letters from you (The reason is immaterial) and as a result, you post this on the Wire for...what purpose?

 

Considering the fact that the Chronicle is MY newspaper, Tex is MY editor and I really like Col. Dan's editorial (s) I shall now turn the page.....

 

I am sure that this is going to draw all kinds of fire, but I just don't know of any other way to get my views before the membership.

 

I have written to Tex, the Executive Editor of The Cowboy Chronicle and to Col. Dan, the author of the monthly article that relates to politics. The responses that I have received varied from insulting to childish. I therefore put this up to the membership. Please excuse me referring to Col. Dan and Tex in the third person. Although this is an open letter to Tex, I write it to inform the membership of the happenings there at The Cowboy Chronicle.

 

My first letter was to Col. Dan. In that letter I expressed my displeasure with using my club newsletter, The Cowboy Chronicle as a forum to promote his own political ideas. I disagree with Col. Dan on almost every issue that he talks about, but that is not the reason that I wrote to him. I disagree with using The Cowboy Chronicle to advocate for ANY political point of view, not mine or his or Sarah Palin's or President Obama's or anybody's political preferences or points of view. The reply that I got from Col. Dan was, "If you don'tlike it, turn the page." No, Col. Dan, I will not hide my head in the sand as you suggest and pretend that you are not abusing a priviledged position as a writer for the monthly newsletter to advocate for your personal convictions.

 

I forwarded the response from Col. Dan to Tex, the Executive editor and he responded with a diatribe that included references to Wyatt Earp's problems in Tombstone and telling me that "Newspapers have always been at odds with one another". His advice was also to just ignore it. Tex, I'll remind you again that The Cowboy Chronicle is NOT a newspaper. It is the monthly NEWSLETTER to the SASS membership concerning the happenings of the club since the last newsletter. Political discourse has nothing to do with the monthly machinations of SASS. Stop it! Tex, you stated in your response to me that Col. Dan was merely protecting our Second Amndment rights. I have already pointed out to you that there has not been a single line in any of Col. Dan's rhetoric that adresses Second Amendment rights, abuses or government overreaches with respect to the Second Amendment. You told me that you have gotten letters praising Col. Dan's articles. So what? You would in all probability also get some letters praising th work of Herman Goering, Trotsky or Ghengis Kahn if you published them.

 

 

Last month I wrote to Tex again in the form of aletter to the editor. restating my opinion. Tex made the decision not to publish my letter. I understand that space limitations prohibit publishing all letters to the editor, but was it space or because you feared that reasonable members would agree with me?

 

Just to sum up and to make myself perfectly clear, I do NOT want to see a response from the liberal side. I do NOT want to see a debate between the oposing ideologies. I do NOT want to see ANY political discourse from anyonein my newsletter. If this space were relegated to ther reporting of clear examples and remedies to the supression of our Second Amendment rights, then yes, but lets limit it to that alone. I get enough politicalbickering from the news on T.V. And, yes, I said "MY NEWSLETTER", I am a paid up member and I hope to remain one. It is MINE just as surely as it is every members newsletter, not just Col. Dan's and yours, so just STOP IT!

[Anvil Al #59168]

Just to point out one detail, just because Tex did not print the letter you sent 'last month' does not mean it won't be printed. I have written several articles for the Chronicle and each has taken 4 or more months to appear.

 

 

Very true.

 

And other members may LIKE the articles. SO, what about them???? Just because YOU, don't. I see alot about what YOU, want. But there is more to the membership than just YOU.

 

I guess if YOU, don't like it. And YOU, can't get passed it. YOU, can always drop your membership.

 

 

P.S. I never read Dan's articles. So don't know what is in them. But I skip most of what is in there.

Edited March 11, 2012 by Anvil Al #59168

[Captain Bill Burt]

You're almost certainly in the minority with respect to your political viewpoint. You have every right to choose what groups you associate with and what types of publications your money flows to. You've chosen send your money to a business that in all likelihood is antithetical to your view, and caters to a group that is very different from you. It's unreasonable in the extreme to expect that group, composed of tens of thousands of members, to cater to your likes and dislikes. But for some reason you feel that is something you have a reasonable right to expect. Then you come on this forum and compare highly respected and established members of this organization to Nazi war criminals, communists, and ruthless barbarians because they don't cater to your personal likes and dislikes?

 

I'll say this for you, you must be sporting quite a pair!

 

For your second act are you going to put on a white hood and robe and crash a black panther's meeting?

 

Perhaps you should try to find a leftist shooting organization, I'm sure there are plenty out there.

Edited March 11, 2012 by Captain Bill Burt

[Gold Canyon Kid #43974]

My bet is this thread is deleted in an hour.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

Don't read it then. That simple.

 

 

I enjoy Colonal Dan's articles and hope they continue.

 

GG

[Captain Bill Burt]

My bet is this thread is deleted in an hour.

I hope not, this guy deserves to get squashed like the presumptuous cockroach he is.

[Joe LaFives #5481]

I notice this is your first post and that you just joined the wire. Glad to have you. I understand that you don't agree with Col Dan. Frankly there are a few times (a very few) that I haven't either. Certainly it is your choice to offer a rebuttal of such an article however just a criticism probably wouldn't be printed (at least if I were editor). Any rebuttal should have substantiated facts as to why the previous article was in error. Whether we like it or not, guns=politics. I wish it weren't so. I think most (if not all) of the gun owners would love to have the federal and state governments out of the gun business entirely but I fear this is not or ever will be the case. Since this community is a gun community, it is only normal for us to want to protect the rights that we hold dearly. Col Dan speaks for many of us in that regard.

[Bugscuffle]

See if I got this right;

You have a difference of opinion with an author in the Chronicle. You express your opinion and are politely told off by both the author AND the editor. Did I get that right so far?

 

When the issue is pressed, the editor declines to print further letters from you (The reason is immaterial) and as a result, you post this on the Wire for...what purpose?

 

Considering the fact that the Chronicle is MY newspaper, Tex is MY editor and I really like Col. Dan's editorial (s) I shall now turn the page.....

 

No, you don't have it right. Let me help you out here. The issue is that this doesn't any more belong in the monthly newsletter than ads for Toyotas belong in the Church Buletin or promotions for video games belong in school library books. My difference of opinion with the author has NOTHING to do with whether or not political rhetoric belongs in a monthly newsletter to the membership. I do disagree with him, quite vehemently, but I am just as opposed to having Barak Obama's opinion printed in my monthly newsletter. Yes, I said "MY" again. I paid for it, It's mine. next, telling a member to just ignore that imposition on your liesure reading is not being polite. "Just ignore that man behind the Curtain"??? Give me a break.

 

You like Col. Dan's Editorials? Fine, he might be a nice guy, I don't know. I've never met him. So, Why not just subscribe to a publication that deals with that sort of thing. But, don't expect everyone to accept it as desirable in a forum that is totally foreign to that line of thought.

[Llama Ron]

I like the articles myself, as well as Tex and Dan's points of view.

[Jefro, SASS#69420]

Since SASS is a privately owned company and Tex is one of the owners, I expect the Editor believes the CC is his not yours. Being a member gives you no rights except as the Wild Bunch provides.

Yep, what GCK said. Sorry pard but it's thier paper and Col. Dan has an editorial in it each month just like your local news paper. Most of us agree with and admire Col. Dan, I look forward to each month's editorial. Good Luck

 

Jefro Relax-Enjoy

[Anvil Al #59168]

Again. It is NOT YOUR newsletter. It belongs to THEM.

 

We just pay for the right to play in there sand box.

 

If you don't like there sand box. Don't pay to play in it.

[Harvey Mushman]

He has a right to his opinion, just as we all do. SASS, however, is NOT member owned and while we can express our opinions, SASS ownership is not obliged to take action.

 

In a free market system (yeah, the one the lefties want to replace) customers are free to choose somewhere else to associate themselves and spend their dollars.

 

SASS is closely associated with our second amendment rights and therefore those who would support those rights, not undermine them. Currently, that support happens to overwhelmingly be the conservative side of the house which Col Dan writes about. I don't read him all that often, and while I generally agree when I do, I have some strong differences, too.

 

We all have a choice to be members, and if a member, what we want to read in the CC. Always amazes me that one particular side always wants to silence the other.

 

Get over it - let's go shoot, compete, have fun, and share the Cowboy Way.

 

Harvey

[Utah Bob #35998]

It occurs to me that the membership of SASS is predominantly conservative. Not a surprise. If the articles have a readership that agrees with rather than opposes the writings then one could expect that there would be no reason for the editor to discontinue the column. While I do not agree with Col Dan or Tex on a number of points I realize that a large number of people within SASS do. Hence the popularity of Col. Dan's column and it's continued appearance in the CC.

I have a subscription to my local paper but I don't consider it mine and they frequently print things I do not agree with. Because it is a privately owned enterprise, as is SASS, if my objections fall upon deaf ears and they decide not to publish my letters of protest, the only recourse I have is to discontinue reading the publication.

[Bugscuffle]

You are all mising the point. Whether I agree or disagree with Col. Dan is IRRELEVANT! Political rhetoric of ANY type is out of place in the monthly newsletter of a club that the members pay dues to. I made the disclosure that I did NOT agree with him only to make full disclosure. If you like him, fine. Talk to him by E-Mail, but keep it out of the monthly newsletter. Other people like it? that's O.K. too.But that does not give them, even if thy are the majority the right to impose their political views on those of us that don't want to hear the rhetoric from either side in that forum. It is out of place, stop it!

[Captain Bill Burt]

See if I got this right;

You have a difference of opinion with an author in the Chronicle. You express your opinion and are politely told off by both the author AND the editor. Did I get that right so far?

 

When the issue is pressed, the editor declines to print further letters from you (The reason is immaterial) and as a result, you post this on the Wire for...what purpose?

 

Considering the fact that the Chronicle is MY newspaper, Tex is MY editor and I really like Col. Dan's editorial (s) I shall now turn the page.....

 

No, you don't have it right. Let me help you out here. The issue is that this doesn't any more belong in the monthly newsletter than ads for Toyotas belong in the Church Buletin or promotions for video games belong in school library books. My difference of opinion with the author has NOTHING to do with whether or not political rhetoric belongs in a monthly newsletter to the membership. I do disagree with him, quite vehemently, but I am just as opposed to having Barak Obama's opinion printed in my monthly newsletter. Yes, I said "MY" again. I paid for it, It's mine. next, telling a member to just ignore that imposition on your liesure reading is not being polite. "Just ignore that man behind the Curtain"??? Give me a break.

 

You like Col. Dan's Editorials? Fine, he might be a nice guy, I don't know. I've never met him. So, Why not just subscribe to a publication that deals with that sort of thing. But, don't expect everyone to accept it as desirable in a forum that is totally foreign to that line of thought.

So when you subscribe to your local paper does that give you the right to choose what they publish? There is a HUGE difference between being an owner, and entitled to call something 'mine' and being a customer. You are a customer, not an owner. In fact you are a vegetarian customer in a steakhouse insisting that meat not be a part of the menu. Get real!

Edited March 11, 2012 by Captain Bill Burt

[Utah Bob #35998]

Political rhetoric of ANY type is out of place in the monthly newsletter of a club that the members pay dues to.

That is simply a matter of opinion.

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

See if I got this right;

You have a difference of opinion with an author in the Chronicle. You express your opinion and are politely told off by both the author AND the editor. Did I get that right so far?

 

When the issue is pressed, the editor declines to print further letters from you (The reason is immaterial) and as a result, you post this on the Wire for...what purpose?

 

Considering the fact that the Chronicle is MY newspaper, Tex is MY editor and I really like Col. Dan's editorial (s) I shall now turn the page.....

 

No, you don't have it right. Let me help you out here. The issue is that this doesn't any more belong in the monthly newsletter than ads for Toyotas belong in the Church Buletin or promotions for video games belong in school library books. My difference of opinion with the author has NOTHING to do with whether or not political rhetoric belongs in a monthly newsletter to the membership. I do disagree with him, quite vehemently, but I am just as opposed to having Barak Obama's opinion printed in my monthly newsletter. Yes, I said "MY" again. I paid for it, It's mine. next, telling a member to just ignore that imposition on your liesure reading is not being polite. "Just ignore that man behind the Curtain"??? Give me a break.

 

You like Col. Dan's Editorials? Fine, he might be a nice guy, I don't know. I've never met him. So, Why not just subscribe to a publication that deals with that sort of thing. But, don't expect everyone to accept it as desirable in a forum that is totally foreign to that line of thought.

 

The Chronicle is NOT a club newsletter. If you don't want your club's newsletter to have promotions in it that's fine. The Chronicle has dozens of PAID advertisers. It is a monthly magazine not simply a newsletter. When you buy Guns & Ammo is it YOUR newsletter on the shooting sports? You bought a membership to SASS and a subscription to the monthly newspaper. It is NOT yours. It belongs to SASS. When you join the NRA you get a membership and the American Rifleman. Is it a newsletter on the workings of the NRA? Heck no, it is full of advertising. When I'm reading Guns & Ammo, or any other magazine, if I don't like the article I skip it and move on the next one. Grow up.

[Geronimo Jim SASS # 21775]

First post ........ new member.......moveon dot org??? Oboma reelect committee?????? The left just can't stand an honest debate or opinion. Why? Because they are wrong. Can't discuse the facts. Just shut it down.

[Anvil Al #59168]

You are all mising the point. Whether I agree or disagree with Col. Dan is IRRELEVANT! Political rhetoric of ANY type is out of place in the monthly newsletter of a club that the members pay dues to. I made the disclosure that I did NOT agree with him only to make full disclosure. If you like him, fine. Talk to him by E-Mail, but keep it out of the monthly newsletter. Other people like it? that's O.K. too.But that does not give them, even if thy are the majority the right to impose their political views on those of us that don't want to hear the rhetoric from either side in that forum. It is out of place, stop it!

 

 

The WB has EVERY RIGHT to print whatever they want. THEY OWN IT. Your membership only give you the right to play there

game in there matches. NOT ONE THING MORE.

 

You buy it. Then you can do what you want with it.

 

 

You seem to think that your paid membership makes you a owner. Got news for you. It don't.

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

You are all mising the point. Whether I agree or disagree with Col. Dan is IRRELEVANT! Political rhetoric of ANY type is out of place in the monthly newsletter of a club that the members pay dues to. I made the disclosure that I did NOT agree with him only to make full disclosure. If you like him, fine. Talk to him by E-Mail, but keep it out of the monthly newsletter. Other people like it? that's O.K. too.But that does not give them, even if thy are the majority the right to impose their political views on those of us that don't want to hear the rhetoric from either side in that forum. It is out of place, stop it!

 

Your the only one here that has an issue with it.

No one is forcing YOU to read the CC or to join SASS did they.

WTH, since YOU don't like what he sez, he has to go What a load of BS.....IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN

Get over yourself or move on......Grow-up some too

 

LG

Edited March 11, 2012 by Lumpy Grits # 49458

[Tonk Thimblerig]

Don't read it then. That simple.

 

 

I enjoy Colonal Dan's articles and hope they continue.

 

GG

 

Like Gunner said!

 

I'd not read any of the articles though...I'll start now, just to see what the hubbub is about.

[twelve mile REB]

No sir you are missing the point. SASS is not a club, you may belong to a club that plays SASS's game but SASS and the Wild Bunch are a for profit organization. You get a CC as a subscription and its content is entirely what Tex says it is. Why, because he and several other gentlemen own it.

12

[Possum Skinner, SASS#60697]

You are all mising the point. Whether I agree or disagree with Col. Dan is IRRELEVANT! Political rhetoric of ANY type is out of place in the monthly newsletter of a club that the members pay dues to. I made the disclosure that I did NOT agree with him only to make full disclosure. If you like him, fine. Talk to him by E-Mail, but keep it out of the monthly newsletter. Other people like it? that's O.K. too.But that does not give them, even if thy are the majority the right to impose their political views on those of us that don't want to hear the rhetoric from either side in that forum. It is out of place, stop it!

 

We're smart enough to get what you're saying. It's just that you are wrong.

 

In all actuality, it IS their right to publish anything they want in The Cowboy Chronicle and you have every right to not read it.

 

That's part of the problem with liberals: they want what they want and to hell with what anybody else might want.

 

Possum

Edited March 11, 2012 by Possum Skinner, SASS#60697

[Tonk Thimblerig]

You are all mising the point. Whether I agree or disagree with Col. Dan is IRRELEVANT! Political rhetoric of ANY type is out of place in the monthly newsletter of a club that the members pay dues to. I made the disclosure that I did NOT agree with him only to make full disclosure. If you like him, fine. Talk to him by E-Mail, but keep it out of the monthly newsletter. Other people like it? that's O.K. too.But that does not give them, even if thy are the majority the right to impose their political views on those of us that don't want to hear the rhetoric from either side in that forum. It is out of place, stop it!

 

I have to respectfully disagree, I feel that no one has missed the point. The very titles of SASS and CAS refer to the use of firearms...guns. The very status (not act, but status) of being in ownership of firearms in the US is constantly under political pressure. Therefore, politics have great influence on the very nature of the sport itself. That would, in my opinion, make political opinion of members inherent to the sport as well.

[Assassin]

I just look at the pictures.

 

LL'

[Horace Patootie, SASS #35798]

I never read those articles but I had to go back and read this one. After reading this post, the article by Col. Dan was not what I expected. I thought it was a very good article. I think we all understand what your point of this post is; and anyone certainly has the right to disagree with a point of view; BUT while you can express your disagreement, you can't demand what they do or don't put in the Chronicle. As has been stated many times in this thread, SASS is owned by the Wild Bunch. SASS members do not have any ownership in SASS.

 

Horace

[Harvey Mushman]

We're smart enough to get what you're saying. It's just that you are wrong.

 

In all actuality, it IS their right to publish anything they want in The Cowboy Chronicle and you have every right to not read it.

 

That's part of the problem with liberals: they want what they want and to hell with what anybody else might want.

 

Possum

 

 

The other BIG part is that they want to silence ANY dissent, even in a privately owned publication, by the owners!!! This is a perfect example.

 

I read the LA Times and NY Times, both very far left. Like to know what the other side thinks, how they skew things, and actually, even to challenge my own beliefs.

 

EDIT: Many on The left can't handle that. I have some good friends on the left side that can handle it and do enjoy the exchange - this stuff (silencing the opposition) embarrasses them.

Edited March 11, 2012 by Harvey Mushman

[Crazy Knife Al]

Excuse Me, What part of privately owned do you not understand? Three replies and you have not replied to that portion of the argument.

[Wells Fargo #3863]

The Chronicle is not a "club" newsletter, it is a periodical published monthly to give SASS members and the different clubs information on what is happening in the world of SASS. I get your point however, anything that is published in the Chronicle is what the owners of the periodical wish to print. There have been articles about the Chapel and fund raisiing for it, obituaries, biographical articles, book reviews, advertisments and articles on matches from the USA and from around the world printed differently every month. As a subscriber to several periodicals, I have a choice to turn the page, cancel my subscription or write a letter to the editor on my likes or dislikes on a certain article yet wouldn't expect that it be published nor would I expect that the author of an article be removed from the periodical solely because I didn't care for what an individual wrote.

SASS requires that shooters particpating in this sport, shoot firearms that are appropriate to the sport. Firearms to many are a political hot potato and goes hand in hand with individuals who have an interest to keep the shooting sports alive and well so political speak is to be expected. This open letter now has been an attack on Constitutional rights by an individual wanting to curtail freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Colonel Dan simply makes sense to the majority of us who enjoy his writing and opinions. The Col. articulates what many of us believe and would like to have our elected officials follow.

You may be better off finding something that is less stressful such as golf, yoga, needle point, baking or meditation so as not to get all worked up over to keep your blood pressure down.

 

Wells Fargo

[Krazy Kajun]

If you don't like the articles Col. Dan writes just exercise your right of choice and turn the page, put the paper down or don't read it. You don't own the paper, you don't have a say in what is printed and that's just the way it is. If this gets your panties in a wad then change them.

[Joe LaFives #5481]

Political rhetoric of ANY type is out of place in the monthly newsletter of a club that the members pay dues to

...It is out of place, stop it!

 

Why? What makes it out of place. What law, moral code or ethic decides this? I get newsletters from lots of organizations, clubs, Universities, even my homeowners association. All of them, at one time or another offer an opinion about politics. Especially if it hits their bottom line. The only group that I know of that is restricted are churches and some other nonprofits and they do so to maintain their nonprofit status. Even they can take sides on issues so long as they don't specify candidates.