NFL bans gun seller's gun-free ad from Super Bowl.....Watch, weigh in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJs_c3Phfdo&feature=player_embedded The NFL rejected this ad for airing during the upcoming Super Bowl. By Christie D'Zurilla The LA Times A gun ad that was specifically designed to fit the rules that would allow it to air during Super Bowl XLVIII in February is being rejected by the NFL— and some people are crying foul. No, it's not one of those video game ads full of guns and gunfire that you might've seen repeatedly on any given Sunday, or Monday, or Thursday night. And yes, we're talking about deciding what's appropriate for the audience of the biggest football game of the year, an event in which big men slam into each other violently and sometimes hurt each other badly in pursuit of a national title and some shiny rings. But never mind all that. The ad in contention — which shows a man, home from active military service, taking responsibility for protecting his family — is actually for a place that sells guns, Daniel Defense. It doesn't show a gun, save for a silhouetted rifle in the logo at the end, an image the company was willing to swap out for an American flag or the words "Shall Not Be Infringed," if that made the deal happen. No dice, we learn courtesy of Guns & Ammo. Here's the NFL's gun rule, via G&A: "Firearms, ammunition or other weapons are prohibited; however, stores that sell firearms and ammunitions (e.g., outdoor stores and camping stores) will be permitted, provided they sell other products and the ads do not mention firearms, ammunition or other weapons." The company's chief exec, Marty Daniel, told "Fox & Friends" that they started from that rule and developed a commercial they thought would hit all the marks. He said Daniel Defense does sell a number of items besides guns -- outdoor gear and the like.Still, Elisabeth Hasselbeck had to ask, wasn't it just as good to have the ad talked about in the lead-up to the big game, even if the spot didn't air? It wasn't bad, Daniel said, but the $100,000 ad was created for the Super Bowl, and the point was to have it air there. "We believe the average, that the majority of the Super Bowl fans have the same values that we have at Daniel Defense," Daniel said on the Fox show. "That is, we believe in protecting our families, we believe in our 2nd Amendment, which is our right to protect ourselves. We believe in the 1st Amendment, which is really the issue here. We're trying to exercise our 1st Amendment rights to give our opinion on the 2nd Amendment and not being allowed to do so." Watch the ad, above, and tell us what you think. Is the NFL in the wrong here, or did the league do the right thing? http://www.latimes.com/nation/shareitnow/la-sh-banned-super-bowl-gun-ad-daniel-defense-20131203,0,3233881.story#ixzz2rZvzfmHM
The 1st amendment protects you from the government not the NFL. I'm pro-gun, but I honestly couldn't care less what ads the NFL allows and doesn't. It's not as if they're allowing a anti-gun ad while disallowing this one.
I think it's kind of silly by the NFL, ....but whatever....
It's shameful.The ad is no worse than all the beer ads, video game ads, or as controversial or shocking as some other ads like the Go Daddy ones they've embraced.
The 1st amendment protects you from the government not the NFL. I'm pro-gun, but I honestly couldn't care less what ads the NFL allows and doesn't. It's not as if they're allowing a anti-gun ad while disallowing this one.
I have to say that I'm pretty impressed that the very first comment on this thread was to call out this common misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment. I'm not a big pro-gun guy myself, but I don't really like the NFL practicing this level of censorship of ads. Nonetheless, they are well within their constitutional rights as a private entity to do so.
"We believe in the 1st Amendment, which is really the issue here. We're trying to exercise our 1st Amendment rights to give our opinion on the 2nd Amendment and not being allowed to do so."My God, people are so stupid. How is this 1st amendment related?The NFL is a private company, not the US Government.To review, the 1st amendment states: "prohibits the making of any law...abridging the freedom of speech..."No law has been made by the US Government here. Why can't someone ask the idiot here what exactly he thinks the 1st amendment means?
While I do not have a problem with them not showing a politically charged ad during the super bowl...I find it a little hypocritical when they use that as the excuse but then had no problem having teams/players help push Obamacare. If you want to stay neutral, fine. But, don't use that as an excuse when it only supports your stance some of the time.
It certainly points out the hypocrisy of the NFL making an inclusive rule specific to something they don't want to allow.
All the DUI's the NFL players gets every year , yet they are prefectly fine with non-stop Beer commercials , LOL.
Private companies can pick and choose what they want to allow or not allow.Same thing as Chick-fil-A. They put up a pretty strong anti-gay stance. Totally within their rights. And look at how many people came out to support them.Only thing that's hypocritical is how people react to each situation.
No law has been made by the US Government here. Why can't someone ask the idiot here what exactly he thinks the 1st amendment means?
The US government made a law to take away the 1st amendment rights of tobacco producers and if they didn't the NFL would likely have no problem running their ads. We're so screwed when a store that wants to advertise the guns that they sell it's considered political, and we have people proclaiming themselves pro-gun or anti gun.
All the DUI's the NFL players gets every year , yet they are prefectly fine with non-stop Beer commercials , LOL.
Beer commercials aren't controversial.And didn't they allow a Tim Tebow anti-abortion commercial a few years back?
No law has been made by the US Government here. Why can't someone ask the idiot here what exactly he thinks the 1st amendment means?
The US government made a law to take away the 1st amendment rights of tobacco producers and if they didn't the NFL would likely have no problem running their ads. We're so screwed when a store that wants to advertise the guns that they sell it's considered political, and we have people proclaiming themselves pro-gun or anti gun.
Gun and ammunition producers are making record profits these days. I'm sure not having a TV ad won't matter in the least....Same with tobacco companies. I don't see any going out of business...
All the DUI's the NFL players gets every year , yet they are prefectly fine with non-stop Beer commercials , LOL.
Beer commercials aren't controversial.And didn't they allow a Tim Tebow anti-abortion commercial a few years back?
Who made gun commercials controversial?No, Tim Tebow's mom was in a commercial that discussed the importance of family.Many years ago, they "allowed" pro-life commercials and their was one that was done by a current player at the time.
"We believe in the 1st Amendment, which is really the issue here. We're trying to exercise our 1st Amendment rights to give our opinion on the 2nd Amendment and not being allowed to do so."My God, people are so stupid. How is this 1st amendment related?The NFL is a private company, not the US Government.To review, the 1st amendment states: "prohibits the making of any law...abridging the freedom of speech..."No law has been made by the US Government here. Why can't someone ask the idiot here what exactly he thinks the 1st amendment means?
Private companies can pick and choose what they want to allow or not allow.Same thing as Chick-fil-A. They put up a pretty strong anti-gay stance. Totally within their rights. And look at how many people came out to support them.Only thing that's hypocritical is how people react to each situation.
+1000000000000000
