Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 49 reply threads

  • Author

    Posts

    • michael89156

      Participant
      Post count: 3229

      NFL bans gun seller's gun-free ad from Super Bowl.....Watch, weigh in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJs_c3Phfdo&feature=player_embeddedThe 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

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 61

      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.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 11506

      I think it’s kind of silly by the NFL, ….but whatever….

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 307

      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.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 15

      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.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 738

      “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?

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3028

      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.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 8096

      It certainly points out the hypocrisy of the NFL making an inclusive rule specific to something they don’t want to allow.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 11506

      All the DUI’s the NFL players gets every year , yet they are prefectly fine with non-stop Beer commercials , LOL.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 738

      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.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 307

      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.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 738

      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?

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 738

      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...

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 307

      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.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 883

      "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

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 307

      BTW why is the NFL allowed to chose who’s commercials run on the network. Talk about power…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 975

      Gun control advocates and politicians are renown for creating a lot of noise against issues and organizations that do anything that contradicts their opinion. Look at anyone who says anything remotely negative against gay marriage as but one example.  The way the NFL are dealing with anything that could cause an injury, the concussions etc  highlights their current mindset. They want to stay away from anything and everything that even whiffs of negative.  Therefore you can understand why the NFL wants to stay away from that commercial. If it airs, you won’t be able to hear the crowd in the stadium for the screech that will resonate across the airways. The backlash afterwards would be horrendous. Cowardly and lacking balls, but as I say, understandable. Edit: Think back to the Tebow add. How much stink did that cause and how harmless did it turn out to be?

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 738

      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.

      Never said they were.  I don't watch commercials anyways.  Just saying beer commercials aren't controversial.  They're generally accepted by the public.  Again, the NFL is a PRIVATE company.  Networks pay BILLIONS of dollars to show their product.  And the NFL realizes that plenty of anti-gun people would most likely take offense to the ad in question here.  So they've chosen not to allow it.Why?  Because successful companies realize they make the most money when they appeal to the broadest range of people.  Pretty simple stuff here.  A corporation making a business decision.  No 1st amendment issues.  No 2nd amendment issues.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 4057

      Are they within their rights…yes clearly. They can reject anything for any reason really as far as I’m concern. Did they do the "right" thing...no. Product is legal, advertisement is within the guidelines as they are written.  An ad for guns is no more going to get me to buy a gun I don't want than a beer commercial can convince me to drink that crap.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 11506

      Well , at least we know why hitting is illegal now. The league is run by candy-ass liberals….

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 738

      BTW why is the NFL allowed to chose who's commercials run on the network. Talk about power...

      Huh?  Yeah, its all about power.  Corporations have power.  Is this news to you?When you're the NFL, networks throw money at you to show your product on TV.  And with that comes the right for the NFL to pick and choose what ads it wants or doesn't want.Seems pretty anti-American to tell a corporation what it can or cannot do....

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 738

      Well , at least we know why hitting is illegal now. The league is run by candy-ass liberals....

      Actually, no.  Its again a business decision.When you have 3000+ former employees sue you, your lawyers are probably going to tell you to do things differently going forward.SMH... if fans don't want the NFL to have these soft rules (which I hate too BTW), then tell the former players to quit suing. 

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 975

      Well , at least we know why hitting is illegal now. The league is run by candy-ass liberals....

      Actually, no.  Its again a business decision.When you have 3000+ former employees sue you, your lawyers are probably going to tell you to do things differently going forward.SMH... if fans don't want the NFL to have these soft rules (which I hate too BTW), then tell the former players to quit suing.

      Well, he is right about the candy assed bit.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 738

      Are they within their rights...yes clearly. They can reject anything for any reason really as far as I'm concern. Did they do the "right" thing...no. Product is legal, advertisement is within the guidelines as they are written.  An ad for guns is no more going to get me to buy a gun I don't want than a beer commercial can convince me to drink that crap.

      Companies don't have to do the "right" thing.  They do what they believe is right to be profitable within a generic set of moral standards.  Period.I have no problem with that gun ad.  But I totally see why the NFL doesn't want it run during the Super Bowl. 

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 883

      SnookAU is pretty much OBLITERATING this thread, posters and the article.Destroy on, sir. Destroy on.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 11506

      Well , at least we know why hitting is illegal now. The league is run by candy-ass liberals....

      Actually, no.  Its again a business decision.When you have 3000+ former employees sue you, your lawyers are probably going to tell you to do things differently going forward.SMH... if fans don't want the NFL to have these soft rules (which I hate too BTW), then tell the former players to quit suing.

      Well, he is right about the candy assed bit.

      LMAO

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 738

      Well , at least we know why hitting is illegal now. The league is run by candy-ass liberals....

      Actually, no.  Its again a business decision.When you have 3000+ former employees sue you, your lawyers are probably going to tell you to do things differently going forward.SMH... if fans don't want the NFL to have these soft rules (which I hate too BTW), then tell the former players to quit suing.

      Well, he is right about the candy assed bit.

      Yeah.  He's right.  The new rules totally suck.  But anyohe who can't see the reason why the NFL is doing it needs to open their eyes.If you owned a business and you were being sued by such a large number of people, you'd have to make changes to hedge your position in any future lawsuits.And that's exactly what these new rules do.  If any player tries to sue the NFL for concussion based things who played in these current times, they're going to have a difficult time considering all of the procedures and rules in place.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 738

      With the popularity of the NFL, they can pretty much do what they want.Who's going to stop watching?  I surely won't.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 8096

      At least there will be an awesome display of powerful weapons at the Super Bowl… weather permitting.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 4057

      Are they within their rights...yes clearly. They can reject anything for any reason really as far as I'm concern. Did they do the "right" thing...no. Product is legal, advertisement is within the guidelines as they are written.  An ad for guns is no more going to get me to buy a gun I don't want than a beer commercial can convince me to drink that crap.

      Companies don't have to do the "right" thing.  They do what they believe is right to be profitable within a generic set of moral standards.  Period.I have no problem with that gun ad.  But I totally see why the NFL doesn't want it run during the Super Bowl.

      No one asked if they have to do the right thing.  They asked if they did the right thing. That is two different measures. The funny thing here is you want to be some hyper-realist but what the NFL did is the opposite to that sort of hard boiled realism. They turned down cash for advertising a legal product within their guidelines for nothing more than moral reasoning. There is no way you can tell me that you think running that ad would cost the NFL one dollar of marginal income. It might result in some spilled bottled water in editorial rooms at the NYT but that isn't their core demographic anyways.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 738

      Are they within their rights...yes clearly. They can reject anything for any reason really as far as I'm concern. Did they do the "right" thing...no. Product is legal, advertisement is within the guidelines as they are written.  An ad for guns is no more going to get me to buy a gun I don't want than a beer commercial can convince me to drink that crap.

      Companies don't have to do the "right" thing.  They do what they believe is right to be profitable within a generic set of moral standards.  Period.I have no problem with that gun ad.  But I totally see why the NFL doesn't want it run during the Super Bowl.

      No one asked if they have to do the right thing.  They asked if they did the right thing. That is two different measures. The funny thing here is you want to be some hyper-realist but what the NFL did is the opposite to that sort of hard boiled realism. They turned down cash for advertising a legal product within their guidelines for nothing more than moral reasoning. There is no way you can tell me that you think running that ad would cost the NFL one dollar of marginal income. It might result in some spilled bottled water in editorial rooms at the NYT but that isn't their core demographic anyways.

      They did the right thing for the NFL.  Which is what they always do.I wouldn't say they "turned down cash".  And I don't think there was any "moral reasoning" involved.  They just don't want to hear liberals whine.  And another commercial from another paying advertising customer will take its place.  So no harm done to the bottom line.  So basically, they'll make the same amount of money and not have to deal with anyone whining about a pro-gun ad - because you know someone would.  Sounds like a win-win to me.Not trying to be a "hyper realist".  Just don't understand why people care when corporations make choices that they perceive to be in their best interest.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 8096