Why the NFL chose to reject an ad from Daniel Defense while taking them from Bloomberg’s group of criminal mayors. They showed their true feelings when they banned guns from NFL games and started doing security screening like it was an airport. Screw those people. Not going to watch. Not going to go. They are already thieves for shaking down the public to get stadium funding on the taxpayer dime. Now they are actively working to undermine American freedom.
The ad rejected by the NFL is very well done, IMHO. It’s definitely not a hard sell:
Can’t get to excited over this. They knew the ad was not going to be approved and are just doing this for publicity. LOTS of companies do this every year.
Do you think they would really pay $8 mill for a superbowl commercial and then make one with such poor production values?
Oh, I agree. But it also raises awareness that the NFL is actively anti-gun, and works with the enemy.
I respectfully disagree. I think the NFL isn’t anti-gun; it’s just anti-controversy and pro-money, money, money. When the credits roll on the Superbowl, they want everyone talking about an amazing play, a memorable comeback, an amusing halftime show, or a funny commercial — not anything remotely political, confrontational, or risque (think “wardrobe malfunctions”).
I also think this ad is still too negative: “No one has the right to tell me how to defend them” sounds too confrontational compared to “I like knowing I can make my own choices about their safety,” for instance.
In any event, the NFL and mainstream TV were never going to risk the most-watched hours on TV with anything remotely controversial or taboo.
So why didn’t they tell Bloomberg to take a hike then? BS. They are on the other side.
That was my response, too, Sebastian!
You are right: The NFL isn’t antI-controversy – remember the Christopher Reeve stem cell ad, the Tim Tenow pro-life ad, and Bob Costas’ anti-gun rant on NBC’s Sunday Night Football?
They ARE anti-gun!
IMHO — Arnie
If the NFL were anti-controversy, they would not take the taxpayer subsidies for their stadiums which would piss me off even if they were pro-selfdefense.
You can tell just how “anti-controversy” the NFL is from its reaction to Bob Costas’s mid-Sunday Night Football pro-gun-control rant.
Crickets.
Excellent point, sir!
Not all Super Bowl ads run for the national market. This ad was for the Atlanta market only. See interview with Marty Daniels here: http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2013/12/marty-daniels-maybe-i-should-throw.html
mind you, it would have been a far better ad if the husband or the wife were a minority. White guy, latina wife. or black guy, white wife. get beyond the “angry white male” stereotype and audience.
Yeah, can’t show white people in ads anymore. Double-plus ungood bad-thoughts.
His point is that we need to break the stereotype that we’re all a bunch of old, fat, angry white guys.
He isn’t advocating “diversity” for it’s own sake, he’s pointing out that the advert plays into the hands of a stereotype that is bad for us.
Damn right, Sebastian. I see no need to waste time and money on an anti-gun group.
NFL === Dick’s Sporting Goods here.
NO FIREARMS LEAUGE. taxpayer rip off artists and NO FAN LOYALTY . When super Sunday gets here I will be on mother range with my friends.
Typo alert:
Use, “They are the enemy”, not, “The are the enemy”.
On the plus side, they also enforce their Gun Free Zone rules against off-duty LEOs.