NFL Bans Commercial Touting Self Defense

"Censorship?" The NFL and the various networks that broadcast its games are all private enterprises. Just how is this "censorship?" It's the invisible hand at work.

No evidence so far, of course, that it was the NFL that ruled that commercial does not meet its standards.

Would they run a condom commercial? One for hard liquor? For copies of The Anarchists' Cookbook?

This is still America.They get to decide which commercials are acceptable. And which are not.Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo
 

Who TF cares about protecting their family, ppl are expendable and life has no meaning for anyone anymore!
Kill 'em ALL! Let God sort 'em out!!
 

Gotta side with OB on this one, mostly anyway. They are free to determine what they want to air, and the rifle logo was really pushing it in regards to the NFL guidelines. The vast majority of viewers would assume that the commercial was promoting the sale of the Daniel Defense rifle pictured, and not advertising a physical store. Although a revised version proposing replacing the gun with a flag was denied, which would have been perfectly acceptable as-per the guidelines, one can't blame them for doing a cost/benefit analysis and arriving at the conclusion that promoting the sale of firearms would alienate far more advertising revenue streams than it would attract. This really is a non-issue.
 

All private companies have the right to censor what they don't want associated with them. It is no secret that TNet censors as well. Attacking the ability of a private company to censor is an attack on TNet itself. Same thing, no difference, nothing to see here, move along now, shoot em all and let God sort it out.
 

Nothing to read in the above post ... evidently he doesn't get it either.

What's even more curious is, every time I post in Crispin's Critters, the above poster whines and I get admonished to stay off that thread.

spoiled-brat.jpg


... and yet, for someone who doesn't want to hear from me, he somehow feels compelled to comment on threads I start.

065be0f28fcd93d4c2d488d4d459d8f9.jpg
 

Last edited:
Red James cash:

That "argument" could be used to attempt to prove almost anything. I recall Rummie talking about "absence of proof." Turned out he was dead wrong.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo
 

Plumbata:

Do you think those people really thought they could run that ad on SuperBowl Sunday? Looks to me like they wanted the broadcast network (still no evidence it was the NFL, but some folks don't let facts get in the way of a rant) to turn them down.

Then they could go on the Internets, play the victim, gets free ink - and not spend the millions it would have cost to pay for that ad. I wonder what that company's annual advertising budget is? Could it even have afforded the ad if the network had said yes?

One more thing. It's well established here in the US of A no one is obligated to accept a paid ad. It isn't "censorship." It's private enterprise.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo
 

OB,

Unfortunately I am in complete agreement with you that the NFL is part of the free enterprize system and as such they have the total say on what commercial ads they will and will not accept to air, and the total right to do so. That is capitalism at work and that is what I believe in. I do not agree with it at all, in any way, but such is life in this PC world we live in.

What we weapons owners need to figure out is a way to send a message back to the NFL, that they will hear loud and clear, that we don't agree with this, and we don't like it one bit, especially after that idiot Bob Costas is permitted to run his mouth like he does, spouting his anti gun drivel at half time of an NFL game. That too is the free enterprise system and I wonder what the NFL's advertisers would do if all the weapons owners in this country got together and boycotted a few, or all, of their remaining advertisers for a period of a week or two just to prove the point. Interesting concept that maybe needs exploring.
 

Unclebuck257:

Yes, the "non-profit" NFL is private enterprise. But - once again - where's the evidence it turned that commercial down? Or that the company had the money to pay for it?

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo
 

OB,

As far as I know, the evidence was a statement released by that particular weapons manufacturer to the news media. I heard it on.....................get ready for it!................................Fox News!!
 

Unclebuck257:

Then it must be true!

2013 Super Bowl commercials were $3,500,000 for 30 seconds and $6,000,000 for 60 seconds. I continue to very much doubt this company had $6M to spend on a single commercial.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo
 

Last edited:
Unclebuck257 said:
What we weapons owners need to figure out is a way to send a message back to the NFL, that they will hear loud and clear, that we don't agree with this, and we don't like it one bit, especially after that idiot Bob Costas is permitted to run his mouth like he does, spouting his anti gun drivel at half time of an NFL game. That too is the free enterprise system and I wonder what the NFL's advertisers would do if all the weapons owners in this country got together and boycotted a few, or all, of their remaining advertisers for a period of a week or two just to prove the point. Interesting concept that maybe needs exploring.
Click to expand...

I, personally, haven't noticed the NFL having a bias for or against gun rights. The players? Well, we certainly know where they stand. We hear about one of them exercising their right to bear arms almost every week! Unfortunately, it's usually news that's not doing us gun rights advocates any good.
 

Last edited:
I'm not the one to ask OB, as Football or college/professional sports in general are of no personal interest. You'll have to ask those who actually own and waste time in front of a television. I had never heard of "Daniel Defense" before seeing this thread and doing some casual poking around, so it is very possible that the entire scenario was a ploy to get top-notch free/cheap advertising, because that is exactly what happened. What's better than an "All-American" arms company being portrayed as an innocent victim of the "insidious anti-self-defense liberal machine"? As hard as it may be for my right-leaning ideological peers to believe, all sides of the debate are apparently guilty of the underhanded "conspiratorial" manipulation of superficial public opinion, one way or another, just as all sides are heavily infused with instances of unmitigated idiocy. Again, I suggest that this whole thing is a distracting non-issue.

For the record OB, I do not agree with you in many cases, but you keep it rather classy while others are quick to embrace ad-hominem attacks and base appeals to emotion. Without your perspective, this subforum would be a step closer to devolving into a mess of uncontested conservative bias. Thought-provoking debate which challenges deep convictions is of utmost personal importance, despite negative gut reactions one may have to incompatible opinions. If one tries to suppress unpopular opinion, then they are guilty of a grave infringement upon the rights and liberties held most dear by true Americans, and have absolutely zero right to self-identify as patriots. I may not stand with your political ideology (or certain crafty rhetorical tactics), but I'll be damned if you don't have the right to express it.
 

Plumbata said:
Thought-provoking debate which challenges deep convictions is of utmost personal importance, despite negative gut reactions one may have to incompatible opinions. If one tries to suppress unpopular opinion, then they are guilty of a grave infringement upon the rights and liberties held most dear by true Americans, and have absolutely zero right to self-identify as patriots.
Click to expand...

Very well said. Too many "beat downs" occur around here for expressing an outlier opinion.
 

Moderators have to at least have the "appearance" of moderate temperament. You may not agree with them,, but I haven't seen one that went after anyone here without just cause.
 

Dave44 said:
Moderators have to at least have the "appearance" of moderate temperament. You may not agree with them,, but I haven't seen one that went after anyone here without just cause.
Click to expand...

... and that includes my time outs as well.

I earned the danged things.

Didn't realize what I was doing at the time, made heated statements, and got some time to think about it.

Drank coffee, did a little detecting, some drawing, got to be early ... all in all, a nice vacation.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Food For Thought

⬅️ Previous Thread

Expert Testifies to Congress: Obama’s ‘Ignoring Laws’ Could Lead to Overthrow of Gov

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
High Plains Prospectors

Latest Discussions

Back
Top