Replies

• coolgunguy Posts: 6,637 Senior Member

  November 2013 #2

  Well, as a fan, this hits right in my wheelhouse. I know I don't agree with their national ban of the commercial (though it sounds like they may have no objections to the commercial running locally), but I'm not sure I disagree with their right to do so. Personally, I think it's a silly move on their part. It's not as if the vid promotes criminal activity or some such.

  "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
  George Carlin

  0 · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
• Teach Posts: 18,428 Senior Member

  November 2013 #3

  Hey- - - -whatever works to get the message out there. How hypocritical is it for an outfit that employs rapists, murderers, and untold numbers of abusers of steroids and other drugs to reject a simple, inoffensive ad from a gunmaker? It sounds like DD comes out of this one smelling a lot better than the NFL, no matter what their motives were!
  Jerry

  0 · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
• Jermanator Posts: 16,244 Senior Member

  November 2013 #4

  Daniel Defense probably just got themselves $3 million in free advertising. I would have never have seen that ad if it was on the Super Bowl, but I just seen it now. Good for them!

  Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.

  -Thomas Paine

  0 · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
• DoctorWho Posts: 9,496 Senior Member

  November 2013 #5

  The NFL and co. can pound sand, I will never spend one cent on anything NFL, EVER ! The NFL, the AMA, the VPC, the Brady bunch, NOBODY is going to tell Me I should not CCW etc.. :bang:

  "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996

  0 · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
• terminator012 Posts: 3,930 Senior Member

  November 2013 #6

  alphasigmookie wrote: »

  Maybe it's the cynic in me, but what are the odds DD actually planned to fork out the $3m+ to run that during the superbowl vs. just submitting it knowing it would get rejected causing a stir and then go viral on the gunboards? Seems like a brilliant strategy to me!

  
  Good point. I hadn't even thought of it that way.

  0 · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
• NN Posts: 25,236 Senior Member

  November 2013 #7

  So do the people complaining about this NFL ban think they will stop gun owners from watching the super bowl?

  0 · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
• farm boy Posts: 1,001 Senior Member

  November 2013 #8

  Awesome commercial. I really think Alpha is right.

  I am afraid we forget sometime that the basic and simple things brings us the most pleasure.
  Dad 5-31-13

  0 · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
• terminator012 Posts: 3,930 Senior Member

  November 2013 #9

  I did some searching. It appears there is no national ban on gun or ammo advertising. The networks just choose not to run them. Some say that gun makers don't have to advertise because they sell themselves. All though..........Guns get more free advertising than any other product because all the networks are quick to show anything gun related.

  0 · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
• CHIRO1989 Posts: 14,857 Senior Member

  November 2013 #10

  It is interesting that the NFL has any say in how the network makes their money by selling advertising.

  I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11

  0 · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
• Bigslug Posts: 9,875 Senior Member

  November 2013 #11

  NN wrote: »

  So do the people complaining about this NFL ban think they will stop gun owners from watching the super bowl?

  
  Screw the super bowl. If it doesn't involve flying lead, it isn't a sport.

  WWJMBD?
  
  "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee

  0 · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
• Big Chief Posts: 32,995 Senior Member

  December 2013 #12

  Teach wrote: »

  Hey- - - -whatever works to get the message out there. How hypocritical is it for an outfit that employs rapists, murderers, and untold numbers of abusers of steroids and other drugs to reject a simple, inoffensive ad from a gunmaker? It sounds like DD comes out of this one smelling a lot better than the NFL, no matter what their motives were!
  Jerry

  
  Reminds me of Arlo Guthrie's Alice's Restaurant Song ..Mother rapers Father rapers........... what was it.. a couple years ago an NFL player was arrested fer beating up his own momma :yikes::rotflmao:

  It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
  Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
  I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!

  0 · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
• coolgunguy Posts: 6,637 Senior Member

  December 2013 #13

  Hadn't considered the 'fauxmercial' angle...this make a lot more sense than DD actually wanting a half-minute spot.

  "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
  George Carlin

  0 · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
• Buford Posts: 6,724 Senior Member

  December 2013 #14

  Meh
  
  Cool commercial though.

  Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.

  0 · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
• 104RFAST Posts: 1,281 Senior Member

  December 2013 #15

  Who cares what the NFL, ESPN thinks! I quit watching NFL and ESPN 10 years ago.What else would
  you expect from the North East establishment

  0 · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter