Watch the Pro-Gun Commercial Americans Apparently Aren't...

Dec 2, 2013 Full story: TheBlaze.com 103

Daniel Defense, a leading firearms company in the Unites States, wanted to air one of its commercials during the 2014 NFL Super Bowl.

Full Story
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1 Dec 2, 2013
"Daniel Defense, a leading firearms company in the Unites States, wanted to air one of its commercials during the 2014 NFL Super Bowl. However, the ad, which subtly highlights the Second Amendment as a means to protect one’s family, was reportedly rejected by FOX because it violates NFL advertising rules.

"Daniel Defense Pro Gun Ad Reportedly Banned From Super Bowl“Unfortunately, we cannot accept your commercial in football/Super Bowl spots due to the rules the NFL itself has set into place for your company’s category,” FOX reportedly said in a statement to Daniel Defense.

"Guns & Ammo isn’t buying the explanation and is making the case that the commercial doesn’t violate any rules:

"The NFL’s Advertising Policy addresses several Prohibited Advertising Categories, including guidelines for ads featuring alcohol, video games, movies, prescription drugs, and, of course, firearms.

The firearms portion of the NFL’s Prohibited Advertising Categories states:

“5. 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 'nfl' are traitors. What's more "American" than a firearm?[Certainly NOT the 'nfl']

BOYCOTT TRAITORS. STARVE THEM INTO SUBMISSION.

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#2 Dec 3, 2013
The NFL doesn't want to promote bad things. Imagine that (Michael Vick).

NFL is apparently concerned about its image (Aron Hernandez).

They equate the 2nd amendment with Vick and Hernandez.

What do you think of Bob Costas now ?

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#4 Dec 3, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
IN THE UNLIKELY EVENT YOU COME IN CONTACT WITH 2ndamright OR ANY OF HIS MANY ALIASES , DO NOT BEND OVER IN FRONT OF HIM UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES . A panel of experts has recently determined that this poor INBRED’S complete inability to attract any attention from either sex has driven him to the rather bizarre behavior of impersonating Americans. He is doing this in the hope of attracting either reverend ted haggard or a priest with a tub of vaseline, to which he hasn’t been successful.
He has now resorted to trying to kornhole his own aliases. This creature can most commonly found on the TOPIX gun threads, erect, spinning around like a dog chasing it’s tail, while trying to get at his own butt. It is also highly recommended that in the case of accidental contact you rinse yourself off with bleach and burn the clothes you were
You really are pathetic. But you already know that, don't you?

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#6 Dec 4, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are pathetic. But you already know that, don't you?
OCD and maybe bi-polar. Does not appear stressed out.
cancer suxs

Owatonna, MN

#8 Dec 4, 2013
A private company or group can do as it wishes.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#9 Dec 4, 2013
cancer suxs wrote:
A private company or group can do as it wishes.
Actually NO, it most certainly CANNOT. It is just as much BOUND by the Constitution as EVERYONE else. And this EXACT TYPE CIRCUMSTANCE is what was covered in the civil rights amendments after the Civil War. Because business were denying products and service to the newly freed slaves.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#10 Dec 4, 2013
cancer suxs wrote:
A private company or group can do as it wishes.
They can be sued for discrimination and denial of rights.

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#12 Dec 5, 2013
cancer suxs wrote:
A private company or group can do as it wishes.
Can a private company air an ad promoting the murder of children ? After-all according to you it can do anything "it wishes".
semper fi

Evansville, IN

#13 Dec 9, 2013
Great liberal logic, don't air a commercial of a father defending his family's safety but let's out 90 beer commercials that promote drinking ( which leads to driving) and partying.

I really hope the NFL looses its tax exempt status.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#14 Dec 9, 2013
semper fi wrote:
Great liberal logic, don't air a commercial of a father defending his family's safety but let's out 90 beer commercials that promote drinking ( which leads to driving) and partying.
I really hope the NFL looses its tax exempt status.
Hat-tip to the Marine!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15 Dec 9, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
BOYCOTT TRAITORS. STARVE THEM INTO SUBMISSION.
WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!~s tomp stomp stomp~

Gee, you not spending your bottle returns money is going to drive them out of business, Sod0Mite.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAH!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#17 Dec 9, 2013
semper fi wrote:
Great liberal logic, don't air a commercial of a father defending his family's safety but let's out 90 beer commercials that promote drinking ( which leads to driving) and partying.
Yea, because we all know the typical gun gnutter doesn't drink.

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!
semper fi

Evansville, IN

#18 Dec 9, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Yea, because we all know the typical gun gnutter doesn't drink.

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!
That's some good logic fucktard

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#19 Dec 9, 2013
semper fi wrote:
<quoted text>
That's some good logic fucktard
Don't pay attention to the evil and vile treasonous troll Marine. She's not worth the sweat off your socks.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#20 Dec 9, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't pay attention to the evil and vile treasonous troll Marine.
Like how you ignore me by following me around everywhere I post.

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#22 Dec 9, 2013
semper fi wrote:
<quoted text>
That's some good logic fucktard
It isn't my logic, dicklick:

(according to British Medical Journal) quote...

You're twice as likely as people who do not have a gun at home to down five or more drinks in a single sitting. You're almost two-and-a-half times more likely than people who do not have a gun at home to get behind the wheel of a car when you have, by your own admission, drunk "perhaps too much." And you were just a little less likely than that (2.39 times as likely to be exact) to consume 60 or more drinks per month.

And compared with gun owners who kept their firearms at home unloaded and under lock and key, those who said they sometimes carry a loaded weapon for personal protection or who keep a weapon loaded and unlocked around the house were more likely to do things like drink and drive, and to engage in what substance abuse researchers call "binge drinking."

Here's the problem: These two broad categories of behavior are often related. Of the 395,366 firearms-related deaths reported in the United States between 1997 -- when this data were actually collected -- and 2009 -- the latest date for which the tally of firearms-related deaths is available -- about one-third are thought to have involved alcohol. In 2007, 34.5% of suicide and homicide victims in the United States had alcohol in their systems at the time of death, and 60% of those were considered acutely intoxicated.

A very large body of research tells us that people who abuse alcohol or drugs are at far higher risk of committing acts of violence and self-harm. Although laws in some states bar the sale of guns to those with alcohol abuse problems, they're often drafted in terms that aren't very specific, and therefore aren't very effective -- forbidding the sale of firearms, for instance, to "habitual drunkards."

These insights were gleaned from a survey of risk behaviors conducted under the auspices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1996 and 1997 and culled by Garen J. Wintemute of UC Davis.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#23 Dec 9, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Like how you ignore me by following me around everywhere I post.
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Not quite, vile troll. More like >you< are following me around in the vain attempt at damage control.
ballz deep

Hazleton, PA

#24 Dec 9, 2013
Does anybody really watch the Super Bowl? It is just another commercialized holiday, in which everybody bullshits about everything other than watching closted homosexual millionaires playing grabass. I have more fun running around drunk with a nerf football trying to advoid dog shit to score a touch down in my backyard than actually watching any Super Bowl.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#25 Dec 9, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't my logic, dicklick:
(according to British Medical Journal) quote...
You're twice as likely as people who do not have a gun at home to down five or more drinks in a single sitting. You're almost two-and-a-half times more likely than people who do not have a gun at home to get behind the wheel of a car when you have, by your own admission, drunk "perhaps too much." And you were just a little less likely than that (2.39 times as likely to be exact) to consume 60 or more drinks per month.
And compared with gun owners who kept their firearms at home unloaded and under lock and key, those who said they sometimes carry a loaded weapon for personal protection or who keep a weapon loaded and unlocked around the house were more likely to do things like drink and drive, and to engage in what substance abuse researchers call "binge drinking."
Here's the problem: These two broad categories of behavior are often related. Of the 395,366 firearms-related deaths reported in the United States between 1997 -- when this data were actually collected -- and 2009 -- the latest date for which the tally of firearms-related deaths is available -- about one-third are thought to have involved alcohol. In 2007, 34.5% of suicide and homicide victims in the United States had alcohol in their systems at the time of death, and 60% of those were considered acutely intoxicated.
A very large body of research tells us that people who abuse alcohol or drugs are at far higher risk of committing acts of violence and self-harm. Although laws in some states bar the sale of guns to those with alcohol abuse problems, they're often drafted in terms that aren't very specific, and therefore aren't very effective -- forbidding the sale of firearms, for instance, to "habitual drunkards."
These insights were gleaned from a survey of risk behaviors conducted under the auspices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1996 and 1997 and culled by Garen J. Wintemute of UC Davis.
SOUNDS LIKE A DEMONRAT PROBLEM TO ME:

>>>“A study published in the American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse found that among heavy drug users, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans was more than 8-to-1.”<<<

“Academic studies have found that those on the political left are five times more likely to use marijuana and cocaine ... Another survey found that Democrats were five times more likely to use marijuana than Republicans ...

“A study published in the American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse found that among heavy drug users, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans was more than 8-to-1.”

Yet another survey found a “direct and linear relationship” between liberalism and the use of any illicit drug.

Schweizer, whose other books include “Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy,” observes:“The liberal search for autonomy and the credo ‘if it feels good do it’ have a strong influence on who uses drugs and why. Many liberals denounce drug use as a danger while at the same time engaging in a wink-wink attitude towards its actual use.”

Drawing on extensive attitude surveys, Schweizer also details in his book how liberals are more motivated by money than are conservatives, are angrier than conservatives, give less to charity, and are more likely to believe in ghosts, ESP, and reincarnation.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Liberals-D...

>>>“A study published in the American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse found that among heavy drug users, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans was more than 8-to-1.”<<<

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#27 Dec 9, 2013
Satan Almighty wrote:
<quoted text>
and we know what you do best re-tard...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =JNj9UJmAnC4XX
>>>“A study published in the American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse found that among heavy drug users, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans was more than 8-to-1.”<<<
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Liberals-D...

This country doesn't have a "gun" problem. We have a drugged out and drunken criminal LIEberal problem.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 2 hr emperorjohn 10,872
Opinion Line 5 hr woodtick57 74
Moms Demand Action Calls On Kroger Family Of St... Thu Squach 10
Fact or Fiction: Push-Feed Rifles Won't Cycle R... Sep 16 Tory II 1
3 year old shoots AR and survives Sep 15 Tory II 4
30-06 (7.62X63) vs .308 (7.62X51) (Feb '11) Sep 15 Tory II 96
Chicago Liberals Outlaw the Firearm Industry Sep 15 Tory II 1
•••

Guns People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••