NFL bans Super Bowl gun ad from Daniel Defense

posted at 5:01 pm on December 1, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

I honestly don’t know what’s going on with the NFL these days, but there must be something in the air. This is a story which actually cropped up earlier in the week, but we missed it during the holiday break. It’s being reported at Guns & Ammo that Daniel Defense submitted an advertisement to be run during this year’s Super Bowl, but it was rejected out of hand (twice) by the league for being in violation of their rules regarding content which is deemed too offensive and on their prohibited advertising categories list. (H/T to Gateway Pundit)

Daniel Defense recently submitted a commercial to FOX to be played during the 2014 NFL Super Bowl XLVIII. Though the video doesn’t showcase one of the company’s popular DDM4 rifles, this paid advertisement spot was rejected by the NFL.

The commercial, which focuses on themes of personal protection and fundamental rights, was originally created by Daniel Defense to run in any network TV station at any time.

According to a statement from FOX to Daniel Defense, “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.”

I considered transcribing part of the advertisement for you here just to show you how “offensive” it is, but it’s really better if you just watch it yourself.

There isn’t a single gun shown or even mentioned during the course of the advertisement. (Though it’s certainly implied.) There is a logo which contains the outline of a gun at the closing, but as the article points out, Daniel Defense offered the NFL a second option where that logo would be replaced with a US flag and the phrase, “Shall not be infringed.” That offer was also rejected out of hand.

You can read the NFL’s prohibited advertising category rules here, and if you do you’ll see that it’s dubious at best as to whether either form of this advertisement violates them. It’s hard to say if this is something entirely new for the league or just a new, “play it safe” interpretation of existing rules as they come under the watchful eye of the Bubble Wrap Society Brigade more and more during the head injury debate. Either way, this move will surely do nothing to bolster the support of a lot of the NFL’s core fan base and should be a warning to everyone else. Even talking about your Second Amendment rights in an advertisement for a completely legitimate business is now apparently no longer clear and steady ground for free speech.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

They should have used a gay couple in the ad, that would have really put the liberals in a fix. They might then have been called homophobic.

rich8450 on December 1, 2013 at 7:44 PM

rich8450 on December 1, 2013 at 7:44 PM

You are on to something here.

“Packing protection doesn’t just mean carrying concealed condoms anymore!”

Bruno Strozek on December 1, 2013 at 7:54 PM

I guess my intention to boycott the NFL and the Super Bowl would be more meaningful if I had even watched a Super Bowl (or any other pro game) since Roger Staubach was playing.

LegendHasIt on December 1, 2013 at 8:08 PM

Should be interesting to see how close to an R rating the halftime show becomes. But, hey, we can’t have any silly Bill Of Rights stuff when there are trashy performances to put on.

William Teach on December 1, 2013 at 8:22 PM

It must be a gun thread. Diakookoo, the scared-of-boomsticks teenager, has presented her credentials.

CurtZHP on December 1, 2013 at 9:04 PM

I guess my intention to boycott the NFL and the Super Bowl would be more meaningful if I had even watched a Super Bowl (or any other pro game) since Roger Staubach was playing.

LegendHasIt on December 1, 2013 at 8:08 PM

Heh, that’s pretty much my situation too. I watch Aggie football sometimes, and I go to San Antonio Spurs games, but no NFL. Plus, now the NFL sucks worse than ever, and the Cowboys will never be worth anything as long as they have that horrible owner.

The NFL really is awful, folks. Don’t watch it. I had a chance to go to the Super Bowl a few years ago. I turned it down.

juliesa on December 1, 2013 at 9:33 PM

I don’t know much about DD, but I saw their Ambush AR platform hunting rifles at the Hunter’s Extravaganza this fall. They have mil spec actions so that seems good to me.

juliesa on December 1, 2013 at 9:45 PM

nor is their reputation anything like Bushmaster or Colt for quality.

So yeah, off brand.

Daikokuco on December 1, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Yeah, no. Seriously, no. Next you’ll tell me Noveske is utter crud and that Keltec makes perfect weapons that never fail and can always be found in stock. Or that Windham Weaponry sucks since they started up a few years ago. Despite that its run by the folks who used to make Bushmaster ARs before Freedom Group/Cerebrus bought out Bushmaster and moved them to NY (and their quality has apparently suffered).

oryguncon on December 1, 2013 at 10:55 PM

The NFL is no more a threat to the 2nd ammendment than they are the 1st. Its the government, and the hundreds of millions of stupid Americans and their culture that drives them to view that government as a combination of their mommy, their elementary school teacher, and their playground supervisor that is the problem.

Fact is, if America was even 50% as free and proud and individualistic as so many Republican types like to pretend, the NFL wouldn’t hesitate to allow all manner of firearm, tobacco, fireworks, etc. ads. All those things would be easily bought at any Target or on Amazon. But America is not the place that most of the “rah rah USA #1!” morons think it is.

Daikokuco on December 1, 2013 at 5:36 PM

This.

Sorry, folks, but it’s true.

Shump on December 1, 2013 at 11:08 PM

However, the NFL does think it’s important to:
a) make you aware of breast cancer the entire month of October, and
b) tell your kids to go outside and play for 60 minutes every day, and
c) deliver lectures to your man cave every Sunday night from none other than Bob Costas!

Galtian on December 2, 2013 at 1:30 AM

I suspect Daniel Defense knew its ad was not kosher but still went for it for publicity

nonpartisan on December 1, 2013 at 5:33 PM

.
Damn ! ….. We can’t get anything past you, can we?

listens2glenn on December 2, 2013 at 2:13 AM

What will the NFL ban next? Women in skimpy outfits?

Wethal on December 1, 2013 at 5:36 PM

.
Uh, no ….. they’re only going to ban anything that might get in the way of the agenda.

“Women in skimpy outfits” is not an impediment.
Private ownership and possession of firearms is.

listens2glenn on December 2, 2013 at 2:22 AM

Oh big deal.

Some of you are really overwrought. The ad wasn’t that good anyway.

Ugly on December 2, 2013 at 6:05 AM

I started my NFL boycott yesterday. I’d suggest you join me. No participation in NFL events of any kind, even watching on TV, until their anti-Second Amendment and Obamacare loving positions are changed.

libertarianlunatic on December 2, 2013 at 8:04 AM

Dear NFL and affiliated Networks,

Every year I search for a new reason not to watch your games.

Thank you,

FF

FineasFinn on December 2, 2013 at 8:39 AM

Oh big deal.

Some of you are really overwrought. The ad wasn’t that good anyway.

Ugly on December 2, 2013 at 6:05 AM

I agree, and I admit I’m really looking for an excuse, and it doesn’t have to be a good one.

FineasFinn on December 2, 2013 at 8:42 AM

Condi Rice for NFL Commissioner!!!!!

ExpressoBold on December 2, 2013 at 10:04 AM

Oh big deal.

Some of you are really overwrought. The ad wasn’t that good anyway.

Ugly on December 2, 2013 at 6:05 AM

I would say you are right and wrong at the same time.

As a single incident – you are correct. big deal. The NFL should be allowed to decide what kinds of advertisement are associated with its product.

I’d also guess that the getting banned was one of the goals of the ad-maker. Every year we get one of these ads and the publicity of being banned is worth far more than the return on investment for running the ad during the superbowl would be. So, this is all part of the game.

But, I find it interesting that the ads that are denied are almost always from the right. More than 50% of the country supports the 2nd amendment and gun rights – yet the NFL is afraid to be associated with such a non-controversial ad?

The NFL has no objection to all kinds of stuff that 50% of the country night object to. I doubt that the NFL would turn down an ad featuring openly homosexual people, for instance, or ads selling gratuitous sexual content (look at their halftime shows).

And, I don’t think it is that the NFL is trying to promote liberalism, just that the NFL is made up of rich people and other “connected” people. And those people are all steeped in liberalism because they swim in the same pools as people in DC. Despite more than 50% of the country believing in the 2nd Amendment, these people all live in a fishbowl where everyone hates the 2nd amendment, so they believe that is the prevailing worldview. To them, such an ad, despite really being not at all controversial, is the height of controversy.

the left has so captured the “elite” (including almost all GOP politicians, staffers and aids) that their perception of what is and isn’t “controversial” is wickedly askew. The NFL simply wants to avoid controversy, which I can understand. But because of the left’s capture of all institutions, their view of what is and is not controversial to the vast majority of Americans is way off.

An overlooked fact of the cold war is that the USSR did in fact win a major component of the cold war – they infiltrated all of the West’s institutions with useful idiots and took those institutions over. Schools, unions, trade associations, the media, think-tanks are all completely owned by the left. Even many religious institutions are completely owned by the left.

this type of ridiculous reaction from the NFL to a non-controversial ad is simply a symptom of a much larger malignancy in our society. What our “betters” consider controversial in no way mirrors the morals or values of the vast majority of the populace.

Monkeytoe on December 2, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Daikokuco on December 1, 2013 at 5:26 PM

cracks a hell of a drug.

dmacleo on December 2, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Should be interesting to see how close to an R rating the halftime show becomes. But, hey, we can’t have any silly Bill Of Rights stuff when there are trashy performances to put on.

William Teach on December 1, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Do not confuse public scorn with government edict!

jaydee_007 on December 2, 2013 at 10:28 AM

Read the previous quoted wrong -

jaydee_007 on December 2, 2013 at 10:31 AM

I suspect Daniel Defense knew its ad was not kosher but still went for it for publicity

nonpartisanmesan on December 1, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Yet, the same company had an ad during the SB that featured their guns AND showed them in use. This ad didn’t even have a gun in it and didn’t mention guns.
The only gun was in their logo at the end of the ad.

And, DD even offered to take their logo off the end of the ad.

So STFU and FOAD, you little toad.

Solaratov on December 2, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Anyone who follows the NFL or any other professional sports league realizes they have become politically correct in recent years. Perhaps the dumbest idea is every player in MLB wearing the uniform number 42 on Jackie Robinson Day.

bw222 on December 2, 2013 at 10:44 AM

It seems to me that the NFL would be on fairly solid ground if they just rejected it for Overtly Political ads, which are also banned by the Super Bowl.

Remember. this isn’t any violation of the first ammendment, that company has all the rights in the world to make and run that ad, they do not have a RIGHT to have it shown on the Super Bowl.

Critic2029 on December 2, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Bad (feels like an intro trailer for some Chuck Norris vehicle), but smart ‘ad’.
They knew it’d never run.
And they knew that pretending it was because of being ‘rejected’ by the big bad meanie liberal media types the NFL, they could work that easily as an ‘outrage of the moment’ via the con- blogs, gun sites, etc.
Superbowl ads cost $4mil for 30 seconds…and this is a minute.
The NFL should have said ‘sure, you’re in’. DD would’ve hung up fast.
The plan with stuff like this to spend very little and go viral.
But it’s all preaching to the converted. Just solid branding.
(Also, is the Dad able to just feel danger by touching the grass?)

verbaluce on December 2, 2013 at 10:55 AM

I also agree with the commentor above that states that getting banned was probably the point of this ad to begin with.

Whats better? Spending a couple of million to have your ad run once during the super bowl? Or spending nothing, getting your ad rejected, and getting hours of free air time on Talk Radio and Right Wing Blogs…

Critic2029 on December 2, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Maybe Fox/the NFL ought to skip broadcasting the parts of the football game where guys get knocked down and only show the parts where they are standing around scratching themselves. You know, no violence only sex.

KenInIL on December 2, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Yet they have no problem with R-rated Half Time shows! The NFL is rapidly becoming irrelevant!

tomshup on December 2, 2013 at 10:59 AM

So, they gave up on the abortion stuff, eh?

Every year some right winger tries to put a political commercial into the Super Bowl. Every year they get denied. Then, the hand wringing commences.

But, at least that company gets lots of free publicity. So, they’re not totally stupid. Which of course, was the goal all along.

Moesart on December 2, 2013 at 11:20 AM

They knew it’d never run.

verbaluce on December 2, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Why? Because the add is chocked full of offensive content? Is personal defense an offensive concept for you? Do you prefer personal vulnerability?

blink on December 2, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Not to support Verbulace, but they knew it would never run because they know the NFL would consider a pro-2nd amendment message “controversial”.

that is not saying the NFL is right, just that anyone reading the tea leaves could guess that the NFL would not be OK with a pro-2nd amendment ad.

If you told me about the ad prior to any of this and asked me if I thought it would run, I would have said no. Again – not because I disagree with the ad or agree with the NFL that such ad is “controversial”, but large corporations will always err on the side of “political correctness” and PC is entirely liberal. So, it’s ok to have ads about homosexuals or promiscuous sex, but showing a pro-2nd amendment ad is “crazy”.

Monkeytoe on December 2, 2013 at 11:45 AM

If you told me about the ad prior to any of this and asked me if I thought it would run, I would have said no. Again – not because I disagree with the ad or agree with the NFL that such ad is “controversial”, but large corporations will always err on the side of “political correctness” and PC is entirely liberal. So, it’s ok to have ads about homosexuals or promiscuous sex, but showing a pro-2nd amendment ad is “crazy”.

Monkeytoe on December 2, 2013 at 11:45 AM

And, again, this is something I tried to delve into a little upthread . . . how crazy it is in today’s America that having an add supporting part of our Constitution is considered “controversial”.

Monkeytoe on December 2, 2013 at 11:48 AM

That said, off-brand no-name ARs suck. I guess one way to push your name is trying to stir up some bogus “controversy”.

Daikokuco on December 1, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Wot???
Daniel Defense is a well known brand and makes quality products.

justltl on December 2, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Planning on watching a bare wall, instead of the Super Bowl this year.
(Or, maybe just read a book or take a hike in the mountains).

Because **** the NFL. That’s why.
Enjoy your franchise, collaborators.

orangemtl on December 2, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Daniel Defense is a well known brand and makes quality products.

justltl on December 2, 2013 at 11:49 AM

I had never heard of them until I saw this thread just now, so I went and looked them up. Looks to me like a very young company, and VERY high priced. Their products may be good quality – I don’t know since I’ve never heard of them before – but their quad rals start at over $300, and their rifles start at somewhere around $1700. In comparison, I bought a perfectly good Firefield quad rail for about $60, to put on my Windham Weaponry AR-15 (original founders of Bushmasters with new imprved specs) that I paid $800 for last December.

Given what I’ve learned about them, I’m inclined to agree with Daikokuco bout their publicity motives.

dentarthurdent on December 2, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Daikokuco on December 1, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Wot???
Daniel Defense is a well known brand and makes quality products.

justltl on December 2, 2013 at 11:49 AM

But like most teenagers, if she doesn’t think it’s cool, nobody does.

CurtZHP on December 2, 2013 at 12:01 PM

BTW, Daikokuco writes well.
I don’t understand what his point is regarding the U.S.
Is he a libertarian?

Does anyone know how to look up posts by author on here?

justltl on December 2, 2013 at 12:02 PM

dentarthurdent on December 2, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Yep, they’re definitely pricey, especially for direct impingement ARs.
And yes, the Super Bowl ad controversy looks very much like a publicity “stunt”.
They were likely very happy to get that rejection notice.

justltl on December 2, 2013 at 12:11 PM

I see Verby has the same mindset as a rapist.
“They wanted it. They were begging for it!”

Hard Right on December 2, 2013 at 12:13 PM

But like most teenagers, if she doesn’t think it’s cool, nobody does.

CurtZHP on December 2, 2013 at 12:01 PM

She?
Hmmph.

justltl on December 2, 2013 at 12:14 PM

Yep, they’re definitely pricey, especially for direct impingement ARs.
And yes, the Super Bowl ad controversy looks very much like a publicity “stunt”.
They were likely very happy to get that rejection notice.

justltl on December 2, 2013 at 12:11 PM

Well, this thread about the “controversy” got me to go look them up – so it worked. And my initial reaction was to give them some business because of it, but given their prices, I probably won’t afterall.

Had the same reaction going to the new Bass Pro Shops store that just opened 3 miles from my house – very expensive compared to the Sportsman’s Warehouse in town (10 miles away) and a bit higher than the Cabela’s up in southern Denver. I’ll likely stick with Sportsman’s for any new guns and ammo.

dentarthurdent on December 2, 2013 at 12:18 PM

How would they know that?

blink on December 2, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Look at the kind of decisions the NFL is making on every other topic. They’re getting more PC all the time and pushing closer every day to the National Flag Football League.
The wife and I love watching football – big Broncos fans – but they really are going off the lefty deep-end, so this really isn’t a shock.

dentarthurdent on December 2, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Do an advanced Google search on his name using hotair.com as the website you’re searching.

blink on December 2, 2013 at 12:19 PM

Thank you.

justltl on December 2, 2013 at 12:23 PM

You would have thought that it wouldn’t run, or you would have KNOWN that it wouldn’t have run?

You and verbulace are claiming that DD KNEW that it wouldn’t have run.

blink on December 2, 2013 at 12:18 PM

I’m giving my opinion – which I freely admit is just that – that most people would have guessed the NFL would not have run the ad.

Now, again let me admit this straight up and freely so there is no confusion – I am not claiming to KNOW for a fact what the NFL would have done or KNOW for a fact what DD believed the NFL would do.

I’m saying that reasonable, objective people would have guessed the NFL would turn down the ad and that a sophisticated company would know that it could actually obtain better results from getting the ad “banned” by the NFL than actually running the ad during the superbowl. And – even if that is what DD purposefully did, I see nothing wrong with that as a tactic.

Perhaps even DD thought the ad had a 50/50 shot of running and figured they’d win either way – if it didn’t run they’d get the PR from the ad being “banned” and if it did run they’d get a superbowl spot.

I’m not sure why that is so troubling to you. Every year there are “banned” superbowl ads and there is no doubt (in my mind at least) that many of those ads are created to be “banned” for just this reason.

Monkeytoe on December 2, 2013 at 12:25 PM

So let me ask you, why would you be proud of such a place and wave its stupid flag and chant “USA USA USA” like a brainwashed idiot? That’s what I don’t understand about all you Sarah Palin types. You realize the country is packed with socialist retards, but you are proud of it anyway to the point of insisting its the best country ever and unique in human history and blessed by gawd hisself. Doesn’t really make sense.

Daikokuco on December 1, 2013 at 5:59 PM

I think I’ve located the NFL’s target audience.

applebutter on December 2, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Just wondering…..do NFL players have to sign up for ObamaCare? If not, does their healthcare qualify as a “Cadillac” plan?

Or is there an exemption in their future, provided they shill for JugEars?

BobMbx on December 2, 2013 at 12:44 PM

This is what Rush has referred to as “the chickafacation of the NFL”. Lets just drop all the pretense and realize that the libs have now taken over sports as well as everything else. Forget the tackles, head-butts, and all those things that people watch football for. Let’s just cut to the chase and have touch football. I’m not even a football fan but this PC garbage is ruining the game for fans like my husband and it is disgusting. Banning an ad which basically outlines gun rights is the epitome of PC to me and the chickafacation of the NFL on display. Its not just football, I was disgusted to see Keith Olberman doing commentary during the World Series which almost ruined it for me.

Here’s my prediction, soccer will take the place of the NFL in 20 years and since it’s a world sport it will be very difficult for the left to PC the heck out of it. The NFL is dying, perhaps this will finally show these LIVs the problem with far-left policies. They don’t care about the country but take away their NFL and then they may listen.

neyney on December 2, 2013 at 12:55 PM

this type of ridiculous reaction from the NFL to a non-controversial ad is simply a symptom of a much larger malignancy in our society. What our “betters” consider controversial in no way mirrors the morals or values of the vast majority of the populace.

Monkeytoe on December 2, 2013 at 10:14 AM

The elites want the great unwashed to lose the idea they have a right to use a gun as it is meant to be used

Yet they have no problem with R-rated Half Time shows! The NFL is rapidly becoming irrelevant!

tomshup on December 2, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Bread and Circuses. Half time is the circus. Expect crossover sexuality soon.

NFL has a problem. The premise of football is men challenging each other physically, and the best men win. If they take that out all at once they lose money.

In investing, the last man our out of the fund gets left holding the bag. They have to wind down the game for the sake of transforming America into sheep, and sell their shares to some shop keeper who thinks the game will still be allowed to survive as is

No mistake the teams own the announcers and the announcers are working the barbaric angle more and more. At some point, the loyal audience will turn off to pussball

pursuit of happiness

entagor on December 2, 2013 at 1:29 PM

(Also, is the Dad able to just feel danger by touching the grass?)

verbaluce on December 2, 2013 at 10:55 AM

You’ve never touched the grass in your yard to see if it was dry and needed watering? Or do you even have a yard?

And, DD ran an ad last year which featured not only their guns, but a clip of them being fired. There was no reason for DD to think that this year’s ad would be rejected.

But then, you’re a leftist…and, therefore, stupid.

Solaratov on December 2, 2013 at 1:33 PM

(Also, is the Dad able to just feel danger by touching the grass?)

verbaluce on December 2, 2013 at 10:55 AM

You’ve never touched the grass in your yard to see if it was dry and needed watering? Or do you even have a yard?

I do have a yard.
When the grass get dry, I know it’s a sign that danger lurks. So I stand up and do a quick visual scan of the neighborhood.
And I never check for leaves in the gutter unless armed.
As this gun seller knows, never feel assume you are safe.

verbaluce on December 2, 2013 at 2:22 PM

That simply means DD should have known that the NFL might not have approved their commercial. It doesn’t mean that DD knew that the NFL was going to reject it.

blink on December 2, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Ya – I saw your other posts on your point about the difference of “knowing” vs expecting or guessing.
I get what you’re saying – but MonkeyToe’s other post also indicates a valid point that this is really just semantics – as in “I knew you were going to say that”….
Whatever.
I believe DD expected a win either way – the ad runs, or they get denied and get controversy publicity – they win no matter which way the NFL goes – and I have no problem with that strategy considering the way the anti-gun idiots are pushing their agenda.

dentarthurdent on December 2, 2013 at 3:03 PM

If Solaratov is right about them running a commercial last year then how would DD know that the NFL had changed definition of its policy requirements.

blink on December 2, 2013 at 3:11 PM

I don’t know if they “knew” – but the NFL’s policies are published for potential advertisers to see, and the NFL has been veering further left almost by the day.
If DD expected a rejection this time, I’d say that’s smart analysis of the way the NFL winds are blowing.
My point is just that they might have gotten the idea the NFL might turn them down this year (or not) but gave it a shot, since they did get an ad run last year, and may have figured that either way is a publicity win or them – which I think is perfectly valid.
Or, maybe when they got turned down, if it was a total surprise, then they went for the controversy angle on publicity – good follow-up move in my mind.
I think the with the direction the NFL has been going the last couple years, and with the Dems’ ant-gun push this year, it doesn’t surprise me at all that the NFL would do this – and likely didn’t surprise DD either if they’re smart business people (which they seem to be).

dentarthurdent on December 2, 2013 at 3:23 PM

But surely you know that this doesn’t mean that DD knew, or should have known, that the NFL would have rejected the commercial.

blink on December 2, 2013 at 2:54 PM

What is it you think you are arguing?

What point do you think you are making?

If you think you are making a point, I have no idea what it is? That DD is pure of heart and would never, ever use a marketing tactic involving a rejected superbowl ad? why is that important to you?

You don’t know any more than me what DD knew or didn’t know. And despite how you italicize your words, my opinion is based on a pretty good read of the facts and is very reasonable.

Observing what rational people would think given certain facts is perfectly rational. Indeed, the practice of law and jury trials are founded upon it (i.e., the “reasonable man” standard). So, my point stands pretty well despite your italics.

I guess I apologize that my opinion (yes, I admit I don’t know any more than you know) that DD probably knew that its ad would get rejected by the NFL upsets you so much. I have no idea why. It is hardly an unreasonable opinion and I stated quite clearly that I don’t consider it morally wrong or bad for DD to have done it that way. I’m not casting moral aspersions on DD. I was just saying they probably knew how this was going to play out.

You don’t agree with my opinion – fine. So what? Again – what point do you believe you are making? That DD is pure as the driven snow and would never, ever make some kind of tactical marketing decision to use a rejected super bowl ad to get viral marketing going? DD knowing the ad would be rejected doesn’t make the rejection of the ad by the NFL any more reasonable.

I argued upthread about how ridiculous it is for the NFL to reject the ad in the first instance – so I’m hardly on the other team here.

So, again, what point are you trying to make? That DD really, really, really believed the ad would be accepted? and? what does that mean?

Monkeytoe on December 2, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Since then, it seems as if you’ve realized your error and backed into a much more reasonable position – thank to my input. You’re welcome.

That DD is pure of heart and would never, ever use a marketing tactic involving a rejected superbowl ad?

This wasn’t even close to my point, and makes it seem as if you didn’t spend 30 seconds thinking about this prior to writing it.

Challenging a definitive claim isn’t the same as making the opposite claim.

blink on December 2, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Yes – because when I write something out as a comment I am making a “Definitive” statement.

You need to take a breath. I made it quite clear that I was giving my opinion. You keep fighting against that opinion as if it has some bearing on the actual issue – which I pointed out repeatedly it doesn’t. I’m trying to figure out why?

You are fighting for the proposition that DD did not “KNOW” that the ad would be rejected. (although now you pretend that is not what you were doing).

My question is why? What does that have to do with anything? You seem invested in it. Enough so that you are willing to look foolish.

so why? Let’s assume you are correct and that DD had absolutely no clue – never even considered the possibility – that the ad would be rejected.

That would change the argument about the ad how, exactly?

The best I can come up with is you thought you were being clever by pointing out that i did not “KNOW” what everyone at DD knew?

I haven’t changed my position. If you want to parse and say that my first comment was absolute – fine. Have at it. I just jumped in because I thought you were being obtuse (you were) in claiming total ignorance that someone may have knowingly submitted an ad that would be rejected. I thought that was too cute by far. So I pointed out the obvious – most reasonable people who pay any attention would have guessed that the NFL would turn down a gun ad.

You jumped on this for some reason and seem to believe (and still seem to believe) that a) that is a crazy opinion and b) that has any bearing on the underlying issue.

Again – what point is it you think you are making?

Monkeytoe on December 2, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Not to support Verbulace, but they knew it would never run because they know the NFL would consider a pro-2nd amendment message “controversial”.

Monkeytoe on December 2, 2013 at 11:45 AM

YOU presumed to know what they knew.

Overall, thanks for backing down from this earlier claim, but stop feigning puzzlement about why I would take issue with it – especially if they really did run a commercial last year.

blink on December 2, 2013 at 3:53 PM

You are playing the idiot to effect here. So, you think when I wrote that I really, really meant that I knew that they knew?

Really?

That is the position you are taking? Rather than assume my writing quickly on a blog using conversational speech?

Your position is that I really meant to claim I knew what they knew?

Please. Grow up – you are arguing like a 7 year old.

Monkeytoe on December 2, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Overall, thanks for backing down from this earlier claim, but stop feigning puzzlement about why I would take issue with it – especially if they really did run a commercial last year.

blink on December 2, 2013 at 3:53 PM

And I love the “commercial last year bit”

I’ve seen no proof of a commercial run during last year’s Superbowl AND – you obviously knew nothing about it even if it had run – so you did not base any argument or anything else on that fact.

Again – dishonest. I’m disappointed.

What, again, do you think your point is? Because you haven’t made one that makes any semblance of sense.

Monkeytoe on December 2, 2013 at 4:02 PM

stop feigning puzzlement about why I would take issue with it –

blink on December 2, 2013 at 3:53 PM

I’m not feigning. Why do you take issue with the fact that DD might have known its ad would be rejected?

Please explain. That is what I am actually trying to get it. Why do you think that is such a big deal?

Monkeytoe on December 2, 2013 at 4:06 PM

And I never check for leaves in the gutter unless armed.

verbaluce on December 2, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Good.
Are your gutters MIL-SPEC?

justltl on December 2, 2013 at 4:57 PM

verbaluce on December 2, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Yep. You’re an idiot.

Solaratov on December 2, 2013 at 7:54 PM

I suspect Daniel Defense knew its ad was not kosher but still went for it for publicity

I never read this dope’s idiotic comments, but this one leaped off the page at me. He must have crawled out of the DKos Fever Swamp.

Jaibones on December 2, 2013 at 10:32 PM

As for the NFL, I’m turning them off. Liberalism has crawled through the media sewer into the media side of sports, and now the liberal Democrat queers are in the league offices, apparently.

I don’t like it enough to put up with propaganda in my sports.

Jaibones on December 2, 2013 at 10:36 PM

There was a time when the NFL brand spoke of manliness, family and community. That time has since past.

Now it’s mostly a club of over-preened, self-absorbed, irresponsible morons under-girded by liberal politics including their endorsement of foolishness like Obamacare and their general assault on every single quality that promotes the image of strength, aggressiveness, tenacity and ruggedness in males.

They’ve morphed into a spokesman for the politically correct and effeminate. Good luck with that new branding and the core demographic it speaks to.

Marcus Traianus on December 3, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Pfft! Makes no difference to me. I stopped paying attention to the NFL when the Rams moved to St. Louis, those jackholes.

NOMOBO on December 4, 2013 at 12:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2