The Tea Party Nation is up in arms because the NFL has banned a gun commercial from the Super Bowl line up. The commercial from weapons manufacturer Daniel Defense depicts former service man returning home and ends with the outline of a DDM4 rifle. The voiceover in the commercial discusses the man’s responsibility to protect his family as well as the right to do so. TPN suggests the league has taken an anti-gun stance and is questioning the validity of the rejection.
The post by Jack E. Kemp reads in part:
“Apparently the NFL thinks that the primal urge of a man to defend his family is too controversial for the refined tastes of a company that shows headbangers with 300 lb. physical builds push each other around on a field. The NFL often has ceremonies before a game honoring our troops for protecting The State – but doesn’t think it okay to show someone who is honorably protecting his family of individuals.”
Kemp goes on to point out the New England Patriots’ logo once depicted a man with a rifle, as well as the San Francisco 49ers logo from 1946 to 1967 which shows a man with two guns, one of which was firing.
What Kemp and others that agree with him are not seeing is that these depictions are in the past. A growing, global society that is attempting to minimize harmful violence in every aspect would no longer require these overt depictions of force to get the point across. That these players are allowed to “push each other around” is a sign of a growing enlightenment as a civilization. It shows that in some cases, aggression can be focused into a positive, regulated activity that everyone enters into fully aware of the risks and consequences of taking part in the activity.
It is hoped that future generations will look back upon these times and mark them as lessons learned. War and crime are the downsides of today’s society. It is up to this generation and the next to improve upon the past and make a better, more peaceful, more secure future.
The Tea Party has harped upon the 2nd Amendment for as long as they have existed, and yet, there has been no true danger to this basic inalienable right. This is yet another over-hyped, paranoia-driven rant by extremist who have never reconciled themselves to the reality of the modern point of view.
These are the people who refuse to accept that America as a whole elected a “black” president not once but twice. These are the people who cannot abide a same-sex marriage. These people are trapped in a time warp. They have locked themselves in a void and refuse to change on the grounds of “principle” that is nothing more than crumbling veneer over narrow-minded prejudice.
There is no principle in allowing a child access to a dangerous weapon. The right to bear arms was put in place to protect citizens, not to stockpile automatic rifles and explosive devices. Gun control is necessary in a society where not everyone has his brother’s well-being in mind. Even in the Wild West, weapons were collected when the cowboys came to town to blow their earnings in saloons. This is nothing new.
The NFL’s Advertising Policy is clear in what is acceptable for broadcast during their programming. It addresses certain categories as “prohibited” and outlines what constitutes a finding of such. Guns & Ammo cites the NFL policy, specifically No. 5 that addresses weapons:
5. Firearms, ammunition or other weapons; 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
It is G&A’s position that the Daniel Defense ad does not violate these terms because it does not mention the weapon pictured at the end. However, the outline of the weapon itself may be what created the NFL’s ban of the commercial. Also, the manufacturer does own brick and mortar stores, and they do sale other items besides weapons to the general public.
Reportedly, Daniel Defense offered to replace that weapon outline with an American flag or with the final words from the 2nd Amendment, ”shall not be infringed.” The NFL declined the changes and will not air the ad.
The commercial has been called “too offensive” to air, perhaps because of the idea behind it. The idea, of course, is embraced by supporters of the Tea Party. The concept is that the government is reaching into homes and stealing or infringing upon the rights of average Americans. The government is an insidious entity that must be resisted in the name of patriotism and principle.
Here is the commercial from Daniel Defense.
Daniel Defense released a response after the NFL declined the changes offered.
The allegation of hypocrisy in this video is a bit harsh. The NFL is a business entity. All businesses have the right to decide what other entities they wish to be associated with. Those pointing fingers refer back to an ad that Daniel Defense aired locally in Georgia markets during the 2012 Super Bowl. They also make reference to the commercials the NFL does air, including ads for movies and video games. There is even on outcry against recent halftime shows.
This is no more than a group of extremists screaming about government conspiracy when the opposite is actually true. As a business entity the NFL reserves the right to air a certain type of commercial. Despite the changes offered by Daniel Defense, the NFL has declined their commercial. It is no doubt that several thousand commercials are declined for various reasons every year. The Super Bowl is a multi-million dollar event with several million viewers each year. Having an ad air during that game is a coup for any marketing strategy.
Guns, violence, video games, movies and scantily-clad pop singers are part of our society. All broadcasters make decisions based on what viewers have shown they want to see. Like any other broadcaster, the NFL has contractual agreements that must be adhered to. Daniel Defense submitted their commercial to FOX, and it was FOX that declined it, citing the NFL’s policy.
To cry foul because this commercial was declined is typical of the Far Right and their knee-jerk “Ah HA!” reaction to anything and anyone that does not agree wholeheartedly with their narrow point of view. This is not the NFL advocating gun control. This a business decision that has been made. The NFL and any other business entity should not be brought under fire for rejecting an ad that does not fit with what they wish to air during their broadcasts.
There is no conspiracy. There is no clandestine government agenda to steal legally purchased and registered weapons and weaken a citizen’s ability to safeguard home and hearth. This is not a slap in the face to American rights, or to service men and women all over the world. Obama is not watching America’s televisions through a secret satellite feed. It is just a commercial, and it was just a business decision.
Commentary by Brandi Tasby
NFL Advertising Policy