Clear Channel Not Playing "Come and Take It" Commercial

I've been listening to the Peter Boyles show the past few mornings on khow.com and it appears that Clear Channel Communications is afraid to run a commercial by Emmy and Grammy Award winning artist Steve Vaus. Here's the commercial. I see nothing wrong with it. It makes me wonder what Clear Channel Communications is so afraid of, if they're refusing to run this commercial. Retaliation from the FCC?

Any source for this?

Can you give a description of what it shows please!

That ad could be interpreted as a threat to the president. That's one reason I can think of. Sounds like "fighting words".

Why wouldn't they run that? C'mon..... Thats almost sarcastic in asking. We're not naive kids here and thats ANYTHING but a nice, peaceful and generally inoffensive political message. It's very much outright challenging the U.S. Federal Government to "come and take" whatever guns they want to regulate.

I don't mind the sentiment, personally and Missouri is very much aligning with Texas and the others for all this. It's not the nature of the message I scoff at for anyone suggesting they can't understand and keep a straight face.

While that's not sedition....it IS hard edge confrontational and Clear Channel isn't a mom and pop networking operation. They're among the largest multi-media management organizations on Earth. That puts them about 10 miles to the Government/Establishment side of whatever line we want to talk about. So... Of course they wouldn't run that.

Does that video actually claim that gun rights come from God????



First off, it's a horrible video...I have no video experience and I think I could make a better one. Second, it is a borderline threat to the President. Third, Clear Channel is a private company, they can do whatever they want.

Originally posted by Evil_Santa
Any source for this?

Go to khow.com, click on Peter Boyles, and listen to the podcast when it's uploaded. When it's available for download, I'll shoot you a direct link.

Steve Vaus has tweeted links to interviews he has done.

If I'm reading the stories correctly it was a talk radio station owned by Cumulus that first refused to air it. Then he tried other stations owned by CC.

First story here
Second here.


For those that can't watch the video, it's the audio that matters since he was attempting radio time.

“Mr. President, members of Congress,” Vaus says in the opening to the video, “you’ve been making a lot of noise about taking our guns away. But you might want to review history.

“1835. Gonzales, Texas Territory,” Vaus continues. “The authorities wanted to confiscate the big gun that protected that colony. You know what the people said? ‘Come and take it.’ Because they were willing to fight for their freedom and their guns. So are we.”

The video then launches into the pointed chorus: “Come and take it if you want it. Come and take it if you think you can. Come and take it, but we’ll warn you, you’ll have to pry it from our cold, dead hands.”

The lyrics continue, “We want the freedom that God gave us, so you best not cross that line. If you want this gun you gotta to come through us and take it, one shot at a time.”

Taken from the second link above.

And as others have pointed out it's a private company, not to mention other advertiser blowback. If they aired the commercial they would risk others pulling spots in protest and I doubt they would want to take that risk. Could mean money lost for the station/s.

Originally posted by Casualboy100
Can you give a description of what it shows please!

From what people have posted below, it's certainly a challenge, saying "Come and take it". It gives the history of the gun at Gonzales, TX, when the Feds wanted to take their cannon, and the town stood up and said, "Come and take it". This happens to be the sentiment of many gun owners in the U.S. right now.

reply to post by navy_vet_stg3


Yeah, that song doesn't promote the stereotype of fat hillbillies with guns or anything.

Sounds like a freakin' Hamm's beer commercial.

Aside from the terrible song, the message is just straight up dangerous bravado. The producers of that commercial, the writer of that song, and the makers of these guns... they are all going to be hiding behind private guards the day "they come fer yer guns".

They are simply cashing in on the gullibility of bored laborers who want a little Red Dawn fantasies in their lives. Those are the people this hurts. To me this is no different that Hip Hop artists telling young black youth to attain bitches, hoes, gats, and all that crap. It's just the rich telling the poor to kill each other.

Originally posted by xedocodex
Does that video actually claim that gun rights come from God????

First off, it's a horrible video...I have no video experience and I think I could make a better one. Second, it is a borderline threat to the President. Third, Clear Channel is a private company, they can do whatever they want.

ALL rights come from God. The right to defend oneself is a natural right. Natural rights are bestowed upon all humans by virtue of being born a free and sovereign human being on this Earth. Natural law and Natural rights are superior to all man made law.

reply to post by OptimusSubprime

ALL rights come from God. The right to defend oneself is a natural right. Natural rights are bestowed upon all humans by virtue of being born a free and sovereign human being on this Earth. Natural law and Natural rights are superior to all man made law.

Says who?

Did God tell you that you have the right to own a gun? Or do you have some vague bible verse?

It's amazing to me that you think owning a gun is a "natural" right...given to you by God. Does God also give you the right to own a tank? Maybe some artillery? Surface to air missles? A nuke?

Where exactly does God's ability to grant you weapons stop?

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3

Clear Channel Communications is afraid to run a commercial

I see nothing wrong with it.

It makes me wonder what Clear Channel Communications is so afraid of, if they're refusing to run this commercial. Retaliation from the FCC?

Your premise is faulty "afraid to run the commercial"

So the questions that followed don't make sense.

Clear Channel Communications apparently chose not to run the commercial...as free market capitalists are entitled to do.

They could have thought that the commercial was just dumb, they could have thought it had poor production value, they could have simply thought it was a piss-poor commercial on a number of fronts that was not worthy of the network, the org that wanted to run the ad could have offered them too little money or they could have simply thought that the message was innapropriate....It really doesn't matter...it's a free market.

But "scared"?...After the political ads that were run last election cycle against the President of the United States? and absent any evidence that Clear Channel made a "commercial" decision based on "fear"?...that seems a bit nonsense akin to playground bully logic....."what are ya? Chicken??"

reply to post by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
ALL rights come from God.

The right to have an abortion comes from GOD???

Natural rights come from natural law. Legal rights come from the legal system.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That ad could be interpreted as a threat to the president. That's one reason I can think of. Sounds like "fighting words".

Oh come on!
BH, I didn't expect that out of you.

That's not a threat!
(Specifically for the PotUS or CONgress)
They will NOT take our guns...


It's a promise!

First...a threat predicated on someone taking unlawful action against you is not a threat.
As in, "if you violate me, I will violate you." That is a warning...

That said, this video is stupid, (and I am in favor of the message in this video,)

It makes gun advocates look like redneck hillbillies...

Originally posted by OneisOne

“Mr. President, members of Congress,” Vaus says in the opening to the video, “you’ve been making a lot of noise about taking our guns away. But you might want to review history.

“1835. Gonzales, Texas Territory,” Vaus continues. “The authorities wanted to confiscate the big gun that protected that colony. You know what the people said? ‘Come and take it.’ Because they were willing to fight for their freedom and their guns. So are we.”

Authorities wanted to confscate the "big gun"??

Just for laughs I decided to google up the history of Gonzales, Texas Territory....

It was MEXICO...and THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT GAVE THE TOWN THE CANNON to fend off indians.

And THE MEXCIAN GOVERNMENT...not the US Gov. went to take back the cannon a few years later...from one of thier (Mexican) cities.

I am confused how a cannon that was granted to a Mexican city by the Mexican government, where the settlers then decided they wanted to keep it is relevant to the current gun debate in the USA?

Apparently this was Mexico...not the USA...a MEXICAN town populated by illegal european immigrants BTW who were GIVEN a cannon and then deicded to steal it/not return it.

www.fauthcottage.com...

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by OptimusSubprime

 

ALL rights come from God. The right to defend oneself is a natural right. Natural rights are bestowed upon all humans by virtue of being born a free and sovereign human being on this Earth. Natural law and Natural rights are superior to all man made law.

Says who?

Did God tell you that you have the right to own a gun? Or do you have some vague bible verse?

It's amazing to me that you think owning a gun is a "natural" right...given to you by God. Does God also give you the right to own a tank? Maybe some artillery? Surface to air missles? A nuke?

Where exactly does God's ability to grant you weapons stop?

This wan't addressed to me but I'd like to take a stab at it. I imagine that the old testament god's limit would stop after he kills off all the non-believers like in Revelations. See, he's a god of war and death so saying that gun ownership for Christians is a god-given right fits right into that ideology.

It's a god-given right for people who venerate the old testament. Guns should be reviled by people who revere that Jesus fella, though. He was actually pretty reasonable.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


A WHAT??? That's not a threat - it's a promise! A promise backed by tens of millions of Americans! You're smart for at least seeing it for what it is - FIGHTING WORDS!

MOLON LABE!!!

Bah!
Why doesn't anyone stand up for their rights anymore?

So what...we just allow things to be taken away?
No more fight left in us? Then we might as well give up!
I'm not sure which is worse...
The fact that no one seems to stand up for their rights anymore?
Or the fact that everyone is hating the video, yet it's actually factual?
(The idea that they want to take the guns and ban the 2nd amendment)

Who cares who made it?
The point needs to be drove into the heart of the unconstitutional district of Columbia.
Why would anyone disagree?
It is "fighting words" when your gov't wants to take what is yours!


So my question...who started this fight?