Clear Channel Not Playing "Come and Take It" Commercial

reply to post by havok

Originally posted by havok
BH, I didn't expect that out of you.

I said it could be interpreted that way. That's what I read while trying to find a source on this. It's just one possibility. Maybe that's why they chose not to air it. I didn't say I thought it was a threat. Now, what is it that you didn't expect out of me?

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?

Says who?? The Declaration of Independence... that's who.

OK, let's replace the word God with "Nature" if that makes you more comfortable. This has nothing to do with the Bible, but has everything to do with me being born here on this Earth a free and sovereign man. The reason natural law is superior to man made law is because all humans were born equal upon this Earth. It is other humans who give those in Government their power and authority, and the only thing in place to keep those in Government in check is a healthy respect and understanding of natural law and their subservance to it. Your straw man arguments in regards to gun ownership are tired and old. Your nihilist mentality escapes all rational minded people, because all rational minded people would see the need to own smalls arms, carried by hand, in the defense of oneself. By the way, If you have enough money and go through the proper channels you can own a tank and artillery.

I'd note something else here and it matters for the extremism of the whole gun debate coupled with this ad being declined to run.

"Come and Take it" is the byline of a Texas based flag and a very interesting story they touch on in the commercial. I know the whole story because I've heard it talked about..many times..again and again when I used to listen to a certain morning radio show every day to pass time on the truck.

Glenn Beck made that saying somewhat famous again, for modern times and flew that flag in his yard in Connecticut before he left that state for greener pastures in Texas.

So...it could be that the very logical and almost direct connection to Beck played into it, in no small part here. Beck used to be mainstream but even his fans would have a hard time saying that about him now. It all has consequences though......like ads being summarily rejected. Connection? Perhaps..and we'll never likely know for sure. Like others have said though, it's their right to turn it down.

(Just remember this moment and how differently it could have gone.....the next time the "Fairness Doctrine" is raised to shove down people's throats. Here is an example the left wouldn't much care for...but WOULD be applied with force of that regulation if it were in place, as many have wanted)

reply to post by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
... all rational minded people would see the need to own smalls arms, carried by hand, in the defense of oneself.

And Obama and Congress agree with you. So do I. What's the issue? This ad starts of with Obama and Congress wanting to take away our guns. That's not even happening! It's irrational, illogical and a fantasy.

reply to post by Indigo5

While everything you posted is true, you missed why this is being used as part of the commercial.

That little battle kicked off what would become the Texas Revolution, a war of independence which resulted in the Republic of Texas.

reply to post by xedocodex


I hear this time and again. In order to defend "yourself" you should be able to have whatever you need to defend "yourself".

A nuke? Really? Can you show me one, just one, instance of a private citizen that has said he has a right to own a nuke?

The defense of "self" ends when it endangers anyone other than an aggressor. Chemical and bio weapons are not defensive weapons for "self" protection. They have a military role in defense (i.e. denying areas to the enemy and/or creating a battlefield of choice). A nuke is an offensive weapon. Even the threat of MAD is at it's core an offensive threat.

The whole "you want a nuke" is the worst argument I have ever heard. It's juvenile to say the least.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Whenever someone makes an interpretation, it is their thoughts.
So when you watched the video, you took it as a possible threat.
Or you wouldn't have said so...

I don't think it's a threat.

It is merely a citizen telling the gov't that if they want their guns, they can come get them.

I see it as a bold statement that should've been said by the victims of Katrina.
Should be said by the citizens in unconstitutional NYC...

But alas, there's no fight in them dogs.

If this is true I'll cancel my Clear subscription today

no joke

reply to post by OptimusSubprime

Says who?? The Declaration of Independence... that's who.

Did God write the Declaration of Independence? Is the Declaration to be considered a holy document now?

But guess what...The Declaration of Independence is not US law...it is a pre-US document...that is all.

OK, let's replace the word God with "Nature" if that makes you more comfortable.

Fine, who decides what weapons "Nature" grants you a right to own?

Why just small firearms? Why not Nukes?

Oh yeah yeah yeah, you will say I'm using an extreme...and you are correct. Because we are dealing with a spectrum. So let's consider your fists the low end of the spectrum of self defense weapons...and let's consider nukes the upper end.

Now...you and I both know it is logical and reasonable to draw the line somewhere on that spectrum and say "these are allowed...but these aren't". We have already decided as a society that full auto machine guns are not allowed...that didn't seem to cause a civil war...did it? So a line has already been drawn...what we are doing now is just refining where that line should be...so please...don't be all dramatic and over-react like most of you pro-gun people are.

reply to post by havok

Originally posted by havok
Whenever someone makes an interpretation, it is their thoughts.

I did not make that interpretation. I read it when I was looking for a source. I did NOT take it as a threat. That didn't occur to me until I read it on another website and I offered it as a possibly reason, saying, "That ad could be interpreted as a threat to the president."

And I would appreciate it if you wouldn't put thoughts in my head or words in my mouth.

This extreme backlash from a private company exercising their own rights??? Nice to see that the far right proves, yet again, that their interpretation of "rights" is, as always, seen through a very selfish lens. You have no legal right to hear a commercial - nor to force Clear Channel to air one - yet that seems to be what it being said in this thread.

This is America for Gods' Sake. If the decision that Clear Channel made offends you, boycott their product. Should enough people be offended then Clear Channel will have a motive for reevaluating their position. But this tactic of branding everything that is not aligned with the far right as somehow deviant is just tiring and old.

The reason you HAVE guns is so that nobody else can force you to do things that infringe upon your freedom - not so you can have the power to infringe upon the freedom of others.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide

The reason you HAVE guns is so that nobody else can force you to do things that infringe upon your freedom - not so you can have the power to infringe upon the freedom of others.

Yes, and it's about darn time the People remind the government of exactly that.
We will not be forced.

reply to post by Honor93


Seems to me you just had the freedom to state your position, publicly and in a manner that will likely exist forever. So what does Clear Channel have to do with any of this?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by OptimusSubprime

 

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
... all rational minded people would see the need to own smalls arms, carried by hand, in the defense of oneself.

And Obama and Congress agree with you. So do I. What's the issue? This ad starts of with Obama and Congress wanting to take away our guns. That's not even happening! It's irrational, illogical and a fantasy.

sooooo, if that's true, why are they considering the Small Arms Treaty again ??
it wouldn't be that they are trying any under-handed method available, would it ??

perhaps this commercial is directed toward those negotiations and the intent of the Treaty which includes confiscation by global sources ??

reply to post by Hefficide

seems to me, before CCC became the communications behemoth they are ... the 'individual stations' that they gobbled up might have aired this or any number of commercials that CCC has denied over the past say 15yrs or so.
so, is it freedom of the press or infringement of the people's right to speak freely ??

can't have it both ways can we ?
before Reagan's de-regulation, we never had a mega-conglomerate of communications like CCC ... why should we now ?

reply to post by 200Plus

The defense of "self" ends when it endangers anyone other than an aggressor.

Really?

So guns only endangers the person you are intending to shoot? Tell that to the many people who have been shot by people aiming for someone else.

The whole "you want a nuke" is the worst argument I have ever heard. It's juvenile to say the least.

See my previous post, I explain why it is a valid argument because weapons we should and should not be able to own are already divided up into two groups.

reply to post by Honor93


I actually agree with that notion, to a degree. I despise what America has become since RWR unleashed deregulation upon us. The 1950's that we all want to get back to, the Mayberry ideal, was not built upon this model and the current doctrine of the far right, IMO, will never get us back to good.

But things are as they are. Clear Channel is a choice, plain and simple. It's one of many choices. So we still have the base freedom here to decide if we wish to listen or not. If one of their competitors opts to air this commercial five times per hour, all day, every day - and makes a public announcement that they are doing so? Then they'll likely yield the benefits of catering to those who have a passionate opinion on this subject.

This is, IMO, the essence of the true meaning of the free market. It's not about companies having no rules and all the tax exemptions they can possibly get - in hopes that their prosperity will somehow drip down upon the rest of us. It's about choices and the consequences of those choices. Marketing to the people. Making and providing the product that your customers want.

~Heff

Originally posted by Honor93

sooooo, if that's true, why are they considering the Small Arms Treaty again ??
it wouldn't be that they are trying any under-handed method available, would it ??

Politifcact
A United Nations arms treaty would "almost certainly force" the U.S. to "create an international gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation."

FALSE
www.politifact.com...

Politifact Texas
"Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are negotiating with the United Nations about doing a treaty that will ban the use of firearms."

PANTS ON FIRE
www.politifact.com...

Once the U.S. government signs a U.N. treaty on conventional arms, "all U.S. citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments."

FALSE
www.politifact.com...

A chain email that we debunked back in 2009 is making the rounds again. But nothing has changed in more than two years that would make the message any more true.

www.factcheck.org...

reply to post by xedocodex

So guns only endangers the person you are intending to shoot? Tell that to the many people who have been shot by people aiming for someone else.

Yeah tell that to the victims of the police and the US federal government you know they have more blood on there hands that any gun owner in this country.

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".

How the ad simply said come and take it said nothing of the current potus.

reply to post by xedocodex


All the more reason to teach people how/when to shoot. Not a reason to ban guns.

It's the same argument of "why does any American need a car that goes over 70 mph?"

Simple fact of the matter is not everyone is willing to laydown for the government. There are people that will fight and die for their beliefs.

It's going to be interesting to see how the politicians spin this when the blood starts flowing.

"we have to defend America from Americans that are defending their rights" just won't cut it IMO