Clear Channel Not Playing "Come and Take It" Commercial

Pretty offensive to point guns at your audience.

just for that it shouldn't be shown.

anywhere.

Originally posted by Cuervo
Sounds like a freakin' Hamm's beer commercial.

While I'm in favour of the message, I agree totally with that.

Totally sounds like a beer commercial.

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by navy_vet_stg3

 

Sounds like a freakin' Hamm's beer commercial.

From the land of sky blue waters.....

I see nothing wrong with reminding our Congresscritters and Senators of the rights granted to us by GOD. It seems that none of them know who they work for anymore. We need a straight up house cleaning. If you are a Democrat, you have to go. If you are a Republican, you have to go. We want HONEST representation. Not lying thieves.

That ad sums up gun nuts nicely...rednecks who just want a confrontation. If I had to create a ad which antagonised gun nuts, it would be like that. That ad must be satire..it couldn't seriously have been proposed as a pro-gun ad...could it?

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


ALL rights do not come from God. They come from an individuals creator, whether that be a God of any particular religion or by nature.

General question to anyone in the thread, should Clear Channel be forced to air the commercial?

Originally posted by Kali74
General question to anyone in the thread, should Clear Channel be forced to air the commercial?

In my opinion, having worked in radio, I will say absolutely they should not be force into airing the commercial. That's like demanding a store sale a certain item that could damage their business.

I do not believe this guy is truly outraged CC will not air the commercial. I think he made the commercial too controversial just to give it a cause. Now he can claim it's unfair/censorship or whatever and watch as it goes viral. If it gets enough attention it will receive airtime in the form of commentary. And that right there is free advertising.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by burdman30ott6

 

I support the message of the commercial 100% (a response to a threat is called a defense, folks, not a threat. This is a direct response to a threat from the feds, NOT an aggressive statement of threat against them.)

Please provide a source that shows Obama threatening to take away your guns.

Straight From the Horse's (Mouth)
From the "Pass a new, stronger assault weapons ban" tab:

The shooters in Aurora and Newtown used the type of semiautomatic rifles that were the target of the assault weapons ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004. That ban was an important step, but manufacturers were able to circumvent the prohibition with cosmetic modifications to their weapons. Congress must reinstate and strengthen the prohibition on assault weapons.

Direct response to a direct question, if you wish I can also roll out the gyrations surrounding magazine capacity infringements, ammunition controls, registration mandates that are not only violations of privacy rights but also have historically been precursors to gun grabs and disarmament policies worldwide.

I think you are confusing "ban" with "confisication".

A ban does not "TAKE" your guns away...just limits what you can buy in the future.

You keep using words like "gun grab"...no one is going to take your existing guns...it is just fear mongering on your part.

reply to post by Mike U.

This is the first time one of your posts has had me sit up in my seat saying: "wuuuuut?!"
So, curiosity has gotten the better of me.

What do you mean "we can regulate the sale and ownership...."?

Do you work for this administration, or, fed.gov? If not, why on Earth would you write "we"?

"we" as in Americans.

Why not write "we", if you truly understand the system you would understand that it is "we" that get everything accomplished. "We" donate money to causes, "we" organize to promote our causes, "we" call and write our congressmen, "we" vote for people that share our causes....I know a lot of people on this website have a defeatist attitude that "we" have no control...and that is fine, it makes it easier for the rest of "us" to get things done that "we" care about.

You are not the first person in this thread to accuse me of working for someone, but I do this for fun...no one would waste money on a website as small as this.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Originally posted by xedocodex

Please provide a source that shows Obama threatening to take away your guns.

Straight From the Horse's (Mouth)
From the "Pass a new, stronger assault weapons ban" tab:

The shooters in Aurora and Newtown used the type of semiautomatic rifles that were the target of the assault weapons ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004. That ban was an important step, but manufacturers were able to circumvent the prohibition with cosmetic modifications to their weapons. Congress must reinstate and strengthen the prohibition on assault weapons.

Direct response to a direct question, if you wish I can also roll out the gyrations surrounding magazine capacity infringements, ammunition controls, registration mandates that are not only violations of privacy rights but also have historically been precursors to gun grabs and disarmament policies worldwide.

You seemed confused Burd...

An Assault Weapons Ban restricts future sales of certain types of guns. It does NOT "take away" or confiscate anyones guns as both the advertisement and yourself falsely claim or infer.

No one is "comming to take it"...and absent that your premise that this ad is a "defense" to a non existant/straw man threat...this ad is a threat.

reply to post by Indigo5

actually it is you who is confused.
we (America) have never had a 'ban' on assault weapons ... ever.

we had a TAX, not a ban.
yes, manufacturing was restricted but ownership, purchasing, stocking and or selling has NEVER been banned. if you believe otherwise, prove it.

and because it has NEVER been done before, it will NOT be done in the future either.
you, they or whomever can keep trying but Americans will always stand in the way.

fancy words ... like Ban or Confiscation ... are just words.
the AWB is a name, not an 'action'.
banning is an action, not a name ... so please, show us where ANY firearms have been banned previously.
(and not in regions like NY or CA or Chicago ... at the Federal level as we're discussing)

actually, if you want to discuss those areas, let's ... i'd have to find it but i recall reading CA and NY are in the top 5 states with fully-auto firearm ownership ... so please, where did this 'ban' occur again ?

reply to post by xedocodex



Thank you for the clarification. As I stated, it was just a curiosity question.
No accusations, that wasn't the intent.

reply to post by xedocodex

do we really need to bring out the dictionary ??

A ban does not "TAKE" your guns away...just limits what you can buy in the future

bans don't limit what one can 'buy' either ... it limits what can be produced.

and as stated before, whenever has America embraced a 'ban' on ownership, sales, stock or any specific firearm ?

items of the AWB were not 'banned', they were TAXED exhorbitantly.
please quit spreading disinfo

ps ... don't question me, read the title of the legislation ... "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act" ... now please, show us where it indicates a "ban", anywhere in the title.
source/ushouse.gov

reply to post by Honor93

bans don't limit what one can 'buy' either ... it limits what can be produced.

Depends on the specifics of the ban. You said earlier that the machine gun ban was a ban on companies producing them...well then please tell me where the Military gets theirs???

I'm sorry, I said I was going to avoid conversing with you for a specific reason...and I decided to give you one more shot, but you have repeatedly reinforced my opinion...and I refuse to contribute to your issues.

Good day.

Originally posted by Mike U.
reply to post by xedocodex

 

Thank you for the clarification. As I stated, it was just a curiosity question.
No accusations, that wasn't the intent.

Not a problem.

I just find it funny how many people accuse me of being a paid agent or that I work for this group or that person.

I'm flattered people are taking such notice of me...but no, I'm not paid to post.

reply to post by xedocodex

no, i said no such 'ban' ever existed.
that's exactly how the military gets theirs

no you didn't and if you had, you wouldn't have posted what i'm replying to atm ... you can twist your statements till they bleed, it still won't make them reflective of truth.

ps ... what does the prior legislation have to do with CCC refusing to air the people's voice ??

years ago, commercials worse than this one were aired with a standard disclaimer
(the following opinions do not reflect the opinion of this station or its affiliates or employees, blah, blah, blah)

so, why shouldn't they be 'forced' to provide a platform of FREE PRESS for the people ??
it is their monopoly on the audience that should be in question here, not an imagined 'right' to refuse.

Okay, I am pro-gun/constitution .... But this is some cheeseball stuff right here.
Pretty embarrassing, some other posters mentioned it reminded them of a crap-beer commercial. I agree with that.


This reminds me of having Ted Nugent defend our second amendment on the Piss Morgan show.
Why would they do that? Because he's an idiot, and wants to make us responsible gun owners look just like him.
It's psychology 101 and I do not understand why people buy it.

Peacefully, I wash my hands of this. Very counter productive.