It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Daniel Defense Gun Commercial Banned from Super Bowl

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Mianeye
 


Wow. I read every post. Your views were accepted with respect and you have no reason to be afraid. Why do people feel the need to put on this act as if gun owners or 2nd amendment supporters are like a vicious pack of dogs you have to be afraid of? It's pathetic. What, you didn't get the reaction you were hoping for so you just pretended like you did anyway and ran away with your tail between your legs acting like this thread is giving you a lot to think about tonight?

You know what I think? I think it's people like you who are the ones we really need to be afraid of. That was quite a display there. I'm glad nobody else dignified it with a response. I am not a gun owner. I'm a felon. I'm all out of dignity. I'm depending on these guys to protect me. You should be thankful.




posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by 3n19m470
 





Why do people feel the need to put on this act as if gun owners or 2nd amendment supporters are like a vicious pack of dogs you have to be afraid of?


Cause the historie of ATS has clearly shown, if you go up against the pro gun, even using logic, your opinion will continously be put down, and it will be a pain in the ass to try and keep a mature disscussion.

I went to bed after writing the post above this one, and i just woke up, and i am really surpriced when looking now how well and calm people actually took my opnion, it normally dosn't go that way.

It could be cause i said the right things, it could also be that the members on ATS has changed, and the more immature are on holiday.

But yes, maybe i didn't need to say i'm afraid of disscussing gun topic's on ATS, but, it could also be why it got taken so well, simply because i did.

I respect 2nd amendment supporters and gun owners and i'm not a US citizen, but, i am just seeing things in a different way sometimes.

But, i get what you are saying and might hold back on the "afraid" comment another time.

Peace



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


I would bet that if there wasn't a picture of one of their products (A Eeeeeevvvviiiiilllll Assault weapon, er...AR15) and just the name of the company wth website address they would have allowed it.

Most people who know firearms already know of Daniels Defense. The commercial with the web addy, instead of the graphic, would probably have driven more traffic to them, if anything because of curiousity.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Were any other adverts banned? if there was a "hand in your guns to save the children" advert and it also got banned then i could say the company responsible for sorting out the adverts didn't want the raging clusterf---- that comes the moment the gun debate begins when the rabids on both sides start foaming at the mouth



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I find it amazing how seemingly simple it is for gun manufacturers to dupe people time and time again.

The "super bowl" did not ban this ad. The NFL did not ban this ad. A local tv station in Atlanta chose not to run it.

The company wasnt trying to get the commercial on the major network during the super bowl. They were trying to gin up controversy to attract attention to themselves, and it worked.

Similar to their tactic of convincing people that their guns are being taken away, so "stock up"!



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxatoria
 


No ads were banned. This corporation is just trying to drum up business.

One local fox affiliate choosing not to run an ad does not mean it's "banned".



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
I own 2 DDs, a 300 blackout and a .556....enough said...



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


Possibly so but my take on this is that the progressive MSM has declared all out open hostilities on the gun manufacturers. This would be in line with their "death by a thousand cuts" strategy against the 2nd amendment. I doubt there is any chance of running a gun ad during a major event like this in the current political climate.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


The commercial was banned because it is false advertising.

Government is supposed to protect your family.

NOT the individual!



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by Bassago
 


The commercial was banned because it is false advertising.

Government is supposed to protect your family.

NOT the individual!



The commercial wasn't banned.

A small affiliate chose not to run it



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by Bassago
 


The commercial was banned because it is false advertising.

Government is supposed to protect your family.

NOT the individual!


Isn't that the current political truth. Here, here. Make way for the Centurions.

I still think bullets are faster than 911.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by aoxomoxoa
 


Ah...being on the wrong side of the pond we aint used to such things these days as the independent TV channels here have pretty much been gobbled up into one single entity and if you left any sporting event to our ITV you know every time someone scores they'll of gone to a commercial about 20 seconds before



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by aoxomoxoa
 



Gun Commercial Banned From Super Bowl 2014 By Fox Due To NFL Rules: REPORT


www.huffingtonpost.com...

So yes, it was banned.

QED



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Makes me wonder if an anti-gun ad was proposed if it too would be banned under the NFL rules? If not, then that is definitely a case of bias in media (not that it is not known to be anyways).

Q: There are always alcohol ads during televised sporting events, why not ban them?
A: Because they make $$$ and are legal. But, you may say, so are gun/ammo sales....hmmmm....
Strike 1

Q: Well, aren't beer ads the sports target key demographic?
A: A resounding, yes! Well, surprise, that same key demographic are also mostly gun owners as well.
Strike 2

Are the gun ads actually strike 3 here then?



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by aoxomoxoa
 



Gun Commercial Banned From Super Bowl 2014 By Fox Due To NFL Rules: REPORT


www.huffingtonpost.com...

So yes, it was banned.

QED


Yes the "report" was submitted by the gun manufacturer



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   

aoxomoxoa

beezzer
reply to post by aoxomoxoa
 



Gun Commercial Banned From Super Bowl 2014 By Fox Due To NFL Rules: REPORT


www.huffingtonpost.com...

So yes, it was banned.

QED


Yes the "report" was submitted by the gun manufacturer


So are you saying it wasn't banned and DD is fabricating the story? Right, sure.

It was clearly banned.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Bassago

aoxomoxoa

beezzer
reply to post by aoxomoxoa
 



Gun Commercial Banned From Super Bowl 2014 By Fox Due To NFL Rules: REPORT


www.huffingtonpost.com...

So yes, it was banned.

QED


Yes the "report" was submitted by the gun manufacturer


So are you saying it wasn't banned and DD is fabricating the story? Right, sure.

It was clearly banned.


It was rejected by a local affiliate. Any other affiliate in the country that wants to run it can, because it hasnt been banned.

DD doesnt want any other affiliates to run it because they want to continue to call it banned



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by aoxomoxoa
 




It was rejected by a local affiliate. Any other affiliate in the country that wants to run it can, because it hasnt been banned.

DD doesnt want any other affiliates to run it because they want to continue to call it banned


You know this because why? You have inside DD information, you read minds?

As for the ad it was banned. It didn't adhere to the rules pandering to anti-constitutionalists.


“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," FOX said in a statement to Daniel Defense



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


Let's be honest. You really don't see many weapons commercials with the exception of Outdoor shows, which are mainly on cable these days.

Plus the price tag of a Super Bowl ad? I think that whoever approved what ads are played during the Super Bowl played right into DD'd hands. Brilliant piece of advertising. They are now getting more play on the web than a million bucks (for a 30 second ad on TV) could ever get.

Smart marketing as far as I'm concerned.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Bassago
reply to post by aoxomoxoa
 




It was rejected by a local affiliate. Any other affiliate in the country that wants to run it can, because it hasnt been banned.

DD doesnt want any other affiliates to run it because they want to continue to call it banned


You know this because why? You have inside DD information, you read minds?

As for the ad it was banned. It didn't adhere to the rules pandering to anti-constitutionalists.


“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," FOX said in a statement to Daniel Defense



I guess it depends on your definition of "banned". This one affiliate said they rejected ut because they believed it violated the NFL policy.

But some local media affiliates accepted it and will play it during the super bowl. Because the commercial wasnt banned.

The company never pitched it to the NFL or attempted to get the spot on national broadcasts



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join