Here’s the Daniel Defense Superbowl Ad Banned by the NFL

There was a time when a black man couldn’t kiss a white woman on TV. That day has passed. And yet a firearms company can’t advertise its products on network TV. It’s high time that ballistic barrier was broken. If gun ownership can come out of the closet and into the mainstream media—as a consumer product—gun rights will win the culture war. Our rights will be far more secure than they are now. Perhaps even unassailable. But how?


  1. avatar NWBob says:

    Maybe if the ad agency had the wife twerking, it would have been allowed. It was so offensive to my sensibilities–NOT!

  2. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    With the liberal media being being what ii is.
    Might be awhile before it hits mainstream media and TV if ever,
    Although slow and way to slow inroads have been made on a lot of cable channels.
    Just as they have on cable for hard liquor.
    Gun adds will be seen sooner but I believe a lot later.

    1. avatar jimi harper says:

      This ad was never submitted….its total BS…..and the ads were being selected by Fox, who is sponsoring the game (hardly a hot bed of….do some research people, before you repost this BS…

      1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

        So, you are the Director Of Advertizing for Daniels Defense and have Direct Knowledge of everything they submit to Fox and NFL. Okey dokey, then, Mr Man, we will jump right on obeying your GOD LIKE Commands.

  3. avatar Charles5 says:

    They will ban this, but allow commercials like and the like or allow the most profane of hedonistic half-time shows. If that is your thing, fine, but this commercial is totally benign in comparison.

    1. avatar Charles5 says:

      Oh, and I own a Daniel Defense DDM4v7, and it is the best stock AR I have ever handled. Reliable as can be and looks awesome doing it.

  4. avatar Ted says:

    Great commercial.

    Apart from the logo at the end, this could have easily been an ADT commercial.

    There was no reason not to show this commercial. Frankly, there is more violent behavior shown on network TV shows.


    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      No need to look at the shows; just wait until half time is over for violence and injuries.

      I think that commercial would have sailed through unremarked and unmolested without the Daniels tag at the end. Much better taste than the half time show and most of the other commercials.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      About those network shows – the same networks that will not run an ad for a firearm: How many of those shows REQUIRE at some point either the star(s) or some “civilian” to use a firearm in self defense or in apprehending a criminal? I can’t give you the statistic, but it is a large percentage in prime time. Almost every non- “Housewives of…” drama involves some sort of gunplay.

      I have more and more frequently seen very clever product placement ads in some of the most popular dramas. In Bones, for instance, when Toyota was a sponsor, Boothe drove a black Toyota SUV instead of the standard FBI Chevy Suburban. In many scenes the characters would be driving in and discussing the feature of heir Toyota Prius or whatever other model they owned.

      But the only show I have seen to address this more or less directly, and it just happens to be THE most popular show on prime time for the last several years, is NCIS. On several occasions they have mentioned specifically that Gibbs prefers a SIG and I think most of the other team members use them as well. Gibbs was a Marine sniper and made a point of naming the M40A rifle (Remington 700) in .338 Lapua.

      It seems to me the smart place for gun manufacturers to go to break this defacto prohibition from actual commercials would be to enhance product placement in weapons used by the good guys, who casually discuss their weapons and their choices and their choice of ammo. As a corollary they could place crap weapons or their competition’s weapons in the hands of the bad guys and maybe show them malfunctioning at critical moments?

      Perhaps the best way to “Mainstream” is to slip in quietly from the banks, not do a cannonball off a swinging rope. Once the viewers are used to and comfortable with the good guys, including non-LEOs, openly discussing their firearms choices and when and how to use them some of the cable companies may be willing to consider regular paid advertising. I will not hold my breath until NBCCBSABC takes THAT plunge.

  5. avatar Anon says:

    How is this news? Since when do you see any gun (or ads showing guns at the end) ads on TV?

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      Indeed, the national media is a willing participant in the antis’ effort to brainwash, or condition and indoctrinate, the unknowing electorate and their children to fear and despise guns and all gun owners as dangerous and irrational latent criminals.

      Other than the news, one seldom sees guns on broadcast media unless as part of programming entertainment dramas where they are almost invariable misused or shown to have super characteristics they (or the actor/user) do not actually possess, such as unending rounds, silent discharges, full auto and going off without anyone properly manipulating the controls. This primarily serves to reinforce the anti’s rhetoric about how inherently dangerous guns are by merely being in existence.

      Otherwise, the only times guns are televised by the mainstream media is in news reports where they are portrayed as “scary” and bad in and of themselves in relation to an offensive violent act by some bad actor who is taken down by “the good guys” in law enforcement. Otherwise, they are portrayed negatively in some other public event involving firearms such as buybacks to save the community, a wide angle shot of ‘gun nuts’ standing up for their civil rights (at the expense of society, of course), a close up shot of some sparsely attended ‘common sense’ gun control proponents all six or twelve of whom are framed to give the illusion of actual public interest with their often loud, demanding rhetoric.

      News; hah, propaganda! Of course pro gun ads will not be carried by the lefty mainstream media, and the sports industry will never challenge that position; not worth the trouble they would endure to do so.

  6. avatar 2hotel9 says:

    Wow. That milk toasty bit of video is what the whole screeching match is about? Really? All the offensive crap that NFL supports and THAT is what has their pink panties in a bunch. Incredible.

    1. avatar A-Rod says:

      milquetoast is the spelling you are looking for.

      1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

        Naw, too many people can’t figure out what it means correctly spelled.

        1. avatar A-Rod says:

          hahaha. between texting, instagram, tweets, email etc. I think correct spelling will go the way of the dodo.

        2. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          I freely admit to being a grammar and punctuation nazi. When I misspell words or mangle syntax and punctuation it is on purpose. Just like the lights going out at Bob’s Country Bunker.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      Perhaps if the ad were from a company that supplied the gun most of the NFL players prefer to carry? (Glock) Otherwise, maybe the team owners could poll their security details to see what weapons are preferred and hen be willing to run ads for those? /sarc

      1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

        Actually, I wonder if a major manufacturer such as Glock submitted an ad if they would accept it? Daniels Defense is not a name a lot of people really recognize.

        My real point is that for all the noise being made about the evil gun commercial I was rather let down by what it actually turned out to be. Good lord, I have seen ADT commercials that were “edgier” than this running during prime time shows, children’s shows, HSN, hell, they run on religious channels.

  7. avatar Colby says:

    Money is how. We might have to pay twice as much the same ad space, but liberal or no, if you offer enough money for an ad space eventually the offeree’s motivation for self-interest will compel him to accept (because, whether they like it or not, socialists are actually the insidiously greedy ones who don’t like having to work too hard for their living and would rather take what they need from someone who actually worked for it).

    A liberal’s principals are always for sale, the only real issue is how much money will it take to make a communist into a capitalist.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Isn’t that the truth. After a court slugfest extending back to the 1990’s over whether to allow dancers at 16 strip clubs inside Houston’s city limits to perform completely topless, or wearing “pasties” over their nipples, even our ultra liberal lesbian mayor has finally agreed to let freedom ring, so to speak, so long as the strip clubs pony up $1 million per year in a special tax beyond what any other business pays. Money talks, pasties walk.

      1. avatar Leadbelly says:

        If you’re ever in the St. Louis area, visit the strip clubs across the river on the east side. If you hold a CCW from your home state, you should be allowed to carry, and, believe me, you should, AS LONG AS YOU’RE IN YOUR CAR. You will be frisked by one of the dancers (in a very “thorough” manner) upon entering the club.

        Illinois may be rough on guns, but vice pays,so naked (and I mean naked) ladies can do pretty much what they please. Now, what they please depends totally on your bankroll. No background check required.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          Armed or not, nobody in his right mind goes across the river to East St. Louis.

        2. avatar Adub says:

          Hey now, the working girls of East St. Louis have kids they need to feed. Brothels aren’t “legal”, but in some places, they are.

        3. avatar 16V says:

          Unless you’re going to the Pink Slip, there’s absolutely nothing to worry about. (Seriously, don’t go to the Pink Slip…)

          The other clubs are as safe as any other bar, and I’ve never gotten so much as a door ding at Roxy’s. There’s usually about one amateur a month who either can’t hold his booze, or tries something stupid with a girl, that’s the only ‘violence’. The crack shack by the old Geno’s drivethru liquor is long burned out, and the remodel of RT3/64 interchange has taken away the viaduct the hookers used to hang out under.

          Frankly, the place is getting a bit gentrified for my taste…

        4. avatar Cliff H says:

          This all sounds like advice we probably should be addressing to George Zimmerman. Just sayin’.

  8. avatar Clay says:

    Sorry guys but superbowl ads have to be exciting in some way. That was a boring commercial. They should have said no.

    1. They should have shown what the dude did in the Marines and why he’s glad to be home.

      1. avatar A-Rod says:

        Yup, not only is the NFL anti-2A but it looks like they are anti-Marines. Way to show patriotism.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          I guess that explains all those “Go Army” ads.

    2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      And if they’d sparked it up with some action, you would have said that they’re just glorifying violence to push product and have no place in light, family-friendly NFL land. That’s just throwing the dart at the wall, then drawing the bull’s eye around it

      They’re against these ads because of the favorable stance toward the product, not because of the style of the ads themselves. The proof? The NFL let their little announcer monkey Costas get his minute and a half hit piece in against firearms last season. No fine, no suspension, no termination, no condemnation. Just a meek little “we support the 2nd amendment press release” in the aftermath. If the NFL were truly content neutral, they’d allow this ad, or at least explicitly indicate that DD must come back with a more snappy, edgy, hip ad, but that running an ad in general is fine.

      You know, because paunchy, balding, sofa-dimpling, middle-aged guys wearing jerseys in adoration of 20-something year old men are oh so an edgy, hip demographic, you see.

    3. You do raise a point.

      I wonder how much Michael Bloomberg is going
      to spend on a SuperBowl Ad advocating gun
      control errrrr civilian disarmament for this Super Bowl.

      Assuming he will pay to put one out, even if it does
      get rejected, I’m sure he can pay his way to get it aired.

      1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

        In fact Bloomy will get anti-gun agitprop in SB ads for free, him and Rogie Goodell are close friends and in total agreement on the anti-gun agenda.

    4. avatar Roscoe says:

      @ Clay

      Your point is quite valid and well taken.

      Still, even a sexy adrenalin driven ad with a pink pig on a zip line wouldn’t pass muster if offered up to sell or support firearms.

      1. avatar Clay says:

        @ Roscoe
        This I believe as well.

  9. avatar 7.62x54r says:

    You want some violence? Look down on the field. Just what do you think the defense is trying to do to the quarterback?

    1. avatar JeremyR says:

      Yes, but if the center had one of these, men like Clay Mathews, and Jarrod Allen would not be a threat to the quarterback.

  10. avatar Dracon1201 says:

    I wonder if DD could sue over this being a form of discrimination?

    1. avatar Colby says:

      I think that they would have a hard time establishing that they fall under one of the judicially recognized categories of “protected classes” which the courts have said may sue private entities for discrimination. Instead they’d have to first try and establish that they are part of a class that, all though not yet judicially recognized as a “class”, should be “protected” nonetheless, which, unless you have the media bemoaning your plight on a 24-hour basis, the courts are not likely to buy.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      Good lord, how absurd. I bet you’re the same kind of person who complains about how they are too many lawyers and lawsuits and how businesses should be able to do what they want. No one has a right to advertise their for-profit, commercial business in a particular private venue.

      Almost as absurd as comparing it to inter-racial kissing.

    3. avatar Jus Bill says:

      How about a complaint to the FCC instead? I think the threat of a potential denial of license to air the SB would get the NFLs attention right quick.

  11. avatar PCnotPC says:

    They need to reshoot the commercial using a “minority” family instead of the white bread one. That’ll fly.

    1. avatar Anon says:

      Ah, you would be one of the people who laments the passing of the era alluded to in “There was a time when a black man couldn’t kiss a white woman on TV.”

      1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

        Your never ending endless stream of obtuse-ness tends to get boring.

        1. avatar Anon says:

          I can’t hear you over Rush Limbaugh blaring in your background, can you turn it down? I’ll wait patiently as you sharpen your pixelated crayons and prepare your retort. I’m sure you’ll outdo yourself.

        2. avatar Anon says:

          Alright, it’s been real, but you’re getting too much Cheetos dust all over your keyboard in your mom’s basement, and you’re getting much to shrill.

          To sum things up, everyone online is a Leftard if you say so, and you’re an InternetToughGuy(TM). Good luck with that. You’ll have to sit in the sandbox and hurl (lame) invective at someone else now.

        3. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          No, honey, only leftards are leftards, and you keep proving yourself to be one. Good job, buddy!

      2. avatar Blue says:

        You mean like Charlton Heston in “Omega Man?”

      3. avatar 2hotel9 says:

        Poor little leftard, thats the best you can do. No wonder everyone laughs at you all the time.

        1. avatar Anon says:

          Not left-leaning whatsoever, friend, but thanks for the predictable accusation and (in your mind) creative play on “left”. Thanks for playing.

          “Herp derp, duh Libtards, herp”. You don’t sound like (to society-at-large) the stereotypical gun owner at all, do you?

        2. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          Ah, sweety, you gonna cry for us now? Leftards always screech how you are not leftards, and it simply reinforces the fact you are a leftard. Now, squeeze out some tears for us. We love laughing at leftards while you cry.

        3. avatar Hannibal says:

          Obviously disagreeing with anyone for anything makes you a commie leftard baby. Come on, I think it’s written in the rules on the first page.

        4. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          Actually, I have been seeing “anon” commenting in quite a few threads, cutesy sunglasses wearing blank white avatar attached, and 9 times out of 10 they are dribbling the standard leftarded Democrat Party crap. Such has the snarky racial innuendo above. One trick ponies tend to stand out, like a nail in the floor that needs set so people don’t trip on it.

      4. avatar 2hotel9 says:

        And for the record, had this ad been done using any combination of minority actors it would still be refused. Never mind the fact that minorities are the ones who need to defend themselves and their children from armed criminals at a much higher rate than whites, you don’t care about them, either.

      5. avatar Blue says:

        @anon, why is it leftists seemed to have a limited vocabulary yet “derp” is one of the limited words they know?

      6. avatar 2hotel9 says:

        And don’t forget to explain, while waggling your self righteous finger, that you have lots of friends who are(insert minority designation here). We love laughing at those lies, too.

        1. avatar Anon says:

          For all you know, I could *gasp* be a minority, Sparky. No, that wouldn’t be possible here, would it?

        2. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          I’d say you are a minority, here. Go ahead, tell us all again how we are a bunch of racist mouth breathers, THAT will win people over to your anti-gun agenda.

        3. avatar Anon says:


          Nope, not an anti, either. Why would I be spending time on TTAG? I never said there were “a bunch” of mouth-breathing racists here; I only singled you out for that. I’ve found the majority of people here to be completely rational and informed.

          Also, accuse anyone who you don’t agree with or don’t like of being *yawn* a lefty, leftard, libtard, liberal, libr-ull, anti, etc. THAT will win people over to your cause, whatever that may be.


          Not younger, not “posting via Reddit”, and definitely not using any “advanced tactical trolling techniques”, nor am I trolling whatsoever. I addressed one person’s comments and you have nothing better to do than jump in.

        4. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          Really, sweety? You addressed your snide little racist innuendo to PCnotPC, I just hopped in to give you a quick kick, as I always do to leftards.

      7. avatar Anon says:

        @Hannibal, ah, you’re right! I didn’t read the fine print. : ^ D

        1. avatar TheBear says:

          Anon stop trolling.

          You’re obviously a younger poster, probably on Reddit, and you’re using terms and techniques for trolling that some of the older posters don’t even understand.

          It doesn’t make you look cool. Just stop.

        2. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          The older posters here most likely remember the flame wars that used to be rather common pre-blogosphere. I just like kicking trolls and leftards(sorry to be redundantly repetitive) to hear them squeal.

        3. avatar 16V says:

          2hotel9, There were flame wars in the dial-up-BBS-2400baud days. Just sayin’…

        4. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          Oh, yea, I know. Always get a laugh when someone trots out the “old folks on the intrawebs” line. And sad to say I know people still rockin’ da dialup.

  12. avatar dwb says:

    proper placement in a video game ad, that’s how.

    1. Attacking the youth mindset is how they brought us to where we are…

      1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

        A very successful tactic the left uses constantly, we should damned well start using it.

    2. avatar Jus Bill says:

      And maybe we should give it (and the backstory) some help to go viral. I mean if MDA and the Bloomies can do it, why can’t we?

  13. avatar Blue says:

    G.D. the NFL. It is suffering from years of making millionaires of punk thug bangers. They can turn it into the soccer league for all I care.

  14. Brilliant!

    Getting banned by the Super Bowl is a rite of passage.
    Just ask good ole Bob (Or should I say Dr. Bob?) Parsons of fame.

    Here’s one they banned a few years ago

    Can anyone tell me why they banned that commercial?

    Eh whatever.

    Anyway, if I were Daniel Defense I would put their
    oh-so verboten (that’s “prohibited” for you non-German
    speaking folk) commercial on their web page and
    use it to their advantage.

    Maybe even have website visitors signing a petition
    to have the SuperBowl air said commercial?

    Who knows.

    Just an idea.

    1. avatar Blue says:

      Don’t forget Hank Williams . . .

  15. avatar Fug says:

    Personally, I think the baby should have been free floated.

    Seriously though, that was pretty cheesy. Lovely family, but the video doesn’t look natural and I can see how it could leave a lot of people confused. Was it “banned” or just turned down? It seems more like this would invite (potentially hilarious) satire than it would reinforce the place of the AR-15 in the burbs.

    The NFL is a losing battle anyway. If you look at the demographics over the last decade, it is most popular with women. I was shocked, but women dominate the viewership of most major American sports. I can’t remember the exact numbers, but if you research the subject for yourself you will find the data fairly striking. Basically every team sport their little brats can get into, they are into. Everything I’ve seen working with middle aged women in an office reinforces this, they have much more interest than men the same age.

    Gun companies should advertise during broadcasts of something like the upcoming Dakar rally, where it seems not a year goes by that someone doesn’t die out there. Even the spectators get killed, I seriously want to go some day, maybe when it is back in Africa. Another good choice might be alternative racing events, like Formula Drift. Don’t bother with crap like the NFL that never had a soul to sell. Gun folks are gear heads, not meat heads. You’re not going to “go viral” chasing the mainstream.

  16. avatar Flubnut says:

    Getting a firearm commercial aired during the Super Bowl (and more importantly, having it be a non-event) should be the END goal of the gun culture war. This is more like a Hail Mary pass during the start of the second quarter. The passionate part of me thinks it’s a gutsy move, the pragmatic part of me thinks we still need to spend more time working the ground game to get closer to the end zone.

  17. avatar Ed Rogers says:

    I hope the revenue the NFL missed out on is spent wisely by Daniel Defense, to air its spot on The Sportsman Channel for a year or two.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Miss out on revenue? I think not–there is a great deal of competition for these (very pricey) ad spots, and I have no doubt that there wasn’t one minute of dead airspace.

  18. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    The NFL is trying to soften up in order to reach more viewers for awhile, this seems like part it, in my opinion. But, they’ll never ban sexually based commercials because sex sells, period.

    The NFL had been making an attempt to gain women viewers by softening-up for years.You think the NFL has 250lbs, steroided-up jocks running around in pink because they give a shit about breast cancer, or is it to increase female viewers?

    Like it or not the NFL would probably lose more viewers than it would gain from an AR commercial- I doubt the diehard football fans are ever gonna boycott, but the newly acquired pink ribbon supporters might.

    1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

      Actually, want to really piss off the feminazi crowd? Point out that the NFL only donates a tiny percentage of the money raised on this breast cancer awareness crap. THAT would have them boycotting football for all eternity, and suing them. Hmmmm, sounds like a plan!

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        Susan G Komen doesn’t even donate a lot of money to breast cancer, it’s not about curing anything, it’s all about the donation and advising for more donation.

        Before you donation money go Guidestar and view the organization’s rating and tax records.

        SGK has a one star (out of five) rating, on average less than 25% of the money is actually used on research.

        I’ve upset one or two people with that little gem.

        1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          My mother in law is a big donator to pretty much anything that comes in the mail. No use in pointing out that the vast majority of them are just scams, she donates anyway “just in case”.

  19. avatar Shawn says:

    Do not like it…do not watch NFL/Super Bowl. But, you know what…many of you who claim you are pro-gun will still watch the Super Bowl. Man-up and do not watch. Boycott, just like TTAG said when they would not promote CTD…whoops they did a few days ago.

    1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

      Last time I watched a SB was the last time the Steelers were in one. I was cooking the pig for the halftime party and it was on the big screen out behind the bar. Wifey DVRs the commercials, only part I really care about.

    2. avatar NDLynch says:

      I’d like to see someone take it beyond a mere boycott, and organize a day of shooting sports and armed self-defense training, with special events, sales, and courses offered at gun stores and ranges nationwide. Imagine a kind of cultural counter-revolutionary annual event that rivals the Superbowl and encourages people to draw the obvious contrast between its active an engaged participants and the typical bloated and passive television sports viewer.

      1. avatar Shawn says:

        Okay, lets start the plan for this year. Everyone, on the day of the Super Bowl, do not watch or listen to it. Go outside or go to the Range and have fun with your guns. Someone come up with a name for this event and I will start a blog. Then start to post on forums and other social media sites. Lets see how far we can make this go in a couple of months. If it continues, it will become an annual event.

        1. avatar CarlosT says:

          I’m down. It’s been too long since I’ve been to the range.

        2. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          Good idea, just depends on the weather for us. I don’t mind shooting in the snow or rain, love to see the steam rising from the upper surfaces of my M1 or RPK, kinda hard to get other people real interested when it is below freezing here in west PA.

  20. avatar 505markf says:

    Gun commercials on national network TV, and events such as the Super Bowl, won’t happen until we have 8-12 consecutive years of strong, vociferous pro-gun leadership in the White House, and inside pressure on the FCC. Merely offering more money to networks won’t do a thing; those folks run in continual fear of the FCC and entities taking away their franchise.

  21. avatar swissspecial226 says:

    That ad is incredibly terrible. It’s boring as shit and comes off as whiny with the line about “no one has the right to tell me.” They should drop the shitty music, the douchey white guy, and the attitude. Get some actual former marines, possibly a former NFL player or 2, and just have them endorse your product.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      You mean you want to see 250 lb black running backs twerking in the clubs with Glock Fotays stuffed in their waist bands?

    2. avatar Jus Bill says:

      You mean set it in a roach- and rat-infested apartment in the Ghe-tto with a single black crack-whore mother and her sixth child as a hook? Get real…

    3. avatar TheBear says:

      I kind of agree with this…

      And the two replies above me are incredibly douchey.

      I’d love to see these internet tough guys try to say this kind of crap to Colion Noir.

  22. avatar Marcus says:

    As ads go, this is a good one. No, there are no nipples, shaking asses or explosions, yeah. But there IS tension, because viewing the prosaic scene – A nice house on a quiet street. Hubby kisses wife and baby after a long day of work – you get the sense of vulnerability. The fact that you EXPECT some meth-head to kick in the door at any second is enough. It’s very Hitchcockian. The pain of ruler against the knuckles isn’t the scary thing, it’s waiting for that ruler to come down. I was tense during the whole clip and I was thinking “gee, I hope this dude has a means of protecting himself.” Exactly the message DD wanted to convey, I suspect. When I watch the Superbowl this season, I’ll make note of the myriad commercials that, while titillating in other ways, don’t push the product nearly as effectively. I don’t remember the last time I found myself craving a GoDaddy service or Rihanna CD while watching football. DD engaged the brain, anyway. Apparently there’s just no room for that on our airwaves.

  23. avatar Accur81 says:

    From the ad: “and no one has the right to tell me what’s best to defend my family.” Well, that’s just offensive. David Gregory, Feinstein, Obama, Holder, Bloomberg, etc. clearly have the self-proclaimed right to limit our defensive options. What would we do without their wisdom? I could never come up with brilliant self defense schemes like shooting blindly through a door or up in the air without government level wisdom. It also sounds like Daniel Defense offers military grade (or better) equipment to lowly civilian shooters. Ridiculous. If my life is on the line, I want the least tested equipment with the tiniest possible magazines and the most safety features available. / epic sarcasm

    I don’t see networks picking this up because it is way too supportive of the 2A “tradition.” It isn’t terribly interesting, but I don’t fault them much for that.

    As an aside, the ad didn’t play on my iPhone 5 using private browsing, but worked fine from my MacPro with Start Page search engine.

  24. avatar cubby123 says:

    This is in direct violation of Federal Trade Commission Laws,’Discrimination’If they wanted to push that point, they could.You Cannot Discriminate(legally}

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Nope, don’t think so. You can’t discriminate based on inclusion in a “protected class”; neither gun companies nor gun owners are a “protected class.” Nothing to see here, move along….

  25. avatar Mark N. says:

    What I want to know is how the NFL got the right to dictate who gets to advertise during the “show.” It used to be the other way around–the advertisers could exercise control over the content of the show, and writers and producers had to be careful not to piss off the source of their income.

  26. avatar Tallbloke says:

    Just imagine if they had allowed it. Bob Costas Would have shat himself.

  27. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    The NFL banned this, now figure out why. That’ll tell us something about the territory & state of the argument. I speculate the math went like this:

    – This ad speaks to a set of values that makes the strongest outcome-based argument for civilian gun ownership. Making the explicit “skilled self protection” argument – “protect my family”, “best tool for the job”, and showing the in uniform photo – casts gun ownership as a considered choice.

    Why should *that guy* be prevented from protecting his family? That’s an argument the antis couldn’t allow to be made.

    – Being responsible is a bit at odds with the contrived circus that is the modern s-bowl.(*)

    – During the S-bowl would put that calm, reasoned argument in front of gaggles of people who have only heard hard-spun story leads on the TV news.

    Because of all that, the anti’s would come at this one even harder than one with rednecks shooting beer cans out of each other hands, tacticool mall-ninja nonsense, or natural rights / founding principles. Here’s a reasonable, identifiable guy saying “I want to protect my kid.”

    So, the NFL with a little nudge or not, decided they didn’t want to be around when the antis came at this one with everything they have.

    What does this tell us?

    This tells us the fight is on in earnest. It’s not about the argument. The other guys have chosen their position. Now, for them, it’s just about winning.

    This tells us it’s moved to access and venue control. When reasoned arguments have to be shut down, this tells us that the reasoned arguments are getting traction. They lose the argument so they have to stop the discussion before it starts. One way is to threaten a tantrum – or a boycott – at anybody who even allows the other guys to speak.

    So, this tells us only what we already knew.

    (*) Was I the only one who couldn’t stop thinking of “The Electric Horseman” during the halftime show with The Blackeyed Peas in xmas-light costumes?

  28. avatar Mina says:

    There is to be no show of tangible, blatent, obvious masculinity except as that exhibited by the football players – sanctioned, paid for, entertaininment-value masculinity.

    All other displays will be eliminated.

  29. avatar Kyle says:

    So is it just that network television doesn’t allow gun ads for the most part?

    1. avatar Buttugly says:

      comcast in Houston refused to renew the ad on cable channels for our LGS “The Arms Room”.

  30. avatar doesky2 says:

    Just redo it with two married lesbian chicks (ideally a hispanic muslim and an asian atheist) and their test tube baby. They wouldn’t dare ban it.

    Maybe Daniel Defense planned in this way…..get the publicity without paying the outrageous commercial fee. Sounds like a mighty big expense for such a modest sized company.

  31. avatar Pat says:

    The insanity that is America. EVERY show on TV features violent gunplay, yet you cant have a subtle, tasteful commercial? Libturds.

  32. avatar Bob says:

    If the NFL will not allow it during their TV time, then buy up a ton of time during non-NFL programming times. You might even reach more people and a wider demographic, because you can air the commercial several hundred times for what it costs to run it once during the Super Bowl. Don’t let a politically biased organization like the NFL stop you from doing what is right.

  33. avatar Jamie in ND says:

    Call NFL HQ in NY and voice your displeasure with them (212)450-2000.

  34. avatar Martin B says:

    What, interrupt the most violent sport in the world, with a peaceful ad yearning for the ability to protect the home from (?)???. 99% of TV viewers know that only bad people have guns, which are all indistinguishable from each other. A civilian expressing a wish to have a gun is not politically correct. Unless it’s a TV hero working for law enforcement, the idea of weapons in the hands of the public is anathema to the entertainment czars. Especially not some crazed killer machine gun like that nasty Adam Lanza used. That would send a shudder down the atrophied spines of all right thinking viewers. Not in my neighborhood!

  35. avatar BDub says:

    Maybe they turned it down cause its lame and kind of a downer.

    But, I agree with your assessment of the culture war – visibility is key.

  36. avatar Scott says:

    The NFL should really make a bold statement and fire any player involved in a gun incident !

  37. I thunk the admin of this web site is actually working
    hard in support of his website, sionce here every stuff is quality based material.

  38. My family all the time sayy that I am killing my time here at net,
    however I know I am gtting know-how daily by reading such good articles or

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email