Home » Blogs » The NRA Throws a Flag on the NFL’s Bad Call

The NRA Throws a Flag on the NFL’s Bad Call

Dan Zimmerman - comments No comments

We still think Marty Daniel’s Super Bowl ad submission was a crazy-good bit of gonzo marketing. As in he had to know that the NFL would sooner air a NAMBLA recruitment commercial than a spot advocating armed self defense by a company that specializes in turning out scary black rifles. Roger Goodell would rather stick knitting needles in his ears than listen to all the inevitable finger-wagging denunciations from scolds like little Bobby Costas. But whatever. The NRA’s obviously figures Super Bowl weekend is as good a time as any to jump on the pile. Again.

0 thoughts on “The NRA Throws a Flag on the NFL’s Bad Call”

  1. Marty Daniel must be one hell of a great marketer. Entering the 2014 SHOT Show, everywhere you looked there were billboards for Daniel Defense, and reminders were posted throughout the Show. I’m sure that, whether or not the Daniel Defense TV spot ever showed up on the SuperBowl, the calculated PR effect was significant.

    Reply
  2. The brainwashing has been going on for a long time, aided and abetted by the MSM that enjoys portraying black people as perpetual victims. The Al Sharpton Network is the worst in this regard, but all the others are close behind.

    Thanks to Kenn Blanchard, ColionNoir and other gun celebrities, a different voice can finally be heard in the black community. But until a majority sound like Mr. Vernon and not like Sharpton, the community will continue to descend into more crime and greater poverty.

    Reply
  3. There are many good and valid points being made here for both sides of the “engage” or not scenerio.
    Many of us, myself included, have never had to face that situation and quite frankly do not know how we would really react when we hear the un-earmuffed booms of real life and death situation.
    I hope, as a CCW holder, I would act valiantly and wisely, but to say I would engage or not, I will never truly know about myself until I’m faced with it.

    Reply
  4. I am really shocked to see the mayor of my city, Howard Schieferdecker as a member of MAIG. Maitland is very much a conservative city with near zero murder rate. The last murder in the city was committed with kitchen utensils. I plan to enlighten the residents about the mayor`s membership in this organization.

    Another prominent name who was a MAIG member is absent from this list, Orlando mayor Buddy Dyer. Wonder if he dropped his membership because he has plans to run for higher office in the future.

    Reply
    • I look at fox.com often; they are at best neutral on 2A and gun issues, and at times I find myself wondering if they sometimes lean anti and hop on the hysteria bandwagon to look “balanced”.

      I wouldn’t count Fox as pro-gun by any means.

      Reply
  5. Like most gas operated guns chambered in “diminutive” cartridges (makarov or below), I am thinking this Glock needs brass cased, round-nosed FMJ to even stand a chance at being reliable.

    While it is possible to limp wrist non direct blowback pistols it is much harder to do so. The guy in the vid does not appear to be limp wristing.

    How many rounds have been thru this glock?

    Reply
    • again – hollow points fed fine. no problems. tight groups. no worries. +p fmj and some freedom munitions fmj – problem. Now, I have about 8,000 rds of freedom and have never ever ever ever experienced an issue (which is why I bought so damn much). I really think it is the recoil spring.

      Reply
  6. Yeah, the state thats been passing draconian firearm laws and driving firearm accessory manufacturers is going to pass constitutional carry.
    Thatd be something wouldnt it

    Reply
  7. Meh, this isn’t the battle to pick. The corporation can stipulate whatever they want for their ad sales. The NFL motive could easily be anti-controversy rather than anti-gun (that said, f*ck the NFL). Also, the DD ad isn’t about gun rights, it’s about getting people to buy DD by exploiting people’s strong emotions about family and danger and veterans. I was kind of turned off by it when I first saw it. A good gun ad shows me why the hardware is great and stays out of my emotional business (that said, DD is good stuff).

    -D

    Reply
    • You must be a Vulcan or something.

      An ad that stays out of people’s emotional business is an ad that fails. When it comes to buying stuff, it’s all about emotion. Watch the Budweiser commercial and you’ll know what I’m talking about.

      Reply
  8. I tend to believe the terorists when they say they don’t hate us they hate our government, I’m not too skippy about it half the time either. Yes, they will kill us & yes government goons will be killed when they come for “terrorist” guns. War is just the imposition of ones will against another, thank goodness our war is peacefull so far, they don’t have this option. They see our disarmmament as a threat, imagine that. Terrorists attacked us so we get to rule their country, there are people that take exception to that, Randy

    Reply
  9. Our mistake (that we keep making) is framing Dana’s (and our own) position as “pro gun.” We should be stating it as “pro choice.” Those who control the language control the debate. Let’s start winning the debate by controlling the language. Currently, we are allowing the anti-rights, pro-criminal, pro-gun control fringe element to define the language, to define us. Smarten up, people.

    Reply
  10. Like Mr. Weingarten, I don’t know what the original evil was that they were trying to combat with silencer bans. The bans pre-date cheezy 1980s T.V. crime dramas with silenced pistol-packing assassins sneaking about. So that isn’t the inspiration.

    If it really is an anti-crime measure, it’s just silly. For starters, don’t the gun grabbers always fret that the typical gun owner will just *snap* and go shoot someone? So how does that hysterical hypothetical square with the notion that silencers are additional equipment at additionsl expense, which would reflect some degree of pre-meditation on the shooter’s part? Who snaps in slow motion and goes and gets a silencer?

    Beyond that, there already are guns that are fairly quiet. The Mossad uses .22lr pistols up close and personal to achieve their objectives and manages to get away unnoticed. Your basic $150 rifle in .22lr is very quiet, too, even standing nearby. At a range of 400 yards, such a rifle can put a bullet through an inch thick board of pine. That’s a million miles away and more than sufficient to penetrate a skull. Nobody would even know what happened, let alone have heard anything, before the killer was gone.

    So anything crime related seems a sorry excuse for banning silencers. The abundant legitimate reasons for allowing them certainly outweigh whatever silly assassin scenarios the anti’s can dream up.

    Reply
  11. Well at least they admitted their mistake and gave him his guns back. I’d be less surprised if they had come back, shot his dog and arrested him for some trumped up charge to cover it up.

    Reply

Leave a Comment