NFL Refuses to Run Daniel Defense Super Bowl TV Commercial
The NFL has refused to run a self-protection-themed TV commercial from Daniel Defense during the 2014 Super Bowl game. Apparently it’s fine to display half-naked ladies, or sell alcohol products on national television, but anything related to the Second Amendment is off-limits. In refusing to air the Daniel Defense commercial, the NFL cited its League policy against promoting firearms. According to the NSSF, “It is league regulation and not federal law that prohibits the advertising of firearms or ammunition on NFL broadcasts.”
Watch Daniel Defense Commercial Banned from the Super Bowl by the NFL
If you watch the minute-long video above, you will see that it is pretty tame. It is all about a man taking individual responsibility for protecting his family. You won’t see guns being fired, in fact you won’t see any actual guns at all*. The message is subtle — if you care about your family’s security, you may wish to exercise your Constitutional right to own a firearm. That doesn’t seem extreme at all, but NFL decision-makers decided that this commercial was too controversial, and violated its ‘no guns’ rules.
Larry Keane, Senior Vice President and General Counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, criticized the action of the NFL: “It would have been interesting to see if the television ad that Daniel Defense wanted to run during the 2014 Super Bowl would have caused the hubbub in elite liberal circles that the National Football League clearly feared it would. It may well have, but we’ll never know, for sure, since the NFL decided that its ‘no firearms’ on its airtime ruling would stand after the video review.
While we are disappointed that the nicely-produced Daniel Defense commercial will not run on national television during the Super Bowl, we are very pleased to see the attention being paid to the decision of a major sport’s management that seems so out of touch with the pro-Second Amendment sentiments of so many football fans across the country. Conservative commentators have been busy scoring points. Nationally-syndicated Columnist Michelle Malkin, for example, wrote ‘The National Football League’s hypocrisy and selective decency standards reek like a post-game locker room’.” Here is a Fox News commentary about the NFL’s refusal to air the Daniel Defense commercial:
* The video does show the Daniel Defense logo with the silhouette of a rifle. Daniel Defense agreed to remove that rifle graphic, but the NFL still said “no”. As a Fox commentator explains: “This is really not about guns at all but [rather] the idea of guns, and how distasteful they are… to people in the media.”
Similar Posts:
- Super Barrel V Giveaway — Win 14,000 Rds of Winchester Ammo
- Brownells Super Barrel III — 14,000 Rounds of Ammo Contest
- Win 14,000 Rounds of Ammo — Brownell’s Super Barrel Contest
- Full Slate of Shooting TV Shows Every Wednesday
- New Law Ensures Military Cartridge Brass Won’t Be Scrapped
Share the post "NFL Refuses to Run Daniel Defense Super Bowl TV Commercial"
Tags: Commercial, Daniel Defense, Fox News, NFL, NSSF, Super Sunday
Thy should include the names of these decision makers and what businesses they run outside the NFL in this story.
It is clearly time to rethink our blind addiction to televised sports. Gun owners should make an effort to contact the NFL and everyone who advertises with the networks to communicate they will seek alternatives to their products. In a tight economy like this it would only take a small change in their numbers to change their tone.
It’s clearly time to rethink that everyone is not in love with firearms. And don’t have to be. Some of us love them, but many more don’t. Next topic?
It’s a double edged sword with advertising and the NFL. It’s their show and they are creating the revenue for the TV station, so they have a say in what is advertised during their show. You can’t force beliefs on people without violating what you are initially standing up for, Individual Rights. I’m a believer in the 2nd Ammend, but I’m a believer in not making people do what they don’t want to. Like the baker that was taken to court by a gay couple because he refused to bake them a cake. Place he NFL in his shoes and the Daniel Defense as the gay couple. How is it any different?
Do you think red blooded Americans are going to stop watching the Super Bowl because the NFL refused to place this ad on primetime? I doubt it. I know I won’t
I have zero interest in watching overpaid multi-millionaire sports figures play a child’s game.
I agree with Daren – you can’t have it both ways. The NFL is free to decided what they do and don’t want to show. Before you start stomping around shouting about the Second amendment, remember the First amendment.
Daren J.: You won’t but I will. I will also avoid doing business with the companies who do advertise during the game. And I’ll write and tell the NFL what I’m doing. It’s the only vote that really counts. (The baker to whom you referred is in my home town and his business has been hurt by people giving their dollars to other bakeries) We all need to stand up for our beliefs.
The people in shooting sports get little or no credit for their skills or accomplishments in their sport. Lots of work practice labor long hours finding just the right load for their gun, and when they compete on a National level you never hear about it in the media,but fumble a football and everybody knows. I think its time to turn off over paid under achievers, I for one am done with the NFL!!!!
Oh, Kevin I’ll be watching, don’t get me wrong. I’m just tired of people pointing fingers at those that don’t have the same beliefs and judging them.
Darren, I agree with you about the freedom of speech aspect here, there is a difference between the Baker and the NFL though. The NFL uses the pubic airwaves, they get exemptions from many federal labor and trade laws, they have a monopoly. With all these extra legal benefits the least they should do is support the free speech of DD and anyone else that wants to spend the money. They have no issue supporting all kinds of so called “liberal” causes through donations and free time on TV. Add to that the Bob Costas factor and I am beginning to see a anti 2A pattern by their actions. The baker, well as a libertarian type I think he should have took their money and baked a crappy cake so they wouldn’t recommend them to their friends for their weddings if he was that opposed to them getting married. Religiously I am opposed to gay marriage but my pragmatist side will enjoy watching the break ups of gay couples on Jerry Springer, they will be more dramatic than any of the trash that is currently appearing. Either way, he runs a private business and makes his own economic decisions, the courts have no business in his business or his beliefs. The gay couple is crazy for insisting that that he bake them a cake if he does not want their business.
Since my Giants suck so bad I don’t plan on watching the Superbowl anyway.
The NFL have a PDF on their site listing what they will not advertise. I suspect they just don’t want the agro that goes with anything controversial. There will always be someone, somewhere who will have a bleat regardless of what they do.