Last week, the NFL rejected a Super Bowl television commercial produced by Daniel Defense, a Georgia-based gun manufacturer that specializes in ARs and AR-parts and accessories.
Citing NFL guidelines with respect to TV ads, Fox which will broadcast the 2014 Super Bowl in New Jersey sent a statement to Daniel Defense saying, “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.”
The NFL has a list of Prohibited Advertising Categories, including contraceptives, male enhancement products, Tobacco products energy drinks, malt beverages, fireworks, firearms among others.
Specifically, with respect to firearms, the NFL policy states:
Firearms, ammunition or other weapons; however, stores that sell firearms and ammunitions (e.g., outdoor stores and camping stores) will be permitted, provided they sell other products and the ads do not mention firearms, ammunition or other weapons.
Though, from Daniel Defense’s perspective, the Super Bowl ad does not conflict with the NFL’s policy for two reasons. As Daniel Defense executives told Guns & Ammo, which broke the story:
– Daniel Defense has a brick-and-mortar store, where they sell products other than firearms such as apparel.
– The commercial itself does not mention firearms, ammunition or weaponry.
Daniel Defense even offered to switch out their logo that showcases their DDM4 rifle, which appears at the end of the spot. In its place, Daniel Defense said they’d put an American flag with the words “Shall not be infringed.”
However, the NFL did not budge, rejecting the ad once again.
The NFL’s decision to reject the ad caused quite a stir around the Internet and within the gun community for two main reasons.
First off, during the 2012 Super Bowl XLVI on NBC, Daniel Defense aired a commercial in local Georgia markets that included a clip of combat veteran turned TV show host and combat consultant Larry Vickers shooting a gun, as Guns & Ammo pointed out.
This raises on obvious question of why was it okay then but problematic now? What’s changed since then?
Second, over the past few years, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, via his pro-gun control organization Mayors Against Illegal Guns, has bought ad time during the Super Bowl to push his gun-control agenda.
Additionally, football fans are bombarded with various advertisements and images on Super Bowl Sunday that many reasonable people find objectionable or in poor taste despite the NFL’s policy prohibiting “movies, video games and other media that contain or promote objectionable material or subject matter (e.g., overtly sexual or excessively violent material), as determined by the NFL.”
For many gun advocates, this illustrates a certain type of double standard that exists with the way in which gun owners are treated versus the rest of those who wish to advertise their message, brand or products, whether they be gun control advocates or movie studios or halftime performers. And frankly, who better to comment on this “selective censorship” than Mr. Colion Noir.
“This type of selective censorship is really bordering on the line of social lunacy, where the idea of self protection is considered offensive, but I can watch Beyoncé (happily I might add) hump the stage during the halftime show,” states Noir in his editorial response video, which you can see below after the ad: