Boycott the NFL

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
If the NFL is against personal responsibility and personal defense I am against the NFL. I won't be watching any more games. I hope their viewership drops dramatically until they show some common sense. G&A magazine earns a few stupid points also for their titling.

NFL Bans Super Bowl Gun Commercial - Guns & Ammo
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
If the NFL is against personal responsibility and personal defense I am against the NFL.
Have they issued a statement to this effect ?

I'm really not able to tell - since G&A apparently can't code their website so that it displays properly and doesn't get totally mangled in my browser.

If so could you please link it ?
 

zorry

Veteran Expediter
Anytime you see NFL and gun in the same sentence it's usually negative.

I don't get involved in these soapbox issues, but I'm not upset by this.

I may read something here that changes my opinion. That's the whole point of a forum, IMHO.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Last edited:

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
They have refused the commercial that talks about personal responsibility and family safety being one's own responsibility. That's clear enough.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Considering that shooting sports are some of the most participated in sports in the United States their "rule" makes little sense from a marketing stand point. I would not be surprised that the shooting sports have a much lower rates of injury or death for participants than football does. I would also guess that the injury or death rates among children that play football is dramatically higher than those who are involved in the shooting sports.
 

letzrockexpress

Veteran Expediter
So what? If Planned Parenthood wanted to advertise on the sides of your truck you aren't compelled to do it. How would that be any different? And another thing, gun proponents, or those who constantly yammer on about the Second Amendment, etc., usually come across as having a screw loose, IMHO. I own guns but I certainly don't care if an organization I am a fan of chooses not to promote the ownership of them...
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
So what? If Planned Parenthood wanted to advertise on the sides of your truck you aren't compelled to do it. How would that be any different? And another thing, gun proponents, or those who constantly yammer on about the Second Amendment, etc., usually come across as having a screw loose, IMHO. I own guns but I certainly don't care if an organization I am a fan of chooses not to promote the ownership of them...

It's just nonsensical. Their sport is FAR more dangerous to those who play than the shooting sports are.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
True but a football player cannot really be purchased and used as weapon in the way a gun can..

ANYTHING that is purchased can be used as a weapon. Firearms are tools. As with every tool made, they can be used legally or illegally, for positive or negative uses. The tools themselves are not good, bad or indifferent, they are inanimate objects.

The shooting sports provide a positive experience, they teach discipline. The shooting sports themselves are called "disciplines". They are also used to teach safety, not only in the use of firearms, the lessons taught can be applied to everything in life. They teach responsibility as well. Millions of children are involved in shooting sports in the United States. The VAST majority do not go on to use those tools in a negative manner.

The fact that just because a tiny minority of people in this country decide to use a tool in an illegal manner is not valid grounds for banning the advertising. As I said, it is nonsensical. It reeks of PC and hysteria.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
There is a distinct and major difference between the NFL choosing to "promote" it with PSA's, signage, etc. and banning a perfectly good commercial from paid advertising. The former is fine. I don't expect them to actively encourage firearm ownership. The latter is unacceptable and I will no longer be a consumer. I hope everyone who owns firearms and those who don't own firearms but do believe in the Constitution do the same.
 

letzrockexpress

Veteran Expediter
ANYTHING that is purchased can be used as a weapon. Firearms are tools. As with every tool made, they can be used legally or illegally, for positive or negative uses. The tools themselves are not good, bad or indifferent, they are inanimate objects.

True again but we aren't talking about inanimate objects, rather very animate 300 lb. men...

The shooting sports provide a positive experience

That depends which end of the gun you're on.

they teach discipline. The shooting sports themselves are called "disciplines". They are also used to teach safety, not only in the use of firearms, the lessons taught can be applied to everything in life. They teach responsibility as well. Millions of children are involved in shooting sports in the United States. The VAST majority do not go on to use those tools in a negative manner.

Yeah but all sports teach something, in the case of football, working as a team to attain defined goals, strategizing, etc.

The fact that just because a tiny minority of people in this country decide to use a tool in an illegal manner is not valid grounds for banning the advertising. As I said, it is nonsensical. It reeks of PC and hysteria.

That's the beauty of Free Enterprise my friend. We, as businessmen, have the freedom to pick and choose what we do or do not support.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
They have refused the commercial that talks about personal responsibility and family safety being one's own responsibility. That's clear enough.
No, it really isn't ... because you are conflating (which is a logical fallacy): that they seek to avoid controversial and divisive subjects in pursuit of the own economic interests, in no way means that they are against something - just that they, unlike you, don't choose to be a crusader about it ...

That's the thing about being an authoritarian: it's not enough that others are perfectly willing to allow one to have and pursue his own personal causes, others must submit, agree, and support them as well ...
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Considering that shooting sports are some of the most participated in sports in the United States their "rule" makes little sense from a marketing stand point.
Then you have absolutely no understanding of who they are actually trying to market to ...

Avoiding things which are potentially "controversial" would seem to indicate that they are trying to reach a very wide audience.

#nobigsurprise
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
"That depends which end of the gun you're on."

It depends on where your head gets hit when tackled too. The fact remains, the shooting sports are among the safest of all sports that children or adults participate in. There are FAR fewer injuries than with football. There are fewer deaths per 100.000 participants than will football.

Their rule is nonsensical. They can be nonsensical if they choose, it does not change the fact that THEIR product is FAR more dangerous than ANY of the shooting sports or all of them combined.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Considering that shooting sports are some of the most participated in sports in the United States their "rule" makes little sense from a marketing stand point. I would not be surprised that the shooting sports have a much lower rates of injury or death for participants than football does. I would also guess that the injury or death rates among children that play football is dramatically higher than those who are involved in the shooting sports.
That's the classic red herring argument: beside the point, misdirection [form of], changing the subject, false emphasis, the Chewbacca defense, irrelevant conclusion, irrelevant thesis, smokescreen, clouding the issue, ignorance of refutation, judgmental language [form of].

A red herring is a blatant attempt to redirect the argument to another issue that to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While a red herring is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

The original argument, which Leo (and others) missed entirely, is whether or not the commercial violates the NFL's Advertising Policy, not whether shooting sports are safer than football (the commercial never even mentioned shooting sports) or whether the commercial talks about personal responsibility and family safety being one's own responsibility (which doesn't in any way violate the policy). At issue is whether or not the commercial violates the NFL's Advertising Policy by falling into any of the NFL's Prohibited Advertising Categories.

The commercial violates the NFL's Advertising Policy in two ways: {#5} It is advertising guns (and lamely, using emotional fear to do it), the fact that it doesn't actually mention guns is irrelevant, and {#12} because it is a politically motivated advertisement that falls under the category of Social Cause or Issue Advocacy. Those who are upset with the NFL's denial of the ad are upset because it fails to allow the word of their cause to spread.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
There is a distinct and major difference between the NFL choosing to "promote" it with PSA's, signage, etc. and banning a perfectly good commercial from paid advertising. The former is fine. I don't expect them to actively encourage firearm ownership. The latter is unacceptable
You don't support the right of a private organization to choose who they accept advertising from or who/what they have associated with their product ?

My, how very "libertarian" of you .. :rolleyes:

and I will no longer be a consumer.
Certainly your right.

I hope everyone who owns firearms and those who don't own firearms but do believe in the Constitution do the same.
#goodluckwiththat
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Was just pointing out that the rule makes no sense from a marketing stand point. Considering sheer numbers, far more participate in shooting sports, at all ages, than football. That is a HUGE market to ignore.

The rest is still fact. Football is a FAR more dangerous sport and costs FAR more in both monetary and human lose than football. It has a FAR greater potential to cost the up and coming National Health System money than the shooting sports do.

I already said that they can be as nonsensical or hysterical as they chose to be.

"{#12} because it is a politically motivated advertisement that falls under the category of Social Cause or Issue Advocacy. "

The same can be said for all of the "Health Care.Gov commercials well will bombarded with. Most of which tout benefits that have been proven to be untrue.
 
Last edited:
Top