The big deal in gun circles over the last day or so is the rejected Daniel Defense Superbowl ad. I watched the commercial this morning - for those who have not, it's something like this:
A man narrates throughout the commercial. We learn that he has returned home after serving in the armed forces. He informs us that things are different since he got back and his family (wife and baby daughter) is the center of his universe now. He's responsible for providing for them and for keeping them safe. "Nobody has the right to tell [him]" how to defend his family, and he's going to use the best tool for the job. Cut to black screen with a white silhouette of a Daniel Defense rifle, and the slogan "Defending your nation. Defending your home."
The commercial was rejected, or as some say, "banned." NFL rules don't allow firearm advertisements, rules which the NFL stuck to even after DD offered to change the rifle at the end to an American flag. So obviously the NFL is a tool of the statist left, and they rejected the commercial because it goes against their globalist agenda of disarmament.
Rules are rules. The NFL is a private entity with whom other private entities wish to transact business. They make the rules - Daniel Defense is a firearm company and those companies can't advertise during the superbowl. This is not "censorship." I also don't like the use of the word "banned." Nobody is banning it, the NFL made a decision to not air the ad during the superbowl. DD uploaded the ad to youtube instead, which is why we're all talking about it.
Ads get rejected all the time. Are the NFL's rules somewhat arbitrary? Sure - the latest Call of Duty game or Expendables movie ad will no doubt air without issue. But in the grand scheme of all the bullshit gun owners have to put up with, this is not very much and I can't really get fired up about it.
I also think the ad wasn't all that great. It was schmaltzy and bland. Attractive suburban family, nice car, tree-lined street, cute baby, cut to black. I do enjoy this kind of depiction of firearm (particularly AR-15) ownership as the province of normal, successful folks as opposed to weird range commandos, and I like the association of higher-end rifles like the DDM4 with this crowd as well. But let's be honest - if you take away the rifle silhouette at the end, as Daniel Defense was prepared to do, who outside of a subset of the gun community even knows what Daniel Defense is? I'd be willing to bet that the average person watching the ad would think it's for a home security company. "But they could google it!" Sure, but would they? On the one hand I want ads like this to air, because showing a huge audience that the AR-15 is the best home defense gun is nice and it would get people talking. But in order for this to work, a gun has to be involved in the ad.
I wish the NFL would allow firearms companies to advertise. I'd love to see an ad that takes it a step further. Show people competing in a 3-gun match, soldiers, SWAT, as well as the suburban dude protecting his home. Men and women showing off the versatility and power of the platform. DD's ad was trying to do an end run around the rules - not only did that not work, it resulted in a boring ad that probably won't go viral outside of the loudest of gun types. If they pushed the envelope, maybe it would get people talking a little bit more. Not as much as full-on super bowl ad exposure, but some.
Winning the media war is tough because of the types of people who are entrenched at the very top. That's the world we live in. You and I have the power to chip away at this, though - take someone new out to the range. I'll believe my buddy who has personal experience with a product far more than the claims of a commercial; gun ownership works the same way.
