NFL Anti Second Amendment

[TennJed]

HAD. Not "has." Had.

http://www.sportingnews.com/nascar/...ship-guidelines-stemming-from-nra-controversy

I addressed that in my post. It is being dropped most likely because of an unfortunate incident of someone shooting themselves at the race.



The article states the NRA could possible still have some sort if relationship. The remains that NASCAR is a huge sport that is not being used as a tool to control societies opinions on guns.

 

[Agsalaska]

Mybe I need some clarification after reading all five pages of this.

What actions did the NFL take to get everyone up in arms about them being anti 2nd?

 

[Sam1911]

From Post ONE.

The League has refused to air a commercial for Daniel Defense in the 2014 Super Bowl on grounds that the weapons manufacturer violates the NFL regulations for “prohibited advertising categories”. Their rejection, however, appears rooted in political activism, rather than strict adherence to long standing advertising rules. "

 

[Agsalaska]

From Post ONE.

OK. I must have a very different view of what it means to be anti 2nd amendment. I will exit the stage on this one.

Thanks

 

[larryh1108]

OK. I must have a very different view of what it means to be anti 2nd amendment.

Exit if you wish but this simple sentence sums up the real issue here.
Many feel that if you don't scream pro-gun in your actions, you are anti-gun.
I feel that is incorrect and if you are in the business of making money off the masses, you must carefully choose how you are perceived. This applies to quite a few areas of life. Politics, religion, pro-choice/life, gay marriage, etc. The list is almost endless.

It's like saying that if I don't oppose gay marriage, I must be gay.... etc.
I, personally, don't feel this is right in all of the areas mentioned above. You can't classify people or companies in this manner.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

It's stupid to you. You lose people with comments like that because your implication is that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid. I'm sure there are things important to you that others would view as "stupid."

BigJohn, I maybe got my "stupid" in the wrong place in my original statement.

The REASON they like their sports team is not stupid (I am all for loyalty to a school or just general fandom), the DEGREE to which they become emotionally invested in said sports team can be stupid. Also, I am using the term "stupid" fairly broadly, a good browsing of the thesaurus might reveal a better word to describe generally improper/bad behavior.

Some people are so emotionally invested in their sports team that they would harm another person because of an insult or other derogatory action toward that team. This is stupid. If you get in a fight with someone because they said your team sucks or made fun of your team for loosing a game, then your relationship to that sports team is stupid.

The same people that will throw a punch because someone insulted their favorite team are the the people I would not trust to be more restrained with a firearm in their possession at a sporting event.

 

[Destructo6]

anybody who thinks 80,000 people in a densely packed stadium with limited emergency exits are safer because a few hundred people would pack heat are delusional

Like a few hundred armed guards? What WOULD it take? a one to one?

Well I have that, with me protecting me.

Money is, indeed, the key. The NFL wants more and they don't care how they get it. Well, they're not getting any of mine.

 

[barnbwt]

Many feel that if you don't scream pro-gun in your actions, you are anti-gun.
I feel that is incorrect and if you are in the business of making money off the masses, you must carefully choose how you are perceived. This applies to quite a few areas of life. Politics, religion, pro-choice/life, gay marriage, etc. The list is almost endless.

I think the rank hypocrisy is what bothers people rather than any particular stance. When an organization eagerly takes money from those promoting such vices as alcoholism, <deleted> and gluttony, it seems "telling" that they'd object to taking money from a group following their advertising rules to the letter with a non-controversial message. Especially when prominent members of the organization have, time and again, publicly voiced opposition to gun rights/ownership, without being reprimanded by the org's leadership ("so and so's views do not represent the..."). Especially when ads this year will be expected to include advocacy for charities and other things that don't happen to involve protecting the 2nd amendment (anyone want to take bets on a United Healthcare-sponsored ACA "informational" being aired? Or some flim-flam "Ad-Council*" nonsense?)

The real question, is why would such a self serving and greed-focused profit machine as the NFL care one way or the other? The answer is that shutting out guns/NRA is somehow profitable for them. I'd start asking questions on that front if I wanted to get to the root of the matter . Although, this may be something of a Pandora's Box; if they start airing ads, we will soon have "Plaxico Burress Edition Glocks" and Peyton Manning Remington Collectables

TCB

*"The Advertising Council was conceived in 1941, and shortly after, in February 1942, it was incorporated as the War Advertising Council (WAC) for the purpose of mobilizing the advertising industry in support of the war effort. Early campaigns encouraged enlistment to the military, the purchase of war bonds, and conservation of war materials."
Wow, what a surprisingly frank summary from Wikipedia

 

[Walkalong]

I guess six pages is enough.