Battle Rattle

Here’s why you never saw this pro-gun Super Bowl commercial about a Marine vet

Bookmark and Share

A commercial by a gun parts company from Georgia was deemed too controversial for the Super Bowl for its pro-gun message.

The one-minute spot about a Marine veteran discussing the importance of protecting his family, created by the company Daniel Defense, was rejected by a number of local media markets that objected to its content, ABC News reported.

“It’s been a long road getting here, and a lot has changed since I got back,” a male voice intones in the commercial, over images of a man parking a minivan in his driveway, scanning his neighborhood warily, and entering his home, where a photo of him in a dress blue uniform stands in a frame. As he embraces his wife and baby, the voice continues: “I am responsible for their protection, and no one has the right to tell me how to defend them. So I have chosen the most effective tool for the job.”

The ad fades into the logo for Daniel Defense, which features an AR-15 rifle.

The controversy surrounding the spot and its non-appearance at the Super Bowl has been fodder for pro-gun blogs and websites for months.

But while local stations say they rejected the ad due to NFL guidelines, the NFL said they never reviewed the ad prior to the pre-game controversy it cause, according to ABC News.

The NFL does have advertising guidelines that prohibit certain kinds of commercials, but these guidelines make it unclear whether the Daniel Defense spot violates any criterial.

The 2013 season prohibited advertising categories list includes the following:

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.

The language could put Daniel Defense in a grey area, since guns are not mentioned in the ad, but an image of one is featured at the end. The company did not immediately return a call from Marine Corps Times.

At any rate, the controversy has resulted in significant exposure for the company: the ad currently has over 228,000 views on YouTube.

Marines love their guns, but did this spot go too far? Weigh in below.

Comments

  1. Greg Sims Says:
    February 3rd, 2014 at 6:09 pm

    No it did NOT go to far. The NFL, DID!!! They ( advertisers) were permitted, to promote Homosexuality, Illegal Immigrants, proselytize Patriotic Songs, promote Alcohol , yet the very essence of our Constitution, is somehow judged violate their Liberal Criteria.

  2. Stacy Alexander Says:
    February 3rd, 2014 at 6:16 pm

    I think it was very well done. Spoke volumes without saying it. I’m disappointed it didn’t aire.

  3. kimberley (key largo) Says:
    February 3rd, 2014 at 6:35 pm

    Wow! Unbelievable … what have we done thats makes this prohibated.. I loved it n thought it was done in great taste.. gonna share this one.

  4. Paul Brauckmann Says:
    February 3rd, 2014 at 6:55 pm

    As an ex Marine, I’m glad it wasn’t run. Enough guns already. We need to follow Canada’s lead!!!!!

  5. Bill Walker Says:
    February 3rd, 2014 at 7:02 pm

    The commercial was very well done. It is who we are and if they don’t like that they can go back to England where there are no guns. We won that battle a long time ago.

  6. Douglas Cochran Says:
    February 3rd, 2014 at 7:05 pm

    Dropping a M16 into the mud? AOK
    Advocating for personal defense? B. A. D
    And the rest of the story is that Daniel Defense offered to replace the AR with a American flag. The NFL still rejected the ad.

  7. Wayne Willis Says:
    February 3rd, 2014 at 7:09 pm

    Very good presentation. Too bad it was rejected by whom ever.
    The things that should be shown often are not, why?? It doesn’t meet the political agenda. Semper fi, Corporal. Well done.

  8. Toni See Says:
    February 3rd, 2014 at 7:22 pm

    Wayne Willis said it ALL!!!!!!

  9. John Beres Says:
    February 3rd, 2014 at 7:28 pm

    #4 Paul Brauckmann, Don’t know about you, there is no such creature as an Ex Marine. And if you were ever a Marine you would know that. Follow Canada PLEASE, now your just talking crazy talk!

  10. Michael A. Says:
    February 3rd, 2014 at 7:35 pm

    Pual Brauckman. No one who has worn the EGA honorably refers to themselves as an EX Marine. And follow Canada’s lead? I gotta call BS. Definitely you were never a United States Marine.

  11. David B. Says:
    February 3rd, 2014 at 7:41 pm

    Paul i call bullshit. Your not a Marine otherwise you’d know there is no such thing as an “EX” Marine.

    Also last time I checked the Ford Explorer is NOT a minivan.

  12. Perry Mason Says:
    February 3rd, 2014 at 8:49 pm

    Go too far!?! Did we watch the same ad!?! I felt it was very tastefully done. It’s crap that the ad wasn’t run! I watched Tebow ridding around while crap was blowing up. That didn’t go to far!?! Keifer was shooting all sorts of stuff and I clearly got full view of the firearm. That didn’t do too far!?! We are slowly loosing our freedoms for the “greater good”! Which is crap!!! We are slowly being pushed in a corner where we will not have the means to stand up and defend ourselves against tyranny!

  13. Scott Bottenfield Says:
    February 3rd, 2014 at 9:18 pm

    Paul Braukmann…. There is no such thing as an ex-Marine. Obviously you are a fake

  14. Craig Thompson (USMC) Says:
    February 3rd, 2014 at 9:52 pm

    Its ridiculous they banned the commercial. It makes no mention of firearms or using firearms, nor is it even implied unless you already know who Daniel Defense is. The silhouette of an ar in their logo is not an excuse at all. They played to the anti gun crowd by banning it. The guy talks about defending his family and how its his responsibility and that no one has the right to tell him how he defends his family. The only person that would have a problem with this is a very ignorant person, who obviously wouldn’t do what it would to defend themselves and their family, but cower and beg for mercy. The sheep choose to be sheep.

  15. Hardy Noble Says:
    February 3rd, 2014 at 9:55 pm

    I see nothing wrong with this commercial! The only group that would not like the commercial are those liberals that currently support our current foreign born president and his administration.

  16. M C L Says:
    February 3rd, 2014 at 11:02 pm

    #9 and #14 – Semper Fi… Brothers as a retired SNCO I totally agree that you need to defend yourself with the average response time of law enforcement being at least 10 minutes, more the farther you live out. Who is going to protect your family, yourself during that wait..?..! Enough said……………….

  17. Richard Stubbs Says:
    February 4th, 2014 at 1:07 am

    Is there a way to skip past all the ads right to the commercial in question? I find myself wanting to leave the page and not pass the info along, it’s taking so long to get to the meat of it. It’s been more than ten minutes already and I STILL haven’t seen the ad. Maybe I’ll just go to Youtube and look for it, that has to be quicker.

  18. Brisbane Says:
    February 4th, 2014 at 4:21 am

    Hi, merely become attentive to your own website via Google, and discovered that it must be definitely insightful. I am going to watch out regarding belgium’s capital. Let me enjoy for those who proceed this particular in the future. Functioning as well is often reaped the benefit from your composing. Regards!

  19. Robert Smelker Says:
    February 4th, 2014 at 7:48 am

    Its OK for the NFL to promote beer constantly it it kills a whole lot more Americans than a firearm ever has.

  20. J Says:
    February 4th, 2014 at 9:03 am

    I second David B. Once a marine, always a marine. Paul was never a marine.

  21. Neutron73 Says:
    February 4th, 2014 at 11:11 am

    All you meatheads calling out Paul Brauckmann are a bunch of simpletons, who obviously resort to name-calling without addressing the substance of his argument. EVERYONE knows that people who are out of the active Corps refer to them “ex-Marine” because, technically, they aren’t doing Marine Corps work anymore. “Technically correct” being the most “correct” there is, means you guys lose and he wins.

    If he’s earned his title, he can call himself whatever he wants. The fact that you clowns drilled into the “ex-Marine” part just shows me that your GT scores weren’t all that high and your comments confirm this fact.

    Idiots.

  22. Lenny Stover Says:
    February 4th, 2014 at 11:56 am

    Neutron73 – Just when did you earn your EGA? I am guessing you were never a member of our beloved Corps, otherwise you would know that the term “ex Marine” is taboo. Unless you were separated under “less than honorable conditions” you are ALWAYS a Marine and remain a Marine for life.

    A quote from Commandant, General James F. Amos:

    “A Marine is a Marine. I set that policy two weeks ago – there’s no such thing as a former Marine. You’re a Marine, just in a different uniform and you’re in a different phase of your life. But you’ll always be a Marine because you went to Parris Island, San Diego or the hills of Quantico. There’s no such thing as a former Marine.”

    As for the commercial, it was IMO in extremely good taste and it should have aired.

    Finally, I would be happy to help Paul load his U-Haul for his relocation to Canada.

    Semper Fidelis! Ooorah!

  23. Steven Porter Says:
    February 4th, 2014 at 12:38 pm

    Paul Brauckmann and Neutron73. There IS NOT a such thing as an EX Marine. The only people that MIGHT call themselves this are trash that were DISHONORABLY discharged and STRIPPED of the Title Marine. Neutron73, the CORRECT term for a Marine who is not currently active, if they wish to acknowledge that fact, is FORMER Marine. If you are going to attempt to impersonate, or defend an impersonator, get the terminology right first. And another thing Nuetron73, My ASVAB score was 99, please tell me what yours was…

    Now as for the add, it was done tastefully! Not once did they show a controversial situation, or even show a weapon in the commercial. All it is, is a commercial stating a fact. It should have been aired…

  24. Jordan Hunter Says:
    February 4th, 2014 at 3:12 pm

    The commercial was made within the guidelines of the NFL and should have been aired. Technically, Daniel Defense has the same business license within the state of GA as any brick and mortar store front and because of that is within the guidelines that the NFL put out at the beginning of the 2013 season.

    “5. 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.”

    What we witnessed is selective censorship and hypocrisy. Mayor Bloomberg was allowed to run his anti-gun commercial last year during the Super Bowl but a pro-Second Amendment ad isn’t allowed to air.

    For the “Ex-Marine” and his kind, if you have served in the Marine Corps or any of those other branches… you would remember the oath that we all took and that we Marines hold especially tight to.

    “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…”
    Defend the Constitution… have you ever been deployed to a country that doesn’t have the same freedoms as we enjoy? If you have been deployed at all then you’ve been to a country that doesn’t enjoy the same freedoms as we enjoy.

    We are a Nation of free men/women that volunteered to serve and defend the freedoms that were first established by our founding fathers after winning their own independence with….firearms. There is a reason they decided to put the Second Amendment right after the First Amendment. You should keep that in mind while you are enjoying your First Amendment rights talking about the greatness of Canada.

    This ad was created based on what I experienced after getting out, returning home and starting a family of my own. The actor is a current reservist Marine with deployments under his belt and that’s why I chose him. There is nothing fake about it and that’s why we can all relate to it…besides the “Ex-Marine”…

    S/F
    CPL Hunter
    1/6 Alpha Company, 2000-2004

  25. Neutron73 Says:
    February 4th, 2014 at 4:52 pm

    Lenny: actually, I earned mine EGA twice: 1991 at boot camp and in 2003 at OCS.

    Steven Porter: I said “GT score”, not ASVAB. Try to keep up. You obviously failed reading comprehension.

    An, as far as I remember, General Amos is not the “be all, end all” of Marines who has the final say in what a “Marine” is or is not. If any of you pay attention, people use the term “ex-Marine” and “former Marine” interchangeably. To state to the lay person “I’m a Marine” they will automatically think “he’s active duty”. Next question from that hypothetical person “Oh yeah? What do you do?” If you aren’t in the Marine Corps currently, you’ll say “former Marine” or “ex-Marine”. Don’t be dense, people.

    Back to the topic: for the freedom you all “proclaim” to defend and protect, you seem to have a hard time with the NFL exercising that freedom to pick and choose the message they wish to send. It’s as if the only freedom of speech you all want to defend is that which conforms to your personal views. And it appears you all lost the plot a long time ago.

  26. Carol Says:
    February 5th, 2014 at 10:30 am

    I think the whole issue with guns is so sensitive right now no main stream media outlet wants to touch it.

  27. Craig Kinard Says:
    February 7th, 2014 at 4:59 pm

    When guns are banned from ALL TV programs and movies by any and all TV producers, film makers, etc., etc., then I’ll consider what these fools have to say in a serious light. Until then . . . fire away, everyone!

  28. zx7miller Says:
    February 7th, 2014 at 5:26 pm

    Neutron73, You are just wrong. In my 20 plus years of being a Marine or former Marine I have never heard anyone call a former Marine an ex-Marine and not be corrected.

    Most civilians who were never in the Corps know someone who was. They will let you know you are not an ex-Marine, but a former Marine. They also understand that Once a Marine, Always a Marine and there is no confusion.

    So if you indeed are a former Marine, start correcting people who use the term “ex”. It’s the least you can do.

  29. electric airsoft guns Says:
    February 7th, 2014 at 9:22 pm

    Hello there! I could have sworn I’ve been to this blog before but after browsing through some of the articles I realized
    it’s new to me. Regardless, I’m certainly pleased I came across it and I’ll
    be bookmarking it and checking back frequently!

  30. Joshua Cooper Jr. Says:
    February 10th, 2014 at 1:10 am

    All ya’ll pro-freedom, pro-Constitution Marines out there need to look at Paul Brauckmann and Neutron73 and realize there’s cowardly traitors amongst us sporting the same EG&A as the rest of us.

    Don’t assume “Marine” is synonymous with “patriot”. We’ve got plenty of traitors in our midst.

  31. Lenny Stover Says:
    February 13th, 2014 at 12:42 am

    Now, now…I wouldn’t call Neutron73 a “traitor.” However, I would call him just another POG that earned his butter-bars and has no idea what it means to be a real UNITED STATES MARINE! Ooorah!