Demand A Plan Super Bowl Ad

Did this seriously air during the Super Bowl?

I don’t watch sports, but please tell me some stock photos shoved into a weak-ass powerpoint presentation didn’t air during the most watched game of the year?

MAIG-Demand-A-Plan-To-End-Gun-ViolenceActually I hope it did air… that way people might not take their whole disarmament plan and “Ban Military-Style Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines” crap seriously, when they see MAIG can’t even put together a semi-professional looking 30 second ad.

Thoughts?

25 COMMENTS - JUMP DOWN ↓ TO ADD YOUR OWN

bobby February 4, 2013 at 03:04 am

I have nothing against them checking my background to see if I’m crazy or unstable. As long as it’s legitimate I’m fine with it. Nothing wrong with preventing unstable/crazy people from obtaining/possessing weapons.

But. I am TOTALLY against the Gov’t Restricting my 2A Rights If I am a Law-abiding member of the community. I’m Against them telling me What I can have to Protect myself. No Police Officer will guard me 24/7 unlike the Security provided to Congress and Leaders of State/City. So I will have to Use Just Reasoning to Protect myself with whatever means at my Disposal, If that happens to be a Standard(High) Capacity Auto-loading(Assault) Weapon, Tough Shit I’ll use it.

I see Cops in my neighborhood pull people over with 3 police cars, Really? They need so much backup to overwhelm people so it’s safe for them, but to possess a weapon to protect me, my family, and my property, I can’t? BS.

I think the Guns companies should boycott selling arms to police and gov’t, stop producing ammo that they use and stop offering discounts. But I doubt they’ll do that as it’s too much money to risk.

meh. Totally Disappointing.

Reply

Chris February 4, 2013 at 09:22 am

I also have no problem showing that I am not an insane person and do not mind background checks on my gun purchases.

Reply

Ed February 4, 2013 at 11:16 am

I agree completely with a firearms manufacturer or ammunition manufacturer not selling to law enforcement and government agencies. If those agencies are actively trying to hinder the business of those companies, I see no reason not to turn down their business.

Reply

PJ February 4, 2013 at 01:19 pm

Barrett did that to Cali. I really wish the industry would get together and do that.
Personally I’ve never been a big fan of companies selling LEO/MIL only stuff or offering discounts. Putting people into classes on the basis of being an agent of the government makes it easier for the people involved to get into an “us versus them” mentality.

Reply

Linoge February 4, 2013 at 05:51 am

We gave up about with about five minutes of official play left in the fourth quarter, after the half-an-hour power-outage delay, but I never saw that ad come up.

Regardless, good to see the “gun control” extremists wasting their money.

Reply

Andrew February 4, 2013 at 06:18 am

I didn’t see it, maybe the power outage had something to do wth it. They ran the same commercial block two or three times.

Reply

Will February 4, 2013 at 06:49 am

LOL no comments or ratings allowed. Guess they don’t want to be reminded about how stupid their commercial is.

Reply

bikemancs February 4, 2013 at 07:01 am

According to the one website I found it on yesterday it was only aired in the Washington area. (presumably D.C. and not the state of)

Reply

PJ February 4, 2013 at 08:52 am

Brilliant. Run the ad in a market you don’t need to convince and that doesn’t have voting representation in Congress.

Reply

The Other Dave February 4, 2013 at 09:45 am

I didn’t see it, but I was streaming from online so CBS might have only been doing the national commercials.

Reply

Neil S February 4, 2013 at 09:19 am

Gun owners, I would like to take this opportunity to PSA the reason we should be against background checks. This is not intended to incite a riot, but to be aware of why this is not a point we should be behind. 1) Background checks are a product of the Brady Campaign against Gun Violence. Just, supporting background checks directly and unwittingly supports this organization as they collect the numbers to support their efforts. 2) Collectively, the rate of US prosecutions based on unauthorized ownership/possession of weapons is around 450 per year (since 1993 when the Brady Bill was adopted) until the Obama administration took the number to about 300. None of these prosecutions were based on a background check as the means or the initiating cause of initiating prosecutions. 3) The Brady Bill was a law that amended the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1996. The FOPA did not require background checks but set the stage for a comprehensive list of prohibited persons where the Gun Control Act of 1968 had a list but was not formalized because of disagreements between the House and Senate, leaving the ATF to determine who a prohibited person was to be. Between the FOPA and the Brady Bill, there was not NY diagnosed problem requiring background checks as a means to prevent prohibited persons. However, the Brady Campaign had stated publicly and on record that background checks were necessary to delay and dissuade people from purchasing a firearm. They stated there should be clear impediments for gun ownership, an effort to stop the average citizen from further purchases. There idea was expressed as gun ownership by a “reasonable”person is an impulse purchase and if there is delay and impediments, a “reasonable” person would be discouraged from purchase. There efforts changed during the AWB push and the Brady Bill was passed as an effort to stop “crazed” people from purchase intent on impulsive actions to go commit a crime with their new impulse purchase. So, in a year, by their timeliness, reasonable turned to crazy. It is important to note that the GCA, NFA, major portions of the FOPA, and the Brady Bill have all been, at least once, been deemed unconstitutional. 4) A background check is infringement, in that it is asking for permission to exercise a right. The argument is always if you have nothing to hide then there is nothing to worry about. In fact, it is the exact reason to not support background checks. Unreasonable search and the expectation of privacy in the purchase and ownership of private property specifically protected as a right (four total protected rights that preclude the allowance for a background check) should trump the background check all together. The ATF is on record for millions of unauthorized and unconstitutional record keeping practices, all related to background checks. The forms they have created were done so to circumvent the FOPA ban of the ATF to records maintenance and possession. In such, the FOPA creating and existence was a prohibition and curtailment of an out of control ATF, as indicated in the first 300+pages of the law. 5) Supporting background checks is a compromise to the left that never should have been in the first place. This akin to supporting Feinstein bill by saying, we will allow the weapons ban but, it must be changed to 1994 identically. It gives them what they want when it shouldn’t have been on the table in the first place.

Reply

Busdriver February 4, 2013 at 10:41 am

work on your formatting holy shit it’s like trying to read a brick

Reply

Neil S February 4, 2013 at 11:05 am

Formatting, really? You’re going to gig me on formatting? Chalk it to conspiracy to prevent proper editing and fluidity, reducing formal writing procedure to simple one-liners and smart ass retorts. I hereby apologize on the behalf of all technological advances in micro-computing for not incorportating APA thesis procedure in their line of coding.

Reply

CR Pyro February 4, 2013 at 05:56 pm

It’s not that you’re using the incorrect fomat, APA vs. MLA, it’s that you’re giving us a wall of text.

Perhaps you should consider hitting enter between points.

Human brains like white space, and a wall of text quickly becomes “tl;dr” to most of those with the attention span of a gnat.

Reply

Neil S February 4, 2013 at 06:25 pm

I was being facetious. Touch screens won’t let me hit a hard return without forcing the “submit” action. Thanks for the pick, most people don’t know APA much less MLA are official writing styles and probably think they are off-brand sports channels.

Reply

Ed February 4, 2013 at 08:00 pm

Chicago/Turabian or get out.

Reply

Heath February 4, 2013 at 09:59 am

A lot of the “Super Bowl” ads never make it to TV for, among other reasons, lack of funding. The ads are popular and people search for the videos to watch them. Add “Super Bowl Commercial” to the title of your video and it will get you free advertising.

Reply

Dan February 4, 2013 at 01:50 pm

If I need the government’s permission to exercise a right, doesn’t that mean I’ve already lost the right?

And, uh, I don’t think its the background checks most people are upset about. Its the ridiculous bans on scary looking guns and standard capacity magazines.

Reply

Neil S February 4, 2013 at 02:01 pm

Which is my point. We should be just as mad about background checks as we are weapons and magazine bans. Don’t accept any of it, and don’t let the compromise be background checks. Especially universal background checks. If the ATF has already abused restrictions placed on them, then accepting any compromise will lead to more of the same, but worse. We should not be subject to any restrictions, and certainly nor further restrictions. Liberal ideas of universal background checks will allow the weapon to be associated with the person, currently illegal under FOPAn but is a de facto registration which will do nothing to fight gun violence since criminal transactions are done in back alleys and in the shadows. In this, we should not just be fighting a possible AWB, but also fight the FOPA auto ban, the NFA, the Brady Bill and other individual restrictions. Our counter proposal should be keeping law that restricts government and abolish the portions of law that restricts individuals.

Reply

Frank February 4, 2013 at 06:06 pm

How background checks work:
Prevents KNOWN criminals and legally insane people (who are a ward of a state) from buying firearms from licensed dealers.

What background checks don’t do is prevent crime, they only prevent EXISTING criminals from legally obtaining firearms.

In my state private sales are legal and legitimate (Oregon). My test is simple, if it’s a handgun, can you prove you’re 21 years or old (just show me your ID) and “Are you a convicted felon?” If the answer is “No.” Then we have a deal (sign this paper), which I destroy after 4 weeks.

The quickest way to show someone you are willing to trust them is by putting a weapon in their hands. This is why authoritarian “liberals” (which they aren’t) do not trust us or themselves. These are the same people who think the government’s F&F operation was a good idea.

Trust the government with securing our rights? Oh like how the US Government honored all its treaties with the Native Americans, yes?

Reply

Franz February 4, 2013 at 08:09 pm

Getting really tired of them shilling children, to get their political way.

Reply

simon February 4, 2013 at 08:31 pm

As long as its instant. As of right now the wait time is 2-3 days for NICS… I don’t think that is acceptable in this day and age.

Reply

Sivl32 (elvis) February 5, 2013 at 01:51 am

seriously, now it is fax only, no more call ins.. hell they get charged to run a nics check.. hire more phone operators make more American jobs and see how much the firearm industry contributes to the working class. Ban anything and you are eliminating jobs

Reply

cc19 February 5, 2013 at 03:26 pm
anon. February 5, 2013 at 09:16 pm

Olivia Munn has a manjaw.

#OliviaMunnLooksLikeaDude

Reply

LEAVE A COMMENT:

Previous post:

Next post: