Do Armed Forces commercials glorify guns?

P

Pilate

New member
Normally I steer clear of legal and political issues, but after seeing these television commercials, I got thinking about this. The one that comes to mind is where these GI's are swimming through this swamp, coming out of the water with assault rifles, and flying away in a helicopter. The voice-over states "Someday you'll go to a job interview and the interviewer will ask if you work well under pressure. Try not to laugh." It bothers me that the same government that wants Hollywood to stop glamorizing firearms in films tries to entice recruits with visions of geared-up, painted faced young men bearing high tech assault weapons. Is there a difference? Seems to me that if it is to the advantage of the government, it's okay, but if not, then not.

As a side note, do you think that effectively disarmed nations tend to have a more feeble military? And nations with more liberal gun laws a stronger military?

Thanks for your thoughts.
 
The Government will do whatever it thinks will benefit it.That aside, I do think that there is a difference between potraying mindless violence in movies, and telling the people that strong young people are required to protect this nation, and that the situations that they will face, will be challenging and personally benefit them(discipline, methodicity, goal setting etc).

It is my opinion that civilian gun ownership is an effective deterrant to dictatorship only in the USA. This is because no other coutry's constitution guarantees The Right to Keep & Bear Arms. In countries that allow civilian gun ownership, it is usually only through licensing(not for the common man).
Yes I do feel that a disarmed nation is feebler. The military and the Government for the most part, tend to reflect the views of the citizens.However, this is not always the case( example Klinton's government).
Misinformed & uneducated people will always think guns are evil, they will vote the wrong people into office and that will ensure that there are budget cuts to the military.
In short: misinformed + uneducated citizens = a sissy Military
 
Those ads remind me of the old saying 'do as I say, not as I do'. Besides, the Feds are only using tried and true marketing ploys to 'entice' recruits with these commericals. Almost got me with one many years ago...



------------------
ff ...save the 2nd. No fate but what we make.
 
Reminding you, again, that most commie countries teach small arms to school kids on the assumptions that the propaganda will direct everyone to only "proper" use of those for the benefit of the state.
 
Egad! This revelation would totally revamp Armed forces commercials.

I can see it now...instead of a soldier kicking up dust in a M1A2, you see him skipping through a field of daisies, a clump of picked flowers in his hand, and the "Barney song" on his lips...

And new slogans to go with them:

ARMY: Just Be...
NAVY: It's a job, but not one you have to work hard at
AIR FORCE: Fly the friendly skies
MARINES: We're looking for a few nice persons

Ugh.

------------------
Whatever happened to Cincinnatus?
 
Yes and they should. Todays society is too soft. It good to see a comercial that doesn't say come and join, we will give you money for college, we allow you to look like a dirt bag, even in uniform and we will give you a edge on life. Finally the Army has cracked the code. 18 year old men want to do things that are hard, that are manly and things that they think even women cann't do. At least is spending money in an attempt to recruit warriors instead of winning children that keep saying "I only did this to pay for college."
 
Right on, STLRN. I'm tired of the recruiting commercials that make the armed forces sound like a jobs program. In recent years, the policy seems to have been "don't ask, don't tell" about the fact that recruits take an oath to do a dirty, dangerous, violent job.
 
I have this mental picture of the famous photo of national guard troops with M14s at Kent State. Caption with an arrow pointing to the soldier: "He's doing it for college money". Another caption, pointing to the students: "So he can be like them?"
 
Oleg:
Different generation, back then if you weren't in the Guard or Reserve you would have a pretty good chance of ending up in the Active force. Here are some statistics that I recently read in the book "A Better War." over 4 times as many men volunteered as were drafted. Over 80 percent said if they had it to do all over again, including going to VN they still would. And as Crieghton Abraham's eldest son said said when he was told that it was too bad his father didn't have "A Better War," He said you know My dad thought the Vietnamese people were worth the effort. Oh, I have heard a lot of former military from the era (to include my father) say the problem with Kent state was they only shot 4 of the bastards. Where do you think the VN war was losted, not on the battlefield but in the streets of the US, a bunch "we know better than you" types beat the US fighting man worse than the VC ever did. Kind of funny those same "we know better than you" type are the same one that are trying to take guns away.
My current billets is as an instructor at one of the Army Officer Basic Course. This school is a joint one so I instruct both Army, Marines and the occasional foriegn student. My current platoon is made up of a majority of USMA graduates, Guess, what I have heard over 80% of those officers, that the government paid over 1/4 of a million dollars to educate, say as soon as their obligation is done they are getting out. The only reason they went into the Army was a free education, not to be warriors.
There is something inherently wrong with recruiting people that are only here to get an education.
My service is one of that never offered mass amounts of money to join, We even advertised in the past "We didn't promise you a rose garden." We recognized along time ago that most people that join to get $20,000 aren't normally the people that will charge up hills or stick bayonets into peoples' chests. You don't see the Marines flaunting on TV, come and join so you can afford to go to college in 4 years. So we have had less problems in recruiting as the rest of the services. We offer a challenge, a possiblity for adventuer and the chance to be a Marine.

[This message has been edited by STLRN (edited January 04, 2000).]
 
I agree with the posts here. I brought it up simply because I thought it was ironic. I appreciate your thoughts. It's interesting to note that as the news is reporting that enlistment is down drastically, that these types of commercials materialize. "We'll pay for your education" doesn't work, so "We'll give you big guns and send you into hostile environments". Makes me wish I had enlisted.
I gather from the above posts above that the general opinion regarding my remark about the portrayal of guns in films and the guns in the Army commercials that it is a matter of context. Robert Deniro gunning down cops in the street and soldiers trudging through a swamp ARE different animals. But I believe that the first amendment is a right as valuable as the second. Thanks again.
 
Pilate,
IMHO, without the 2nd, there would be no 1st or any other Amendments for that matter...

------------------
...save the 2nd. No fate but what we make...
 
Don't forget, the true function of the military is to actually or threaten to kill our enemies and blow their stuff up.

I, personally, am quite comfortable with them having that mission. That does make me feel warm and fuzzy :)

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Remember, those guys who sign up to break things and kill people, generally head straight for law enforcement when they get to civilian life.

Been there, done that, and I'm here to tell you that a six month police academy doesn't get rid of all of the old reflexes and instincts.

LawDog
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top