Super Bowl ad - anyone see it?

Usually the superbowl is the only football game I watch, I passed this year because I read this ad was supposed to be aired.
 
Didn't see it. I thought I sat thru the whole third quarter since they had the lighting malfunction at the beginning of the quarter.
 
It's a manipulative little piece narrated by children, in which we're asked to support universal background checks.

What's interesting are the omissions. No calls for limits on magazine size or a ban on "assault weapons." I thought those were the must-have bills that were going to stop public shootings, but I suppose political expediency won out in the end.
 
What's interesting are the omissions. No calls for limits on magazine size or a ban on "assault weapons."
Click to expand...
They realized that a massive in your face ban wasn't going to fly so now they are in the chipping away mode. Most people don't see any thing wrong with beefing up background checks. Next the evil cop killing magazines, then....

It is much easier to chip away at the rock then try to break it all at once.
 
Sweet kiddie voice: "...for us. Pleeese." :regurgitate:

Shameless. I'd like to see some actual kids (who are not under-aged actors) stand up and say that they object to being used in this fashion for political purposes.

Tom Servo said:
It's a manipulative little piece narrated by children, in which we're asked to support universal background checks.

What's interesting are the omissions. No calls for limits on magazine size or a ban on "assault weapons." I thought those were the must-have bills that were going to stop public shootings, but I suppose political expediency won out in the end.
Click to expand...

And there's only so much they can do in 30 seconds, especially when they want to show that clip of Mr. LaPierre being all "reasonable" about background checks.
 
What's interesting are the omissions. No calls for limits on magazine size or a ban on "assault weapons." I thought those were the must-have bills that were going to stop public shootings, but I suppose political expediency won out in the end.
Click to expand...

I've noted that the center-left folks have been making that omission lately as well. While the President is currently still trying to drum up support for his full plan, it seems like the emphasis is on background checks more than on actual bans.

I think we rose up, made our point logically, and the ban crowd is realizing they've lost this one. We can debate all we want about the advisability of requiring background checks for all purchases (not just those from FFLs), but it's looking like a federal level ban simply isn't going to be happening.
 
I think anyone using children to manipulate public opinion should be banned from public service.

It's not acceptable to use the public's emotional sympathy with children to get them to agree with children's "opinions" on important issues. If their opinions are so important, we should let them vote.
 
What's interesting are the omissions. No calls for limits on magazine size or a ban on "assault weapons." I thought those were the must-have bills that were going to stop public shootings, but I suppose political expediency won out in the end.
Click to expand...

I suspect that they might be realizing that they over reached in their initial calls for gun control. If the anti's had delivered a consistent message that they wanted universal background checks and nothing else from the get-go, they might be in a more advantageous position now. Fortunately, they shot for the moon right off the bat and tipped their hand a bit too far. In trying to "strike while the iron was hot," I think some of them may have been just a little too honest about their intentions and shown that their "common sense" gun control wasn't so reasonable after all. One disadvantage that the gun control crowd has is that they don't have a uniform voice or message. Even if one group understands that an AWB and hi-cap mag ban is too much too fast, their more radical/less patient contemporaries don't and wind up poisoning the reputation of all of them in the court of public opinion.

On our side, however, the majority of the focus has remained on the NRA. Whether you like the NRA or not, it is undeniable that having a single unified voice with a consistent message does have some significant advantages. While Wayne LaPierre may not be the best spokesman in the world, he certainly isn't the worst either and I'd much rather have him representing my interests than someone like Alex Jones. Also, while I've been somewhat critical of other 2A organizations like GOA in the past, I do think that they need to be commended for keeping their message consistent with that of the NRA and not overreaching themselves by pushing for a repeal of the NFA, nationwide constitutional carry, or something else of that nature (not that I don't support such measures, I just don't think now is the time to push for them).
 
And, of course, mandatory background checks would have done NOTHING to prevent Sandy Hook, since the guns were bought by the shooter's mother, who was legal and passed all the background checks. It's disappointing and alarming to see that a significant portion of our population just can't understand that you cannot 100 percent legislate away the possibility that somebody may murder someone else.
 
And, of course, mandatory background checks would have done NOTHING to prevent Sandy Hook, since the guns were bought by the shooter's mother, who was legal and passed all the background checks. It's disappointing and alarming to see that a significant portion of our population just can't understand that you cannot 100 percent legislate away the possibility that somebody may murder someone else.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree, and would even go so far as to suggest that if we punished violent criminals and treated mental illness appropriately, background checks in general wouldn't be necessary. but amongst low-to-moderate information voters, universal background checks seems more "reasonable" and thus an easier pill to swallow than gun and magazine bans which more obivously punish the law abiding.
 
The boyz in the hood are not going to like having to get a background check when they gear up to go bangin'. Oh wait, it's already illegal for juveniles and felons to own guns, or to sell to them even in a private sale. Hmmm. We must need a new law in here somewhere...
 
Webleymkv said:
I suspect that they might be realizing that they over reached in their initial calls for gun control. If the anti's had delivered a consistent message that they wanted universal background checks and nothing else from the get-go, they might be in a more advantageous position now. Fortunately, they shot for the moon right off the bat and tipped their hand a bit too far. In trying to "strike while the iron was hot," I think some of them may have been just a little too honest about their intentions and shown that their "common sense" gun control wasn't so reasonable after all.
Click to expand...

I agree, although I don't know that they see what they did as overreached. I think they are seeing much more intense opposition than they expected to new bans and magazine limits, but I wonder if they'll chalk that up to the evil NRA and gun makers than to just being out of touch with the desires of the people.

I do think they really overplayed their hand, and Feinstein and NY's SAFE act probably did more damage to their attempts at getting new federal laws passed than they originally thought. It's hard to say the other side won't compromise in an effort to score a 10 round limit and AWB, and all the while have others pushing hard to take their existing 10 round limit down to 7 and make the AWB ever more restrictive. That just ends up showing your side to be incrementalists, not a group seeking a livable middle ground.

Sure, they weren't all on the same page, but that's probably more a reflection of where their strategy is strongest. They depend on strong emotional reactions, and the result is they have to move with great immediacy when emotions run hot. Any time spent getting a solid strategy across all the groups is time wasted in front of the cameras when it's breaking news. Our side had the advantage of letting emotions cool down and then coming in with more reasoned arguments. The reason NY passed their lousy law so fast (and now have to fix it) is because the iron was cooling off quickly, requiring them to have to strike fast and hard. That makes for bad law.

The more time passed, the more people realized we didn't want this encroachment on our freedom. Thankfully, the people spoke up and the legislators listened.
 
Forgive me, folks but i havent seen yet anywhere where this bill has in fact been killed. Obama visited mineapolis i believe today to push for the mag& "assault weapons" ban. Personally im still agrivated and still nervy myself. On the other hand, what says this omission wasnt done deliberately to make this bill seem more attractive? They advertise this bill this way to the public, gain more support due to these omissions "all they want is more background checks this bills okay" then they run it through congress and it passes because of the new public support "results". Some see it as a backstep by the proponents of gun controll but i see it as a rather underhanded trick combined with simple economics (30 sec. super bowl ad costs alot of money as it is, and the mentioning of the word "Ban" may not gain much more support".
 
Last edited:
The only way a bill is truly killed is if it is defeated in floor vote. There's a long way before a bill reaches that point- most never do. Feinstein has been introducing garbage gun control bills every year like clockwork. They never make it out of committee, let alone to a floor vote. I only really start worrying when a bill gets approved by committee. However, if the leadership of that house of Congress sees no chance of passage it won't make it that far. That goes double for a bill that is sure to lose people votes (as gun control tends to do).

I will not be surprised if there's some kind of change to a background check bill, and quite honestly, I don't know that one is all that loathsome. I know why it is not a cure for anything, but it is not near as bad as an actual federal ban. I'm waiting until something starts to get through committee before getting concerned, let alone worried.
 
I DID NOT SEE an NRA ad ..

I'll bet that they would have turned it down or NOT shown it..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think anyone using children to manipulate public opinion should be banned from public service.
Click to expand...

Because it is so effective? I don't like it when the Sally Struthers card is played either. It is an emotional ploy. Sadly, both sides play the emotion card on the issue and do so because emotions are a way to sway opinion, often an effective one.
 
I think they are going for not just universal background checks but also to do away with the requirement that the feds do not keep the information after check is complete... thus it is basically looking, to me, that they intend to pass it with stipulations that they keep the info in federal hands forever... Which would result in a gun registration database...

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