Super Bowl ad - anyone see it?

Hal · February 4, 2013, 09:27 AM

Bloomberg and company supposedly had an ad in the third quarter.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkant...running-today/

I didn't watch the game so I don't know if it ran or not and since they mention it was supposed to only run in DC, it wouldn't have mattered if I had watched it.

iraiam · February 4, 2013, 11:26 AM

Usually the superbowl is the only football game I watch, I passed this year because I read this ad was supposed to be aired.

KenL · February 4, 2013, 12:30 PM

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.

**Tom Servo** · February 4, 2013, 12:51 PM

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.

terzmo · February 4, 2013, 01:22 PM

was only limited to D.C. area

K9WG · February 4, 2013, 01:26 PM

Quote:

What's interesting are the omissions. No calls for limits on magazine size or a ban on "assault weapons."

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.

JimDandy · February 4, 2013, 01:59 PM

If you want to see it, it's linked on a Politico story.

Evan Thomas · February 4, 2013, 03:03 PM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

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.

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.

Technosavant · February 4, 2013, 03:24 PM

Quote:

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.

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.

**tyme** · February 4, 2013, 04:34 PM

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.

Webleymkv · February 4, 2013, 05:01 PM

Quote:

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.

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).

**Aguila Blanca** · February 4, 2013, 05:10 PM

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.

Webleymkv · February 4, 2013, 05:26 PM

Quote:

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.

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.

NWPilgrim · February 4, 2013, 06:38 PM

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...

Technosavant · February 4, 2013, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webleymkv

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.

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.

Crankgrinder · February 4, 2013, 07:35 PM

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".

Technosavant · February 4, 2013, 10:16 PM

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.

adamc · February 5, 2013, 08:09 AM

I DID NOT SEE an NRA ad ..

I'll bet that they would have turned it down or NOT shown it..

Double Naught Spy · February 5, 2013, 08:41 AM

Quote:

I think anyone using children to manipulate public opinion should be banned from public service.

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.

hogdogs · February 5, 2013, 12:26 PM

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

**Tom Servo** · February 5, 2013, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Which would result in a gun registration database.

I can't, for the life of me, envision a way of enforcing universal background checks without a database. If such a bill passes without a registration clause, it would simply be impossible to enforce in any way.

markj · February 6, 2013, 05:10 PM

My boy would be telling about the guns he owns.

KO3422 · February 6, 2013, 11:35 PM

I saw it online. I can't believe that crap aired. And using these kids as to manipulate the American people is getting out of control.

shortwave · February 7, 2013, 08:24 AM

I did not see the add but must confess that due to the power outage was switching back and forth between channels until the game resumed.

Too, I was very glad to NOT see Bob Costas commentating anywhere during the game.

Warrior1256 · February 7, 2013, 10:37 AM

They do seem now to be backing away from everything except the universal background check. But even if they would get this it will not be over. They will eventually be back for more. The antis will not stop until they total disarm the civilian population. Schumer and Feinstein have both stated in the past that this is their aim, but now of course they both say that they respect the second amendment. Yeah, sure.

February 4, 2013, 09:27 AM	#1
Hal Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 1998 Location: Ohio USA Posts: 8,563	Super Bowl ad - anyone see it? Bloomberg and company supposedly had an ad in the third quarter. http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkant...running-today/ I didn't watch the game so I don't know if it ran or not and since they mention it was supposed to only run in DC, it wouldn't have mattered if I had watched it.

February 4, 2013, 11:26 AM	#2
iraiam Senior Member Join Date: September 6, 2012 Location: Lakewood, CO Posts: 1,057	Usually the superbowl is the only football game I watch, I passed this year because I read this ad was supposed to be aired. __________________ NRA Lifetime Member Since 1999 "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." George Mason

February 4, 2013, 12:51 PM	#4
Tom Servo Staff Join Date: September 27, 2008 Location: Foothills of the Appalachians Posts: 13,059	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. __________________ Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe

February 4, 2013, 04:34 PM	#10
tyme Staff Join Date: October 13, 2001 Posts: 3,355	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. __________________ “The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner) “Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum) “It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg)

February 4, 2013, 06:38 PM	#14
NWPilgrim Senior Member Join Date: September 29, 2008 Location: Oregon Posts: 2,346	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... __________________ "The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition." - James Madison

February 4, 2013, 12:30 PM	#3
KenL Senior Member Join Date: May 11, 2011 Location: Colorado Posts: 218	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.

February 4, 2013, 01:22 PM	#5
terzmo Member Join Date: December 16, 2012 Posts: 97	was only limited to D.C. area

February 4, 2013, 01:59 PM	#7
JimDandy Senior Member Join Date: August 8, 2012 Posts: 2,556	If you want to see it, it's linked on a Politico story.

February 4, 2013, 05:10 PM	#12
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,458	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.

February 4, 2013, 07:35 PM	#16
Crankgrinder Senior Member Join Date: July 24, 2011 Location: Texas Posts: 917	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 by Crankgrinder; February 4, 2013 at 07:40 PM.

February 4, 2013, 10:16 PM	#17
Technosavant Senior Member Join Date: May 29, 2007 Location: St. Louis, MO area Posts: 4,040	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.

February 5, 2013, 08:09 AM	#18
adamc Senior Member Join Date: January 3, 2013 Location: Stalingrad Connecticut Posts: 216	I DID NOT SEE an NRA ad .. I'll bet that they would have turned it down or NOT shown it.. __________________ ** NRA Life Member *** Connecticut was the Cradle of the Gun Industry, NOW it is just a Pine Box, Courtesy of our Governor "Chairman MAO Malloy" Last edited by Tom Servo; February 5, 2013 at 12:36 PM. Reason: Removed "libies"

February 5, 2013, 12:26 PM	#20
hogdogs Staff In Memoriam Join Date: October 31, 2007 Location: Western Florida panhandle Posts: 11,069	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

February 6, 2013, 05:10 PM	#22
markj Senior Member Join Date: October 27, 2005 Location: Crescent Iowa Posts: 2,971	My boy would be telling about the guns he owns.

February 6, 2013, 11:35 PM	#23
KO3422 Senior Member Join Date: March 6, 2011 Posts: 124	I saw it online. I can't believe that crap aired. And using these kids as to manipulate the American people is getting out of control.

February 7, 2013, 08:24 AM	#24
shortwave Senior Member Join Date: December 17, 2007 Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO Posts: 5,970	I did not see the add but must confess that due to the power outage was switching back and forth between channels until the game resumed. Too, I was very glad to NOT see Bob Costas commentating anywhere during the game.

February 7, 2013, 10:37 AM	#25
Warrior1256 Senior Member Join Date: November 11, 2012 Location: Louisville, Ky. Posts: 156	They do seem now to be backing away from everything except the universal background check. But even if they would get this it will not be over. They will eventually be back for more. The antis will not stop until they total disarm the civilian population. Schumer and Feinstein have both stated in the past that this is their aim, but now of course they both say that they respect the second amendment. Yeah, sure.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search