gatorkramNeed for Speed Premium Member join:2002-07-22 Winterville, NC |
Perfect idea for an ad.Someone should put together an ad, featuring someone smoking, drinking hard liquor and pointing an M16 at someone.
I guess it could be a GoDaddy commercial or maybe Nascar. |
|
Bob4Account deleted join:2012-07-22 New Jersey |
Bob4
Member
2013-Feb-20 2:51 pm
dup |
|
Bob4 |
to gatorkram
Tobacco ads were banned long ago. |
|
|
TheHelpful1 Premium Member join:2002-01-11 Upper Marlboro, MD |
to gatorkram
said by gatorkram:Someone should put together an ad, featuring someone smoking, drinking hard liquor and pointing an M16 at someone. I hope you are being sarcastic otherwise you are showing how woefully ignorant the masses have become by the deluge of the media saying "military style assault weapon". M16 != AR-15. |
|
AVDRespice, Adspice, Prospice Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Onion, NJ |
AVD to Bob4
Premium Member
2013-Feb-20 2:53 pm
to Bob4
said by Bob4:Tobacco ads were banned long ago. by the government.. and i wonder if that ban applies to cable. |
|
|
Interesting question, and I'm not sure it's ever been answered.
My guess would be that cable could show them. After all, the government tried to apply indecency laws to cable, but the Supreme Court struck that down.
Many years ago, some states, banned radio and TV stations from airing ads for hard liquor and possibly wine, but that ban was eventually struck down. Can anyone recall if it was because of a First Amendment challenge or because it was a state van and not a federal ban, and states aren't allowed to regulate broadcasting? |
|
|
Noman to AVD
Anon
2013-Feb-20 3:15 pm
to AVD
Yes, the FCC banned the broadcasting of advertising for tobacco products some time ago |
|
|
to TheHelpful1
Sad how far things have gone when people try to support the 2nd Amendment by accepting that military/police weapons should be forbidden to the people |
|
TheHelpful1 Premium Member join:2002-01-11 Upper Marlboro, MD |
said by Wilsdom:Sad how far things have gone when people try to support the 2nd Amendment by accepting that military/police weapons should be forbidden to the people They are not forbidden, just more regulated. A person can pay the extra fee and fill out the extra paperwork to acquire an NFA weapon, be it just a silencer or a full auto rifle. It will just take you 6 months or more for the paperwork to come back. Never mind that those weapons retail for more than the price of a small car. As far as the wait time, you are half way there in most places where State police run their own background check before the FFL will release anything to you. |
|
gatorkramNeed for Speed Premium Member join:2002-07-22 Winterville, NC |
to TheHelpful1
said by TheHelpful1:said by gatorkram:Someone should put together an ad, featuring someone smoking, drinking hard liquor and pointing an M16 at someone. I hope you are being sarcastic otherwise you are showing how woefully ignorant the masses have become by the deluge of the media saying "military style assault weapon". M16 != AR-15. I didn't call an M16 an AR15, no clue what you are talking about. Are you the director of my commercial? I've handled and fired many different weapons. I was in the US Army from 1986 till 1989. With that being said, I find very little difference between an M16 an an AR15. I think it's very fitting to call an AR-15 a military styled weapon. I don't know if I'd include assault in that description. Oh, I was being sarcastic too. Sounds more like an ad for the next big action movie, than for godaddy or nascar |
|
TheHelpful1 Premium Member join:2002-01-11 Upper Marlboro, MD
1 recommendation |
said by gatorkram:I didn't call an M16 an AR15, no clue what you are talking about. Are you the director of my commercial? My mistake. The fact that you listed an M16 and Nascar made me believe you were suggesting they were commonly available to the general public. said by gatorkram:I've handled and fired many different weapons. I was in the US Army from 1986 till 1989.
With that being said, I find very little difference between an M16 an an AR15. I think it's very fitting to call an AR-15 a military styled weapon. I don't know if I'd include assault in that description. True, the AR-15 is styled after the M16. My issue is with the mass media calling semi-rifles in general "assault weapons". Any thing I attack you with is an assault weapon because I'm assaulting you with it as a weapon. Even if I'm The Rock hitting you on the forehead with a Stapler (Get Smart reference) said by gatorkram:Oh, I was being sarcastic too. Sounds more like an ad for the next big action movie, than for godaddy or nascar I'm seeing Arnold....in...The Last Action Hero 2. |
|
gatorkramNeed for Speed Premium Member join:2002-07-22 Winterville, NC |
to Bob4
said by Bob4:Tobacco ads were banned long ago. I didn't say the ad was for tobacco. I said the ad would be for godaddy or nascar. Do people read before they reply? The point of the ad, would be to put as much stuff in at, that everyone dislikes, or feels shouldn't be advertised on TV. Sort of like all the movies that have people smoking in them. It's so important to be authentic |
|
cdruGo Colts MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN |
cdru to AVD
MVM
2013-Feb-20 4:03 pm
to AVD
No cigarette or little cigar ads are to be advertised on any electronic medium under jurisdiction of the FCC: quote: 15 USC § 1335 - Unlawful advertisements on medium of electronic communication
After January 1, 1971, it shall be unlawful to advertise cigarettes and little cigars on any medium of electronic communication subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission.
|
|
Bob4Account deleted join:2012-07-22 New Jersey |
to gatorkram
nm |
|
|
to TheHelpful1
said by TheHelpful1 True, the AR-15 is styled after the M16. My issue is with the mass media calling semi-rifles in general "assault weapons". Any thing I attack you with is an assault weapon because I'm assaulting you with it as a weapon. Even if I'm The Rock hitting you on the forehead with a Stapler (Get Smart reference) [/BQUOTE :I think what most people are referring to when talking about "assault weapons" are those semi-automatic rifles/pistols that were conceived, designed and employed with only one function/purpose in mind--assaulting and killing people. |
|
Metatron2008You're it Premium Member join:2008-09-02 united state |
to TheHelpful1
What kind of weapon would you call a sentry? |
|
|
to cdru
One wonders if anybody has attempted to challenge this on 1st Amendment grounds. "Congress shall make no law...." |
|
NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
|
to TheHelpful1
said by TheHelpful1:said by Wilsdom:Sad how far things have gone when people try to support the 2nd Amendment by accepting that military/police weapons should be forbidden to the people They are not forbidden, just more regulated. They are most definitely forbidden in California; at least those which made the CalDoJ list under Roberti-Roos, in effect since 1989. |
|
NormanS |
to waycoolphil
said by waycoolphil:I think what most people are referring to when talking about "assault weapons" are those semi-automatic rifles/pistols that were conceived, designed and employed with only one function/purpose in mind--assaulting and killing people. Here is a clue, free even. All firearms, from the Chinese fire-lance to the GAU-8/A Avenger meet that criteria. Despite that the MSM tries to convince you that there exists a class of firearms not so designed. I own four military weapons, which advanced the state of military firearms when they were introduced: The "ultimate killing machines" of their day ... |
|
cdruGo Colts MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN |
to Crookshanks
said by Crookshanks:One wonders if anybody has attempted to challenge this on 1st Amendment grounds. "Congress shall make no law...." OMG! That's it! I'd probably call up RJR or Phillip Morris legal council and drop them that hit. I bet they never thought of that! Yes they've challenged the restrictions. Sometimes the challenges work. Other times they don't. Just as yelling fire in a crowed theater isn't protected speech, courts have found that there is legitimate grounds for limiting the promotion of products that have overwhelming evidence of being harmful. And more recently, further restrictions have been upheld with the "think of the children" reasoning. The restrictions do have limits as tobacco companies have successfully challenged new regulations (so far) showing graphic anti-smoking images on products. Also, the initial ban wasn't an outright ban on electronic advertising. It originally only required stations that showed paid tobacco ads to donate equal time of anti-smoking public service announcements. Stations didn't want to donate their time so they "voluntarily" stopped showing tobacco ads. Laws were then passed banning electronic ads but just shifted the ads to print, billboards, and other non-electronic advertising. As part of the tobacco settlements in the 90s, among other things, in exchange for restricting further advertisements and sponsorships, they got off the hook for tort liability in civil lawsuits. Because the settlement was a civil settlement with the federal government and state attorney generals, and not a criminal lawsuit, first amendment grounds did not apply. |
|