Armalite Statement On Michelangelo’s David With AR-50 Advertisement

ArmaLite
ArmaLite

Geneseo, IL – -(Ammoland.com)- ArmaLite has recently been made aware that an advertisement utilizing the image of the statue of Michelangelo’s David holding an ArmaLite AR-50A1 rifle was found to be offensive by certain individuals.

ArmaLite deeply regrets offending anyone and certainly had no intention of doing so.

The “Work of Art” media campaign was initiated over a year ago, but was removed from circulation when the new ownership of ArmaLite took responsibility for Company direction in July 2013.

ArmaLite has been making some of the finest firearms for military, law enforcement and commercial applications for 60 years and was the inventor of the AR platform of sporting rifles. In fact, AR stands for ArmaLite.

Mark Johnson, the chief executive officer of Strategic Armory Corps, LLC, the current owner of ArmaLite stated, “I believe that an advertisement utilizing an altered photograph of a masterpiece such as David is in poor taste. We deeply regret that ArmaLite offended anyone by this media campaign, which we ended upon our acquisition of the Company.”

“We will make every effort to be sure that any remnants from the campaign are removed from the public”.

About:
ArmaLite has one of the broadest product lines in the firearms industry. We manufacture and sell semiautomatic rifles in a variety of calibers including 5.56mm and 7.62mm, long range super-accurate bolt action rifles in calibers including .308 Winchester, .300 Winchester Magnum, .338 Lapua, and 50 BMG, and classic 9mm pistols.Visit: www.armalite.com

  • 21 thoughts on “Armalite Statement On Michelangelo’s David With AR-50 Advertisement

    1. So a crab in a Fiat can pinch a woman’s ass but David cant hold a gun? The new AR30/50 are works of art. Be proud of them.

    2. Tell all the truth please. Remeber that you didn’t have rights to use this picture and you don’t have them to is it right know too.
      The David of Michelangelo is copyrighted and its use for advertising purposes is subject by law to the issue of a notice by the holder, in this case the state, and the payment of a fee.

    3. C’mon Mr. Johnson, GROW A PAIR! as a proud owner of SEVERAL ARMALITE’s I reserve the right to say that..Our children get subject , on an hourly basis, to inappropriate sexual and morally corrupt advertising across the SPECTRUM of products. This was a classy and clever use of an ancient work of art that didn’t involve scantily clad women frolicking around like a herd of Jezebells, and you are going to KNUCKLE to a whiny dingbat who is “Offended?” PUHHHH LEEEEEZE!!!

    4. Why apologize for exercising their free speech? Enough of this politically-correct garbage. They put a crucifix in a bottle of urine and called THAT art, but you tell me a picture of Michelangelo’s David holding a precision rifle is offensive? Get out of here!!

    5. Grow a set you effeminate emasculated wimps. Booo hooo I am so offended i’m just going to cry. Suck
      it up pansy boys get a life.

    6. There is nothing to be offended about in that ad. The anti gun libtard weenies will be “offended” by anything, so don’t bow to them and compromise your ad campaign. The left wing moonbats who would complain aren’t your customers and will complain about anything to do with guns, so ignore them.

    7. It would seem to me you have improved the statue. Use that First Amendment and promote the Second. To Hell with all those it offends.

    8. Armalite & Johnson are PC liberals who tread upon the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I will be boycotting his company and getting the word out on social media.

    9. I view Armalite’s decision as a fail but they have the right to make the decision that suits their company. However, I saved a copy of the image for personal enjoyment. Thanks Ammoland for giving me that opportunity.

    10. What pussies. No wonder I own a Barrett instead of an Armalite. Don’t you think that David would rather have had a .50 BMG than a sling shot?!

      Never say “I’m sorry” to anti-gunners.

    11. Not sure about copyright laws especially for such ancient artifiacts or how that owuld be seen in U.S. Courts …but regarding the “weaponizing ” of the statue …it seems …he was carrying a “sling ” before his AR …hmmmm..ask Goliath if that is a “weapon” …the slings of the time were not a childs toy ..Hannibal had a large contingent of “slingers ” form the Baleric Islands …they used one oiuncelead pellets which were accurate to over 100 yards and deadly to Romans …so how can changing form a weapon of Biblical times to one of modrn times be changing who the person portrayed in the statue was ??…He was a sniper …then …so what do you think he would be now …Just a Carlos Hathcock of the old days …:)

    12. Copyright? The artist has been dead for centuries and the image is no more copyrighted than a photo of Mt. Rushmore. At least they put a fig leaf over his pecker, it would be poor trigger control otherwise. :)

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>