Ben, I believe much of this is due to America's largely politically polarized opinions on our first and second amendments. I look at
additional regulations as an affront towards law abiding citizens and our Second Amendment Rights.
Some Americans are selective based on their emotional opinions regarding our Bill of Rights, First Amendment under the belief our 1A applies to some though not to others. Example: Advertising
Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) . The Hudson Central test applies. "i.e. false advertisement is not protected by our first amendment.
While
some in America have an opinion that firearm advertisements should not be permitted - they stomp on their own rights in proclaiming such.
That advertisement, pre 2005, advertised to military and Law Enforcement - you find that a violation of our first amendment, or of a personal opinion, distasteful, is beyond me. That is the exact purpose of that tool. In no Knock settings, be it military (no knock is common practice) or U.S. law enforcement where "No Knock" is rigidly scrutinized by the Judge evaluating the merits of the severity of threat to our American family mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters who place life on the line to protect the innocent while serving the warrant(s). A television fictional thrill show is "fictional".
Regarding "Tactical Chads": Of course, who are the anti-2A people going to focus upon? Hey, it paints a picture... be it false though regardless, media misrepresenting a protest is not a new practice - I believe we both agree on this(?). First, to point out, a law abiding citizen is not based on his/her fat content, nor the lawful freedom of expression, being lawful ownership / carry. As much as vagina heads made their point though highly doubt their vagina's were remotely of same definition...