This is one commercial you won't see during the Super Bowl.  The NFL has refused to run a controversial ad for Daniel Defense.

According to Guns and Ammo, a statement was sent to Daniel Defense saying, 'Unfortunately, we cannot accept your commercial in football/Super Bowl spots due to the rules the NFL itself has set into place for your company’s category.'

The NFL advertising policy addresses rules for alcohol, prescription drugs, movies, video games,and firearms. The gun policy states:

5. Firearms, ammunition or other weapons are prohibited; however, stores that sell firearms and ammunitions (e.g., outdoor stores and camping stores) will be permitted, provided they sell other products and the ads do not mention firearms, ammunition or other weapons.

However, Daniel Defense sells other products like clothing and there is no mention guns or ammunition in the ad.  So under the rules, shouldn't it be allowed?

The company even agreed to replace the gun logo with an American flag and was still denied.

In recent years there have been commercials with half dressed women, trailers for violent movies or video games and Bud Lite always has an ad or two about drinking.  If these air, why not this one? It doesn't promote killing people.  It promotes a person's right to protect their family. Isn't 'The Right to Bear Arms' in the constitution?

Do you think this is fair? Should the ad air or do you side with the NFL?