But that restraint isn't applied before the fact by gagging people, but rather only after the fact by pressing charges. However, gun prohibitions are before-the-fact suppressions of gun rights, as opposed to, say, laws against armed robbery, which are applied after the fact for criminal gun misuse. Those who would shout Fire! in a crowded theater have the same opportunity to do wrong as those who would hold up liquor stores, but for the gun grabbers this isn't good enough, and additional restrictions on gun owners are always sought.
Or try getting a conservative speaker at a public university in some places -- prior restraint in all effect!
Registration, licensing? Try making a claim about the medical or psychological benefit of some new device, food, or preparation -- that's speech too. Gee whiz -- the FDA will be all over you -- and not for clear fraud either -- rather both "truth" and the process to find it are *owned* by FDA dicta! Far better the old "Reg PA Dept of Agriculture" -- the FDA is a tyrant and there is no alternative. Guilty until proven innocent.
Still, you have a point, and have shed a light on real differences. The prior restraints on bearing and keeping arms are more rampant.