The line already has been drawn and stepped over many times before now. To really thoroughly draw the line in the correct place to satisfy my personal point of view, would take a whole lot of thought and effort. I don't see a benefit in going through that exercise at this point. It's difficult to change laws once they are passed. At the very least we should stop where we are at. I do support removing suppressors from the NFA list however. These don't aid in committing crimes in my opinion. They are a safety device.

Since I didn't talk about repealing the NFA, I will only address this question with regard to suppressors.

If things don't go as I want them to, would you be willing to step back...and happily allow them to be strictly restricted again? No. Because how could things not go how I want them to? Is crime going to dramatically increase if suppressors are legalized? Not gonna happen. Are more criminals going to use them? Probably. But is having access to a suppressor the reason they committed the crime in the first place? Don't think so.

I don't see the relevance of this question. This belongs in a conversation about the NFA and whether or not it should be repealed or modified. I don't have enough experience with NFA regulations to comment intelligently, so I won't.

why can't we limit guns to just hunting rifles? What is a "hunting rifle"? In my state (NM) an AR-15 chambered for .223 Remington with a 30 round magazine falls under the category of "legal sporting firearm" for hunting purposes.

why we shouldn't vet ALL gun owners the same way we vet people applying for ccw? We shouldn't vet even ccw holders the way we do. I can legally open carry in my state, so I should be able to legally conceal carry without going through all the additional bs.