I know what I suggested is absurd as a matter of policy, and it would only be science fiction to start to imagine a policy vehicle or mechanism that could close the business.
So really all I can offer is pure f*cking outrage at the situation that their culbability in this is so quckly dismissed. Mind you not emotion but outrage - perfectly clear and measured - that we shrug our shoulders and say "yeah, we'll it was all legal" as if that outweighs the 14 people who were murderded, and that large sections of two different major metropolitan areas went into emergency lockdown becuse the prinicipal tools, used for their manifest purpose, used in those crimes and civic emergencies came from this single business!"
And let me repeat that last line for those of you who were making specious arguements earlier... "the prinicipal tools, used for their manifest purpose, used in those crimes and civic emergencies came from this single business!"
What are the odds of that? Hypothetically, if there were a civil case where damages were sought for this, for their small portion of culpability Bulleye's would be required to finance the debt of a small nation. I know it will never happen, but don't expect me to be quiet about it if the hypothetical comes up.
And as unreasonable as my position sounds in the abstract, it nothing less resonable than the real policy making atmosphere created by NRA. Don't think you can sway this group towards reasonable gun laws. They know that if they go down that road they lose. In the 70s as an association and an industry, they knew sensible guns laws meant less sales in a world where gun sales were already declining. Their collective response to this was to foster the exact kind of gun mania we have today. The path to reasonable is the path to regulation, and they can make more money without it.