TexasCHLforum.com

To the OP, other members here have asked legitimate questions of you seeking clarification and specificity of your original question. You've responded with what could best be described as mild annoyance/condescension. Not sure what is your aim, but I'll rephrase again for the general benefit.

Asking someone's "stance" on "NFA" is broad and open ended, much like a poorly constructed "question" from a lazy TV news reporter who says merely "talk about X" as if that's a question.

Are you asking if he supports NFA as is? Are you asking if he supports changes to NFA making it either more or less restrictive? Are you asking generally if he supports the very idea of civilian ownership of NFA items (based on your reference to Joaquin Jackson I'm wondering if this is the point of your question)?

Anyway, Charles can speak for himself but the follow up questions asking you for clarification/specificity were made in good faith and deserve better than your mildly condescending answers.

Thanks