This post has a suprisingly ...

.
... calm comment section:

One of the questions I occasionally get during the day at the class-3 FFL where I work is, “can I buy a machine gun?” I usually respond with the whole spiel of how “the registry” was closed and how much that tends to stink for anyone of average means who desires a full-auto weapon. Quite simply, if you don’t have a fat wallet, you don’t get to go rat-a-tat-tat. I really hate that . . .

Michael Holderer is a man after my own heart. The commenters don't resort to name-calling (except for 'coprophage'!) and generally are civil.
It's just my opinion, but the 10th amendment attack on the NFA is doomed to legal failure as SCOTUS is not going to hear a Firearm Freedom case ... it's just a bridge too far.

A much better strategy to me would be to take the discussions during the actual NFA hearings and argue that the Hughes amendment is a violation of the police powers of a state. The hearings* on the NFA in 1934 bear that out. The president of the NRA indicates that he had not considered the ultimate constitutionality of an NFA, but merely that he was currently living under such a regime and didn't feel 'infringed'.

If I ever hit the lottery, one of the things I hope to do would be to finance a calculated attack on the NFA.

Right after I get my machineguns!

pm

* I have seen transcripts where Atty Gen Homer Cummings specifically admits that a law banning machineguns would likely violate the police powers of a state, but that taxing machineguns was well within the purview of Congress - I just can't find it right now.