None of those questions are relevant, craigz.
The issue is this; Smith and Wesson's "New, American Owwners" bought the company after carefull consideration of the agreement, what it is, what it means, what it can do. They could have purchased the company in such a way as to be shed of it. They chose to buy the company intact, agreement and all.
Since that time they have been carefully ignoring it. The strategy they employ to deal with it is to release misleading public statements and spend huge sums on advertising to woo back disgusted customers. They seem to feel that if it is ignored long enough it will go away. That may be the case in the long run, or it may not. I find that course of action repugnant and insulting. It speaks volumes of what they think of the intellect and moral fibre of their client base, and not kindly.
At the core of the disgust with the agreement lies fear of what sort of precedent it sets for the rest of industry. How much government control is acceptable when one looks at free enterprise in theses United States? The agreement is crafted in such a way as to completely change the gun industry and the availability of firearms in a negative manner. It will not be a minor inconvenience for us if some future administration subverts the law and forces Smith and Wesson to implement it. Given Smith and Wesson's current attitude, I highly doubt they would "go down fighting" such an action. They would capitulate, and the destruction of our rights would escalate.