I'll repeat my comment above: "Who cares? The Constitution also says that black people are only 3/5ths of a person. Also, the 2nd Amendment is an ammendment, but the right to impose taxes and regulate commerce are part of the original Constitution, so there is nothing unconstitutional about my proposal. And, if there were, then a Constitutional amendment would be desirable."

Something being in the Constitution doesn't make it right. Also, the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is basically predicated on formation of national guards ("well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State"). Contrary to conservative narratives, the right to bear arms actually has nothing to do with home defense, or security against government tyranny, but rather to ensure strong national defense and keep the State from being overthrown by invaders. The logic was actually that the central government ought not to have any standing army in times of peace, so well-regulated Militias (national guards) at the state level were necessary to national defense. Also, the right of interpretation goes to the Supreme Court, which has ruled that 2nd Amendment rights are not absolute, so government can regulate firearms (it just cannot outright ban them). So, constitutionally speaking, my proposals are all on strong footing, regardless.

Also, you are wrong when you say "Except that we already have restrictions on who can buy firearms. Specifically, your assertion about making it more difficult for domestic abusers to purchase. They're already prohibited possessors."
That is totally untrue. Domestic violence doesn't generally result in felony charges, so people who regularly beat their wives and get arrested for domestic violence are still allowed to own guns.