All of these suggestions are fantastic....provided that the government does the same.
Fundamentally, the purpose of the creation of the US as a separate nation from England was to create a land where the individual outranked the government.
It is through the pretense of 'public safety' that England itself had already tried to disarm its subejcts, when the 2nd Amendment was created. English land owners said that game populations were suffering and that guns should be restricted to save the animals, back in England.
You see, the 2nd Amendment wasn't FOR hunting or sport. It was for revolt-readiness.
Now, inevitably, someone thinking they are the cat that got the cream comes along and asks, "What about nuclear weapons?"
That's not the government destroying citizens. That's the government destroying any premise for its rulership at all.
There is no need for a Secretary of the Interior if there is no interior. There is no need for a Secretary of Transportation if the roads, rails, bridges, airports and seaports are all destroyed.
There is no question that the US government CURRENTLY enjoys a military advantage over its citizens, and that's not to say it would win, any more than to say that Jeff Horn can't beat Manny Pacquiao, or that the New England Patriots can't come back from a 28-3 halftime deficit.
The point is, when there is even just a philiosophical break, you can lose half your military to the other side.
How many times has the United States armed some foreign group on the basis that said group would help the US, only to find that they have accidentally armed its biggest enemy?
If the troops that the US Government sends out to confiscate guns don't actually believe that the guns should be confiscated, who has the bigger army then?
It's not about the law. It's about the consent of the people. That was quite easy to obtain in Australia. It was like taking candy from a baby.
The US?
Not so much.
RE: A Discussion About Guns