1, 2 and 5 breach the constitution which makes 7 n/a.

1 - Drastically overtaxing bullets (however creative) would be taken as an attempt to impose restrictions on a 'right' to keep and bear arms.

Which it is.

2 - Again, restricting retail sales outlets would be taken as an attempt to impose restrictions on a 'right' to keep and bear arms.

Which it is.

5 - Once more, A National Gun Register would be taken as an attempt to impose restrictions on a 'right' to keep and bear arms.

Which it is.

* It doesn't recongnise a right to keep and bear arms IF you sign up to the National Gun Register;
- It just recognises a right to keep and bear arms.

7 - Impose a tax on the bullets is a grey area, especially if used as a means to forward an agenda that seeks to remove rights enshrined in the constitution.

That leaves 3, 4 and 6

3 - You can impose the wait but even that's a kind of grey area, but you can't impose the mental check because it would be taken as an attempt to impose restrictions on a 'right' to keep and bear arms.

Which it is.

* It doesn't recongnise a right to keep and bear arms IF you pass a Mental Health check;
- It just recognises a right to keep and bear arms.

4 - You could offer to voluntarily buy back the guns, but you probably wouldn't be able to buy them back faster than new ones are being manufactured and sold. Also it would only remove guns from law abiding gun owners, not criminals, and thus potentially lead to more crime with an unarmed populace.

6 - Send people to jail for longer for just having a gun?
- As opposed to firing a gun?
- As opposed to harming someone with a gun?
- Potentially in self defense?
- When it's already a right enshrined in the constitution and any other laws restricting that right are essentially unconstitutional?

[Cont.]
Is Mise's suggestion that to change the constitution is probably the only real way that you could do it, be even that's a grey area because your essentially still taking away something that is considered to be a 'right';
- As opposed to a 'privilege'.

Finally, a large part of the US is lands which are heavily vegetated and contain many predators, and guns are essential.
Many places you would be extremely foolish with your own life to go into the woods unarmed.
Removing guns from these people is probably both unrealistic and impractical, as it would put their lives and the lives of their pets and stock at risk.

I support your efforts in trying to find ideas to problems.
I hope my criticism does not detract from future contributions.

Dear Kirby483,

Good suggestions.

Well done.

Keep them coming.

Belly,

"America has year by year become a B Grade Movie with a C Grade script"

Is that why the number of guns in civilian hands is going up and crime is coming down?

More guns mean less crime.

In Australia also the number of guns is going up and the crime rate is falling.

Kirby calls it an education program, but as it is designed to achieve Kirby's desired option, it can only be called a brain washing program. Nasty stuff brain washing Kirby, you have no right to try to inflict your ideas on others by attempting such a technique.

You are not going to get the guns off the yank citizen. They are damn well aware that the only safety against a wrong headed government is a well armed population.

The only reason we could stop the Japs on the Kokoda trail was because the kids enlisted in the malattia who were chucked in less than half trained could already shoot, & shoot straight. With the citified petals of today, the Japs would have been in Brisbane before we could have got men back from the middle east.

"just ask the people and accept their democratic decision."
yup.
The only solution is machine guns mounted with CCTV in all marts , gas stations and liquor barns. Each school-room and pool-side, National Guard drones and 2 each law enforcement officer's tank.
1 warning shot , 500 HE rounds.