Rather than the bounty hosting site keeping the remainder, I think more people would likely pay into an anti-assassination bounty if it went to a charity of some sort. Perhaps of their choosing. Then only people with a total lopsided hatred against them would outcompensate the anti-assassination side. This would also help more money go to charity since for every dollar you give it could become two. Then the question would remain, what do you do with the anti-assassination money if the individual is actually assinated?

and there is time for Klax

Will a Kleenex Condoms protect me from a man in the middle?

"Sitting in my office right now with a 1911 on my strong side with two reloads on my weak side. "

Where do you live/work that you feel the need to have a weapon affixed to your body with an additional two reloads immediately available?

Why do you choose to live somewhere where you are in such fear for your safety that it is necessary to keep a firearm and additional ammo ready at a moments notice while working in an office environment?

Note that I didn't say anything about confiscating guns, I was just saying that "the argument that there are too many guns so it would be impossible to limit their presence is weak." All of your points don't change that.

The fact that there is an constitutional amendment related to arms doesn't necessarily change things. There are several types of arms that are restricted or have limited use. Additionally, there is a process (which has been used) to repeal/modify amendments.

While the American ethos may seem to revolve around Pawn Stars, most people don't want to get in trouble. If the average person found 50kg of cocaine, they would likely either destroy it or turn it in to the cops. They wouldn't consider trying to sell it on the street. If laws made gun posession equilavent to narcotics, most people would not want them around. Sure, some people would hide them, but most people wouldn't want to get in trouble. Most NEW guns are purchased from law abiding people with no intent on using them to break the law. Still, some of those guns eventually make their way into the hands of criminals. All this would take time but they would slowly get found, confiscated, lost, broken, and/or turned in.

Also, do I really need some kind of stats or citation to claim that there are less "grenades and explosives" floating around in Europe now than during WWII?

"The bullet casings are also metal and will set off detectors."

Do you know this for a fact? I'd bet (but I'm not positive) that it is much easier to smuggle a few bullets past the TSA that an actual gun. How hard would it be to embed them into a laptop that has heavy sheilding but has no CD/hard drive? I bet you could easily get 10-20 bullets in a larger laptop.

Well, it is a lot easier to look for weapons (which are normally large) than ammo (which is normally small).

In nearly all of Europe after WWII there were guns, grenades, and explosives all over the place. They seem to have done a good job at makine most (but not all) of them go away and not be widely available. It took time, but it is possible. I'm not saying that's what we need to do, but the argument that there are too many guns so it would be impossible to limit their presence is weak.

Isn't it likely that the Russians or whomever could turn on a homing beacon wherever they plan to launch missles. This beacon could have been set up decades ago in a residential area and be all readly to go at the flip of a switch. There is no way the US could detect this and shut it down within a 30 minute time frame. The Russians could even have 5-10 in high value target areas like DC or NYC. That's what I would have put in place well before GPS was available.

Excellent strategy holding that trump card! If we can hit that bullseye the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards, checkmate!

"Demanding a source is a denial"

Source?

"Also, as far as young men go in the US at least*, there is mandatory draft registration. Any man in that age range could be deployed."

While males are supposed to sign up for selective service when they reach 18, there hasn't been a draft in the US since 1973. Anyone in the military today signed up by choice. Also, while there have been measures in place recently to limit or "stop loss" people from leaving the military, those have reduced greatly in the last few years.

Short of the US being invaded, I can't imagine a draft being put in place. Even then, there could likely be enough volunteers that a draft would not be necessary.

"Self-driving cars will have a lot less impact than the internet. A handful of cab drivers, whoopee do."

Don't forget every over the road trucker out there. And what about all the UPS, FedEx, mail and other delivery people. They will still have some people on the road, but I suspect they will give a major discount if they can pull the vehicle up and drop a box off at your business rather than have a person carry it itside.

"There is a good reason for the rule but a some exceptions are not a problem if the reason is good enough"

I agree with this, but then it must be universally enforced. When a 5 year old gets expelled from school and called a terrorist for shooting another kid with his finger, those zero tolerance rules needs exceptions. The fact that a finger cannot shoot bullet seems like a good enough reason.

"Often, the schleps running such a business have no clue about things like the Streisand effect."

Barbara Streisand herself was not even aware of the effect's existance!