>>Yes, your suggestion makes sense. Only that in this country, gun ownership is a constitutional right, so the burden of proof is on the state... whereas in other parts of the world, gun ownership is a privilege, and thus it is the individual who has to prove they're worth it.

I haven't checked elsewhere, but actually NZ law also explicitly grants the right to "carry" arms. The original NZ law regulating gunpower and weapons states in S1 "Provided always that nothing herein contained shall extend or be construed to extend to prevent any person from carrying arms for the defence of his person or for sporting as by law he might before the passing of this Ordinance."

I'm not too worried about that... if people can be persuaded to stop demonizing the NRA and pretending they invented the idea of banning semi-automatic weapons that nobody else ever considered before, it should be possible to come to a bipartisan arrangement. But my pick is that the media and Democrats will snipe at anything Trump suggests, so it'll drag out to the upcoming elections at which point Trump will wring his hands and ask for super-majorities so the Democrats can't keep obstructing the success of the American people. Alternatively, he'll draw parallels with the idea that only US citizens should be allowed to vote, with only Fake News and Democrats opposing the idea that elections and firearm safety are both worthy of protection for the integrity of democracy and well-being of the citizenry.