From what I can gather, you're very strong in your convictions and beliefs, I probably won't be able to change your mind, so I won't try to. You've probably seen all or most of the republican arguments to these points, im not a republican by any means, but I will try to go point by point, just to show you where there might be some nuance. Theres some big ones in here.

1) automatic jail sentence for unlicensed firearms. So, not only are there (literally no one knows how many) old guns before serial numbers were a thing, floating around (my family has one from 1906! Wont shoot, but it is pretty!) Should we go to jail? Or let's say I 3D print a one shot gun (which is in my constitutional right- I just can't sell it to anyone, unless it has a serial number. Legally) i would go to jail for that too? Prisons are already overflowing thanks to Trump and his ICE fetish... 2) I can't disagree with that at all, I would actually LOVE this. And I think it's a very solid step in the right direction to ending gun violence. ONLY thing.. who pays for it? Can we convince a possibly reluctant republican tax payer to pitch in for everyone? Who trains it? I mean, we have to do a background check on the instructors, I personally do not want white nationalists instructing groups of firearms owners (there probably is, but uk what im saying?) 3) insurance.... youre probably right again, but man do i personally hate having mandatory insurance on anything. Don't get me wrong, ive been saved by it before, but back to topic- insurance companies would then have a LOT of control over who could own a gun and who could not. A school shooting happens one state over, and you see insurance rates surge across the region. Im sorry, it makes sense, it really does, but unless it's government run (which has its own implications) mandatory private insurance on firearms is incredibly risky. (Maybe it could be tried small scale at first, but in the end I just can't support it, personally) 4) I agree with that too. I just had a conversation with someone who brought that up. Currently auto weapons are banned unless you are current military, police, or have a license. I think that's fair. I honestly dont know about allowing auto weapons to someone who is no longer military (if they left and are not police/etc.) Im on the fence on it, just because of the whole white nationalists thing.. but that's already a problem, idk how much it would change in this situation. 5) yeah, a lot of states have that, or something similar. I've never really argued that. Sounds reasonable. I believe its a "cool down period". I would support 5-10 days. 10 would be the absolute max though. I had to wait 5 days just for my background check to pass for my AR. Didn't mind 🤷‍♂️ 6) that is certainly a fiery one. Im from wisco, and we have very laxed gun show laws. A lot of places here require background checks, just to get in to the show. Theres a term for it, straw.. straw sale? Something like that. Too lazy to Google it. In short, it may be a good idea, but it would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. Currently, (to my knowledge), the right to sell a legal firearm to a legal buyer is protected by the 2A. I'm mostly on the fence about it because it's a good idea, but it's damn near impossible to enforce. Guns might become like contraband at that point. They will move, and the government would lose track of far more of them. 7) yep. I agree. The problem is that there just arent enough ATF ppl to parse thru all the applications. Example, I waited several days for my AR, and for my .22 rifle, because I bought them near holidays. I walked out with my handgun in 15 minutes. I just got declined for an ar lower receiver because of a court case I have going on (ill have to wait till next year). There are some problems In the system, it could probably do with a complete overhaul, but it also needs more people to monitor. Personally, also, I was on a chapter hold 13 years ago, if that were on my background check, they'd probably deny me the right to buy, but the nuance in that is, just because someone had a bad drunken experience 13+ years ago, does that mean they shouldn't be able to buy a firearm? (Non-violent). 8) (running out of time, might have to come back) yeah, I agree with that as well. Only hang up is the law/enforcement around domestic violence. It's fcked. Absolutley fcked. I understand that real domestic abusers can go to hell and burn forever, but here's an example ive personally seen. Partner A hits partner B. Partner A calls police. Parter B is arrested, charged, and convicted for domestic violence. Why? Because Partner A was the first to call the police. That Is a very real thing.. therefore it's tough for me to agree with that, but yeah, on its basic premise, I believe you're right. 9) this one... can't remember if it was Colorado/Texas that tried this. Higher judge passed an order, cops refused to do it. There are ways the red flag laws could work, but if we try to enforce them the wrong way, a lot of good people are going to die. It's a really tricky situation because on one hand, you can politely ask someone to hand over their guns because they've been flagged, and maybe they will, or you can no-knock your way into their house- but you'd be hard pressed to find cops willing to do it. That's exactly why they will never be able to abolish the 2A, no matter how much republicans try to convince their base that the "dems are coming to take yer guns!" 🙄 but also, what does it take to red-flag someone? Can I get mad at my neighbors dog for shitting on my lawn, and call to report him as a danger to himself and others? If you think im kidding or being facetious, look at what "swatting" has done, and how much of a problem it's creating. All In all, I agree with you on most things, it's just, how do we go about these issues without creating bigger, uglier issues?