Your ultimate question is not specific enough. Yes, I do think it is possible to prevent some dangerous devices from getting into the hands of some wrong people; the only grades here are not A+ and F, it's not 100% effective or it's worthless. "Protected by the Constitution" doesn't mean anything to me, all amendments are subject to be interpreted more strictly or repealed altogether. Of course it's possible, but I don't think you'd be comfortable with what would be required. Do you think that a nationwide ban on ammunition and strict penalties on the inevitable black market that will spring up will do absolutely nothing over the course of decades to reduce gun deaths, compared to the free-for-all we have today? If not, then doesn't that indicate that legislation at least has the potential to reduce gun deaths? I realize something like this may have all kinds of other negative repercussions, but your point so far has largely been restricted to how worthless legislation is.
'Similarities' and 'spooky' as defined by you and based on your purely subjective opinion, a foundation which, for a reason I will never understand, does not seem to give you pause. Of course when you are willing to come up with these odd, irrational rules that 'no evidence of a deception is evidence of a deception', it's no wonder how you arrive at these unsupported positions.