How is it "technically" illegal for the gov't to have a list of gun owners? If the State requires gun purchasers to register their property, how is that illegal? How is registering your gun different from registering your car?
The problems I see with a dedicated security person at a school are
1. This security person couldn't cover every possible entry point
2. Waiting around for something to happen will inevitably lead to complacency
3. A dedicated security person could cost upwards of $100k (in total compensation) depending on what part of the country. With schools cutting after school programs and things of that nature, that's a tough pill to swallow.
Your idea of trained volunteers or even training certain school administrators would be better.
I have a feeling the anti-gun crowd wouldn't like the idea of removing the "gun free zone" signs, which is why I think more gun "control" is the more likely outcome.
In general, the class of companies that are "too big to fail" got there with government help. Those are businesses that would never have grown that large in the absence of gov't intervention. I'm talking about natural monopolies, companies that got they way they are because they were better than everyone else.
It is rare a monopoly exists for very long because the market is constantly changing. Just because a monopoly exists today does not mean it will exist tomorrow. That does not mean there are no alternatives.
I think Microsoft got railroaded. Netscape claimed MS was abusing its monopoly power by giving away IE and/or bundling it with Win98 (or whatever version it was). I'm sorry, but it was MS's OS. If they want to bundle an internet browser with it, that's their choice to do so. MS was not preventing people from installing a competing product.
How could you possibly make monopolies illegal when monopolies are economic snapshots of a given market at a given point in time? Microsoft had a monopoly on the internet browser for a number of years (after starting out as the underdog in that market). That certainly isn't the case today.
Just because 1 player in a market does it better than anyone else does not mean competition is broken. And there's nothing inherently wrong with a monopoly so long as that monopoly's position is not aided by government.
I don't reject the possibility of an alternative -- I'm a libertarian myself. The reality is the established parties (D and R) will work tirelessly, joined with a compliant media, to marginalize any candidate that isn't one of them. Just look at how CNN has stacked the polling criteria against Gary Johnson, the same criteria used to get into the Presidential debates.
Opening trade with another country will never be a bad thing. Trade only improves the lives of individuals. Now, structuring your tax and regulatory structure to incentivize the out-migration of businesses is a totally different story, but that's not China's fault.