Hopium First:

But no amendment — no amendment to the Constitution is absolute.

Wouldn't it make sense that if we are under the corporation and that is getting ready to be wiped out that the amendments aren't actually set in stone that were created after the corporation was formed? Theoretically they were created by a foreign government for us which would mean they don't actually represent us. Obviously we would add back in those things that we know to be true such as not allowing slavery/etc.

You can’t yell crowd — you can’t tell [yell]* “fire” in a crowded movie theater and call it freedom of speech. From the very beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own. From the very beginning that the Second Amendment existed, certain people weren’t allowed to have weapons.

This just doesn't make any sense at all. This is completely wrong. There weren't laws back then that limited magazine size/etc. In fact, the founding fathers intended that the army was to be 1/3 the size of the overall military might of the country. 2/3 would be state militias that were run by each state. This would ensure that the states themselves had the ability to take over a corrupt federal government and easily win. There was never supposed to be a national guard as part of the federal government that the states could only halfway work with in a militia form.

So the idea is just bizarre to suggest that some of the things we’re recommending are contrary to the Constitution.

They are contrary! By a lot! The definition of infringe is to actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.) or act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on. This is exactly what is happening. There is no such thing as a "ghost gun" because holding a federal database of owners of guns is 100% infringement and a breaking of the terms that we can keep and bear arms.