I wonder if he actually got their representatives to try to negotiate anything, or if he literally just said there would be a cease fire in the hopes that the two sides would feel obligated to follow through once it was publicly announced.
They do technically have orbital launch capability, which implies they in theory have the capacity to construct an ICBM, even if not with a nuclear warhead necessarily. Granted, the results of such a strike almost certainly would not be worth the costs to them so I’ve no expectation they’ll do such a thing, but they probably could if they wanted to badly enough.
If that were true, Disney and a number of other large companies would not exist.
The issue I can see with that model is that, depending on how exactly it is implemented, it might end up spilling into places that involve people who were doing nothing unreasonable. For example, suppose a criminal makes a pipe gun, or a 3-d printed one, and uses that in a crime. If we’re always looking down the chain, do we also hold responsible whoever sold them the pipes, or the printer, or other machining tools? The easy enough answer is to except steps that don’t usually have to do with firearms I suppose (where the people involved would not generally have reason to expect the purchaser is using what they buy for those purposes), but in taking that obvious step, one would create a situation where acquiring guns through less traceable and safe means becomes easier than the ways that can be tracked, which is rarely a good thing if you want rules to actually be followed.
Personally, I think that, rather than the guns themselves, the focus of gun control measures should be on the ammunition they fire. It doesn’t last as long as a gun potentially can, and is disposable, meaning that the large number of guns already in circulation poses less of an issue, and is harder to manufacture at home due to the requirement for explosive chemicals. Further, most “legitimate” civilian uses for a gun either don’t require all that much of it (like hunting), or can be done in a centralized location that can monitor use (like sport target shooting at a professionally run shooting range).
What I would do, is put a very restrictive limit on how much ammunition a given person may purchase in a given year, and only allow exceptions to that limit if the person can provide proof that an equivalent amount of their existing allotment has been fired, returns old ammunition for exchange, or purchases the extra at a licensed range that as a condition of the license must monitor patrons and ensure those bullets are either fired or refunded before the shooter leaves.
The whole two party system thing in general isn’t really a rule per se, you’re allowed to run as part of some other party or independent of one, for any office that I know of. In smaller local elections like town councils and such you can even be competitive that way. It’s just that the way we do voting, most of the time, means that for any election in which a reasonable number of voters participate, only two parties can be competitive and any more would actually make their side less likely to win. It’s a not originally intended side effect of the rules we use, that now serves to keep the existing parties’ monopoly on most higher offices.