Good Words

From a question on Quora...

The question isn't to amend or abolish the second amendment, it is to properly apply it.  If the President, Congress and the Courts would focus more fully on what a "well regulated militia" is, I think we'd find compromise.

For example, I would propose:

1. In order to own anything that is not a hunting-purpose long gun (Shotguns without tactical attachments, centerfire/rimfire rifles without tactical attachments) you must be: a) willing to serve in some sort of reserve unit of the Armed Forces or b) some sort of police / sherrif / state trooper auxillary unit
2. In order to serve in this well regulated militia, you must a) complete a series of psychological evaluations and b) complete comprehensive training with firearms and other aspects of your job.
3. This would effectively get you into the VA (or state equivalent systems) regarding mental health.

If you are serving in a militia in good standing (including retired), then you can have whatever guns you wish.

Much like in Australia, you'd have to do some sort gun buyback which would probably go over like a lead balloon.

I'm not sure people have a problem with sensible gun ownership, but instead on whether the mentally unfit / untrained people are using them. 

At least that's my take.

And a great take it is! The Gun Cult chides continually that gun safety advocates have no real plan and or idea what new laws should look like. This is a great example of exactly what it should look like and something I firmly support. I would add that the mental health evaluations be at least three times a year and one hundred hours a year minimum training.