Throughout this pig-headed debate on gun control, I keep bumping into contradictions.  Yes, sure, I'd love to prevent gun violence.  But controlling guns won't do that unless you completely disarm everyone, including and especially the criminals and they will be the last to be disarmed.  Besides there's this annoying thing called the 2nd Amendment that I'm not willing to compromise on.  So I believe any attempt to regulate gun violence away by regulating guns isn't reasonable or even possible

But in the 2nd Amendment there is also this phrase "well regulated militia".  NOT well regulated guns, which is how we've screwed this up.  And that is where my thinking turns to a different idea.

So I offer the following idea:  To let the people own whatever they want as a militia member and then to regulate the militia.

The militia are not military people.  They are and should always be civilians.  They will never be subject to the UCMJ.  But they can still be well regulated in ways that move both sides closer to what they want - a well armed militia and a well regulated militia. 

1) The militia is defined as any citizen who wishes to join.  Join means to be registered with your state and    to follow the regulations
     they set forth.  At a minimum, these are
  a) be a citizen and 
  b) not considered a threat to commit violent.  That includes
    i) domestic violence
    ii) felon
    iii) mental health
    iv) active terrorist investigation
  c) any of the conditions listed under b) must be proven and are subject to challenge in a court.
  d) the regulations set forth by the State are not so strict as to disqualify "too many" of the citizenry.  I don't know how to phrase this
  e) a citizen who becomes disqualified or is accused of a disqualifying condition can have their weapons stored at a militia armory
      until such time as they elect to defer militia participation or are permanently disqualified
2) Ownership of certain weapons will be restricted to members of the militia who identify themselves to and participate in their
      state's well regulated program.
  a) no tactical battlefield weapons system is denied to a militia member except WMDs.   Note that this would potentially include tanks,
      airplanes, ships, etc.
  b) Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are weapons with strategic implications and are not to be wielded by individuals. 

That's the gist of it.  Obviously there are details to be filled in...but what do you think?

A side track - It's really interesting to parse O'Reilly sometimes:

"We have a Somali problem up in Minneapolis-St. Paul. [We] have a problem there and those are refugees from Somalia. And if, God forbid, some refugee comes in and blows people up, it’s going to be grisly"

First of all, you have to question the premise of the question - do we have a Somali problem in Minneapolis?  I'd say that we don't quite know.  I would hesitate to say "We", I'd hesitate to say it's Somali and I'd hesitate to identify individuals living their lives as a "problem".

Then a double down - against stating "We", "problem" and "Somali".

But then...if ANYONE blows people, it's going to be grisly.  Not because they're refugees, not because they're Somali refugees, but people were blown up.  It's true no matter what.

So I read an opinion, a double down and a tautology in his stuff, but he presents it as fact. 

Don't worry about it.  The next day he probably said that he was the dumbest person in the room and that's the way it should be because he hires the best and brightest.

You have to make a choice - do you want someone who lies and then keeps telling the same lie even when it is glaringly obvious that she is lying or do you want someone who says one then and then backtracks the next day?  Malice or ineptitude?  The evil of two lessers...

Don't be overly concerned about what Trump does.  He's made it clear that he will deal everything.  Every Amendment has always been on the table, he has just been honest enough to admit it.

You know, I keep hearing about this from other sources and the one thing that consistently comes to mind is "What Losers".

How do you know he was gay and not casing the joint?

And it gets more and more complicated.

Do you remember Philip Haney, the DHS whistleblower who said that the State dept killed his investigation into the radical mosque that the San Bernadino shooters attended?  Well it turns out that the Fort Pierce Islamic center and the Orlando shooter himself were part of that same investigation.  That is two identifiable attacks that could have been stopped and 64 American that could be alive if Hillary and Obama had the balls to call it terrorism. They didn't and the investigations were shut down, leaving the terrorists free to act.

How many more Americans have to die before they would admit that there are Muslim Terrorists?

I can only imagine the bombshells.

Bombshells to one is normal operations to most people in business.  There are people who think the fact that he takes any tax deduction would be a "bombshell"...