"... anyone who possesses a firearm should be made to demonstrate that they also have the wherewithal to keep and use it safely."

Last time I checked, this seems to pretty precisely fit the definition of a "well regulated militia." (or at least a beginning.) So what 's the problem? It always seemed very practical that once someone has participated in such a militia (by having been in the military) that person should have the choice to keep their weapon. Otherwise, no. (Seems odd that the same people screaming, "SECOND AMENDMENT! SECOND AMENDMENT" don't even speak the words "well regulated militia in in a quiet voice. I actually shut down a "discussion" with such a person on Medium in the past week with that phrase.)