Good thread from Eric Heiden on Facebook.

Certainly a can of worms has been opened.
Got quite a few comments. Very polarizing this second amendment.

The idea of licensure to have a weapon keeps coming up and is intriguing.
If you want to buy a gun there would be an application process that would test you apptitude and proficiency to fire it. Bigger weapon....tougher test.
Think driver's licence
Why, why not?

Those that have a gun(s) get to keep what they already have. No question asked. You are grandfathered in.

Recertification test every 10 (arbitrary) years. We do it in medicine and we have one of the best healthcare systems in the world.

Liability insurance for purchased wespon......deposited into a fund to finance and support the licensure testing, research and support victims of gun crime. The bigger the weapon the bigger the premium.
Why, why not?

Limiting the number of bullets you can fire at one time before you need to stop for a second to reload.
Why, why not?

Allowing the CDC to do the research. It would be nice to know the facts and be able review and perhaps implement their conclusions.
Why, why not?

(Who knows the background for why our politicians tied the CDC's hands on this?)

This is complex puzzle with many pieces (mental health, ect) but respond to the above thoughts.