What do people who advocate mental health reforms as a solution to mass shootings really envision?

[Bone]

@Robert163

Why are you being so rude?

If you think I’m being rude, feel free to report. I don’t agree with your assessment. The manner of my response is influenced by your previous responses and as I stated, what appears to be fundamental ignorance of this topic that you have opined on. Consider this exchange:

@monstro

No, it means we’re trying to fix one problem (a small number of crazy people shooting everybody up) by creating another problem (now everyone is discouraged from seeking mental health care because no one wants to lose their civil rights).

A lot of folks with mental illness histories live in dangerous, chaotic situations where they actually need to defend themselves. I’m thinking specifically of abuse victims. It would be extremely unfair to deny these folks the right to protect themselves simply because they made the “mistake” of seeking psychiatric help sometime in the recent past. How does your proposal deal with this problem?

@Robert163

Is it really a civil right? Should there be no limits to the 2nd amendment? Would you want, for example, a delusional person flying an airplane with 250 passengers? I disagree with your assessment that the 2nd amendment should be a right with no restrictions attached.

You have stated that monstro asserted that the 2nd amendment should be a right with no restrictions attached. There is no reasonable interpretation of monstro’s post that would lead to this assessment. None. But more than that, you question whether the 2nd amendment recognizes a civil right at all. The answer to this is clearly established in Heller which is the most recent authoritative guidance on this topic. Have you read it?