Sure, that's your argument and it isn't the end all be all of the discussion as you try to make. Moreover, disagreeing with it doesn't make someone anti-second amendment or anti-gun.The common thread in all of this is that the words themselves are protected, however usage of with ill intent is not. For instance, yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no danger can cause a panic and endangers the rights of those in proximity, yelling fire in a crowded theater that is on fire is perfectly legal. Same thing with firearms, a person who is not going to commit a crime is not a danger with a 10, 20, or 100 round magazine. The psych test is not enough, all it would take to infringe would be a psychologist who wants to end gun ownership finding for the state or.....as is the case with most gun laws an over broad definition of psychological disqualifications such as PTSD, or other broad spectrum afflictions. Simply owning a gun, same as speaking in a non-threatening Time/Place/Manner endangers no one therefore the right is protected.
In any case, there are people who I'm sure most psychiatrists would agree are a threat with a weapon. For example, a two year old. Now let's take an adult with the mental capacity of a two year old and give them a gun. That's a bad decision.
You are trying to say that only having weapons with certain intents and in certain situations is a problem. However, it's a fact that CERTAIN PEOPLE having a weapon is a problem - like a 2 year old or someone with their same mental capacity.
No, I'm not a psychologist and I also have knowledge on the subject. I also agree with your comments about the broad spectrum which is why I said that PROFESSIONALS WITH THE MOST EVIDENCED BACKED ARGUMENTS SHOULD MAKE THE DECISIONS so that those who are not a danger to society are not unjustly restricted.Are you a psychologist? I learn the subject as a hobby and have some family members with mental health issues, they are broad spectrum and even delusional mental disorders have a broad range, one can have delusions, even violent ones and not act upon them or be okay with medication. Your broad brush approach is grossly insufficient.
Moreover, you are trying to use the broad spectrum of mental disorders as evidence that NOBODY can be diagnosed as a threat to others by professionals. That just isn't the case. It's done all the time and when it can be done, that information should be used for law.
Do you NOT understand that I haven't argued rights should be limited based on my opinion? I said mental health professionals with the most evidenced backed arguments should be those who advise lawmakers and judges.Your opinion is not sufficient to restrict a right, neither is anyone else's. You MUST provide a necessary and proper argument, simply saying you aren't comfortable is not going to cut it. In the case of Laughner, it was obvious the kid was dangerous, the authorities charged with public safety turned a blind eye which led to the eventual shooting of Giffords and those in attendance of her public appearance. The gun didn't kill or injure anyone Laughner DID. Had he been barred gun ownership he would have found another way to do what he did, those with intent to injure tend to find ways of accomplishing their goals.