Here is some of what I said in response: Regarding the young man having no politics. People who read & studied his blog suggested otherwise--the talk about monetary systems and the grammar talk that has been traced back to a extreme right wing blogger as the inspiration source. (This included the Sheriff who studied what happened before he made his statement) And the flag burning indicates someone either on the far right or far left making a statement. That is not an apolitical act. His "best friend" from high school may not know much about him now, 4 years later. He wasn't mentally ill in high school either. Of course he is deranged, but if he didn't have politics he would not have chosen a political target. In fact most mentally ill people I have known have politics almost to the same degree that non-mentally ill people do. Some are apolitical, some a little political and some very political. In fact schizophrenic men, which is what he seems to be, often have highly intelligent and cogent politics, when they are being delusional. They are on average, of higher intelligence that the general populace. For some reason that often doesn't carry to the woman, who are effected differently by the illness.
That caused me to reshape part of what I had said about gun use and respond:
No, I ,mean that when people carry the second amendment thing so far that it has the effect of letting people who are thinking these sorts of things get high powered weapons --automatic guns or sniper rifles, etc that is analogous. I guess I got to rhetorical myself on that, and didn't take my time to development my argument. I know that advocating unlimited second amendment rights doesn't presuppose what people will do with the weapons, but it does overlook what some people might be thinking. Of course it's not a simple as I pledge not to assassinate anyone or commit mass murder in return for my gun licence. But the process needs to screen out certain people the same way driving tests screen out certain people.And yes gun carriage should demonstrably be for self protection, with hunting or reasonable gun collecting being harmless augments to that right. I'm not sure it's always that effective for self protection--the guys who stopped our shooter in this instance were unarmed while sometimes store clerks going for the gun get themselves shot--but at least if you can discern legitimate self protection uses for a gun in order to licence it's use, and train people for that purpose you reduce the rash use of guns. You weed out people with criminal history, with certain reasonable exceptions. And the same on psychiatric history. (it's funny I was living with mentally ill guys at the time of the Columbine massacre --one of them was so upset he called up a gun dealer & yelled at him. It offended his pacifistic sentiments that they were selling guns at a time like that.)And maybe make people take a test for gun use rules like the drivers written test, that points to restraint in use. Also the sales of automatic weapons should be somewhat restricted both to keep gangs & crazies from getting them, and because if you are using the weapon for self defense rather than hunting or collecting you are more likely hit unintended targets with a automatic weapon than with a regular rifle or handgun. These are just a few ideas to make it safer without taking away a right.By the way, I think that the right to self defense is not a second amendment right, because that is the right of the people collectively. A well regulated militia. It's the right of the people, for instance, to impose order through a national guards. But the ninth amendment suggests that all traditional rights are protected by the constitution. So if we have a right to self defense, gun ownership is one way to achieve it. Now you can create situations were everyone is disarmed. Wyatt Earp did that in Dodge & Tombstone by getting everyone to hang up the guns. At least he did after he shot it out with the Clantons. The Clantons clearly wanted to do something more than self defense, something for which fisticuffs were in effective. But you could argue that not every situation is amenable to that degree of law enforcement.