I was reading this story and had to respond...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/23/city-san-jose-seizes-guns-from-woman-prompts-lawsuit/

The problem with guns, mental illness, and the police is that nothing good can come out of this trio.

But, I'm going to hold my nose and stand up for the rights of people with mental illness regarding the second amendment.

1. You cannot take away the second amendment rights without stigmatizing treatment for mental illness. * Stigmatizing treatment for mental illness is a HUGE problem.
2. People with Mental Illness may already fear the police, now they fear their loss of autonomy if they are evaluated as paranoid that someone will take away their guns.
3. Taking away the second amendment rights is problematic. Is having average citizens have guns the answer? I don't know, but I like to think if the good sane people have guns then the police will be less likely to abuse their power. As a country we were formed on the power of the gun. It is part of American culture. I've even read some propaganda from the NRA that people in Vermont where almost every home has a gun have much less violence with guns then places where only police and gangs/criminals have access.
4. As a person with mental illness, I do not choose to have firearms, but I'm not sure that limiting my access to firearms helps the issue. I'm in treatment, I'm sane, I do not have a history of violence, but because I take medication to keep me well, should I have my rights taken away? It is safe to say that I'm not a threat to myself or others.

*I don't like guns, but I don't believe removing the rights of any people, even based on a diagnosis of mental illness is the answer to preventing tragedy. I do think early intervention and treatment is the answer. If that diagnosis is paired with being a threat to yourself or others and involuntary commitment, it isn't a good idea to have guns, but at what point is it societies role to make the decision of who has rights and who doesn't?

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”


― C.S. Lewis

If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair.
C. S. Lewis

The current regime keeps trying to expand the mental provisions of the NICS to disenfranchise more and more people. Could I use therapy? Yes. Do I worry it would be used against me? Oh, yes. I want therapy, but I don't want to be put on some Federal watch list, either.

That is sorta the point I'm arguing. Personal rights, even if it is something I don't like, are essential to personal liberty and freedom. You start taking away those rights and you lose your "wholeness" as a person in societies view I believe that is a dangerous proposition, more dangerous than the harm society is trying to prevent by taking away guns is the idea that society should judge people and deem them worthy of personal liberties. We should not judge competence. Everyone is flawed in some way.

Mmmmm do I detect a Libertarian bent?

Technically, I'm a paleocon, but I have more than a little Lib in me. We be on the same page.