You raise interesting objections, but I still contend that there is a subset of society who should not have a firearm, and likewise should not have freedom. (If the person is such a danger to others that he cannot go around armed, then the same person must be confined because he/she will find a way to harm others given the range of weapons available.) For example, they may convince their father to give them their weapons back.
However as you point out, the government can and doubtless will use this power to confine people with whom they disagree — reference a scene from old Soviet Russia where they supposedly committed political opponents to mental institutions to keep them from reaching a supportive audience. So to implement a scheme where some people lose their natural rights to own a weapon, there has to be a judicial hearing that is fair and representative. Does this work? I for one would like a system that brings back our institutions and uses a just method to determine who needs to be in them,.
KC - I agree. It seemed to work the way it used to be, and I do absolutely believe that mentally ill people should not have guns. I’m just so darned concerned about the ‘who determines’ in these days of seeing so much corruption.
Was it not, 150 years ago, that the sane family member could take the insane to court and have them committed? It’s gone to the other extreme these days.