A very flawed comparison. Speech is not lethal. A stupid person’s verbal outbursts can’t maim, cripple or kill anyone. A mentally unstable person with a weapon is a tragedy waiting to happen.
“A very flawed comparison. Speech is not lethal.”
The comparison has nothing to do with lethality, you are confusing the issue. Speech and bearing arms are both inherent rights, meaning they are inalienable.
“A stupid person’s verbal outbursts can’t maim, cripple or kill anyone.”
Actually, they can. Yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is a classic example. However, that’s beside the point and quite irrelevant to the question of whether they have the right to begin with, and if/how it can be limited.
“A mentally unstable person with a weapon is a tragedy waiting to happen.”
That’s nonsense. First of all, who defines “mentally unstable”? Under some definitions, everyone on the planet is mentally unstable. Secondly, you are not a fortune teller, and therefore, you don’t have any authority to make pronouncements about what tragedies will unfold in the future.
Anyway, none of your points even attempt to address the real issue, which is that the right to bear arms is an inherent personal right, and not one which you, or anyone else, is in any position to remove from others. In fact, even if you managed to get a law passed, or the Constitution amended, it would have no affect on whether mentally ill people have the right to bear arms, because that right is inalienable, and preexists the Constitution.