I have too many of my own sins to deal with to worry about things that may or may not be sin for another person. Homosexuality is not a problem for me.

You should Also Be Reporting them. I report over 100 a day at times. Blocking don't do Jack and is Pointless to stop them, so REPORT THEM!

2nd Amendment. Gun ownership/bearing arms is a right.

Tell me why you believe anyone needs to speak or sing? Or congregate on internet forums? Or worship a god? Or be protected from search and seizure? Or be tried by jury?

No one needs to justify their rights to anyone else, let alone a government.
We could outlaw a lot of things if we start winnowing it down to what one person defines another "needs."

Laws aren't there to define "needs" by which people have to adhere to/justify themselves in order to express their rights.


Sort of.
"Mental illness" is a rather broad term.
Not to mention, psychologists and doctors are not elected officials.
They are fallible and not absolutely impartial or unbiased.
Also psychiatry, psychology, medicine is constantly changing, being relabeled. People used to have Asperger's. That's no longer a diagnosis.
Look up "Drapetomania."

Other than that, background checks aren't there to determine if someone should be allowed to do something, just to check to see if there's something that prevents.

Huge difference between mental illness and domestic abuse/assault. The latter are crimes. Violations of the rights of someone else. They go through a trial process.
Having a mental illness is not a crime. It doesn't violate another persons rights, nor (unless they're found legally mentally incapable, such as an i.q. under 75, or insane) do they go through a judicial process where they can argue against it.

I have a problem with background checks by the government to try and dig up dirt in order to keep someone from expressing their rights, especially without their say in the matter e.g. "mental illness/red flag laws."
I don't have a problem with background checks to determine if someone has a current legal injunction against their expressing their right.
People that go to prison, do their time, can/should sue for removal of injunctions against their ability to express their rights.

"Laws" don't magically keep people from doing things.
"Laws" are simply threats. They aren't "supposed" to be a tool for social engineering. Only "if you do x, y are the consequences." With "x" and "y" clearly defined as objectively as possible.

I do not believe any good law can come from "we think you may possibly do something bad sometime, because these people with Dr. in their name say so, or agree with us, then that gives us license to suspend/abridge your rights, and the onus is on you, the individual, on your dime, to prove us, the government, wrong. Prove your innocence and we'll remove the guilty verdict."


So, TLDR, IMO no one needs to justify their ownership of a semi/fully automatic rifle, anymore than you need to justify speaking.
And IMO the government does not have inherent rights to abridge individual rights.
The onus is on the government to prove/justify their abridging of rights, not on the individual to justify/prove their expression of rights.

you have to 'justify' speaking if it incites actions that are harmful to others. Rights are not absolutes, just saying.

Sanctuary Cities in Virginia-----GOOD
Sanctuary Cities in Texas ------BAD