I did not know that MB was not considered "mainstream" or scientific, nor did I know that likely no such test is (one I have reference before is the MMPI).

I have recently in other venues advocated for the idea of such testing as part of the controls implemented for the purchase and use of guns. Not so much those lengthy tests (except maybe on occasion), but something shorter that could be filled out casually. Ultimately evaluated and scored by a randomly picked independent body of psychologists.

I will refrain from now on with this kind of rhetoric in the future, unless I can find something that would be workable for such a test - if there is anything.

I don't believe such a test, administered fairly and properly, in a non-biased manner, with the score/outcome other than pass/fail being kept - would violate the 2nd Amendment. I think if such a test could exist, it would be better than the catch all of past mental health issues being a part of the judgement for current background checks; a proposal which has many proponents and opponents for various reasons.

The idea I was trying to propose was to gain a sense of who this person was at the time of the purchase of a firearm, of bullets, before practice at a range, etc (the idea I had involved a lot of additional restrictions - such as where and when guns could be used, by whom in what situations, and penalties for straying from those - ultimately, my goal was to make things broad enough that people wouldn't feel constrained as gun owners, but narrow enough that such laws and regulations could identify threats before they became "out of control" problems).

Constant regular checks of a person - if they could tell that such a person had an intent to harm others at some point in the future - would likely be a sound method to reduce incidences of mass violence that I believe will not and cannot be solved by laws targeting just the weapons.

I am one of those strange liberal souls who also supports 2nd Amendment rights; there's a good reason it's in the BoR right behind the first, and I don't believe it was meant only for those in a "standing army"; the Framers didn't want a standing army - they were fairly united against it. Instead, I believe they wanted each individual to be armed, well trained in arms usage, and that he (or she) could band together with fellow citizens to repel both external and internal threats as such arose.

But things have changed in so many ways from that ideal - most notably we have a huge standing army (I do not believe the Framers would approve at all), and we allow guns for everyone without proper training and care. What we don't seem to have, though, is a proper understanding of violent extremism and how it festers and arises among a local population of people. What starts it, how do you detect it, and what can you do about it without violating the rights of that person, in order to defuse it or protect against it?

Apparently we don't know - but I thought tests like MB and MMPI could help solve that problem, and, if administered properly in coordination with other changes on how we as a society allow for guns within it, it could help to quell what we currently witness (on a seemingly weekly basis lately). Since such tests are not what I thought they were, my advocacy will stop until I can figure something else out.

I don't believe for one second that what I was proposing would stop all gun violence, nor violence in general, but I did think it had a good chance of drastically reducing it, in the unlikely event that such a thing was adopted (highly unlikely - but I was hoping it might spark discussion). As a gun rights supporter, my hope was to make it compatible with the wants of gun owners and users, and current law, while also balancing that with restrictions that would promote safety of the general public who may or may not be gun owners themselves.

If anyone has thoughts on any of this, please feel free to respond, as I would love to hear any suggestions on this...