I look forward to being a True Scotsman.  If only I knew how to stop being one that is No True Scotsman.

The common man deserves access to the means of defense, but please defend how one can be a socialist but think an entire class of people should be deprived of their rights.

Advocating better and stricter gun regulation doesn't mean you deny gun ownership to an entire class of people...

Isn't that pretty much the text book definition of socialism? lol.  Just check out what's going on in the socialist utopia of Venezuela today for more proof of how socialism always ends.

When you are advocating for barriers to be raised that reduce the availability of weapons to the poor, yet the state and privileged classes still have access to weapons, then yes -- it does exactly that. 

You don't see celebrities and politicians worried about gun control because they have private (or taxpayer funded) security services. Likewise for the upper-middle class who can afford these barriers of entry. 

Nope, that is just what tankies think the definition of socialism is with their delusions of "dictatorship of the proleteritat" which is really just a "dictatorship of the bureaucrat". See the George Orwell quote I provided: 

And remember that George Orwell wrote 1984 and Animal Farm, both pretty damning critiques of state socialism. 

I didn't know gun-regulations had to be based on income instead of, say, mental health and such...

Please do explain how "better and stricter gun regulation" (whatever that means) would have prevented today's shooting WITHOUT stripping or curtailing others of their rights to own guns in any capacity?

This guy was already legally licensed to own firearms in the state of Illinois despite his checkered history, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.  What additional law or laws would have prevented him from obtaining a gun?

Do indicate which Article in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an equivalent to the Second Amendment and then I will openly acknowledge that the Second Amendment is, in fact, a human right.  I'm not seeing one anywhere.  It's like the world has achieved a consensus on the matter and yet still has found ways for the common man to be able to lawfully defend himself.  I guess the Second Amendment isn't a human right, after all.  It's more of a...hmmm...a worthy hypothesis, albeit one disproven by reality.

Why, there are even dozens of countries without such an equivalent in their founding principles and somehow they are doing just fine.  Such as West Korea's Canadian neighbors; they don't even need a giant moat to pull it off like England, Japan and Australia.  The largest undefended border in the world and still managed to grant The People their human rights while avoiding a murder hose infestation.

As you can see, Scotsmen such as I--True or No--are not defending or advocating the deprivation of rights at all.  We are, however, calling out a refuted hypothesis for the debunked hyperbole that it is.  Oh, and criticizing it accordingly.

Gun regulations are already based on mental health in the United States. If you were involuntary institutionalized then you no longer are able to legally own a gun, unless you get a judge to sign off on it. The laws proposed in the United States are intended to limit their distribution amongst people who are deemed undesirable. The long history of gun control in the United States has its roots in racism ("black people shouldn't be able to defend themselves against the KKK, lets enact gun control"), and classism ("that poor redneck *isn't intelligent to own a gun, I don't trust him. ") 

*Note redneck originated as a class label of farmers, and then spread to the American proleteriat after the industrial revolution. It is very much a class-oriented term.