A lot of commentary in this thread that cannot be proven until we obtain one or the other.
The fact is, we now have a government that is far larger than it ever should have been, and we cannot deny that the great moments of freedom in this country, have come, and passed.
All men should be completely free, with a government as small as possible to act on behalf of the free people.
I see a ton of commentary about how "people must be controlled", stated mostly as fact, and in a way to substantiate ones belief that we should be "regulated" as a means of order.
Not only does this comment speak leaps and bounds to the mentality of the individual stating it (Yes Beretta and Amlevin, I am indeed addressing you two.), but it is massively prohibitive to true freedom.
We cannot have a discussion about how the government has regulated away our rights, and then turn around and in the same breath say that it is necessary to maintain order.
The correct approach, in my experience, is to migrate from control, but towards personal responsibility.
Our current freedoms have been regulated away by government under the guise of "providing" (Whether it be safety, healthcare, etc.) things for us.
In the end, we all do our for ourselves. Well, most of us do.
Yet those who possess an "entitled" mentality will advocate for more control, and plea their helplessness. They will then succumb to whatever requirements are bestowed upon them. Then the entitled take note of this, and merely accept it as a "fact of life" that there are those who won't do for themselves, so we must do for them. We then create a system of laws, and punishment, for which said people habitually cross into anyways.
Thus you reach with the conflicting ideology that government must be here to create and maintain order, but you advocate against said control when it does not suit you (Firearms restrictions).
To reach liberty and true freedom, our founding fathers understood these concepts so very well. Hence they wanted us to operate with the most minimalistic government approach possible.
The simple presence of firearms as a normalized, habitual social activity, would undoubtedly quell the majority of these "maintained order" issues some seem to think comes from big government. The minimalistic presence of government, and the order maintained by the people, is undoubtedly the best cure for our modern world.
C'est la vie.
In regards to the NICS mental health checks, it is untrue that anyone who suffers from a mental disorder should be denied a firearm.
I am a PTSD diagnosed vet, combat operations confirmed and accounted for by the VA, yet I have no desire to shoot up a mall, and I doubt any of my "symptoms" may turn into anything lethal. At least anything regarding a firearm for sure.
Yet opening a door for limitations of said liberty all truly come down to how much we feel we want to do for ourselves, as individuals.
Were I standing in the crowd in Arizona for example. I may or may not have engaged the individual in question with my firearm depending on where or how I was positioned.
Yet again, we must remind ourselves that if there were hundreds of armed individuals at said incident, openly carrying firearms, it may have tipped this particular individuals tactical sense to something else entirely.
Even the insane must yield to the laws of physics and probability.
Even more glorious a thought, would have been if the representative, or her family, had drawn and killed the perpetrator.
Just some food for thought.