Like the others here who live in CA, I'm probably much more familiar with limitations on second amendment rights than the majority of forum members.
I know it's probably not a popular opinion on a gun forum, but I'm all for adding hurdles and restrictions on ownership if it meant that a sane, rational, well-intentioned person would have their full 2nd amendment rights as recognized by most of the non-restrictive states. I'd gladly take a routine psych exam, in-person safety training and tests, deeper background check, etc., if it meant that I could have an AR without a bullet button, no 10-round mag limits, and the right to carry. It'd even be nice if I could add a collapsible stock on my Benelli, or--god forbid--even buy one with
Last night I read a post from someone on CNN who thought the age of ownership should be raised to late 20s, because most psychotic and schizophrenic conditions manifest by then. Of course, by media accounts the CT shooter took his dead mother's guns and used them at the school, so even if she passed such tests, this still would have happened. Again, putting restrictions on people who follow the law does not deter the criminals. Maybe people's ownership rights should be affected if those in their households are diagnosed with mental conditions? I see a million flaws with that, too.
Ultimately I've never heard an argument from the NRA zealots or anti-gun zealots that would address the situation adequately. Confiscation wouldn't work, neither would unbridled availability. I would hope we all recognize the situation now is flawed.
Unfortunately, the status quo sucks for those families in CT. I can't even imagine.