Sorry pal, but I too think you are off the mark on this one. I have an autistic son, does that mean the government has a right to determine if I should be able to possess firearms? No.
Plus, such measures rarely stop intended individuals from carrying out their deeds. Like most firearms legislation, it only hampers the law-abiding citizen, a fact that liberals conveniently and continually seem to ignore.
I was just having this discussion with a cop buddy last night (well, after we got done talking about his new duty S&W M&P .40). He isn't a "gun guy," other than his duty weapon he has a small Glock for home defense but he (and every other LEO I know in this great state) is adamantly in favor of armed, law-abiding citizens. He likes the fact that there are individuals like myself who are probably more proficient and train more than he does also out on the street willing to help intervene to save the lives of others. It helps keep society even safer.
No, registration and confiscation are the actions of the Nazis, Soviets and other suppressed societies; there are some risks involved in living in a free and armed society and given that the benefits are far greater I (and most people) am willing to accept them for a better life for all.
As I always say, the answer is not less guns but more. If that were the case in Colorado, Connecticut and other areas where these mass shootings occur, there would at least be a deterrent to them. Disarming people is not going to prevent such tragedies from happening, it will only up the body count...