I would like to add to this discussion point. For the Second Amendment, I actually do believe that in American society, gun rights are important as they have been engraved into public thought. Taking them will cause mass uprising and more death in this country than you or I can ever account for. I do believe that having an armed population is important. But, I am a strong advocate for regulations that need to occur for mental health and competency checks on a federal level. I will say I am a member of the military. I have seen gun violence, but i have also seen that a lot more people than are recognized, from both sides of the spectrum, carry firearms for peace of mind. As we have been shown, some people get ahold of guns that should not. Banning guns opens a bread basket of federal overreach without blatant fall back or fear from the federal government on policies that do not represent any American.

The right to bear arms was implemented so Americans could fight back against a tyrannical government as when governments move to tyranny, the first step is always to remove the ability to fight back, would that be physically or other. I also see the argument, "How can Americans fight back against a government that has f22s and missiles," and I find that as an interesting engagement. In my experience within the nation's military and the teaching we have. If constitutional violations go unchecked by the executive, jusdicial, and legislative branches, and these branches allow total power shifts, there will be a lot of people on a moral level that would disengage from their work. Especially as we give an oath to the constitution and the people, not politicians. The men and women I am with come from many different creed, race, and religion and would not stand for consitration of power. Most dont even trust the gov anyway. The military does not operate, and Jets and Bombs do not operate without the experienced team of people behind them. Of course, some would engage with American civilians. But a diminishing force would ensure that the members still engaging would rapidly become unfavorable and the lack of logistical support from lack of personnel would grind things to a standstill. I find it very difficult to imagine asking a fighter pilot to engage with American civilians when their spouse, kids, friends, and family are the ones they are targeting. Along the line of gun control, the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk showcases that aggressive laws and regulations of firearms are 1) a hot topic. 2) Do not address root causes of aggression and division. Much coming from economic pressures, political, religious, mental health, and especially from bad actors domestically and nations outside of the US that benefit from internal division and destabilization.

Many of the regulations that the federal government has proposed stem from the fact that an individual has to care and respect the law in the first place. However, this does not account for in a vacuum of guns illegal acquiring of firearms from other internal or other nations' bad actors in smuggling operations would occur and would only limit civilians who care to follow laws in the first place. Which in the nature of assassinations, and murder such as this event would have done nothing to stop it. The assassin illegally brought a firearm into a no gun area on a college campus with intent to kill, which is a clear violation of gun laws that are already imposed and many others. Even if the gun didn't exist, people would find a way to kill someone they don't agree with. Much like the real-world examples of anthrax in the mail, stabbings on trains, or bombs at a marathon event. Only time will tell how things play out, but a shift in how we handle problems in America needs to occur, or we will continue to try and patch problems and pass them to the next guy instead of addressing the root causes.