"You want to take my rights away, take me to court."
Well, it will indeed, and as in the past, the court very well may agree with such legislation. Besides, nobody wants to necessarily take away anyones' rights so much as properly and legally define the exact parameters of what those rights entail and what they specifically exclude. That is what the Courts are for
I have no problem with this guy being upset about the situation, his daughter faced a very threatening circumstance. I can even respect his desire to express his "Second Amendment" rights but again, I will ask to him to also respect my rights and negotiate, compromise, and take a loss. I and many others are asking for 100% universal background checks as a bare minimum here, and a ban on dangerous weapons as an ideal. He gets the guns he has, he gets to by certain kinds of guns fully within his Second Amendment rights. However, the Connecticut Constitution as well as the Federal Constitution say, "Bear arms" and what exactly the word "arms" signifies is debatable. However and quite clearly, it doesn't say, "Bear any and every kind of arms." So there is legal framework to support restriction and regulation, just as the courts at the states and federal level have all affirmed.
"Why is this security not available?"
What, armed police all over the community, including in over 40,000 schools every single day NOT enough security? REALLY? That is a farce.
Again I can respect this man's emotions and the tragedy of the situation, but it doesn't negate the reality of the necessity for compromise. That it is what the word "COMMUNITY" is all about, the communally mutual decisions.