I am not suggesting radical rewriting of the nation's gun laws nor an erasure of the 2nd Amendment, but surely reasonable people can agree that the assault rifles used by both the Orlando and Sandy Hook shooters (to mention only two) should be harder to get. Does this violate liberty? Yes. But even that great defender of liberty, Adam Smith, was okay with doing that under certain circumstances. As Smith wrote in Book II of the Wealth of Nations, "those exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments, of the most free as well as of the most despotical. The obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed."
If we can, with Smith's endorsement, require private businesses to build fire walls to stop the spread of a fire, surely we can figure out sensible regulations on military-style weaponry in one modest effort to to slow the spread of mass murder.