A counter opinion:http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2869272
What I would dispute is that conservatives are opposed to all government involvement in healthcare. At its core, when it comes to healthcare, economic conservatives object to the unintended consequences of third party payor systems (ie if your insurer or government pays for all your bills, it's effectively "free" and the incentive is that you consume more than you need to). Ideologically then it's about personal responsibility and ensuring the incentives are better placed.
When it comes to mental healthcare, and those who need it most fall into the category of those who don't have the capacity for personal responsibility. It's therefore the role of society and government to ensure that those who do have the capacity for personal responsibility have the safety and ability to exercise their rights.
There are some reasonable safeguards for automatic weaponry already - which are restricted. A number of myths however prevail:http://washingtonexaminer.com/tim-carney-media-myths-on-assault-weapons-and-semiautomatic-firearms/article/2516156
Clearly we need better mechanisms to identify those who need help - but barring this, think of the unthinkable and safeguard those of us in society who are most vulnerable - kids. While I think it's a natural reaction to cringe when thinking that more guns are the solution, it's clear that "gun-free" zones don't help and instead only provide a false sense of security - given that the only people following these rules are not going to go on rampages anyway. Meanwhile there are a number of examples of sprees that have been stopped by civilians - given that police cannot nor should they be omnipresent.