Mr. Rohrer's logic is, at best, fuzzy-headed. "...The needs of the many outweigh the rights of a few" has never, if one is truly realistic, never successfully worked. It brings to mind the question of what country, be it democratically, dictatorially, or communistically run has/is really and truly run based upon the alleged needs of the many? Every single one is plagued to varying degrees with a "ruling elite" that hand out sops to the county's general populace to keep them from revolting. That, or brutally quashing the "masses" by any and all means available (e.g., guns, starvation, assassination, imprisonment, etc.)
Mr. Rohrer goes on to propose logic involving the First Amendment saying a "throttling back" of it's broadly (and continually expanded) stated right that made me wonder if he's aware that the U.S., like most civilized countries, is a nation of laws that are supposed to do just that. If existing laws are not enforced then what, exactly, are new ones going to accomplish? There are currently any number of examples of laws already being in place and, for various reasons, they are either not enforced (with severe enough punishments?) or ignored by different levels of government as well as the citizenry. Are we going to ban vehicles because people kill other people with them? Money because people lie, cheat, steal, and kill for it? Alcohol? And on and on.
There is no question that the existing laws can use some fine tuning to up the ante on the consequences of accountability but the key word is "existing", isn't it? That said, there have been and probably will always be people that either look upon laws as merely suggestions, things to be ignored, or inconveniences that they are above and therefore do not have to abide by.