What defines "reasonable restrictions"?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

63. um

I'm not sure how a case centering on the constitutionality of a drug statute that mandates assumptions of trafficking relate to the topic at hand.

Even more to the point, as nice as the canadian constitution may be I'm not familiar with it and it *may* not be relevant here seeing as the US consititution has an explicit right to own guns. If the canadian consitution lacked such an expressed right it would not serve the discussion at hand becuase the canadian constitution, obviously, is not the gatekeeper of US rights and laws.

You say you've heard the term several times. Has it never occurred to you to ask the person using it what they mean?

I have and been left unanswered; that is why I have made this more open, public inquiry.

Also, as seems the case, some pro-control advocates take umbrage at being associated with the petitions of other pro-control advocates. If one person favors a total ban and you do not there is no reason you should be saddled by their arguments, nor would I want to argue a point with you or anyone else if in fact we had no cause for argument. If you reject calls for a total ban on private firearm ownership by law-abiding citizens then we need not spill electrons over the issue.

Meanwhile, if you're asking what form of restrictions on firearms access I support (i.e., I suppose, consider "reasonable", you'll find that in several posts of mine dated yesterday, which I'm sure you won't have any difficulty locating. Feel free to reply.

Yeah, I kind of figured that would be the response but truth be told so many of your posts are combative I honestly don't feel like hunting through your posts in other threads. The very posts you are envisioning are conveniently located under the "My Posts" tab of your browser window. If you could copy and paste them in this sub-thread it would be appreciated.