Please define reasonable, MFM. Existing laws in the US already prohibit criminals, the mentally defective and drug addicted people from owning firearms. Intoxicated people can own a gun, but they can't have it with them if they have consumed even a little bit of alcohol. If a person has a restraining order against them they can't legally buy a gun. What other restrictions would you like to see?
As far as machine guns, tanks and that sort of thing go they are legal to own now in most states for those that go through the correct legal processes to obtain them. Legally owned weapons of that sort are practically never used to commit violent crimes. What further restrictions need to be put on those types of things and more importantly why? It has been more than 80 years since a US civilian was convicted of using a legally owned machine gun to commit murder. That tells me the existing laws concerning ownership of these things are doing exactly what they were intended to do, and I fail to see the need to change them. I would however like to hear your reasons to place further restriction on these types of weapons, and how you think it would improve the status quo.
As far as machine guns, tanks and that sort of thing go they are legal to own now in most states for those that go through the correct legal processes to obtain them. Legally owned weapons of that sort are practically never used to commit violent crimes. What further restrictions need to be put on those types of things and more importantly why? It has been more than 80 years since a US civilian was convicted of using a legally owned machine gun to commit murder. That tells me the existing laws concerning ownership of these things are doing exactly what they were intended to do, and I fail to see the need to change them. I would however like to hear your reasons to place further restriction on these types of weapons, and how you think it would improve the status quo.
Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.