"Reasonable" Restrictions
They have a thing called a "sterile environment" where
everyone who enters is screened. Everyone. Except certain special exempt people (like the guards, the judge, and so on) who are supposed to be -- by definition -- trustworthy.
In an environment like that, a courtroom for example, where a murder trial is underway, it would be reasonable to restrict the carry and use of weapons. The family of the victim can be so emotionally distraught that they want to administer justice personally, and that's simply not on. The friends and family of the accused may want to take advantage of the venue to break their guy out, and that also is not on. So we hire some guys, subject them to absurd background checks, appoint them as guards, and we allow them to carry and we allow the judge to carry (had a customer who was a criminal court judge, and he'd actually been attacked in his own courtroom).
Now,
THAT is a so-called "sterile" environment. Within the bounds of what's physically possible, all access to the venue is controlled. Nobody but the bailiff, the guards, and the judge can be armed. It's their show, and it's a completely controlled environment.
Now, I would say that it is, in fact, reasonable to restrict access to weapons in that venue.
That, in my eyes, is a "reasonable" restriction.
Now, outside that sterile venue? It's no longer controlled. The safety that can be "practically" guaranteed
inside the venue cannot be guaranteed at all outside. So outside, on the street, in the mall, at the movies, at your place of business or work, in your car, at a restaurant, in your home, hiking in the woods, and so on: the safety and security of your person and of your family is entirely your job, so it makes no sense to have restrictions on access to weapons there.
Schools are not a "sterile" environment. Hospitals are not a "sterile" environment. Museums are not a "sterile" environment.
I'm of two minds about being armed in the seat of the legislature . . .
The point is, when someone proposes to disarm you, they assume responsibility for your safety. If they can't -- or won't -- ensure your safety, they have no business at all trying to disarm you.
The primary objective of "gun control" is disarmament.
The people who intend disarmament dare not say it that way, as it will gain them unwanted attention and wrath.
So, with disarmament in mind, what's the best way to "sell" the idea to an unsuspecting populace?
Pretend it's about fighting crime. Everyone hates crime, right?
So, gradually (and with care, 'cuz we don't want to wake anyone) we stress again and again how crime and guns are "inextricably" tied together, and how guns are used by criminals, and how guns cause death, and how -- at long last --
guns are crime.
And, since
guns are crime, it only "makes sense" to regulate them, right?
Everyone hates crime, right?
And, eventually, if we just keep at it, and use our control of the school curricula as an I.V. drip into the minds of our students, we can get to the point where "guns are bad" and the Second Amendment is a "constitutional error" that must be corrected with laws controlling guns (guns are bad, m'kay?) -- alternatively that the Second Amendment is "obsolete" as we are "much more civilized" nowadays, and it really should go away now that we have "other ways" to protect us from bad people.
I am reminded of the Chancellor -- one of the Skeksis in
The Dark Crystal -- pleading his case to the Gelflings that he wants to "make peace." There's probably a YouTube of that scene that will convey the "feel" of it.
In the context of gun control, "reasonable" means simply "reasons I think I can get you to accept and believe." Not
real or
true reasons, just
plausible reasons.
If I can get you to believe them, it doesn't matter if they're true.
And once I have you disarmed, it doesn't matter
what you believe.