When you can show that distinction between the two candidates for president in 2008, then I'll withdraw my RINO designation for those who will not support the Republican candidate. BTW, it's interesting that the term is used mostly by the far right who says they won't vote Republican. Crazy, huh?
Incidentally, the latter candidate won very narrowly, proceeded within his first year to force through anti-gun legislation (calling legislators repeatedly back from break until they passed it!), and has since been convicted on corruption charges.
Well, just look at the 109th Congress to see all the sleaze and corruption. But if the 2d Amendment is your main concern, you will be disappointed in all of the candidates who I believe would support reasonable restrictions.
But the main concern of most Americans should be looking for a strong leader who will relentlessly fight the war on terror, and secure the Nation. Kinda leaves Hillary out.
I am unfamiliar with any legal usage of the term "reasonable" that would seem appropriate here. Perhaps you can help me out.
A "reasonable" person is one capable of sound judgment and common sense. If a reasonable person "would not" do something, that means the action would demonstrate a lack of judgment or common sense. If a reasonable person "would" do something, that means failure to do so would likewise demonstrate lack of judgment. If a reasonable person "might" do something, that means that sound judgment could allow either action or inaction.
A "reasonable" belief is one that a person of sound judgment and common sense could hold. A "reasonable doubt" exists when a such a person could believe that an accusation could plausibly be false. In some contexts, "reasonable" restrictions may exist when there are clearly defined parameters specifying both (1) what the restrictions are supposed to accomplish, and (2) what they must avoid. I see no such parameters in the Constitution, though.