Implying I don't see that as a problem.

and the States let them

So that's your stance?

You support that?

Is that what the glory of Reagan is to you?

Implying that States conceded their rights in the same manner as those who are anti-assault rifle are demanding.

Or are you wrestling with some cognatice dissonance here because I pointed out a flaw in an otherwise solid president?

Given the precedence, their logic isn't wrong. If you allow people to break rules and make exceptions when it suits you, what do you expect?

Do you worship the man, or the good he did?

I'm pointing out your blatent inconstency

Mine?

I don't see any people regularly bitching about the violation of States Rights

Pfft. You're not in my discord.

Yet, you'll try to rest on the Constitutional argument alone when it comes to banning assault rifles?"

You're making MAJOR assumptions.

No, i'd demandig you STATE your assumptions explictly

The Constituional argument is a flimsy one because you are apperhently quite satisfied with the Federal Gov violating it in other areas

I.e. Posse Cumataus for example

Sit down.

You don't know shit about me.

Your ARGUMENT implies this

implications are assumptions

Which argument?

Quote me.

"The difference is irrelevant if you're making a constitutional argument."

I wasn't

you were

Sure

given the constitutional argument simply dismissed on pre-requisite maters, do you not see the connection?

Ex: My state is PA

our state const states: "THe right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED"

You're implying I see no problem with that

now, if the contitutional argument HELD states would be allowed to decide for themselves

but those rules aren't honored

A problem.

So dismissing my original assertion in favor of Consitutional law assumes that the prerequistes still apply