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

Unless I'm misunderstanding you.

We're talking about Reagan's statements, and modern Democrat statements.

yes, correct.

And how they're copy-pasted.

I am pointing out that it was a different world with different priorities and a different audience

the democratic party of that era was nothing like the democratic party today

at least everyone acknowledge the bigger threat

Let me spell this out then

reagan was politiking

Do you think that a citizen has to justify utilitarian ownership of a firearm to either sporting or home defense?

offering the dems a bone in the moment that simply allowed him to appear both anti-assault rifle and anti-soviet

each audience heard what they wanted

conservs focused on 'soviet gun'; dems on 'assault-rifle'

absolutely

the citizen should have the right and States should have the right per the constitution

He didn't call it an assault rifle.

but SHOULD != IS

the 'IS' requires concessions for gov to function

from both sides

no, he didn't; but the verbage afterwards implied 'assault-rifle'

in truth, that attitude is historically incorrect as in the days of the Civil War, private citizens were owners of cannons and other military grade equip

they were even encouraged to do so

Is an ak47 a machine gun?

technically no

colloquially yes