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

Democrats in the 80s at least were willing to give and take

Now they just want to take my tax dollars and give it to illegal immigrants

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/253329131083661312/687690084560011341/image0.png

And Reagan had more important issues to contend with. Just limiting the AK-47 isn't the same as instituting a full-scale ban on all assault rifles

Reagan was a movie star

not a hunter

it's unrealistic to expect the Chief Exec to be an expert in everything

You're focusing on the one gun he named, not the argument he made

Sir this is a meme channel

Since when does the Federal Gov respect the 10th Ammendment?

Constitutional Argument?

As a rule, the Federal gov dismisses constitutional law

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.