You said that you have a "US Constitutional right to buy/own an 'assault' styled rifle." Where does the US Constitution give you that right?
That right is enumerated in the 2nd. It is an inherent, inalienable right, incapable of being either taken or 'given', - just violated.
Maybe you meant that you have a "US Constitutionally protected right to buy/own an 'assault' styled rifle"? Well, no, because your state defines the types of arms you may or may not have, not the US Constitution under the second amendment.
That's what you claim, over & over, begging the question in your idiocy.
So, I don't know what the heck you're talking about.
Your mental problems don't interest me paulsen. Call someone who cares.
With respect to militia weapons, the federal militia was constituted in 1792 (if my memory serves), and while the statute has been modified (last in the 1950s), all adult males ages 17-45 are members of the unorganized militia unto this day. If a state could deny its citizens the right to own arms of a type which are suitable for militia (i.e. military) service (e.g. limit ownership to single shot rimfire .22 LR), then the Congress could not call forth the militia as provided in Article I, Section 8 Clause 15. If the states could disarm the citizens then Article II section 2 clause 1 which empowers the President to command the state's militias would be meaningless. No reasonable form of construction for the Constitution can be accepted which makes its provisions (the Constitution's) meaningless. RP asks us to believe an interpretation which would make it possible for a state governor to collude with a foreign power to take over the state and tyranize the citizens (hey kind of sounds like the UN today, huh?).