[Little Ray]

The true stupidity is that, assuming you even accept the gun controller’s premises, weapons like “assault weapons” were only used in a tiny percentage of crimes.
The “Assault Weapon Ban” was about putting on a show and conditioning gun owners to accept more restrictions and frop through more hoops - to raise the description on the frog another degree.

[Spirochete]

How Silly Was It?

It was way beyond silly, it was absurd.

[rdcbn]

“Assault weapons” were banned for 10 years.

It has now been almost 8 years since AWB sunset in 1994.

There has been absolutely no increase in crime due to the sunset of the AWB. In fact, crime has decreased since that time.

There was a huge surge in purchases of “Assault Weapons” when Obama took office. Once again, no increase in crime due to the rise in gun ownership.

And people seem to be keeping the guns they bought.

[rdcbn]

“Assault weapons” were banned for 10 years.

It has now been almost 8 years since AWB sunset in 1994.

There has been absolutely no increase in crime due to the sunset of the AWB. In fact, crime has decreased since that time.

There was a huge surge in purchases of “Assault Weapons” when Obama took office. Once again, no increase in crime due to the rise in gun ownership.

And people seem to be keeping the guns they bought.

[ctdonath2]

Note that the “...was not” pic features a full-sized mag which was just as “banned” (to wit, pre-’94 ones were legal) as the “...was” AW.

Not a biggie, as there were a gazillion “pre-ban” ones available.

The 10-round mag limit spawned the “subcompact” and big-bore (a la .50 Beowulf) markets, whole new categories of must-have arms.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

It wasn't silly. It was the standard Liberal tactic of incrementalism.

The list of prohibited arms was intended to grow year after year until they had them all.

They knew what they were doing.

[PapaBear3625]

So if the ten-year ban period did not see a substantial reduction in gun crimes committed with the kind of firearms banned, and the expiration of the law in 2004 did not result in a massive upswing in violence even after these firearms achieved mainstream popularity and acceptance, why would the Obama administration be so strongly in favor of advocating for a renewal of the ban?

It's not about crime. It's about how effective these guns would be in suppressing riots and mob violence against the middle class.

[Chainmail]

The People are the government. Anytime leaders forget that and attempt to disarm us or abrogate any other Constitutional rights, they need to be replaced and imprisoned while we elect new leaders.

Questions? You in the back row, Mr. Soros, do you have any questions?