Obama and the left will try to convince Americans that they are only talking about banning AK-47’s or M-16’s when in fact their definition of assault weapons will be so broad that it will include most if not all guns with the exception of revolvers.
The ban, to make any kind of sense (unlike the prior “cosmetics” AWB), will be little other than any semiautomatic with potential capacity over N (5-10) rounds. That will include everything designed for (AR15, Glock) or easily adapted to (SKS) practically unlimited size magazines, and anything with a fixed magazine over N rounds. Setting N to 8 would keep the M1 Garand and Luger and many hunting rifles legal (maintaining the “battle arms are still legal, well a few ancient ones” argument) while eliminating pretty much everything not a bolt/lever action or revolver.
They’ll not ban them outright, for obvious reasons of backlash. A Executive Order will reinterpret the “sporting purpose” clause, and with minimal (if any) effort from Congress the aforementioned semiautomatics will be reclassified as NFA: legal once registered ($200 tax waived) during a limited time, strictly regulated like machineguns thereafter. See the saga of the Street Sweeper as how this will happen. The Left will get their ban while maintaining the “you can still own them” line.
I hesitate to publish this per the “loose lips sink ships” axiom, but they’re not idiots and have skirted this path more than once. Our side needs to get off the “take mine bullets first” mindset and on to realities of viable anti-RKBA politics.
One of the unintended consequences of this approach is ushering tens of millions of gun owners into the NFA realm, with “well if I’m gonna pay a $200 tax I may as well get something interesting like a short barreled rifle with suppressor”.
It’s gonna get ugly. Our side, on the whole, has no idea how it’s gonna get sucker punched. “FMCDH” really misses the reality.