It seems like that a lot of people have no idea of what the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban entailed. I know that a lot of new shooters were simply not old enough to remember the 10 year ban.
For those of us who do we are quick to point out that the authors had no idea what they were talking about - like the legislator when asked what a "barrel shroud" is, she said she had no idea. She was a co-author of the bill in question! That's a good way to write and pass legislation.

This was a mainly cosmetic ban of offensive features because they couldn't get what they actually wanted - a ban on semi-autos. Baby steps, they thought. Remember Sen. Feinstein has said in the past that if she could get enough votes to pass, she would pass a bill going door-to-door to collect everyone's guns. 

Since there is a lot of ridiculous conjecture on social media about so-called "assault weapons" I thought I would make this post showing a couple of post-1994 rifles. They are the alleged "assault rifles" AK47 and AR15 that had been "sporterized" to meet the new requirements. A lot of people have been pointing to the AWB as if it was some sort of magical template fix but don't know, of have forgotten, what the original AWB actually did. Or perhaps, supporters just don't care (baby steps, right?)

The pictures are not mine, so of course, I will remove them if asked. Or, if anyone has any of their own pics that I could use - I would be most appreciative! I never had any post-1994 "compliant" rifles.
Big differences? Thumbhole stock, no flash hider (although muzzle breaks were ok), no bayonet lug. Apparently much less deadly. Feel safer?

MAK90 "Sporter" 

AR15 "Sporter"

Someone on Facebook asked me my thoughts on an article where the author surmised that militia, army, and National Guard are the same thing. It's long but I am trying to help people understand from a historical perspective of the 2nd Amendment and the pro-gun side. Here was my response, perhaps you will find it useful as I know social media is ablaze with gun control debates. I find that a lot of people don't know the history around the U.S. and the Bill of Rights and thought it might be useful:

He is actually right about it being against tyranny and not collecting or duck hunting. He is also correct that Scalia never claimed it to be an unlimited right or what is "reasonable." Like always they leave that to local government and lower courts. BUT SCOTUS did determine that handguns are common and could not be banned. Are AR15s the most common rifle, made, sold and shot in the U.S. "common"? Well, there the courts disagree with each other.

What the author gets wrong is that the Founding Fathers chose "militia" on purpose. Militia were controlled locally with no Fed intervention. As for calling it a synonym for "army" he is WAY off base. The standing army (yes there was one) was DISBANDED after the Revolutionary War. The Founding Fathers distrusted a professional standing army.

Let me ask this - Does any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights enumerate rights of the Govt? The Constitution already grants Federal Govt the authority to raise and fund an Army. Why on Earth would they write an Amendment that granted the right of [its own Army] to keep and bear arms? That makes no sense. The 10th Amendment drives home this fact - that these are not Govt rights by reserving any non-enumerated powers to the States.

The National Guard being the militia (remember "of the people") has no basis. The National Guard didn't come into existence until 1903 and under the Dick Act the militia was made up of *2* components - the ORGANIZED militia aka National Guard and the UNORGANIZED militia - THE PEOPLE. To further illustrate this we have the 1939 SCOTUS ruling United States vs Miller which specifically states that the National Guard UNLIKE the Militia can be required to serve overseas.

Now, I did read an article today that talked about the "well regulated" part and lamented the fact that the States (with perhaps the exception of Texas) don't really have programs to train people. Washington's is very bare (http://mil.wa.gov/) but exists. The author was right, it was the intent that everyone participate who was willing and able. There the author surmised was a way to regulate firearms, require training that would still adhere to 2nd Amendment. However, the fact that the States have been lax in training (regulating) doesn't remove the Right. Just because no troops have been quartered lately doesn't mean that it's ok to do it now (3rd Amendment).

Besides the 2nd Amendment doesn't say "as long as the militia is well regulated" or "as long as some people think we need a militia."

Hamilton, Federalist 29: "This force will be further complemented by the "people at large," who can "stand ready with arms to defend their rights and those of their fellow-citizens."

George Mason in the debate on the ratification of the Constitution before the Virginia Assembly: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

There is a lot of rhetoric going on regarding the Orlando Shooting that occurred yesterday.I don't think that I can add much to it, especially since it was just yesterday (didn't we used to take time to mourn prior to politicizing things?) and all of the facts aren't even in yet.

I don't often recommending anything posted by VOX but this is a (surprisingly) decent (honest) article from VOX titled:
Here's what Democrats want to do on gun control after the Orlando shooting

To me this is the most interesting line in the article:

"There aren't exactly policy proposals for Australian-style mandatory buybacks circulating among the progressive pundit class — largely because it's a nonstarter with the current Supreme Court, which has ruled that there is an individual right to own guns (a premise that many liberals still argue with). Instead it's more of an attitude: the sense that there is not actually any such thing as the "responsible gun owner" Trumble talks about, because it is irresponsible to own something so lethal." 

and confirms something that I have long believed about a certain element of the gun control movement - they don't trust anyone with a gun, and that everyone is a potential criminal.

Let that sink in.
Think about that in terms of appeasement on gun control.

Are they going to be happy with just universal background checks? (which the shooter went through)
Are they going to be happy with just mental health checks? (which the shooter went through - he was employed by the largest security company in the world)

And exactly who is on this "watch list" that President Obama has said can be triggered by things such as visiting certain websites? 
And how big is this "watch list" if there is "not actually such thing as the 'responsible gun owner"????

According to the VOX article above the watch list is already has over 700,000 people on it, and once included Senator Ted Kennedy! 

It is the elimination of due process, and the easy targeting and punishment of anyone (or group's) political enemies.
If people can be prevented from travel ad hoc, and Constitutionally protected rights removed - why not put them under gag order too, and silence them?

 -----

This post has not been sanctioned or authorized by the Department of Information.
Any questions should be directed to Mr. George Orwell.

Watch this clip. Like lots of anti-gunners it is full of rhetoric and skewed statistics. 
Have another bottle of Vodka, Chelsea.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-gavin-newsom-chides-nra-talks-hillary-1465522480-htmlstory.html