posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:41 AM
All he is doing is fishing for political points.
Here is what the AWB actually did,
The ban also didn’t prohibit the manufacture of any guns entirely, it prohibited making certain ones with their standard complement of external
attachments. Thus, for example, during the ban AR-15s were made with a pistol-like grip, but without a flash suppressor, bayonet mount and, in the
case of carbine models, adjustable-length stock. In practical terms the most significant thing about the ban was that it prohibited the manufacture of
magazines holding more than 10 rounds, the majority of which are standard-equipment for handguns not defined as “assault weapons."
It was a ban on military looking semi-auto rifles with attachments on them. Those are the types of weapons used least often in crimes. You could sell
the weapon, and you could own the weapon. You just couldn't add more than one or two accessories.
Congress didn't extend the AWB because a study mandated by congress found that the firearms were used in only a tiny percentage of attacks before the
ban. Plus, during the AWB the private ownership of the firearms went up about 15%. Yet the murder rate and violent crime rate went down. The study
also showed that magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds where not a factor in most multi victim or multiple shot encounters.
Basically the AWB did nothing. However, certain people like to drag it up from time to time in the hopes of scoring political points.