Where to begin? Under the 1994-2004 ban's definition, the rifle illustrating your piece isn't an "assault weapon".
According to Bill Clinton, in his autobiography, the "Gingrich Revolution" owed part of its success to the loss of Democratic seats, as a result of the ban.
Were the ban still in place, Loughner would have had to hop online, google "pre-ban magazine price glock", and find the cheapest source. Or, like Seung-hui Cho, he could have carried two guns and LOTS of 10-round magazines.
Do you actually know what was banned? The law prohibited manufacture of new firearms, with certain cosmetic features. Pre-ban guns were grandfathered. During the ban, new guns made without the cosmetic features sold like hotcakes. It's as if some car-illiterate Congresscritter pushed through a ban on cars with V8s, red paint, spoilers, and chrome wheels. Dealers would start selling blue V8s. Incidentally, the '94-04 ban actually made about as much sense as banning red cars with spoilers. It was a monumentally stupid law.
With the comment, "you don't need a 33-bullet magazine to hunt deer", you demonstrate your ignorance. 80% of the 100-million or so gun owners out there, don't hunt. If they DO hunt, even with so-called "assault weapons", they use 5-round magazines. The 30-rounders are for home defense, target shooting, and so forth. Also, you can't hunt deer with a Glock. Not enough stopping power.
The fact that Obama had that stupid ban in his campaign platform, cause me (and, I suspect, others) to vote for a Republican presidential candidate for the first time in my life. If that idiotic legislation were passed again, expect a winning Palin-Huckabee ticket in 2012, and veto-proof Republican majorities in both houses of Congress for the next ten years.
By Chris McCoy
download this issue
click here to see more »