How did they even manage to actually ban “Assault Rifles” back then? How did you guys back then feel about that? Do you miss it? Lol
How was it possible that “Assault Rifle” ban took place back in “94?
- Thread starter Darth-Vang
- Start Date
I remember it well. Kimber 14 round .45acp mags were $115 each. Any Colt AR brought around $2k and the Dept of Justice said after it was over that it didn't lower the violent crime rate any.
@Darth-Vang
Dems had a majority in the house, and 60 seats in the Senate.
Top that with a leftist POTUS (Clinton), and there you have it.
We are fortunate that to get the Dems to line up, the Speaker had to give a 10-year sunset clause.
Otherwise, they would have made it permanent.
And make no mistake, they tried.
Dems had a majority in the house, and 60 seats in the Senate.
Top that with a leftist POTUS (Clinton), and there you have it.
We are fortunate that to get the Dems to line up, the Speaker had to give a 10-year sunset clause.
Otherwise, they would have made it permanent.
And make no mistake, they tried.
Several prominent Republicans crossed the aisle and voted for it. Almost all of them were voted out in the next election. That's why no Republican that is up for reelection will dare vote for any gun control.
They claim it lowered the mass shooting rate and that went up by 3X after the ban was lifted. Now who do you suppose is telling the truth?
Columbine happened under the ban. It won't change a thing, where there's a will, there's a way, and society is far more twisted and broken than it was in the 1990s. Of course, this doesn't matter to the groups that have always wanted gun control.
I remember Glock 17 and 22 mags were probably the most popular at that time, selling for absolutely stupid prices. Well over $100 each. I saw 33rd Glock 18 mags go for damn near $275!
As an LEO, I could still get Glock 22 mags for 20 bucks, but Ithey were marked LE/GOVT USE ONLY. I also had to have a signed letterhead from my chief and I could only purchase 3 at a time.
As an LEO, I could still get Glock 22 mags for 20 bucks, but Ithey were marked LE/GOVT USE ONLY. I also had to have a signed letterhead from my chief and I could only purchase 3 at a time.
The law is pretty vague IMO. It’s states semi auto but not Specifically AR style rifles. It also says private party sales must go through and FFL. Sooo,am I completely reading this wrong in that any high capacity semi auto would go to an FFL for private party sales? That would begin a registry for those weapons. What would the penalty be if not going through an FFL?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1808It also states that they can’t be manufactured. Then it says that one’s that are must have the date on them. If they can’t be made, then why would there be wording about dates?
And serials on mags. Sounds like the groundwork for mags to go through an FFL
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1808It also states that they can’t be manufactured. Then it says that one’s that are must have the date on them. If they can’t be made, then why would there be wording about dates?
And serials on mags. Sounds like the groundwork for mags to go through an FFL
Last edited:
When you vote remember what got Clinton elected, you have a choice, you can vote with your heart or vote with your head.
William F Buckley said, "I’d be for the most right, viable candidate who could win.”
In '92 lot's of conservatives were unhappy with what they had, they split away and voted for Perot, those unhappy conservatives were even more unhappy with what they got.
Clinton won by 6% in the popular vote.
Ross Perot got 18% of the popular vote.
But hey, at least that Bush guy didn't win.
Say hello to the '94 AWB.
William F Buckley said, "I’d be for the most right, viable candidate who could win.”
In '92 lot's of conservatives were unhappy with what they had, they split away and voted for Perot, those unhappy conservatives were even more unhappy with what they got.
Clinton won by 6% in the popular vote.
Ross Perot got 18% of the popular vote.
But hey, at least that Bush guy didn't win.
Say hello to the '94 AWB.
Last edited:
The AWB didn't have any effect on violent crime, but it had the unintended effect of putting far more "assault weapons" on the street after it expired than if it had never been enacted. Before the AWB, ARs and AKs were a niche market. Most "sportsman" firearm owners had no use for or interest in them, and despite what seem like ridiculously cheap prices in retrospect, they didn't sell in large numbers. But it did rile folks up that their right to buy and own a whole category of guns had been stripped away, and, Americans being Americans, being told we can't have something makes us want it more.
So when the ban expired, there was a huge pent up demand from people wanting buy one to give a middle finger to government, as an "investment" they could sell for a big profit the next time a ban was enacted, or just to see what the fuss was about. That created an industry to serve the demand, many folks who bought one "just because they could' soon realized they were fun and handy prompting them to buy more, and every subsequent ban scare has created a new buying frenzy. The net result has been that what were once fringe firearms of interest to only a small percentage of gun owners, now dominate the market.
So when the ban expired, there was a huge pent up demand from people wanting buy one to give a middle finger to government, as an "investment" they could sell for a big profit the next time a ban was enacted, or just to see what the fuss was about. That created an industry to serve the demand, many folks who bought one "just because they could' soon realized they were fun and handy prompting them to buy more, and every subsequent ban scare has created a new buying frenzy. The net result has been that what were once fringe firearms of interest to only a small percentage of gun owners, now dominate the market.
Similar threads
