I was around then, and active.....
And we did the best we could. We almost kept it from happening. But in a way, it was actually a good thing that they did get it past us. Now, more people understand what they need to do to keep it from happening again.
The US was a different place then, in many ways. We had had a highly publicised series of shootings with military lookalike rifles. Legal semi autos, misused by individuals with severe mental problems, possibly aggravated by the prescription medication they were on. Nearly every one of these shooters committed suicide before capture, leaving nothing for the press to focus on but the weapons, which looked exactly like their select fire military versions. The term "assault rifle" was, and is a valid term in the small arms lexicon, with a clear definition, and rifles not meeting ALL of the characteristics are not properly assault rifles.
The anti gun movement coined the term "semi automatic assault weapon" to describe military look alike rifles (such as the semi auto AK and AR) and eventually any firearm with a large magazine and military style features was included in their definition. "Semi automatic assault weapon" is a mouthful, and does not go well in media sound bytes, so the media reporters quickly shortened it to just "assault weapon". Lots of people, including many gun owners who had never been involved or interested in machine guns (which assault rifles are) didn't understand (and never learned) the difference between legal semi autos and actual assault rifles, and since the differences are nearly all inside the guns, they look the same at a glance.
The AWB (which banned no actual assault rifles, only military lookalike semi autos) literally passed by only one vote. And the language of the bill, which restricted many common items, and provided for restriction of many more in the future inflamed gun owners to a level not seen before. For the first time, ordinary gun owners became aware in large numbers that it wasn't just "assault weapons" that these people were after, and that the bill was (as sponsors boldly claimed) a first step. The timing of the AWB was terrible for the gun banners (primarily Democrats)political future. Although they got what they wanted, passage of their bill, upset gun owners had all summer to stew and fume about the dirty deal we got stuck with, and we "remembered in November". Although the Media made much about the Republican Contract with America, it was the angry gun owners voting against gun banning incumbents (of both parties) that changed the balance of power in Congress, and the Democrats (particularly the Clintons) knew it.
We got screwed over then, because we were mostly asleep. The only good thing we did manage was to get a sunset provision included. We have generally been more alert since. Another generation has matured, and found that the things they would like to have were either banned, or made unreasonably expensive. $100 for a spring loaded metal or plastic box that before the law cost $15, didn't make for many happy campers.
And, since the AWB sunset, the predicted massacres haven't happened. There have been some terrible shooting incidents in the years since, but nothing even remotely like what the anti-gunners claimed.
And also, there has been one HUGE change in the US, and that is the effect of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. If there is any good side at all to that event, it is that the majority of the country finally understood that guns in the hands of private citizens (even the dreaded "assault weapons) were not the problem facing America that the gun banners claimed they were. Those fanatics killed thousands of people, and didn't use even a single gun to do it!
That took a lot of the wind from the gun banners sails, and it has taken them years of relative peace in the USA to get back any of their momentum. Countering that has been the more widespread understanding and acceptance of the fact that private citizens have a right to defend themselves, and a right to carry guns to do it. Not everywhere, the traditional bastions of strict gun control continue to hold out (major cities and certain, mostly northeastern states), but a lot of the rst of the country has come to remember that those who protect the people best are the people themselves. CCW laws and castle doctrine laws have been passed many places, codifying in modern legal form the old rights of self defense and carrying arms that were once the unquestioned behavior of our forefathers.
Even the terrible mass shooting at Virginia Tech, where a deranged gunman with a pair of pistols killed more than 30 unarmed students and teachers before killing himself, did not generate the single sided call for more gun conrol that was always the norm in the past. Even the radically biased media had to report that along with the calls for more gun control, there were many calls for allowing arms to be carried, that potential victims might have at least a chance of defending themselves. This admission of the other side of the issue never used to happen in the past, where the only stories that made the news were the one calling for further restrictions on ownership of firearms. Even though the media did not give fully equal time to both side, the fact that they did give some coverage to our side speaks volumes.
All the traditional gun groups still exist, and even prosper, and the Internet has allowed a greater exchange of ideas with ease that ever before. Information can be spread, and opinions organized better and faster than ever before. It is not just those who would opress us that benefit from the "Information Age". If anything, the free flow of ideas and information makes oppression more difficult.
Many of us study history, and even more of us remember the history that has passed in our lifetimes. We remember what we once had, and we want it again! We have proven, in recent memory, that we will only take so much, and no more. And that we will get off our butts and vote when they go too far. Notice that none of the candidates has made an issue of gun control so far in this election cycle. The did have to say something after the VT shootings, but they dropped the issue off the public radar as soon as they could, because they realize that gun control in an election year is a lose/lose issue. Promise more gun control and lose gun owners votes (and likely other conservaties as well), promise less gun control and lose liberal and socialist votes. So they will do their best to keep their mouths shut about gun control, until after the election. They watch out. We have proven tha twe can, and will throw them out of office, for cause. They do remember that. What we need do to this next crop of politicians is ensure that they learn where the line is, so that they cross it at the peril of their career.
One the the costs of Liberty is vigilance, eternally.
