but I am surprised I have to explain it here, but I will explain it to you. I am very well versed on this subject. As a teaser I will tell you that the so called Assault Weapons Ban did NOTHING to reduce crime, it was crafted by people who would not know an assault weapon from a curling iron, and it was a terrible infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

You say it was no big deal, just ask Bill Clinton how big a deal it was, he said it lost him the Congress in ’94 and he said it during the State of the Union. The ban is long gone now with no ill effects. For Coats to support a worthless bill and backstab law abiding citizens shows his lack of mettle and his complete misunderstanding of firearms and individual rights. When you start throwing the nuclear missile argument around I think I am at Daily Kos.

BTW, the deep South is the worst on gun rights of all the Republican areas. Give me a Virginia, West Virginia, Florida, and the West over the Carolinas, Georgia, MS, AL, and LA any day when it comes to gun rights. And if you want to know why this is, the key word is “Jim Crow”

in detail since the ban is no longer in place. I will do a little FAQ that might give you and others some more info on the ban which could possibly change a few minds on whether it infringed on 2A rights or not.

Q: Why does anyone need a machine gun that “sprays” bullets?
A: The Clinton Gun Ban (AWB) in fact specifically did NOT ban machine guns, it banned semi-autos that looked “scary” and production and sale of magazines that held more than ten rounds.

Ironically, fully automatic weapons were not affected at all. These types of weapons are covered under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and can be purchased with a $200 tax stamp and background check.

So the AWB banned scary looking semi-autos and did NOT ban full autos, does that make sense?

Q: Who needs a semi automatic assault weapon?
A: The semi-auto weapons that were banned had the same semi-auto action (you must pull the trigger every time to fire a round) as non – banned hunting rifles and shotguns that were not banned and have been used by civilians for 60 or 70 years.

Q: So why were some semi-auto rifles banned and others not banned?
A: The liberals in Congress who decided which guns were banned had their own criteria for what made a rifle an “assault weapon” The main criteria was if the rifle looked scary. No one cared about how the weapon functioned, they only cared if the weapon had a scary appearance. Some of the things that got the guns banned were scary black colors, flash suppressors, and bayonet lugs.

Think about that last one. A rifle was banned because it had a lug where you could attach a bayonet! When was the last time you saw criminals in a bayonet charge?

Q: Why would anyone need a pistol that had a magazine that held more than 10 rounds?
A: What right did Janet Reno and Bill Clinton have to decide Americans had a right to have ten round magazines and not 11 round magazines? What do the words “shall not be infringed” mean to you?

Q: But all we want is to save lives, guns kill
A: yeah people have been killed by gunfire. The majority of murders in the USA are committed with .22 caliber pistols. And so called military style assault weapons are involved in less than 1 percent of gun crimes.

Q: But, but, where does this stop, by your logic people could own tanks and nuclear weapons right?

A: Well I believe more than a few people do own tanks but not the shells to blast away a bank. I think it is pretty obvious what the Founders meant when they said we had the right to own “arms”, these are firearms. All you have to look at is the arms Americans legally owned at the time. These were the same types of rifles and pistols used by the military. The Founders believed in militias that could fight wars, so the men needed arms to fight other armies with. I don’t think many people in America owned large cannons and Man of War battleships.

it is the money the NRA would put into the race if it had a friend running. Now if they oppose him, which is not likely, they could easily finish him off because even a lot of Dems in Indiana cling to their guns.

it is just the reality. Dan Coats needs the support of the NRA. The NRA is in many ways an inside the beltway organization, they are not the Tea Party. What I mean by this is they realize the political ramifications of their actions very well.

I did not say that the NRA will go after Coats, I said I doubt that will happen. But it is Coat’s job to court the NRA and gun owners if he wants their money to help him.

no acceptable bans. We will give no more ground, ever.