A Washington Post column calling for the renewal of a federal “assault weapons” ban makes it clear the reporter is unaware that “assault weapons” were legal to purchase, own, and use while the ban was in place.
The era of the “assault weapons” ban is often presented as the good ol’ days for Democrats. The years were 1994-2004, the early part of which occurred when a Democrat-run Congress could pass gun control with the assurance that President Bill Clinton (D) would sign it into law. And just hours after the heinous attack on Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, various Democrats, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein, pushed to bring back the “assault weapons” ban once more.
On February 15 the push was joined by Washington Post reporter Christopher Ingraham, who writes that “easy-to-obtain assault weapons … [were] once banned under U.S. law.” And he quoted University of Massachusetts professor Louis Klaveras to assure us that we “would see drastic reductions in … gun massacres” if the ban were put back in place.
Later in the article, after stressing that the “assault weapons” ban covered “high capacity” magazines too, Ingraham wrote, “The killers in recent incidents like Las Vegas, Orlando and Sutherland Springs were each able to walk into a gun shop in the days and months before their attacks, and legally purchase their assault weapons and magazines after passing a standard background check. Under an assault weapons ban, that wouldn’t be possible.” – READ MORE
[give_form id=”79809″]