Looks like I called this one correctly. Bush continues to say that he'll sign an "assault weapon" ban, while not actually lifting a finger to make it happen. It's a safe straddle.

Please help critique this:

A Mile Wide and an Inch Deep

By Michael Puckett

Despite all of the sound and fury over the gun issue, it seems that understanding of its true political impact has reached an evolutionary plateau. The Anti-Gun Rights crowd trumpets that “Two Thirds of Americans support a ban on Assault Weapons” while the Pro-Second Amendment crowd like to point to the election of a Republican majority in the US House and Senate in 1994 at least partially in response to the passage of the Assault Weapons Ban of the same year. The fact is, both sides are at least partially right but in the final equation, it is better to be victorious than popular. That is the point the supporters of the AWB either fail to grasp or ignore in order to avoid confronting the truth that it is a loosing issue for Democrats.

In spite of all of the media hype surrounding this issue, it is important to understand that this is not an issue that most Americans have given much thought to. If fact, most Americans probably do not understand what a true “Assault Weapon” is (It’s a made-up term to help inflame the argument, there is however, such a thing as an “Assault Rifle” and it was already regulated by the 1936 and 1968 gun control acts.). This educational process is not aided by the media’s uncritical parroting of the talking points of the radical anti-second amendment organizations as well as the generous footage of full automatic weapons fire interspersed inside of news reports regarding the debate. It also does not help when commentators such as Bill O’Reily hysterically bemoan that the sunsetting of the AWB will flood the streets with Grenade Launchers and Bazookas when in fact it addressed neither type of weaponry.
In fact, the main difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and so-called assault rifles are largely cosmetic. The main salient features that these politically incorrect weapons over their civilian hunting brethren is that they tend to be more rugged and more reliable under adverse conditions. Both types still only fire one round per trigger pull in spite of any cosmetic similarities with their military brethren that the Assault Rifle might possess. While some bemoan that ‘Assault Weapons’ possess such features as Flash Suppressors, Folding Stocks and Bayonet Lugs, one has a hard time arguing than any of these features makes the weapon any more suitable for criminal use.
In spite of a few well publicized incidents, actual use of “Assault Weapons” in criminal activities are relatively rare: “Assault weapons are not the weapons of choice among drug dealers, gang members or criminals in general. Assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes. It is estimated that from one to seven percent of all homicides are committed with assault weapons (rifles of any type are involved in three to four percent of all homicides). However a higher percentage are used in police homicides, roughly ten percent. (There has been no consistent trend in this rate from 1978 through 1996.) Between 1992 and 1996 less than 4% of mass murders, committed with guns, involved assault weapons. (Our deadliest mass murders have either involved arson or bombs.)”
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html
So by now you are asking, why is this issue political poison in spite of its apparent (mal-informed) popular support?
The answer is simple. Simply supporting a position is not enough to ensure its dominance. I support the addition of a free candy dish at the receptionist’s station. I will not expend any time or capital to bring that about nor will I give or withhold support based on a politicians stand on the free candy issue. The great majority of Americans, in spite of paying nominal lip service to various gun control schemes are not willing to base their votes on an issue they perceive as trivial and not having any impact on their situation. Economic and national security issues are far more than likely to drive their voting patterns.
Where the gun issue does come into play is at the margins, particularly during elections that are made close by other factors. Simply put, the number of people who will make gun ownership their main if not singular defining issue regarding which candidate they support, vastly outnumbers those who hold the opposite viewpoint. It is by nature far easier to incite someone to action by threatening to remove a physical possession (a firearm) than it is to move someone to action regarding an esoteric, abstract concept.
“Dallas" patriarch Jock Ewing once challenged his son, J.R., demanding: "When are you going to learn a little subtlety?" "Why should I?" J.R. demanded. "Because lack of it turns friends into enemies, and enemies into fanatics." I have yet to witness any such subtlety on the part of the anti-second amendment crowd. Duck Hunting and Skeet Shooting are not going to impress the single issue gun owners. It also doesn’t help candidates who support gun control when they engage in incendiary rhetoric such as “No one needs an AK-47 t deer hunt.” Or “Only a criminal would own an AR-15”. Talk such as this infers that gun owners are either too stupid to understand that the Second Amendment does not broach the issue of hunting or infers they are no better a citizen than a crack dealer if they choose to own an UZI or an AR-15.
As long as Democrats fail to understand the true nature of support and opposition to the assault weapons ban, they will continue to discover this largely inch deep river harbors the occasional fatal pool.

Mike:

Nice job.

Rand:

Bush is a politician? Who knew? :^)

BTW, my first name is Randy, so RandMan does not mean I'm a Rand Simberg groupie. Not that there is anything wrong with that.