The difference is in the prospective vs. retrospective nature of the ban, and its scope. The '94 federal ban was "tolerable" because it didn't affect existing ownership. Anyone could still get an AR-15, except that he would have to pay a little more for a "pre-ban" model, or settle for a gun that lacked certain features such as a bayonet lug or flash hider. And remember that far fewer people owned such things in the first place. Nevertheless, the ban cost the Democrats control of Congress in the '94 elections.
Today, in Virginia, the antis are pushing this thing to the limit. They would have been smarter to take it one step at a time.
The '94 ban actually seemed like a good strategy
for them. Nobody had these rifles, aside from a small group of competitors and collectors. Nobody much wanted them. Who would defend them? The anti-gunners, smarting from their defeated attempts to ban Saturday Night Specials and restrict handguns, and set up a national registration, could win one.
Flush with their victory, they had a reasonable hope of banning more.
They didn't anticipate they'd fuel a desire. When I ask many of the AR owners why, their answer is often because I still can, which as far as I'm concerned is legitimate. The AR and similar rifles have begun to show up occasionally in crime, where it was rare before. Criminals, it seems, use the media for firearms education.
For my general use, since I'm more likely to pop a squirrel than go to war, I wouldn't trade my low wall 32 WCF for an AR. But I don't kid myself, when the AR becomes illegal, it's only a matter of time before they come for my antique single shot.
It's not that I'm categorically against compromise. It's just that I believe the first compromise, as a show of good faith ought to be a Democratic support of national reciprocity for concealed carry.
