People that own guns nowadays, almost by default, find themselves involved in politics simply because they own a gun and a large swath of the country considers that act to be at the least worrisome and at the most a dangerous public heath hazard on part with, say heroin. They get involved because they are aware that they are the targets of legislation.
People that don't own guns literally have to do nothing to keep on doing so, and as such are not as involved. They certainly don't feel like they have to join an organization to protect them from mandatory gun-ownership laws or something.
And the assault weapons ban was a dumb idea. It doesn't ban guns, it bans cosmetic or ergonomic features that are present on some guns.
Under the Feinstein 2013 proposal, I can own this AR-15...
But not this one:
Same mechanicals, same magazines, same ammuntion... hell, I should be able to swap every single mechanical part between the two rifles without affecting function or accuracy or reliability.
But one has a protruding pistol grip, and one doesn't. So one would be outlawed, and one wouldn't.
I know her proposal also included a magazine-capacity limit, but that is independent of the definition of "assault weapon".
There are things we can do to reduce violence in our society. Some of it has to do with social policy, some of it has to do with economic policy, and some of it has to do with gun policy. But waging a war against protruding pistol grips (or telescoping stocks, or heat shields for the barrel) isn't one of them.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
