Full auto weapons have been heavily regulated since 1934's National Firearms Act (NFA).
The media mistakenly cites 'automatic weapons', 'assault rifle' (which according to most definitions is full auto), or use terms like 'ak-47' or 'm-16' which are full auto, when they mean a semi-automatic version of those weapons.
In 1994 President Clinton signed into law the 'Assault Weapons Ban' as part of a larger crime bill. This 'ban' identified a number of weapons by name as 'assault weapons' and set a test for others that consisted mostly of cosmetic features (detachable magazine + 2 of these: barrel shroud, pistol grip, removable flash hider, telescoping / folding stock, bayonet mount, grenade launcher).
The response from gun owners was to snap up all existing 'assault weapons', which caused increased production from manufacturers ahead of the effective date of the ban- in trying to legislate these guns based on appearance, the net result was that they made them _more_ popular. Many gun owners who would not have otherwise shown interest in these weapons purchased them on the premise that they _might_ want one someday.
During the 'ban' years, manufacturers produced 'ban compliant' versions of many of the named weapons, circumventing the intent of the ban- and demand kept pace. Guns in a 'pre-ban' configuration were grandfathered, as were magazines ('clips' in media-speak) of a size prohibited by the ban. There was a premium price on some of these firearms, and others were downright hard to come by at all.
In the 96 and 2000 elections, the 'gun' issue was used to severely beat Dems about the head and shoulders- President Clinton acknowledged this in the '95 state of the union address and his memoirs. Had Gore been able to carry West Virginia and his home state in the 2000 election, we would be in a very different place. Had the '94 ban not happened, would Gore have won? I don't know, but I do know a lot of democrats in TN were pissed about it.
Per a commissioned DoJ study on the effectiveness of the AWB, crime utilizing 'assault weapons' didn't go down appreciably (it was never high to begin with) and when the ban was set to be renewed, it failed to pass in the senate by a 90-8 vote. Since then, there hasn't been an increase in 'assault weapon' crimes. In general, the violent crime rate has been going down since it's peak in the late 80's (if I recall the peak correctly.)
In the intervening years, ownership of these guns previously listed by name or characteristics have increased. A new generation of gun enthusiasts have grown up with these guns being de rigeur for hunting, target shooting, and self-defense. Members here more familiar with the ownership numbers claim they are the most popular center fire rifle sold in the US today.
Cue Senator Obama / Candidate Obama. Illinois is famous for its gun control measures. They have some of the strictest regulations on registration, storage, permits, and even bans. To be a politician in Illinois (especially Chicago Metro) is to have a stake in the gun control game. Obama supported some of the popular gun control measures passed there, which by Chicago standards are tame, but by the rest of the nation (other than New York and California) are seen as pretty draconian.
In San Francisco, Candidate / Senator Obama made the offhand and probably not well thought out remark about clinging to guns and religion. If I recall, it was around the time of the PA primary, and caused quite a kerfuffle. In June, 2008, after the
Heller decision, Candidate / Senator Obama came out saying the following:
"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.
As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."
While a welcome statement from a politician steeped in Chicago gun control rhetoric, it did leave the door open for further regulation without being specific. It included one bit of rhetoric that was a red flag for many in the pro-gun community. 'gun show loophole' has been used by so many of the most polarizing anti-gun groups and politicians that it's taken on the status of a Molotov cocktail (incendiary). (The so-called 'loophole' exists because the federal government can't regulate intra-state sales via the constitution's commerce clause. It's up to states themselves to decide if a property sale between two state residents should be subject to restrictions.)
After the election, gun sales boomed (no pun intended) in the wake of President-Elect Obama's statement on www.change.gov that he wanted to reinstate the '94 Assault Weapons Ban. Further, he wanted to make it permanent.
In January after the inauguration, the statement about renewing the Assault Weapons Ban and making it permanent was copied from change.gov to whitehouse.gov- further fueling folks' worry that a ban would eventually be on the president's agenda.
Things were generally quiet until February when AG Holder, SoS Clinton, DHS Sec Napolitano, and certain congressmen started making noise about the new and improved AWB (with a new tack- it's for Mexico!). Even though the leaders of the house and senate quickly squashed the idea, they seemed to do so very reluctantly- the take-away for many gun owners was / is "Not now. Yah, we still support it, just shut up about it, already!"
In the wake of the recent spate of violence, the perennial gun control advocates- Sen Feinstein (D-CA) and Rep Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) started saber rattling for a new, improved, and permanent Assault Weapons Ban. Having recognized their mistake in creating the '94 ban based on characteristics, gun enthusiasts are worried that any new ban will have more 'teeth'- H.R. 1022 is one such proposed law that thankfully died in committee last year. Not 9 days into the new session, H.R. 45 was introduced, which is a licensing / registration scheme at its core, introduced by an IL Representative. For now, it seems to be stuck in committee as well.
So with pending legislation, contradictory statements from administration officials, and weak distaste for a ban right now- gun enthusiasts feel worried. From all available evidence I wouldn't say it's a lie that President Obama wants to ban some guns, just that he probably has higher priorities, doesn't have the political capital, or doesn't want to spend the political capital in a move that could hand seats back to the repugnicans.
Okay, I did NOT mean for that to be my 'magnum opus'.