No, it didn't. The "ban on assault weapons" banned strictly superficial,
cosmetic features on guns that look like their military counterparts.
Nothing
more. Bayonet lugs and so on do not make a gun any more attractive to a
terrorist than that same gun without a bayonet lug. This is the
fundamental
lie that Kerry is exploiting to make his point. This is central to his
lie.
The rifles that the "ban" involved are functionally identical to hunting
rifles made for
the last century or so, they just "look scary" and public confusion vs.
machine guns is easier when they look like what you see on the evening
news.

Good, accurate stuff, Dave. It's a pleasure to see someone who knows what
they are talking about.

Couple of other minor points:

1. Full autos of any kind have been totally illegal since something like
1934, and will stay that way. Not affected by the ban.
2. Something like 2% of all gun-related crimes involve "long guns" of any
type. Something like .02% involve so-called "assault rifles" Crime, not
affected by the ban.
3. While the new mags being limited to ten rounds was part of the ban, there
was a grandfather clause for all mags already manufactured -- literally
millions of them, so again, not affected by the ban.
4. The entire law was simply bad, ineffective feel-good legislation. That
is why it was allowed to sunset. (not by Bush, either - it wasn't even
brought up for him to sign one way or another)

Now, you can argue all you want about the NRA pressure, the details of the
ban, etc., but most people just have no clue, so they buy into whatever
people tell them. Most people I know don't own a gun, and in fact, are
scared of guns. So to them, anything with the word "gun" and "ban" together
has to be a good thing in their eyes, regardless of whether it does anything
at all, or means anything at all.