As per usual, you fail to understand what you’re talking about. Someone has probably explained this to you before, so you deliberately fail to understand it, but just in case they haven’t, I’ll give it a go.
The fact that people were able to get around the AWB with cosmetic modifications of their gun was not a “loophole”, because the entire point of the AWB was to ban the look of certain cosmetic features. This gun is the exact same one as this one. Your visceral reaction may be that the second one is somehow more dangerous than the first, but they function in exactly the same way, with the same capabilities.
The AWB does not concern itself with the function or capabilities of the weapons it tries to ban. It tries to ban weapons that look a certain way. They try to define an assault weapon by the things they have compared to more conventional looking rifles, like combinations of bayonette lugs, barrel shrouds, telescoping stocks, etc. They do not attempt to define the weapon by its capabilities, because those weapons have the exact same capabilities of thousands of models (and tens of milliosn of owners) of non-assault weapons that look like more conventional rifles.
So saying that people got around the AWB through loopholes misses the entire point. The AWB bans a guns look, so if you modified them not to look that way, and now you’re okay. What would you do to improve the AWB? Put even more cosmetic features on the list? Ban black guns? Ban guns using polymer stocks? Then people would give their guns wood stocks and paint them lime green and you’d again be saying “loophole!”
The regulation that they want people to think they’re implementing is to ban “machine guns” and other military weapons, and the public is mislead to think that these weapons are like those, since they look the same, but of course those weapons were heavily restricted since 1934 and new production banned in 1986.
The public support for an AWB hinges on the lie that these weapons are somehow more capable and more dangerous than other weapons. They are not. The whole thing is a lie.
Both the fact that you are willing to continue lying to mislead the public, and that you’re focusing on banning guns based on how much you can sway the public with your lies rather than the actual usage of these weapons in homicide and crime indicates that you are not giving a good-faith effort to create laws that serve the greatest public good. Rather, you are trying to pass any law that bans any gun you can, and the public’s ignorance about “assault weapons” makes them politically viable to ban while more conventional looking weapons may not be.