Congress voting on plastic gun ban

[Cee Zee]

I don't think it would be that hard to design a plastic gun that uses black powder and a plastic projectile. It could be a revolver too. That's where revolvers started of course but with metal instead of plastic. Also it could be possible to design a gun that looked absolutely nothing like a gun. Maybe that's what has the grabbers up in arms (or up to grabbing arms I guess). I really doubt they have that much ingenuity among the whole crowd but you never know. Me, I'd love to have a cane gun.

 

[barnbwt]

Ditto on the revolvers; lest we forget that old guns were also "made of materials too weak for firearms" (soft steel, brass, and cast iron, hello!)

A plastic bullet will still ruin your day if it tumbles immediately. But the fretting about weapons going undetected is completely unnecessary. For all the fear and hoopla about airborne terrorism, it's a vanishingly small risk in the scheme of things, especially compared to garden-variety bad guys. And that's completely ignoring the fact that we go about our daily lives surrounded by guns (LEO and CCW) without incident every day (the vast majority, anyway), and also ignoring the fact that guns and other weapons make it onto airplanes anyway.

does anyone really want to go back to the late 60's/early 70's airplane nightmares (read "The Skies Belong to Us")? I am all-in for opposing overreaching legislation, but this one scares even me

I'm uncertain that walling-off an entire subset of emerging manufacturing technology is worth ineffective measures to allay fears of the unknown. There's a special element of mystique when it comes to airplanes and guns; everyone assumes the plane will explode or something if a gun is fired. Mostly because people don't know how either guns or airplanes work. They don't explode from a pin-prick. At worst, a single skin panel (~8" x ~10") will blow out when penetrated and the cabin will rapidly depressurize. There are O2 masks for that, and a clear procedure to drop to safe altitude. The shock of the gunshot and whoever it hits are still the primary actual dangers, as in all shooting incidents. And none of those incidents in years past would have faired well for the hijackers if the passengers were aware --as they are now-- that their skins are on the line and they have an urgent need to defenestrate the unruly customers, guns or no.

TCB

 

[vamo]

My biggest problem with this rubber stamp vote by a supposively progun chamber is not using it to leverage something we want. I know this isn't enough of an issue to re-open to macine gun registry, but a safe passage expansion would not be out of the question. The other side wants to kill the 2nd amendment by 1000 cuts we need to take small victories where they are to be had. They want to ban these non existant impractical and at this point merely theoretical weapons then let them do so, but get something in return.

 

[barnbwt]

We all seem to forget that there is a very real segment of the Republican party that is just as squeamish about gun ownership as the other side. Many of these people hold leadership positions, no less. I wouldn't be surprised if this bill was thought to be a quiet, harmless way to placate them a bit to shore up their support ahead of future dealings with the other parts (i.e. immigration). Or even a quiet, harmless entreaty to the other side for cooperation on future matters. My beef is that I think the "harmless" nature of banning things-yet-to-be is vastly underestimated (the same could be said about the assault weapons ban, honestly, since things like ARs and AKs weren't anywhere near as popular as now)

"They want to ban these non existant impractical and at this point merely theoretical weapons then let them do so, but get something in return."
This law is the equivalent of magic beans when it comes to political currency; how much do you really think we could get in return? The real question, is why trade/give them away in the first place, when there is some slim chance there could unforeseen consequences? I submit that it's because both parties thought they could get away with the ban since it is an obscure issue

TCB

 

[vamo]

This law is the equivalent of magic beans when it comes to political currency; how much do you really think we could get in return? The real question, is why trade/give them away in the first place, when there is some slim chance there could unforeseen consequences? I submit that it's because both parties thought they could get away with the ban since it is an obscure issue

Undetectable guns sound scary as hell to the antis tie something we like to its passage. You're right it can't be anything major, thats why I suggested, expanding safe passages; keeping states like NY from arresting travelers who are legally transporting there weapons like I suggested in my post would be some good low hanging fruit. But it can be literally anything as long as its less scary to the antis than undetectable guns.

This is a war of attrition, we aren't just going to wake up one day and true full auto assault rifles are going to be legal in all 50 states. We have to loosen restrictions at every opportunity, and if that means attaching something real to some meaningless feelgood stuff like this then we should do it.

Not that getting anything out of this has been brought up at all, I am just disappointed by the lack of cajones from our reps.