Ban on Plastic Guns Extended 10 Years (By Bush)

[Khephra]

Ban on Plastic Guns Extended 10 Years
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: December 9, 2003


Filed at 9:53 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush quietly signed legislation Tuesday that would extend for 10 years a ban on plastic guns that can be slipped past airport metal detectors or through X-ray machines.

The legislation bans the manufacture, sale or possession of such firearms, but exempts military and intelligence agencies. It renews a ban that was last reauthorized in 1998 and expires this month.

more..........

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Bush-Guns.html

Looks like someone was trying to act under the radar of gun rights supporters on the Right. BAD Bush! tsk,tsk,tsk

[MisterP]

1. Cheney must be displeased by that vote...

(see his history)

[DoNotRefill]

2. I've been a gun nut for years....

and have never, EVER heard of there being a production model of a "plastic gun" that could pass through a metal detector being put out ANYWHERE in the world. And this includes the weird stuff, like the "keychain guns" and "cellphone guns" produced in Bulgaria, along with things like the "rectal gun" of CIA fame (a small tube with a gun inside designed to be carried...well...you know...), the pocketknife gun, the Zippo gun (a .22 concealed in a functional zippo lighter), and lots of other really strange stuff.

Bush might as well have banned "plasma rifles in the 40 watt range"...it sounds good in a movie, but it is simply a figment of somebody's imagination.

[truthisfreedom]

3. glock 7 from diehard movie...

fiction. no porcelain guns either.

[DoNotRefill]

5. From a technical standpoint:

I don't think it's currently possible. Even the most rudimentary gun requires a sizeable spring (either round, like the recoil spring of a semi auto, or flat like the hammer spring in a revolver) of one form or another to function. This is invariably made from high-quality spring steel. There's no other viable alternative out there that would be able to handle the stresses involved.

[kysrsoze]

9. I'm not sure that's true, though I don't know if a plastic gun exis

From a rigidity standpoint, some plastics can be made as hard as metal. There's also got to be some kind of carbon that could be made into a spring. Heck, look what they do with carbon in bikes - solid suspension. Maybe it could be triggered by fluid pressure. I should patent that idea right now.

I wonder whether Bush did it because these things do exist, or just to scare everyone. Notice how they mention "exempts military and intelligence agencies." You really have no idea what black ops is doing and as for defense contractors, the time you typically see a new plane, it's been flying for 10 or 15 years. Think of this year's defense budget alone.

Regardless, there are plastic and ceramic knives. I'd be more afraid of that than boxcutters.

[DoNotRefill]

10. The problem is one of size versus resistance.

Sure, they can make springs out of other materials, but the problem lies in the fact that springs in guns must be extremely strong AND extremely compact.

Making, forming, and tempering spring steel is a pain in the butt, while extruding plastics is a very simple process. From just a cost-cutting perspective, if it were possible to make a powerful spring out of a plastic or polymer, they'd have done it already simply to save cost. They've tried integrating carbon fiber into firearms designs, as a weight saving measure. It simply can't take the abuse that metal can. Prime examples of this are the Daewoo K-1 series, the Carbon-15 pistol, and the prototype AR-10, which was refined into the M-16/AR-15 series of rifles. The results were completely unsatisfactory, with the result that the firearms became prone to catastrophic failure (split receivers for the Daewoo and Carbon-15, ruptured barrels for the AR-10). Same deal with polymer. The Glock has a largely polymer frame. Yet in order to get them to function, they had to implant metal rails into the frame to keep the slide from destroying the frame in short order. The fact that the frame is mostly polymer doesn't negate the fact that the actual contact points between frame and slide must be metal.

You have to remember that firearms basically must be able to contain and directionalize an explosion in order to function. The stresses involved are simply too much for alternate materials to deal with, at least at this point. 20 years into the future, this may change.

[EV1Ltimm]

4. ownership of plastic firearms is a necessary part of our democracy.

this is an outrage!

</sarcasm>

[DoNotRefill]

6. In that case we're in deep trouble...

since there's no such thing as a plastic gun. It's a pipe dream.

[EV1Ltimm]

7. aww, man. i've been living a lie.

[goforit]

8. I guess Toy's R Us is just gonna have to take a loss!!!

LOL!!!!

No more squirt guns allow!!!
Only AK47's

(I know...only kidding)

[Nile]

11. Who would want a plastic gun anyway...

besides somebody that had plans of sneaking into someplace that guns are not allowed.

[Dolomite]

14. "Why would anybody need a gun made out of plastic anyway?"

This point was brought up over and over again back in the mid-80’s when the Glocks started to come into the country. There was so many urban legends floating around about how these pistols were "invisible” to metal detectors and x-ray machines that the ATF was getting ready to ban their importation.

The reasons to use polymers to make a gun are basically the same as the ones that they use to justify the use of plastics to manufacture toasters, boats, and cars. It’s cheaper and easier to work with. These days there are more and more plastic parts showing up in new and old designs alike - and there's no end in sight.

Then there’s the weight factor – probably the biggest reason Glocks now sit in the holsters of more than 2/3rds of this country’s law enforcement officers is because the gun weighs less fully loaded than most guns weigh empty. Most of us don’t have to wear a 12 pound duty belt all day every day – but I can imagine the opportunity to shave off a pound or two here and there would be most welcome.

This is pretty much a meaningless ban but gives Bush a chance to say, "Hey everybody, look at this gun control legislation we just signed, heh!" And that's it...

[KaraokeKarlton]

12. This is beautiful! Now if Dean wins the nomination

the NRA vote will go to Dean instead of Bush. It doesn't matter if this action limits any gun ownership at all...gun rights activists will be pissed off at Bush and thanks to Dean's common sense approach towards guns, he's going to get that vote. Every vote the Democrat can take away from Bush, for whatever reason, is good for the country!

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

13. Here's one problem

A lot of gun owners will see things along party lines.

Republicans - Banned a non-existant gun
Democrats - Banned a lot of existing guns, and some are chomping at the bit for more

If you are a single issue gun owner, who do you vote for? Hopefully, single issue voters will at least give Dean some credit for wanting to stay away from gun control and let the states handle it themselves. To say nothing of his being a better man than *.

[DoNotRefill]

15. But a lot will not.

There are a lot of gun owners who aren't fond of the Bushes. Remember the 1989 EO signed by Poppy?

Give moderate gun owners a pro-gun progressive choice like Dean, and they'll vote our way.