Democrat gun control advocates have, pardon the pun, shot themselves in the foot at the polls many times, by trying to foist dangerous and ineffective gun laws on the American public.  The extremists behind the Democrats never stop, but candidate Democrats usually reign it in when election time approaches.  That’s why it’s completely incomprehensible to me that Republican Senators Hatch and Sensenbrenner would support banning plastic weapons.  Not because the guns don’t exist (though they don’t), but because they surely know that anti-gun extremists have now turned to incrementalism as a way to achieve their goals.  They’ve switched to the ‘give an inch, take a mile’ tactic.  And that could spell disaster for the Second Amendment. 

No gun yet made, except perhaps in James Bond movies, can be composed of only plastic.  The explosion caused in firing a bullet needs iron to send the projectile toward the target.  Plastic would simply goop, or explode in the face of the holder.  But what about the future?  America is full of everyday products people said would never exist.  What if such a weapon were developed?

The ban then would prevent our military and policemen from benefiting from what would be a phenomenal improvement.  Women, who would value the smaller size and weight, would be out of luck.  The probable lower costs, a win for the budget, would not materialize.    

There are people who innocently believe that banning all guns in a society makes that society safer.  But even a cursory look to history shows us entire nations whose subjugation began with removing all means of self-defense from the people.  Such tactics are standard for dictators, despots, Marxists, communists, and socialists.  The United Nations has called for ‘One World, Disarmed’.  Hypocrisy abounds, as Kofi Annan and other liberal elites publicly decry guns, and privately have armed to the teeth protection for themselves. 

England began with ‘just registering’ and progressed to ‘we’re taking’.  Canada and Australia have followed the same path.  And this is exactly the incrementalism that anti-gun zealots are trying to emulate in America.  They’re trying to claw their way in somewhere, even on something that doesn’t exist.      

It is fatiguing to have to repeat so often – if all guns are criminalized, only the criminals will have guns.  But it is quite true.  Areas in America that have concealed carry laws show dramatic decreases in crime – property, as well as personal.  When criminals do not know which citizens have guns, they hesitate to strike.  When criminals know NO law-abiding citizens have guns, they strike in droves.  And if common criminals can do that, imagine what the wrong officials elected to our own government could do.  America could follow in the path of England and other countries.  And then we would no longer be America. 

Hatch and Sensenbrenner are Republicans, and yet they show a naked lack of knowledge of the importance of the Second Amendment.  At a time when our country is beset with terrorism, they are joining the side of the anti-American left.  If Hatch and Sensenbrenner thought they could get away with appealing to both sides, thinking there would be no consequences since the guns don’t exist, they were completely wrong.  And they should remember one thing. 

If environmentalists think plastic takes a long time to go away in the environment, just watch how long it will take this plastic to go away in the minds of Second Amendment supporters. 

Jan Ireland