[neverdem]

I think it got around DeLay because he's throwing the anti-gun nuts a bone that means nothing, but it would sound bad in the traditional media who know very little about guns or technology. The concealed carry legislation in so many states since this bill was originally passed in 1988 makes this nonsense moot.

It's been thirty years since I took college basic physics courses. At the national labs, do you have any idea if they have any usuable practical anti-matter particles bigger than positrons?

[El Gato]

think it got around DeLay because he's throwing the anti-gun nuts a bone that means nothing, but it would sound bad in the traditional media who know very little about guns or technology.

Dream on.

do you have any idea if they have any usuable practical anti-matter particles bigger than positrons?

IIRC, they've made pretty much all the anti-particles. Of course they don't stick around long, and storing anything larger than an anti-proton would be energically problematic, but I think they have stored substantial numbers of anti-protons. (That's harder than storing protons, because all that happens with a proton if your storage containment fails or leaks, is that it grabs an electron and becomes a hydrogen atom. An anti proton anillates a proton and you get a nice big gamma ray.)

[El Gato]

The concealed carry legislation in so many states since this bill was originally passed in 1988 makes this nonsense moot.

Actually it doesn't, it just means you won't be able to conceal your firearm from those with the proper equipment. Of course that would be true with a non-metallic gun as well. Any gun is bound to be fairly dense, and certain types of x-rays (and other stuff) should be able to see it. Heck the x-ray machine at the House office building saw a plastic toy gun...the operator didn't see it right away, but the machine did.