Another 'Gun Control' amendment... here we go again

Good morning everyone, I see that our wonderful 'leaders' up in Washington D.C. are once again at it with the knee jerk reactions, or are they?

(RTTNews) - Exactly a week after a shooter in Colorado killed 12 moviegoers, Democrats in the Senate attached an amendment to the recently passed Cyber Security Act of 2012 to limit purchased of large capacity weapon feeding devices, such as magazines.
S.A. 2575, or the "Large Capacity Magazine Ban," is identical to a separate bill proposed by amendment sponsor Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) that would make it illegal "for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device."
This is defined as "a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition," according to the amendment's language.
Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) introduced the amendment to the Cyber Security Act on Thursday before the act heads to the House of Representatives for debate.
The move comes a week after a shooting rampage at a midnight premier of the Batman movie "The Dark Knight Rises" resulted in the death of 12 Colorado moviegoers. James Holmes, the suspected shooter, obtained his four guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition legally.
Speaking on the Senate floor Thursday, Senator Schumer said the bill was meant to be an answer to "reasonable" calls for gun control, stating it was not his purpose to limit Second Amendment rights.
"We can debate where to draw the line of reasonableness but we might... be able to come to an agreement in the middle where we say, yes, there's a right to bear arms and yes, there can be reasonable limitations on the Second Amendment," Schumer said.
"Maybe, maybe, maybe we can tell those who are at the extremes on the far right and the far left that we disagree with you," Schumer adding, saying, "and maybe, maybe, maybe we could pass some laws that might, might, might stop some of the unnecessary tragedies that have occurred.
"Or, at the very least, when you have someone who was mentally infirmed, like the shooter in Aurora, limit the damage that they are able to do," he added.
The amendment was proposed the same day Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-N.V.) said the schedule was too packed to debate new gun control legislation during this session of Congress.
On Thursday, White House Spokesman Jay Carney made it clear the president was still in support of an assault weapon ban and tougher background checks, but that he wasn't planning to introduce new legislation before the election.  "There is an issue about the stalemate in Congress [on gun control legislation], and there are things that we can do short of legislation and short of gun laws, as the President said, that can reduce violence in our society," Carney told reporters Thursday.
"I know [the president] will continue to press the Department of Justice to try to enhance the enforcement of existing laws, try to further develop our background check system so that it prevents criminals and those who should not have weapons from getting them under existing law."

The ONLY statement in the whole article that makes any sense was at the very last.   "I know [the president] will continue to press the Department of Justice to try to enhance the enforcement of existing laws, try to further develop our background check system so that it prevents criminals and those who should not have weapons from getting them under existing law." 
This is the only thing at this point that the government should be looking at.  We have PLENTY of existing laws on the books that nobody follows.  Just following them might cut down on some of this.

Another thing to consider that I can't help but wonder.  Who in god's name THINKS that criminals follow laws?  Being a criminal is the very act of breaking the law.  Do you honestly think that a criminal is going to reconsider what he is about to do because you make something illegal?  I am a former law enforcement officer so I think I have a pretty good idea to the answer to this question.  I never met a criminal who DIDN'T commit an act because it was illegal.

The ONLY thing these 'gun control' and 'gun ban' laws is disarm the law-abiding public at large, making it EASIER for a criminal to commit the act he wants to commit.  At this point, we still have very little information on the Colorado Killer, because we have to let the justice system run its course.  From the information we have so far, there was NOTHING in his past that would have flagged him for this kind of act.  Something people tend to forget sometimes is that there are just EVIL people in the world that want to do others harm irregardless of how they do it.  If it wasn't weapons, would it have been IED's?  Would we then be banning basic everyday items that can be used in this fashion?

Being a former law enforcement officer I can already see the abuse that this statement can be taken in the above amendment:  This is defined as "a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition," according to the amendment's language.  I can make that argument for the VAST majority of weapons out today.
This knee jerk reaction kind of crap just needs to stop and people need to actually think things through for once.  Yes I know I'm asking for a lot but it would save a lot of headache later.

The only other conclusion I can come up with is that we have leaders in this country that want to find a way to negate the 2nd Amendment as much as they can.  Remember, that amendment was put in place to keep a government from getting out of control, or if it did, the people would have the ability to address the issue.  A disarmed populace is a compliant populace that has no options.