I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.
I'm so glad I live in the state that I live in. Texas gets a bad rap for the big hats and bigger pride, but while most of the rest of the country has the government tightening its grip around the citizens' throats, Texas is moving in (more or less) the opposite direction.
I think high ammo and gun prices are here to stay as long as the current administration is in power. While there is a legitimate supply constraint on ammo (thanks to that Homeland Security bitch and her boss) and certain AR type guns can't be manufactured fast enough to meet current demand, much of the elevated prices associated with firearms spawns from emotion and fear. Justified? We'll see...
One of the most trademark things I've ever seen was just before Hurricane Ike hit and the mayor and local officials were holding a press conference. In the wake of Katrina, the media was foaming at the mouth to report on the looting and horrible things that were soon to happen in Houston, like they did in New Orleans. One reporter directly asked the mayor how bad he thought the looting would be after the storm. The county judge next to him grabbed the mic and responded with, "Texas doesn't have a looting problem." ...I'll let you read between the lines. Granted, Houston geography and infrastructure was such that the Ike did not create the same lingering isolated environment that Katrina did. Still, the comment pointed to a different mentality than is perhaps present in other places. The reporters in the room about died when he said that. Screw those ********, they're 75% of the problem.
Anyway. I know of a lot of LEO's here that would refuse an order to confiscate arms (both due to the oath they swore to the Constitution and for their own personal safety). In places like this, such a situation would be VERY ugly. Ugly isn't even the right word.
If you use a firearm to commit a crime, no probation, no parole, no good behavior.
If the victim of the criminal is a minor in certain crimes (sex crimes) same thing.
If the crime is simple possession of a firearm, you are still entitled to probation, parole, and good behavior.
And the Dems shut it down? Did they think that last part was "too soft" on gun crime? Or do they support releasing murderers and rapists on probation and parole, only for them to re-offend (usually spectacularly, like the guy in New York who was shooting first responders) so they can use it as an excuse to take our weapons?
And obviously longer prison sentences wouldn't deter gang crime even .001%.
A similar amendment was introduced into the senate and voted down. I was listening to the live feed and heard a response from one of our senate democrats. She said it would be too costly to vote for this amendment. She was speaking specifically about committing a crime with a gun and not being eligible for good behavior etc.
Hearing anyone in Congress complain about how much something costs when each of those scumsuckers is netting at least 170k a year pisses me right off. Especially when these laws might actually "save one life."
Roger Ebert on blaming violence in movies for mass murder:
Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "Wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" No, I said, I wouldn't say that. "But what about 'Basketball Diaries'?" she asked. "Doesn't that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?" The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it's unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.
The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. "Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."
In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy.