A hunting buddy of mine once told me, “If you give me a gun with fewer bullets, I will be a better shot.” The wisdom in this statement is obvious: having less means you have to more careful with what you do have. Even accepting the anti-gun argument, that new bans & limitations will make it harder for evil-doers with guns to get more bullets (or shoot more bullets), which would result in less carnage, ignores human nature (assuming these murderers are human of course). Would not knowing they have fewer bullets to work with, cause shooters to be more careful with their shots? But I truly digress, as have all of us.
If we could ban the obscenely high magazine capacity (imagine a magazine with unlimited bullets) of public debt, would it not cause Congress, the Senate, and the President to make do with less? If we limited their ability to get their hands on their magic bullets, known as new taxes, would it not cause our government to make do with the ammunition they already have? “Who needs so many bullets!” was a recent cry. I agree!!! Or my favorite, “Why does a hunter need an assault weapon?” Here is a better question, “Why do we let our government assault us every year with the weapons of ever increasing taxes, and gross financial mismanagement?”
New debates, fueled by real crises, will soon take over the imagined one on guns: the debt ceiling, sequestration, and more new taxes. Let us take our collective new thinking about weapons and apply that same logic in the coming months to saving our economy, which is already too week from the mass shootings of $5 Billion in new debt the past four years. Let’s do it for our children, and our children’s children. Give our government fewer bullets to work with.