Illegal Fireworks

[Chuckie]

We haven't had a good debate on this forum for a while. I guess it's time to start one.

First off, I thought that the nearly full page picture of the burnt out house next to the article on illegal fireworks was misleading. A person had to read the article and the caption under the pic to figure out that it was caused by arson.

Now on to the controversial stuff.

Independence day is a day we as Americans celebrate the freedoms fought for, and died for by our founding fathers. Among those freedoms are the bill of rights. We shoot off fireworks to express our celebration of freedom. It is a statement of sorts, and should be proteted by the 1st ammendment. After all they protect porn.

In Colorado, our government has banned us from expressing that freedom with certain types of fireworks. In fact, they would rather us not do it at all. The government stance is this, "Come to our 'government sponsered' display and let us celebrate your freedom for you." In other words, we can't be trusted with the freedom we have and should allow them to take care of it for us.


The counter to this is going to be, "Well, some people aren't responsible and burn other peoples houses down. So, rather than make those individuals lose their rights we should take everyone's." This is a similer argument used by gun control advocates. ( I know, Large, some people have no business with one. Different subject) With freedom comes responsibility. If you exercise your rights as an American you have the obligation to be responsible with them. If you shoot off an explosive and it burns your neighbor's house down, you are responsible. Maybe we should pass a law to make the person who destroyed his neighbor's house to give up his own. Everyone should be held accountable for their actions. If you abuse your rights you lose them. But simply because a few abuse them doesn't mean EVERYONE should lose them.

There is a section of our society that would give up freedom for security. If our founding fathers had that attitude we'd still be a British colony.

Ok there's the 'spark' (pun intended)

let's see what happens.

[Zen Curmudgeon]

We haven't had a good debate on this forum for a while. I guess it's time to start one.
>>snip<<

Now on to the controversial stuff.

Independence day is a day we as Americans celebrate the freedoms fought for, and died for by our founding fathers. Among those freedoms are the bill of rights. We shoot off fireworks to express our celebration of freedom. It is a statement of sorts, and should be proteted by the 1st ammendment. After all they protect porn.You say that as though porn was a "bad thing" :).

Here's the other side of the debate: do your 1st Amendment rights to speech allow you to use such "explosive" means of expression that my property and/or life is at risk? Can you shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre? Is your "right" to expression bounded by your "responsibility" to your fellow citizens? At which point does a nuisance become a danger?

Good topic. I'll read the responses with interest.

Take Care -

ZC

[Hell To Pay]

At which point does a nuisance become a danger?



When you make parole.

[large]

Having a law against anything is possible . . enforcing it is completely another issue . . .

Currently we have more goofy laws to enforce (like the Smoking Ban) than our police can handle. The Anti-smoking elites got their law passed by promising that the Health Dept. would be the enforcing agency . . Hah! No Health dept. employee is gonna get outa bed and march down to a Bar at 1:30AM in the night to issue a summons for smoking in a bar . . . You know that, I know that! . .

So, now, we have a buncha geezers (mostly) saying that the fireworks deal is "out of Control" . . Hmmm, probably is . . . scarin' th' pets . . probably, my dogs were sure as hell hard to find Monday night, but . . Just how the hell are you gonna enforce this one? Like chasing a Will O Wisp . .

Anyone wanting the police and the courts to go after Fireworks violators had best put themselves in the Cop's shoes for just a minute or two first. Talk about impossibilities! We just don't have enough policemen to do that, even if we wanted to. Not to mention that probably over half of the offenders caught would be juveniles . . . .

And as long as they can be bought easily and brought home . . whattayagonnado?

[Chuckie]

Here's the other side of the debate: do your 1st Amendment rights to speech allow you to use such "explosive" means of expression that my property and/or life is at risk? Can you shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre? Is your "right" to expression bounded by your "responsibility" to your fellow citizens? At which point does a nuisance become a danger?




You seem to completely missed a good chunk of my origional post.

I said:

With freedom comes responsibility. If you abuse your freedom you lose your freedom.

I never said it was ok to risk someone else's property, life, etc. If you cause harm to your neighbor, YOU are responsible. Not me, not the government, YOU.

Using you logic we should ban cars. A lot more damage is done in one day with a motor vehicle than fireworks. Let's protect everyone from a few irresponsible people by banning cars. Sounds rediculous, doesn't it?

If you abuse YOUR freedom you should lose YOUR freedom. Not everyone else's.
This idea is not new. This is why we have prisons.

[large]

Well, the City Council seemed to think it needed some time to think it over . . or as Schilling said, "They didn't want it to seem like a "Knee Jerk" reaction" . . .

Would you call it just a "Flash in the Pan"? . . . couldn't resist . . heh, heh . . .