"And now it's gotten to where the streets are eerily quiet in our neighborhood on the 4th of July."

You must not live in Silver Creek. It ain't eerily quiet, and the lovely (not) sound of illegal fireworks goes on for days prior to and following Independence Day, at all hours.

Frankly, it's the folks who do that--who won't follow the rules, and burn down houses, and injure themselves or their neighbors, or at the very least annoy those of us who are trying to do something unusual at 2:30 in the morning, like, you know, sleep--that wind up getting these laws passed.

"...some fool used some fertilizer and some motor oil to blow up a building in Oklahoma City."

And yet, that fool called himself...a patriot...who was protesting his supposedly-usurped rights and a corrupt government.

I've already seen my first illegal skyburst firework.  Two days ago.

Yeah, screw the kids who lose their fingers and eyes. Screw the neighbor's house that caught fire. My way of dealing with these Nazis is to shoot my glock randomly in the air ala Saddam. But then I'm a responsible rocket launcher, just like everyone else in Kern County. There are no people here that would use illegal fireworks without regard for safety. My right to go "Ooooooooooo" far outweighs the damage I might do.

RF..ditto.  I was out in the front yard with the pooch and heard the boom before I saw the burst.    Oh how I dread these few days.

For those who still think we need personal fireworks I say ...Your liberty tromps all over mine.  So whose liberty do we embrace?

I just want to keep my shake roof intact until I can replace it next month.

.

Of course, if the insurance could pay for it....

It's a sad statement that when I asked a friend what he was doing for the holiday, he mentioned in passing that he was going out of town and then stressed out about if his house would burn down while he was gone due to the illegal fireworks.

As it says in the post, Liberty and Responsibility go hand in hand.  If someone causes harm, particularly by recklessness, then a price must be payed. 

Unless someone is causing you relatively direct harm, their rights generaly should be respected. 

You cannot have the "right" to not be offended in a free society.   

nooneisabovethelaw

        & nbsp;       &n bsp;        People can call things just about anything they want, but its the actions which occur that matter.  Killing innocents, particularly children, is not an act of patriotism for any type of just society. 

Killing innocents, particularly children, is not an act of patriotism for any type of just society. 

Unless they're brown and don't speak English, and live in a foreign country.

While I personally don't really care about the fireworks one way or the other I absolutely respect the underlying theme of her dissertation and couldn't agree more. We ARE losing rights and liberty under the guise of protecting ourselves from ourselves.

 Sad to say in our modern society about the only right we have left is the one guaranteeing we WILL be offended:

From the knuckle-heads blasting their car stereos at 2:00AM and waking up whole neighborhoods to punks scrawling graffiti on our property,  the right guaranteeing we will be offended trumps all others and I defy you to get any governmental agency to do anything about it.

My point was not that despite the inherent dangers of using small-scale explosives I don't oppose fireworks, either. Some fireworks have been banned due to the danger, not only of physical harm to individuals, but also due to risk of fire. I don't believe for one minute that most people using fireworks (illegally) mean any harm to anyone.

But...and here's the rub: you wrote, "Unless someone is causing you relatively direct harm, their rights generaly should be respected." Being awakened out of a sound sleep regularly for a couple of nights every July is a direct violation of my rights. I oppose the morons who have loud parties with obnoxious music blaring at 2 a.m. in my neighborhood too. I don't mind them having a good time, but for crying out loud, be real: end the party at 11 or so. When I can hear the sturdy "thump thump" of music and fireworks inside my house, with the windows closed and the air conditioner running, at 2 a.m., we've got a problem.

Why should I be punished for someone else's failure to be responsible?

Curt, do you really expect the government to do something about an idiot driving with his 2-12" subs cranked at full blast by your house at 2am? By the time you hang up the phone, they are long gone. They can do something about the grafitti ... paint over it. Of course that would take tax money, and we have a lot of people in this town that are very anti-tax. Nothing is free, especially social services like Police.

If I haven't learned anything in my considerable years, I've learned that the term "rights" is subjective. 

The thumpers paid a hefty amount for their stereo equipment right?  (no pun intended)  But you have to get up and go to work and need your sleep, right? 

You paid a bundle for those fireworks right?   I hate the smell, the smoke, the noise, and the trash left behind, right?

With all those "rights" someones "rights" are NOT going to be met.

Now, do you want to get into the smoking issue, the fireplace burning issue, or any of the other gazillion things where rights conflict?

If I'm really responsible, can I set off a small nuclear device? Just asking. I got one cheap on my vacation to North Korea last year.

There is a broad gray area where someones right to do something conflicts with someone else's right not to be affected by it.  There is no "right" answer, everyone loses something in these situations. 

Making loud noises late at night, whether by construction, speaker, or explosive,  is generally illegal.  There are some (I think) reasonable exceptions for some situations/holidays of course.  Practically, the legal response must be measured to how great the annoyance is.  Someone driving through with a loud  stereo is of lesser importance than a raging party in a residential neighborhood.   More transitory situations (the car driving by 1 time or the party going on a bit too late) are balanced by the ease and likelihood of the authorities noticing.  If the annoyance is significant, it's much more likely that the offenders will be caught.  This is fairly just. 

What is not just is banning such activities because a small % are abusive.  There are few items or activities which would not "need" to be banned using this logic.  Remember, very few people are killed by fireworks and has anyone been killed by "safe and sane" ones? (the guy who died a few years ago was not killed by fireworks by any meaningful definition.  Taking gunpowder and igniting it in a metal containers is not safe or sane & still only caused a freak accident).  Many other more acceptable activities are far more dangerous, but are not in the public/ political hot seat right now. 

Consider that most of the arguments used against fireworks apply far more to guns and cars (of course many want them banned as well).   Is it really ok to ban something that is relatively safe when used properly because some idiots &/or criminals are misusing them, even if you don't like the activity or are even sometimes annoyed by it?. 

Anti -- Only outside city limits and, for God's sake, do it before 2 am

Curtdalton

        & nbsp;       &n bsp;      Exactly!  The specifics of fireworks regulations are of far less importance then the principals invoked.  But, in all seriousness, if losing a freedom used on the 4th of July doesn't provoke outrage, what has a chance to?

 nooneisabovethelaw

Why should I be punished for someone else's failure to be responsible?

        & nbsp;       &n bsp;       &nb sp;       &nbs p;    Is it fair to punish all of the people who are reasonably responsible? 

 antiextremism

If I'm really responsible, can I set off a small nuclear device? Just asking. I got one cheap on my vacation to North Korea last year.

        & nbsp;       &n bsp;       &nb sp;       &nbs p;      Can you name a situation were you're going to responsibly detonate a small nuclear device?  I mean if you're going to hit the Alien Queen's Hive why not, but other than that.....

If water resources are stretched to the max, and the air we breathe is polluted to the max,  explain to me why any fireworks are a good idea?  The argument that the individual's rights are being stripped and illegal fireworks bans are the work of tyrants quashing liberty and freedom are preposterous. You have the right to free speech in this country. You do not have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. It is a public health and safety issue. If you want to blow up incendiary devices you might want to think about enlisting in the armed services. The military has plenty of places where you can hone your skills.

 NancyII

If I haven't learned anything in my considerable years, I've learned that the term "rights" is subjective. 

...

With all those "rights" someones "rights" are NOT going to be met.

Now, do you want to get into the smoking issue, the fireplace burning issue, or any of the other gazillion things where rights conflict?

I think there are 2 classes of "rights", those that have no real effect on others (when the action is done properly), and those that do.  If the "right" cannot be shown to be causing fairly direct and significant harm to others, I think it should be defended aggressively.  This does not mean that reasonable regulations cannot be put in place (ie no shooting balls of fire where they will likely hit homes or dry vegetation), but it needs to be shown that actual harm is likely to occur. (Is it really that hard to show real harm?)

When rights conflict then government regulation is probably going to be needed and in the end no one is likely to be happy. 

What I think you need to do is first ask if its the responsible form of the activity that's the problem (if its not than enforcement is the issue). 

If it is the problem then you need to ask if the effect on you is really so great that its worth making and enforcing a law that can put people who would otherwise be good citizens in jail.  Because that's what you're asking for. 

adampayne

If water resources are stretched to the max, and the air we breathe is polluted to the max,  explain to me why any fireworks are a good idea? 

...

It is a public health and safety issue.

It's fairly simple at the general level.  How dangerous are fireworks (used in a reasonable manner)?  How many people have died from (properly) using fireworks?  How many die everyday from car accidents?  If you ban fireworks using this argument, why won't you ban the thousands of things which are far more dangerous than them (swimming pools anyone?) 

Nope..not asking for jail time.  And I've always maintained that laws are, or should be, for the greater good, and not for an individuals rights but I catch hell when I disagree with people about rights. 

I don't know where you came from, if you've been lurking and not posting, or if you're another regular coming in under a new name but we've battled this issue for as long as I've been on the blogs.  All the things I mentioned have been debated here and completely disagreed on by the bloggers.  It's nothing new.  What this is, is a sounding board where anyone can voice their opinion.  We're not enacting laws, we're just talking about them.  With winter will come the fireplace debate.  There's always something to debate.

You mention putting good citizens in jail...do you have any idea how many people are shooting off illegal fireworks while also shooting off legal ones?  And furthermore, who decided which were safe and which were not?  Which were legal in CA and which were not even though they're legal in another state?

Whose rights are we talking about here?

 NancyII

Nope..not asking for jail time. 

...

I don't know where you came from, if you've been lurking and not posting, or if you're another regular coming in under a new name but we've battled this issue for as long as I've been on the blogs. 

The thing about "banning" things is that you really are talking about jailing people.  Yes, most people won't go to jail and many will simply stop doing the action, but at its core you are advocating using the governments (blunt) force to enforce your will.  Now this can be very legitimate, particularly in situations where you are being directly affected, but it's very easy to forget what is set in motion when the government is empowered to take action, and even easier to be unaware of the secondary effects.  I think you (meaning the generic you BTW) need to carefully consider if the offensive action you want stopped is really worth the cost, not just to you (the individual you), but society in general.  Are fireworks really that important?  Probably not.  Is the principle of limited government important?  Vital, I think.  And as T. Jefferson often noted, rights have a tendency to erode (generally slowly) over time, not be strengthened.  Baby steps can eventually get you over the cliff, why take them if they're not really necessary?

As to the number of people using legal and illegal, that's kind of my point.  Lots of people will continue to exercise even this small right, even if its illegal.  Is it worth turning them into criminals even if they are not causing fires ect? 

I have been lurking for a bit and just now got around to posting.  I have been a little vocal in some other forums.  I don't expect to settle anything, and in fact I'm usually surprised to see a rational exchange of ideas even.  I do hope to have at least a few people go "I hadn't thought about that", maybe even myself!

Practically I suppose I would like to see the facts of the arguments, pro & con, presented. 

With that in mine, what specifically do you think is so bad about fireworks (responsibly used of course) that justifies using the force of government to prohibit them?

Nahhh Reason, I prefer to use Predators(preferably female).....and not the kind looking for Osama. ;)

Only the really bored or hopelessly addicted will continue to use fireworks if they are totally banned. I am guessing the smoke from all the fires surrounding this valley does not bother you much. I am also guessing two straight years of the smallest water amounts on record in this area doesn't cause you to think about really trying to conserve our most valuable life source. It probably doesn't bother you that our tax dollars go to man up to the max on this holiday both the fire and police departments because so many today violate the "responsible" parameters of the law and jeopardize property and life. No one will convince you, because your freedom to ignite fuses and blow up things is paramount. You epitomize the rule of self interest only in this country, where if it is good for me then it should be good for everyone. Ask the person at the theater the next time you go if his yapping loudly on a cel-phone while the movie plays is good for everyone.

 antiextremism

Nahhh Reason, I prefer to use Predators(preferably female).....and not the kind looking for Osama. ;)

Hey, (non winged) Predators carry unlicensed nuclear power/destruct packs.  And they responsibly used them to "clear cut" part of a jungle.  And I won't bring up the letting Arnold get away while taking out Jesse/ who's the better Governor debate.  Umm, more than once.

My thoughts exactly Adam. If only the illegal fireworks didn't cause asthma to flare up, burnt down houses, firemen getting hurt, blown off fingers, eye injuries, freaked out animals, etc. I wouldn't have a problem with it. I like things that go boom as well as the next guy, but not that much.

Besides, isn't this the 21st century?  Shouldn't we have elaborate laser light shows by now instead?

Oooops. Never mind. Then their might be blinded eyes, re-routed aircraft, and downed communication satelites.

Sigggghhhh. I think I'll stay inside and watch 'em on the telly. That makes it much more difficult for a .22 caliber slug to hit my noggin'.

Happy 4th Everyone!

LOL. That's right Reason, two govanuhs in one movie, I almost forgot.

As for the nuclear packs......

"License, we don't need no steeenking licence, just like Batman don't need no steeenking badge"

We in Tehachapi just lost our most beloved downtown historical landmark due to a couple of selfish morons and their insistence that their right to set off illegal fireworks should not be infringed upon. I agree that our rights as citizens are continually shrinking because of government interference. However, no one has ever had the right to put others in jeopardy with their actions. Illegal fireworks are not only dangerous to those who use them, but to everyone in their vicinity at the time. There is no way for amateurs to predict where those pretty fires will land; even pros have trouble at times. Mother Nature sees to that. I see no difference between a ban on amateur fireworks and the law against discharging firearms within city limits.

 adampayne

...

I am also guessing two straight years of the smallest water amounts on record in this area doesn't cause you to think about really trying to conserve our most valuable life source.

...

You epitomize the rule of self interest only in this country, where if it is good for me then it should be good for everyone.

Well I'm glad you're not bitter! 

Now, even granting that "Only the really bored or hopelessly addicted will continue to use fireworks if they are totally banned.", do you really think that banning fireworks is worth turning them into criminals? 

Asto the water issue, not to get too off topic, but our low supply of water is due to politicians prioritizing infrastructure (like road, canals, and police) last so they can scare you into giving them more money to spend on things such as registering every bullet sold in the state.  And of course, the people not holding them accountable for this. 

In relation to fireworks, if the potential for problems requires people to be more responsible, a simple answer is to increase the penalties for misuse, not to penalize everyone. 

The more you try to regulate and control people, the more resources you need to spend to enforce that control.  If the authorities could concentrate on stopping hazardous use as opposed to enforcing relatively arbitrary classifications, they would likely be much more effective, particularly as this would encourage responsible use.  When you have mockeries of laws like banning some types because they contain gunpowder which can be removed and can be tossed into cars, you will have much less adherence to the law. 

As to the personal um, questions, I actually haven't "done" fireworks in years.  I am slightly allergic to smoke.  I will probably buy fireworks this year (if I can find an acceptable organization in the county) only because of the attempts to shut them down.  You see the issue of fireworks is not that important to me, the issue of government regulation produced by hysterical and nonsensical propaganda is.  

To show that you have good arguments is simple.  If the problems you mentioned are so serious, why are you for banning fireworks (particularly when they kill few or no people) but not such things as cars and swimming pools which are far worse (and kill hundreds and thousands of children alone every year)?

Sigh. I know I'm not one for banning fireworks, outright, though I wouldn't mind it either. And, as a matter of fact, I would probably support a swimming pool ban far more than a fireworks ban (but not on a safety issue...seems like a horrendously stupid use of water in a drought-ridden state...as do golf courses).

Automobiles, I wouldn't consider banning. There are costs associated with every gain. The net gains of vehicular traffic in moving people and goods outweigh the negatives of congestion, pollution and usage of precious natural resources...though it's possible we'll resolve those last two mighty quick the way it's going.

And finally, just to clarify, we haven't banned fireworks here. There are reasonable restrictions placed upon their time and place of use, as well as outlawing certain types. We have certain drugs and chemicals that are also restricted. Some things just need to be moderated. I wish you'd get as upset over FISA as you do over fireworks, for crying out loud. Talk about personal freedom infringement.

Anti, you've broken the blog with your too-big pic.

 ghostriter

We in Tehachapi just lost our most beloved downtown historical landmark due to a couple of selfish morons and their insistence that their right to set off illegal fireworks should not be infringed upon. 

...

I see no difference between a ban on amateur fireworks and the law against discharging firearms within city limits.

Actually, I think this is a fine example.  There was, in effect, a total ban on fireworks at the time, they were acquired anyway and misused (I am assuming through ignorance) and tragedy ensued.  Don't you think that there is at least a good possibility that if fireworks were less regulated the perpetrators would have been more open in their use and would likely have had some guidance and experience with their use?  Obviously there will always be stupid and/or malevolent people, but when you drive an activity "underground" the level of ignorance and accidents goes way up.  Fireworks are not new, they've been around since before we were a country.  The more powerful and complicated they are, the more expertise is required for a reasonable level of safety.  With firearms in the city limits, if you are firing in a properly constructed firing range its quite safe, while firing into the air would not be.  An absolute ban does not necessarily promote safety.   

Don't you think it might be fireworks (mis)use that has changed more.  I don't think the answer to ignorance is to hide/ ban it, do you? 

 nooneisabovethelaw

Sigh. I know I'm not one for banning fireworks, outright, though I wouldn't mind it either. And, as a matter of fact, I would probably support a swimming pool ban far more than a fireworks ban (but not on a safety issue...seems like a horrendously stupid use of water in a drought-ridden state...as do golf courses).

...

And finally, just to clarify, we haven't banned fireworks here. There are reasonable restrictions placed upon their time and place of use, as well as outlawing certain types. We have certain drugs and chemicals that are also restricted. Some things just need to be moderated. I wish you'd get as upset over FISA as you do over fireworks, for crying out loud. Talk about personal freedom infringement.

Ok, I find this very interesting.  This is a much more general level and may get more into overall views. 

You say that you might support a swimming pool ban, but not on the basis of children dying, but water usage.  I seriously am interested in your reasoning in this.  

Why should the government have the authority to ban pools, particularly based on water usage?

While  we have not yet banned fireworks here, many public officials have stated that that is their goal.  Even worse was the city council actually claiming that the fact that ground flowers and piccolo pete's can have the gunpowder removed and used in other ways and that they can be thrown into cars were legitimate grounds for banning them.  I would think people would be outraged even if they hated fireworks and felt they were more dangerous than Predator Bracers (keeping with the theme).  They either are way too stupid to be allowed in public, are horrible liars, or believe that we are stupid enough to believe them (or maybe are just too jaded to care). 

To dip briefly into FISA and the Patriot Act, when I would point out the problems with these issues (with FISA the fact that the gov already could do instant surveillance, they just had to justify it later, and the PA applying to just about everything, not just terrorists) I would get either "the government HAS to do these things or we will ALL DIE!!!!!", "Yeah, Bush is going to PERSONALLY KILL EVERYONE!!!!", or most commonly "So what, the gov will do what it wants to do anyway".  At least fireworks provoke Some intelligent passion. 

I don't find it unusual that a group of people/legislators (e.g., government) can come up with a litany of reasons to ban something for the common good.

I would support a ban on swimming pools as a waste of water, primarily. Who genuinely needs a pond in their backyard? Swimming is optional. Drinking water and using it to produce food are not options. Producing lush lawnscapes in an area that gets under six inches of rain per year (less than Phoenix!) seems wasteful. And again, that's optional. Are there benefits to both of those? Yes, exercise, entertainment, general appreciation of the environment, even carbon dioxide removal in the landscape (though somewhat offset by leaf blowers and mowers). Same goes for soccer fields, baseball diamonds, football stadiums....even parks.

I can certainly see a case for the hassle and danger of fireworks, and personally I really don't care if they're banned. Won't miss 'em in the slightest. I do care, though, about the Fourth Amendment, which has essentially just been eliminated by the Bush Administration. This, and other Constitutional assaults, troubles me greatly.

I wouldn't describe the outcry over fireworks as "intelligent" passion. Passionate, perhaps, but intelligent? No.