Monday, April 30, 2012

They Ban because they can.

A veto on firearms legalization in Minnesota has John Hinderaker pondering things.

I am writing this a few minutes after returning from a shooting range, which puts the politial debate over firecrackers and sparklers in an odd light. I went shooting today with my son, Ed Morrissey and his son, and Mitch Berg. We had five firearms among us–four semiautomatics and a revolver, a .22, a couple of 9 millimeters and a .38.

The five of us had a lot of fun. We fired off hundreds of rounds and, I think it is fair to say, were never in serious danger. But when I got home and read the news story about Governor Dayton vetoing the legalization of firecrackers, it made me wonder: if the nanny state thinks firecrackers are far too dangerous for citizens who must be utterly incompetent, then what must the nanny state make of Glocks, Rugers, Sig Sauers and Smith and Wessons? Is there any possible way the nanny state would allow its citizens to possess such weapons, if it had the option of banning them, as it bans firecrackers and, until recently, sparklers?

Emphasis added.

I will note that firearms are better suited to self defense than fireworks. But I somehow doubt the nanny state would approve of firearms over fireworks for that reason.

Though needs' got nothing to do with it.

This is similar to states that ban gravity knives, switchblades, and other "evil" knives but is perfectly fine with concealed carry.

Via Glenn Reynolds who notes this is a theme he's oft repeated.

No comments: