Generally, I try not to get too political on this blog, for a lot of
different reasons. One of those reasons being that I think politics is
fundamentally reactionary, and I think reactionary politicking is
generally a poor place to make anything resembling sound progress
toward positive change. This incident just proves my point... reactionary lawmaking that starts to make reality look like a bad cartoon:
"A replica of a hand grenade — which was in reality a cigarette lighter — was discovered in a Visalia residence today and confiscated by Visalia police" ...
..."However, since Jan. 1, such replicas of explosive devices are illegal, Burns said, so the grenade's owner might face charges."
Since when were replicas of explosive devices illegal?? Well, since January 1st, obviously... but holy smokes, what are these people (lawmakers, "code enforcement offices," etc) thinking? Read that whole article. The guy's neighbors call in some complaints about "code violations" at his house. I'm assuming building / yard-appearance / safety kinds of code violations. The inspectors / "code enforcement officers" show up, find a cigarette lighter that looks like a grenade (remember those? I use to see them all the time), and now he faces charges for it? He probably got it years ago. What was he supposed to do, throw the thing away?
I'm sorry, but the entire premise is just absurd... and the further
it gets toward the "enforcement" end of things, it goes beyond stupid,
and starts to enter the land of scarily surreal and distorted.
What about Hollywood movies? Is it OK for them to have replica grenades? I'm trying to picture The Great Escape being filmed without replica weapons, grenades, and explosives. Or how about Saving Private Ryan? What about your local high school doing a play production set in WWII or the Vietnam War. Should all of those productions have brightly colored, fluorescent orange painted "grenade facsimiles," like kids toys are now? (So then, the bad guy just paint their real grenades to match... and lets not even get into IED's, which is where most of the real, truly dangerous action is). Or maybe they should shape them differently, so they look like an IMD, which is inconsistent enough in appearance that I think one would be hard pressed to prove that some object is a replica of one. I'm picturing some high school drama teacher with some specially-sanctioned, government-approved lockbox, where these dangerous "replicas" can be locked away, safe from damaging society. Please...
Backing up a bit, though, this is just another manifestation of a fundamentally-flawed paradigm: that somehow banning handheld weaponry is going to make the world a safer place. It's the basic assumption behind every such law, including all sorts of so-called "gun control" laws; that if the "government" (aka, people) can exclusively control guns, that the non-government masses (aka, other people) will somehow be safer. You don't have to look far into history at all to see how radically flawed that logic truly is. ...which is exactly why the Founding Fathers of this country put the Second Amendment into place to begin with.
The recent Virginia Tech shootings, of course, have the politicians blathering and grandstanding, doing their very best to give appearances that they are somehow Making The World A Safer Place. Freedom impingements in the name of "Safety." It's one of the oldest mistakes in the book.
If you, like I, haven't come across much in the news / public debate about the VT / gun control dialog that isn't focused on some particular aspect how we should control guns, and assuming they should be, but is instead focused on whether that line of thinking is wise to begin with, here are a couple articles you might find worth reading, even if you disagree with their conclusion:
A Culture of Passivity, by Mark Steyn
25 Years Murder-Free In 'Gun Town USA' - WorldNetDaily
Comments