this, to me, is proof enough that the gun control pudding is poisoned; that in so many places where “gun control” has been allowed free rein for long enough, all sorts of things that are not guns get “controlled”. for a definition of “controlled” synonymous with “banned”. i understand Massachusetts has something similar on the books, and i’m ashamed to say my home state (Michigan) has a less severe restriction of its own.
what on earth good reason is there, ever, to ban pepper spray? i’ve never heard one yet. but the slope seems to be slippery enough in that general direction, to no good end i can see.
is there a gun control forum i could go bring this point up on? maybe find a gun banner to try and justify such a ludicrous, useless regulation to me?
i actually went and searched it, but it doesn’t seem to have any entries about OC spray. i’m leery of dropping a totally off-topic question like that into the middle of some unrelated thread apropos of nothing, so i’ll likely pass on them. maybe i’ll find some other place; if so, i’ll keep you posted.
“what on earth good reason is there, ever, to ban pepper spray?”
If you start from the [many expletives deleted] assumption that violence of any kind should be legal only for the government, then pepper spray will seem almost as bad as guns. Sure, it won’t kill anyone, but using it is still violence and people will use it when they wouldn’t use a lethal weapon.
Secondly, it’s politically much easier to ban pepper spray. It doesn’t violate the 2nd Amendment. There’s no pepper-sprayer equivalent of the NRA or GOA. Those that believe in the right to defend yourself on the street think you should be carrying a real weapon, not a spray can. So in Michigan the politicians could never quite get away with an outright ban on guns, but they can ban pepper spray – and they did.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:47 am
this, to me, is proof enough that the gun control pudding is poisoned; that in so many places where “gun control” has been allowed free rein for long enough, all sorts of things that are not guns get “controlled”. for a definition of “controlled” synonymous with “banned”. i understand Massachusetts has something similar on the books, and i’m ashamed to say my home state (Michigan) has a less severe restriction of its own.
what on earth good reason is there, ever, to ban pepper spray? i’ve never heard one yet. but the slope seems to be slippery enough in that general direction, to no good end i can see.
is there a gun control forum i could go bring this point up on? maybe find a gun banner to try and justify such a ludicrous, useless regulation to me?
July 19th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Heh. you could go ask the brady bunch at their blog. i’d be curious.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
i actually went and searched it, but it doesn’t seem to have any entries about OC spray. i’m leery of dropping a totally off-topic question like that into the middle of some unrelated thread apropos of nothing, so i’ll likely pass on them. maybe i’ll find some other place; if so, i’ll keep you posted.
July 19th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
“what on earth good reason is there, ever, to ban pepper spray?”
If you start from the [many expletives deleted] assumption that violence of any kind should be legal only for the government, then pepper spray will seem almost as bad as guns. Sure, it won’t kill anyone, but using it is still violence and people will use it when they wouldn’t use a lethal weapon.
Secondly, it’s politically much easier to ban pepper spray. It doesn’t violate the 2nd Amendment. There’s no pepper-sprayer equivalent of the NRA or GOA. Those that believe in the right to defend yourself on the street think you should be carrying a real weapon, not a spray can. So in Michigan the politicians could never quite get away with an outright ban on guns, but they can ban pepper spray – and they did.