Do you really want to follow that logic through to stuff "we" like, but that large swathes of the general public finds objectionable? LIke, say, hacking? Crypto? (I mean communication, not currency) Porn? What you are advoating for is tyranny, not harmony.
See comments above -- its not logic for banning, its a coalition-building tactic, which is generally employed in most decisions we make/persuasions we carry out.
I don't see how your "comment above" is saying anything different than exactly what I said, just dressed up in non-threatening language. There's a razor thin line between 'coalition building' and 'mob rule'.
I think that if you look at a history of social changes you’ll very likely find that they all started with successful persuasion campaigns. Like it or not, if you want to preserve the rights we hold dear (as you mentioned above), you’re going to have to find people that agree with you, hopefully through facts and reason. While it’s possible to preserve rights solely through a well-built technocratic/representative government, the will of the people will always bubble up in some way, and you owe it to your causes to do everything you can to change that will/find people that agree. Whether this applies to fireworks or not, left as an exercise to the reader.