Right to Flamethrowers

A man from Kansas City mocks arguments by pro-gunners, but in his ignorance doesn’t know that flamethrowers are actually completely unregulated under federal law. They are not firearms, nor are they destructive devices, by law. Interesting that if you took the same gasoline and put it in a glass bottle with a rag, it would be a destructive device, but stick it in a big tank and ignite a stream coming out of a nozzle, and it’s fine.

This is probably good, otherwise possession of a super soaker and gasoline could be constructive possession, but then again how many houses have glass bottles, rags, and gasoline? The lesson here for our opponents is not to mock what you think is absurd, because the absurdity of federal laws are probably greater than anything you can imagine.

8 thoughts on “Right to Flamethrowers”

  1. I could have used a good flamethrower Saturday night on my frozen and snow-covered driveway!

    Alas, neither Home Depot, Lowe’s, Tractor Supply, or Northern Tool carried the model I was looking for. Dang.

  2. The absurdity of federal laws are probably greater than anything you can imagine

    Heh. The entire post (and several good blogs) could have been boiled down to that one sentence.

  3. Heh! I just got a flamethrower for my birthday. It’s really just an over-glorified blow torch. Not much oomph, but enough to help do in stubborn ice patches and the occasional weed. IIRC, here in PA, they are classified as “agricultural tools”.

  4. What’s awesome about flamethrowers is they’re ridiculously easy to make….

  5. Heck, a molotov isn’t a DD if you don’t “intend to use [it] as a weapon” or if it’s “redesigned” as a pyrotechnic device…

    Showing the former would be difficult in a court, naturally.

  6. Heck, a friend of mine in boston was going to get a small flamethrower to deal with some ice issues on his driveway (OK, really a propare torch, but it’s what passed for a flamethrower in movies these days)

Comments are closed.