I'm building a flamethrower.
"But SexyJesus, why in the hell would you need or want a flamethrower? Isn't that illegal?"
Actually, no, it's not illegal. And you're not going to believe how much paperwork it involves. You ready?
No registration. No licensing. No background check. As far as I'm aware, they're outlawed in Maryland, you need a license for one in California, you can't mount one to a vehicle in Virginia, and that covers any and all state level restrictions (I'm not a lawyer. For those of you that are reading this and want to go buy a flamethrower, look up your local laws.) You can buy one now, and have it delivered to your doorstep in a few days, probably for much less money than you think. Here's the link if you don't believe me: https://throwflame.com/
"Okay, let's make them illegal!"
It's not that simple. Alas, I'm a cheap bastard. Well, not when it comes to firearms- at least not when I was single- but I'm married now, and have a kid on the way, and my budget for things that go 'bang' (or 'fwoosh') is limited by things that I need to buy in order for us to eat. Thusly, I am unable to justify to my wife the cost of buying a flamethrower outright. So I did another google search, and found this: https://flamethrowerplans.com/
Let me break down the gist of that website.
Any idiot, regardless of mental health history or criminal background, can go to Home Depot, walk out with a pile of seemingly random parts, spend a weekend in their garage, and take a flamethrower with a range of 50 feet and a continuous runtime of a minute- on par with military flamethrowers- to school show-and-tell on Monday, all for around 450 dollars, around half the cost of a basic AR plus ammunition. I don't think I need to tell you what that would look like- forget a dozen or so students dead, we could be talking about a dozen or so students *surviving*.
The dangers of a person with violent intent are not limited to the necessary parts to build a flamethrower, they're limited by imagination. Go ask Wikipedia how to make dynamite. Go ask suicide bombers in the middle east, with devices that usually cost about 30 American dollars. Go ask Timothy Mcveigh or Osama Bin Laden how deadly a person can be with common household items. Yet no one bothers to regulate diesel fuel or box cutters or fertilizer- mostly because they're not instinctively afraid of these items- but also because to regulate these items that have been used in attacks that were orders of magnitude more destructive than any mass shooting by background or mental health check is, simply, ridiculous. It's logistically unfeasible and an unnecessary burden on the millions of people who want to use these items peacefully (like 99.99 percent of gun owners).
So with that in mind, I ask you: what, exactly, will firearms restrictions do to stop a person with violent intent before they start? Or will they only prevent otherwise law abiding citizens from returning fire, an
And, shit. It cut off the end of my argument. Continuing:
Or will they only prevent otherwise law abiding citizens from returning fire, and being ready to deal with unknown threats in a chaotic world? Are your calls to ban so-called 'assault weapons' based merely on fear and misunderstanding of an inanimate object? Is your safety in any way dependent on the existence or non existence of this inanimate object if you choose never to pick one up?
If you spend your life in constant fear of inanimate objects for their potential to be used to kill you, you'll live a sorry agoraphobic life indeed. Instead, consider that instead of inanimate objects, you should be afraid of violent people. When you do, you'll realize that you have two options: bend over and take it, or be ready to counter them, with violence if necessary.
And- not that it's anyone's business- but I'm making a flamethrower because a.) I want one, and have no intention to harm anyone either with said flamethrower or in general, therefore my desire to procure one is nobody else's business, and b.) to celebrate the 4th of July. I truly hope that offends someone here.
Peace, love, and good whiskey.
Didn't ask for your sympathy, wasn't referencing freedom, I'd argue with you on that point but it's an entirely separate debate.
The whole point was to shine a light on the false idea you have that society minus guns equals safety. Seems you missed that. Go back, read it, try again.
You have the false idea that I want a society minus guns. I have NEVER wanted that ... if you missed that, go back, read my debates again.
I have always been a gun owner, used to be a proud NRA member that taught NRA sanctioned gun safety/hunter safety classes. I just want REASONABLE gun regulations ... and NO, today's are NOT sufficient. We have modified driving safety laws MANY times in many states when the need for safety was found necessary, we can do the same with the 2nd Amendment WITHOUT taking guns away!