The Right to Bear Flame

 

From the Washington Post comes this terrifying report:

A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives confirmed this: There are no federal regulations or restrictions on flamethrowers. Ironically, flamethrowers don’t qualify as “firearms.” The National Firearms Act defines a firearm as a weapon that expels a projectile by the action of an explosive, which a flamethrower does not.

I’m not sure you knew this, but flamethrowers are dangerous. They’ve been in movies and stuff:

Though the modern versions aren’t intended to be weapons, that’s how we’ve seen flamethrowers used in movies — from Iron Man shooting flames from his hands, to Sigourney Weaver incinerating aliens, to that very scary scene in “Project X” where an angry drug dealer lights homes, cars and SWAT team members on fire.

Which, of course, is a logic train that applies to pretty much anything cool. A jet, say. Or a Winnebago. But, terrorism! Crazy people!

So far, the only outspoken politician on the topic is Jim Fouts, the mayor of Warren, Mich., near where [Flamethrowers] XM42s are manufactured.

“My greatest fear is that this could be used by terrorists,” Fouts said, specifically citing homegrown killers such as Adam Lanza, who in 2012 killed 27 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. “Imagine what an unbalanced mind would do if he had a flamethrower.”

There isn’t, of course, a Right to Bear Flame. Which is kind of too bad, because this looks cool:

I mean, it’s totally unsuitable for home defense — you’d kill the intruder, sure, but you’d also burn your house down — but I still want one.

Or, at least, I want to know someone who has one. And I want to head out to a field and let it fly.

Published in General
Tags: ,

Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 45 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. wilber forge Inactive
    wilber forge
    @wilberforge

    A can of hair spray and a BBQ lighter has dispatched many an insect here and will continue the most effective practice.

    Not that one is a Pyro, but with a true flamethower , there is only one side to be on.

    Build your own big cumbersome flamethrower. But do so with great care.  My darker side refers this devise a a “Real Crowd Pleaser”.  Most effective when faced with  dangerous rioters.  Even Early Primitive Man feared fire -And for good reason.

    • #31
  2. Vald the Misspeller Inactive
    Vald the Misspeller
    @ValdtheMisspeller

    The XM42 is the Safe and Sane model, useful for edging the lawn and lighting the barbecue – or, your neighbors barbecue. But … for fans of serious conflagration, you’ll probably want to go with the X15  Personal Flamethrower offered the competition.

    • #32
  3. Johnny Dubya Inactive
    Johnny Dubya
    @JohnnyDubya

    Unsuitable for warfare? All they are good for is destroying property?

    Ahem:

    • #33
  4. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    “Make me a list of all the things we don’t want those right wing nuts to have during the coming days of insurrection. Now, how many of those things are not already illegal?”

    “Damn. Flamethrowers? Really?”

    • #34
  5. wilber forge Inactive
    wilber forge
    @wilberforge

    Don’t Flame Me Bro !

    Suggest to a politician on how dangerous Greek Fire is, then wait –

    • #35
  6. Hank Rhody Contributor
    Hank Rhody
    @HankRhody

    You can have my flamethrower when you tear it from my scorched dead hands!

    • #36
  7. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Misthiocracy:

    Rob Long: I mean, it’s totally unsuitable for home defense

    According to some pages I’ve read online, flamethrowers are mostly unsuitable for warfare as well, which is why so few are ever deployed. They are terribly short-ranged weapons, for one thing.

    All they are good for is destroying property, but even then artillery does the job much better and from a much safer distance.

    (They’re also useless against zombies.)

    Misthiocracy:

    Rob Long: I mean, it’s totally unsuitable for home defense

    According to some pages I’ve read online, flamethrowers are mostly unsuitable for warfare as well, which is why so few are ever deployed. They are terribly short-ranged weapons, for one thing.

    All they are good for is destroying property, but even then artillery does the job much better and from a much safer distance.

    (They’re also useless against zombies.)

    The XM42 only has about 25′ range, so if you have to go against giant hornets, the milspec version looks a lot better.

    • #37
  8. Matty Van Inactive
    Matty Van
    @MattyVan

    Jimmy Carter: “Flamethrower Free Zone”

    Say that ten times fast.

    • #38
  9. Britanicus Member
    Britanicus
    @Britanicus

    livingthehighlife:A lighter and can of Lysol makes a great flamethrower.

    I can’t be the only one here who’s tried it.

    (Closes laptop. Grabs keys. Drives home. Enters closet. Grabs Lysol. Flick lighter.)

    • #39
  10. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Rob Long: I mean, it’s totally unsuitable for home defense — you’d kill the intruder, sure, but you’d also burn your house down — but I still want one. Or, at least, I want to know someone who has one. And I want to head out to a field and let it fly

    I’ve always wanted one mounted on my car for certain traffic situations….

    • #40
  11. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Ontheleftcoast: According to some pages I’ve read online, flamethrowers are mostly unsuitable for warfare as well, which is why so few are ever deployed. They are terribly short-ranged weapons, for one thing.

    The other problem with them is the guy stuck with it as a weapon is carrying a huge tank of flammable liquid on his back, easily recognized by the enemy.  They are desperate to kill him before he burns them, so he draws a lot of attention, and his buddies want to keep a goodly distance away so they don’t go up in the fireball too….

    • #41
  12. Brian Clendinen Inactive
    Brian Clendinen
    @BrianClendinen

    Kozak:

    Rob Long: I mean, it’s totally unsuitable for home defense — you’d kill the intruder, sure, but you’d also burn your house down — but I still want one. Or, at least, I want to know someone who has one. And I want to head out to a field and let it fly

    I’ve always wanted one mounted on my car for certain traffic situations….

    We could always import the Blaster to protect our property on the go. I mean what is not more cool than a BMW that shoots flames.

    • #42
  13. FridayNightEcon Inactive
    FridayNightEcon
    @FridayNightEcon

    The next best thing is a 400,000 BTU Weed Torch.  It makes a *great* sound, and some lovely flame.  This was my treat to myself a few years ago, instead of buying a red convertible. (Video shows my son using it).400000 BTU Weed Torch

    • #43
  14. SoDakBoy Inactive
    SoDakBoy
    @SoDakBoy

    Unfortunately, I had to downsize my kerosene tank to 2.9 ounces so it would be considered carry-on luggage.  Still functional, but less convenient when travelling by air.

    • #44
  15. Underwood Inactive
    Underwood
    @Underwood

    Vald the Misspeller:The XM42 is the Safe and Sane model, useful for edging the lawn and lighting the barbecue – or, your neighbors barbecue. But … for fans of serious conflagration, you’ll probably want to go with the X15 Personal Flamethrower offered the competition.

    Neat. They also sell non-toxic Napalm mix.

    • #45
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.