There are plenty more videos of the Flamethrower Shooting Gallery that’s bound to be a hit at this year’s Burning Man. “Flame on!”
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
If we are required to take the Second Amendment literally, shouldn’t flame throwers be legal to whoever wants them?
And tactical nuclear missiles, for that matter.
They are all “arms.”
Let’s face it. The Second Amendment no longer makes sense.
#1 and with folks like you neither does the 1st.
GigG,
I’m not sure I get your point.
What I’m saying is this: the way the gun huggers interpret the 2nd Amendment, then ALL arms are a citizens right. This would include SAMs, flame throwers, nukes, etc.
They think a citizen has the right to bear arms. Period. No control at all.
Clearly, the second ammendment was to establish militias. Not to allow every gun nut any arms he wants. But that’s what the NRA claims, right?
“Clearly, the second amendment was to establish militias. Not to allow every gun nut any arms he wants.”
Not according to the Supreme Court.
aahhh dynamite and a flamethrower………. nothing gets things cleaner than these……
let them buy all the arms they like…. lets ban bullets………..
Pfft. Google “zemanova flamethrower”. NSFW, but still worth it. 😀
Flame throwers were used in WWII but discouraged because they had a nasty habit of blowing up and killing the poor user.
Perfect for the barbecue I have planned for this weekend!
#6:
YES!!
You know, I doubt the Founding Fathers would have been so vague if people having arms back then presented the same danger that people having arms does now.
Big significant difference in type between single shot muzzle loaders and automatic weapons. Our Sup Ct did not have to be so suicidal. Good Job Chimps.
The original definition of “militia” was the full body of citizens – so yes, the 2nd amendment means everyone.
#1 – The 2nd Amendment makes perfect sense because any non-felon should be able to own any weapon they can afford.
#11, BigAsshole,
Are you suggesting that people that didn’t get caught can protect the country better than someone who has actually been convicted?
NOTE: The Second Amendment uses the term “A well regulated militia”.
“Blow it out your ass.” ~ Patton
#12, the term regulated was used in the context of “trained”, not restricted.
#1, no, missiles and bombs are not “arms”. Try again.
You not confusing the 18th century meaning of “regulated” with its 21st century meaning? In the 18th century, its use in this context means well trained and orderly
Wow. The funny part is that the people posting anti second amendment propaganda think they would be safer if everyone was unarmed. The founding fathers disagreed.
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes … Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson
“The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” – James Madision
They wrote books on these very subjects. Educate yourselves.