Where Do You Draw the Line on the Personal Ownership of Weapons?

So, last week the lead article in our weekly Digest was a review of the XM42 Flamethrower, a fire-spitting tool capable of hurling flames as far out as 25 feet!

The XM42 is badass, and we expected many of you to geek out over it. While many of you did express your jubilation for a civilian flamethrower, others were not only less than impressed, they were downright offended that we published the article.

I’ll give you some examples of what I mean:

“I’m sorry, but this is one weapon so horrifying that no ethical person should ever bring this to market,” wrote one reader. “Imagine a home invasion and someone decides to roast you and your family with one of these?”

Another reader wrote, “People like this man, the company who manufactured this, and all who buy this, make all responsible, pro 2nd Amendment gun owners look horrible!”

“This should not be supported whatsoever I really think this is going to far, next some nutcase like the one using it will kill a bunch of children TAKE THIS ADD DOWN,” wrote another commentator.

First off, let me just say that we at GunsAmerica love and embrace the free exchange of ideas. We understand that not all of us are going to agree on every issue and therefore, at times, there will be (hopefully constructive and not overly contentious) dialogue and debate in the comment section. It comes with the territory of running a popular and pro-Second Amendment publication.

Everyone has a right to their opinion and we are pleased when they express it on GunsAmerica. That said, as the curators of and contributors to GunsAmerica we also have opinions on your opinions and from time to time we like to publicly express them, not in a belligerent way or a I-know-more-than-you way, but in a way that clarifies how one of us may feel about an issue.

Now, I’m going to start to speak for myself here, because I’m not entirely sure how the other GA guys feel about this particular issue and it would be unfair if I were to pretend that I speak for them all.

So, let me start off by saying I was shocked by those aforementioned comments. I knew there were going to be negative reactions, there always are. However, I figured it’d be over the price of the XM42, which is around $1,000. A bit steep for many of us, myself included. I never thought there were going to be individuals who opposed the flamethrower on the grounds that it was “horrifying,” or that it “went too far” or on the underlying implication, evident in the majority of the negative comments, that the XM42 is excessively dangerous and therefore not fit for law-abiding citizens.

Allow me to point out the apparent cognitive dissonance in those reactions, which is based on the presupposition that all of the commenters support one’s right to keep and bear arms, including widely popular and commonly owned black rifles, e.g. the AR-15, AK-47. Let’s suppose for a minute that instead of talking about the XM42, they were talking about an AR-15. How would those comments read:

“I’m sorry, but this is one weapon [AR-15] so horrifying that no ethical person should ever bring this to market. Imagine a home invasion and someone decides to roast shoot up you and your family with one of these?”

“People like this man, the company who manufactured this [AR-15], and all who buy this, make all responsible, pro 2nd Amendment gun owners look horrible!”

“This [AR-15] should not be supported whatsoever I really think this is going to far, next some nutcase like the one using it will kill a bunch of children TAKE THIS ADD DOWN,” wrote another commentator.

The XM42.  In your opinion, is it fit for public consumption?

The XM42. In your opinion, is it fit for public consumption?

Well, let’s just be grown-ups and state the obvious. Several wackos have used AR-15s to shoot up schools, movie theaters and other public venues in a horrifying and unspeakable manner. Yet, we still support one’s right to own these tools. Why is that? Why is it that one potentially lethal tool [the XM-42] is not okay when another tool, that is arguably purpose built to be optimally lethal [AR-15], is okay? I guess that’s the question I have for those commenters and anyone else who feels that the XM42 is too dangerous.

From my standpoint, it’s not really a question of tools but a question of who is going to be the end user? I have zero problem with responsible, law-abiding citizens possessing optimally lethal tools or weapons (and that includes all NFA-regulated items). Why? Because I believe in the natural right of self-defense. Moreover, I believe that crafting laws that infringe on fundamental rights because one is afraid that a tool may fall into the hands of an evildoer is putting the deluded idea of “public safety” over the very real and invaluable enterprise of individual freedom (which is the cornerstone of our Democracy and the reason why we are the envy of the world). Ideologically speaking, I’m not that type of person. I always err on the side of liberty and the belief that we are responsible for our own safety, not the government. And as a free man, I think in terms of rights (It’s my right to own an AR-15, It’s might right to own a flamethrower), not needs or government allowances (i.e., Who needs an AR-15? Am I allowed to own one?).  Don’t limit my freedoms because you’re afraid to take responsibility for your safety.  Don’t limit my freedoms because you’re afraid of what might happen.  Don’t limit my freedoms because you’re afraid to acknowledge that evil exists in the world.

Now, I’m willing to accept that my position is maybe a bit radical in the eyes of the average Joe, but at least it’s consistent and intellectually honest.  What I’d really like is to hear where you draw the line on the individual ownership of weapons?  Do you draw the line at the ownership of a flamethrower?  If so, how does it differ from that of an AR-15?

{ 58 comments… add one }
  • Steve in Detroit October 2, 2017, 3:01 pm

    No, your Opinion is correct. We as a society can not place limitations of ownership or possession on items that certain groups or individuals consider “out of normal practical use”. Do these people realize that items like this have existed for years in the Building Trades Industry? So called “Flame Throwers” have been used in Commercial Roofing Industry since advent of bituminous (asphalt based) roof covering systems and are still used in the application of “Torch Down” rubber and synthetic roof covering applications? Forest Service Companies employ these devices to burn brush to create fire break lines. I have been in Plumbing/HVAC Trade since 13 and we had a giant propane torch for melting poured lead joints on cast iron waste lines from 3″ -12″ in downtown Detroit that as kids we called it the “Dragon” and when we were 9 we discovered that new WD-40 stuff, with a hand held propane torch made a hell of a miniature “Flame Thrower”. Look around interweb and designs abound for “Illegal” weapons that anyone with half a brain can make out of hardware store purchases. You can not “Legislate” a future insane idiot away. With these mass acts of violence we have to ask the family & friends of the nut jobs why they did not get that person help, because Mental Health Services are out there. So do not “Legislate” us into a useless Nanny State. Prohibitions do nothing but make some people rich, others criminals, and creates another alphabet organization.

  • Kb31416 October 2, 2017, 10:16 am

    First, I do not support restrictions on the flame thrower.
    Next, I don’t want one, and don’t want to be within 100 yards of one, regardless of if operated by friend or foe.
    I imagine that operators in war never were volunteers but were the poor slob that drew the short straw. They all knew that one stray round and what you were ordered to do unto others would be done unto you, and you would become a human torch. Add to that the fact that you would be the number one priority target with super high visibility and poor ability to maneuver, and it became a very poor mission. I imagine that more than a few men ordered to operate a flamethrower did so only with the motivation of the lieutenant’s 45.
    People gay buy, build or operate these on a voluntary basis are looking for a painfully acquired Darwin Award.

    • Kb31416 October 2, 2017, 10:17 am

      Wow, I hate autocorrect!
      ‘People who buy, ‘…

  • Matt December 10, 2016, 12:13 am

    Their is no line when your talking about law abiding citizens. And people fail to realize we are not a democracy we are a republic! And the 2nd amendment by its verbiage is to keep government under control period. Whatever the government owns we we should be able to own (especially since we paid for it). Except for nuclear weapons and chemical weapons which should all be destroyed legal and law abiding American citizens should be able to own. The nut jobs always ask well why do need this or that to hint or for recreational use and I laugh it has nothing to do with that it has to do with keeping governmanet under control. Always remember constitutionally we are the governments master not the other way around! And if you think other wise take your beliefs elsewhere and come back and tell me how life is there.

  • mocatz December 29, 2015, 8:03 am

    That thing is a toy. Only a liberal would think of it as a viable weapon.

  • Randy October 15, 2015, 3:52 am

    I would rather be shot to death then burned to death, just sayin’.

    • Luap March 1, 2016, 2:31 am

      Off subject…

      …And on a side note, I would rather be shot to death -instead of being cut, sliced, stabbed or butchered by a knife or other cutting tool leading to death.

      “Does anyone else have an opinion on the subject?”

      • Steve in Detroit October 2, 2017, 3:03 pm

        I would much rather go due to old age.

        • Mahatma Muhjesbude October 3, 2017, 6:31 am

          I’d consider myself fortunate if I could go ‘peacefully’ with clean sheets and a ‘good’ IV drip…maybe some headphones playing a light violin concerto…’maybe some old pictures or videos to jar some good memories as I quietly fade away..

  • JHJ October 7, 2015, 9:49 pm

    Personally, I have no interest in owning a flame thrower. If someone else wants to own a flame thrower, then go for it. Why anyone would want one escapes me, but that’s OK. It’s a matter of personal choice and it really shouldn’t matter what I think. Or what someone else thinks about what I own or would like to own. Like any weapon available to the general public, it is just a matter of time before some scum bag commits a heinous act with one. In any of these cases, I fall back on the wisdom of “anyone that would sacrifice freedom for safety deserves neither”. Freedom is not free. It requires diligent, hard work and brings with it an inherent risk. Accept the risk if you want real freedom.

    • Matt December 10, 2016, 12:22 am

      Very well put!!

  • Boomer Taylor October 7, 2015, 4:35 pm

    As a former AF munitions systems specialist and small arms expert… First, the weapon. BBQ lighter extraordinaire… I think it’s great that someone found a way to integrate a system that works on a non-napalm formula. It’s an interesting piece of engineering.
    Now… To the “freakers” who’s initial instinct, when something catches them off-guard, is to shout “horror” and “OH… the humanity…” without first stopping to think before they type. The editor’s comments on replacing “flamethrower” with AR15/AK47 is correct. Much more damage can be inflicted by either of those by far… or even by driving a large truck through a crowd.
    People have an instinctual and irresistible fear of fire and and things that crawl. It is the thing that let’s us survive as primal animals regardless of how “civilized” we may think we are. Just look at how many people have a true fear of trying to light a campfire or back-yard fire pit even though it’s a contained environment. I used the term “freakers” on purpose, to get a rise and the interest of the very people that write such ill-thought-out, illogical and reactionary statements in the first place in hopes that they will read this, as well.
    This is the evidence which I’ve been trying to convey to friends colleagues and politicials for some time. That we, as a nation, have become so REactionary and less PRO-active to our surroundings for so long that we, now, as a culture in the US, think that someone ELSE is the first line of our personal safety and security and no one should have anything that any of us as, an individual, doesn’t think anyone else should have. “I like this, and have one, so it’s OK for you… But I don’t like that at all so no one else can have one either.” So the power of the government is sought out to use its singular force to impart our will and limit the freedoms of another. The editor is also correct in saying that if you profess to be a staunch supporter of the 2nd ammendment, you can’t pick and choose. I may not like what someone else says but I fully defend their right to say it. The same goes here.
    If an evil or sick person wants to inflict pyro-based fear or damage they do not need a $1000.00 flamethrower to do so. A bug sprayer full of gas and a match, or a Molotov cocktail tossed into a class-room, is much easier to take into a public place without raising alarms and will cause the same amount of damage and terror, if not more. Also, either of those and many more such devices are readily available to anyone, anywhere, for a LOT less than a thousand bucks.
    So I will ask anyone who had a negative reaction to this tool/weapon /BBQ lighter coming to market to first, please, stop and give some logical thought to both sides of the equation before reaching for the keyboard… Or pitchforks and… dare I say it… torches.

  • joe October 7, 2015, 10:06 am

    There is no line. In a free republic, we don’t have prior restraint.

  • John Quincy October 6, 2015, 6:06 pm

    This looks great for fun and for keeping the hoards away from your stores of food. But I already have one made from a pressurized yard sprayer with a sparkler attached to ignite the stream of gasoline. YouTube has lots of examples to follow and some videos to show how they are made and how they work.

  • Sarge October 6, 2015, 3:01 am

    Well for sure it would be a neat item to play with and as others have said could have some practical uses.
    As a weapon it is almost worthless since the guy carrying/wearing it could be seen for quite some distance and most pistols and All rifles & shotguns have a lot longer effective range than 25′.
    For example I don’t think he would do very well against my Thompson.
    Sarge

  • Bill Richardson October 5, 2015, 10:47 pm

    This may explain my feelings, I love going to Knob Creek. My dislike for flamethrowers is I have COPD and diesel smoke is no good for me. Americans own live howitzers, miniguns, quad .50’s. and before 68 you could play with a live bazooka. No I do not think any law abiding citizen should be limited……….

  • Bob Novak October 5, 2015, 9:55 pm

    I saw this and thought to myself, what a great way to start the fall burn piles, or the massive bee hives that pop up from time to time. As for a defensive weapon, if you can afford one, go for it. I have a C&R license, and with that I can buy any number of machine guns, anti tank guns, or even tank turrents. Not sure what good the turrent is without the body, but what the hell? Bottom line, if you can afford one, and want one, then damn it buy one. Who needs a Barret .50 cal.? But its your right to own one.

  • Nick S October 5, 2015, 6:27 pm

    I hope this can lead the way to other fun weapons that with enough money, I can buy. I’d love to have a full auto tommy gun, or even a working tank (aren’t there tanks with flamethrowers, too?). I also want my own 30mm Gatling gun, a la the ones on Apache copters. I remember about 40 years or so ago, the governor of New Hampshire wanted his National Guard to have its own nuclear arsenal. Well, if a well-regulated militia can have nuclear weapons, then by God, now that the Supreme Court has said we he people are the militia, then I ought to have my own nukes. If the right to bear arms means what it says, then any and all arms should be available to citizens. I just need to find a good place to practice with my personal M61 Vulcan.

  • Larry Koehn October 5, 2015, 5:21 pm

    I don’t think that civilians should possess nuclear weapons or systems capable of delivering them. Anything else should fine. You have to remember that the purpose of the second amendment was to resist a tyrannical out of control government a thing that we grow closer to daily. Using terms like sporting purposes or self defense is not appropriate when discussing to ultimate purpose of the second amendment. If you have the money you should be able to buy anything that the military has short of the nukes.

    • Winston October 6, 2015, 6:37 pm

      Yes, fascist, psychopathic, hegemonic governments such as the modern US- the only country to drop nuclear bombs on civilians- should have the monopoly nuclear weapons. What happens when these elitist freaks put the whole country in danger?

    • Joe July 1, 2016, 1:19 am

      I agree, the 2nd means ANY weapon. However, i have to admit if you had a nuke or biological weapon (both of which COULD accidentally go off and hurt millions) i would draw the line there. All other weapons won’t accidentally go off and kill millions. So, even for me there is a limit, the potential to accidentally kill millions.

  • D October 5, 2015, 4:26 pm

    If one is a sane,decent law abiding citizen then wouldn’t they be safe owning ANY kind of weapon? I mean,if your going to behave then you are going to behave,right? Conversely,if someone has a mental disability that makes them a danger to themselves or others or the person is a criminal type who cannot or will not behave and obey the law then they really have no business owning any type of weapon.Same old story here,it is the person who makes the difference,not the inanimate object in question.

    • Gene Hollon October 7, 2015, 1:49 pm

      I am impressed with most of the comments found on this site. Reasonable people can acquire pertinent data,study its application, formulate positions ,and have a dialog with proponents AND opponents,
      NOT THE ANTI GUN CROWD. Boxer, Piloso, Schumer, o’bama , etc ,etc, are apparently incapable of using common sense to see the abject failure of “GUN FREE ZONES”ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN” MAGAZINE/CLIP AMMUNITION RESTRICTION,ETC.
      To reinforce this statement, ask any of that group ,or any in the national news media, “PLEASE DESCRIBE AN ASSAULT RIFLE .” Very few even know that the correct description includes “CAPABLE OF FULL- AUTOMATIC FIRE. This does NOT include the thousands of SEMI-AUTOS that they mistakenly have included Gene Hollon

  • Samuel Adams October 5, 2015, 3:26 pm

    Here is a common sense compromise that everyone who is reasonable will have to agree with regarding the ownership and use of the XM-42 flamethrower:

    Peaceful, law abiding citizens: YES
    Convicted felons and/or those with a history of involuntary hospitalization for treatment of psychiatric disorders: NO

    • Mahatma Muhjesbude October 3, 2017, 6:47 am

      Actually, nobody likes nukes. Not even the government. Just TOO much unnecessary destruction and carnage. Besides, the G has a new and better weapon that will kill off as many of us as ‘required’ when the time comes. It’s called Weather Control.
      By the way it’s going to be busted out mainstream shortly in a new action/disaster movie about weaponization of the weather from Geoengineering. Leave it to Hollywood to shine the bright movie lights of exposure to the populate!

  • Damon October 5, 2015, 3:22 pm

    I’m in the camp that believes the only limit should be your budget. So I want to put a turret with three 5′ cannon in it on my 150 foot yacht? Until I do something illegal with that boat and those guns, whose business is that?

    Here in Seattle, one of the cofounders of Microsoft, Paul Allen, owns one of the largest collections of operable WWII fighter aircraft in the world. If he decides to remount 8 .50 Brownings on his P47 Thunderbolt II to return it to original spec, so what? (he wouldn’t, like most American billionaires, he’s rabidly anti-gun, can’t have the peons being equal to Masters of the Universe).

    I guess my point is that the weapon itself has no will, motivation, or personality. It is an inanimate object incapable of operation or action without the interaction of an operator. That flamethrower will not murder a school full of children. My AR will never fire a shot in anger. Your carry pistol will never murder a LEO. People, my friends, it is people who are dangerous.

    • Matt December 10, 2016, 12:30 am

      Yes sir! I posted earlier hoping for an opposite opinion lol. I came to the right site. I’m gonna have to go over to the liberal/socialists/pc sites to get into an argument lol. These nut jobs think regulation fixes stupidity nope wrong answer. When they invent the stupid pill I might consider negotiating. No matter the regulations nutsos will find a way…all regulations do is hinder the good people.

  • McQ October 5, 2015, 2:57 pm

    If the Cops can have Armored Personnel Carriers, then the Citizens need to be able to own M72 LAWs or RPGs – otherwise there isn’t much use in having a 2nd Amendment.

    • Creeper45 October 5, 2015, 9:01 pm

      You got that right!

    • Matth December 10, 2016, 12:42 am

      Damn straight!!!

  • wendell October 5, 2015, 2:50 pm

    if I can hold it in my hand and pull the trigger I should be able to own it.

  • John E October 5, 2015, 2:42 pm

    I laughed when I saw the first article on the XM42. For the price it is nothing anyone would really want. It did great job burning a card board target. But what could it do against anything else. As a defensive or offensive weapon the XM42 would be impractical. The tiny stream of flame would not be effective except to maybe start a camp fire. The only real reason to own one is to say you own a flame thrower. Finding places safe to shoot it would be an issue. I personally feel that law abiding citizens have the right to own anything the military possesses. Personal defense is one thing but the right to bare arms is about protecting the constitution from the government itself.

  • Dave October 5, 2015, 1:42 pm

    I agree with the author. The 2nd stipulates “Arms” and I think this flame thrower as well as an AR or even a pocket knife falls within that descriptive. I think law abiding citizens should be allowed to own ANY weapon they can afford including an F-18 or a howitzer, but I suppose I admittedly fall to the extreme.

  • Bri Stu October 5, 2015, 12:18 pm

    I think that some of the paranoia of this device is a little over-exaggerated. This is not a practical “weapon”. Yeah, it’s cool. It could be a fun “toy” to take out to someone’s private property (I can’t see public ranges allowing something like this) with your buddies and saying, “Here, hold my beer and watch this.” But let’s be honest, I would bet very, very, very few people would actually use this as a weapon. I can see some practical benefits as a “tool” as one commenter stated to burn away dangerous bees’ nests or to burn underbrush, etc on someone’s property. But let’s face it, this is not a go-to weapon. Is someone going to lug this around as an edc? No. Are they going to keep it in their car for an emergency encounter with a threat? No. Is a nut-job going to carry this into a school to “roast” children with, very doubtful.

    If there is an emanate treat within 25 feet, you’re not going to grab this, unless you are already walking around your property burning underbrush and that threat surprises you. Your going to have a more practical weapon on you to neutralize that threat. So, all the negative folks out there that are appalled by this device, relax. Chances are no one will ever use this as a weapon. And if some nut-job did want to roast innocent children, they could build something themselves in their basement because chances are they aren’t going to spend $1,000.00 on this device.

  • Mahatma Muhjesbude October 5, 2015, 11:25 am

    The point, as usual, is being missed again. It’s not a matter of what anybody’s perception is, or what anyone’s subjective morality seems to justify in the prisons of their own minds.

    It simply is a matter of the LAW of The LAND and its simple mandate “…SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED(!)”

    It doesn’t say ‘Shall Not be infringed’ unless it is certain weapons we don’t like, or Shall Not be infringed unless your a a current law abiding citizen who once had a criminal conviction, or ‘ SNBI’ if you bitch slapped your husband because he was drunk again from his ptsd and now you are ‘infringed’, nor if you are mentally ill, or…and this is the most egregiouis one, if you can get away with making back door statutes to, indeed, accomplish ‘infringement’ without legal due process.

    This ‘debate’ is bullshit and getting old and will eventually diminish into obscurity as the ‘enslavement’ comes full circle.

    And then you’ll be asking the next question after they literally abolish the 2nd/A.

    “Where do you draw the line against ownership of private money and property”?

    Let’s all get off the ‘questions’ and proactively repeal all anti-Constitutional ‘Infringement’ laws so we finally KNOW the fucking answers?!

  • Capn Stefano October 5, 2015, 10:49 am

    I don’t… the Amendment says ARMS and the Founders privately possessed the following: Cannons, rockets, mortars, hand grenades and more. We have several 800 lb gorillas that no one wants to talk about in this country, such as some categories of biped exhibiting far greater propensities for violence. What the Posterity of the Founders need is a divorce, and now

  • Darcone October 5, 2015, 10:40 am

    As with all weapons being responsible with our rights is as important as having our rights. For me there is no reason to own this tool, it is also not my say in how others make that decision.

    • John Conrick October 6, 2015, 5:04 pm

      I really don’t see a reason for me to own a 75mm cannon and a thousand rounds of ammunition for it – but I would get one if I had the money. I still have my eye on a BMP1 but the price has doubled in two years now that Russia is invading everyone and Obama is busy bicycling.

  • Ken October 5, 2015, 10:03 am

    I would love to have one of these. No way would I cough up a grand for one though. $500 max.
    For all of the naysayers, it’s no more deadly than any other rifle or pistol. Yes, getting burned would suck but then again so would being shot.
    Where would I draw the line? Nuclear, biological, chemical. Other than that, the NFA needs to be abolished instead of more items being banned and/or regulated.

  • Early Ray October 5, 2015, 6:29 am

    Great article! The critics of this device are really as bad as anti 2nd amendment libs. By substituting the device name with AR-15 brilliantly brought your point and put the negative commenters in their respective places. Thank you so much for your that. Keep it coming!!

  • Rob Cavanaugh October 5, 2015, 5:35 am

    I believe “shall not be infringed” actually means that. I believe that currently it is legal for someone to buy a nuke, not that I think people should be able to buy one. Our founders were ingenious in that they provided a way for us to change our Constitution to say….. stop people from being able to buy nukes, it’s called amendments. I believe all current and future arms restriction laws are null and void simply because a law cannot override an amendment and that if legal arms restrictions are desired the only legal recourse available is the amendment process.

  • SamFromVa October 5, 2015, 4:14 am

    Some one will do something stupid with it, and have it banned.
    “Dear ATFBE can I mount a flame thrower to my Glock 26?”
    Or “Man burns down is own home while using a flame thrower to ward off a home invasion”
    Just saying, 🙂

  • DRAINO October 2, 2015, 3:07 pm

    Well I would say just short of high yield explosives, but I have enough gunpowder that….well, nevernind. I realize they used flame throwers in previous wars, and I’m not making a judgment on that, but I would never pick up a flame thrower of any sort and think “what an awesome weapon”. I have no doubt they have their uses as weapons, just wouldn’t be my first choice. But then neither would a screwdriver but it may be my only option, and I would use it if I had to. If they regulate these, then they need to regulate nail guns, chainsaws, machetes and bamboo skewers. Where does the madness stop?? Govt For the People, BY the People…..not Govt OVER the People.

    • Joe R October 5, 2015, 5:13 am

      You say what is the difference of the flamethrower and the AR15? IMO that is not a good comparison at all. The AR15 has a respectable purpose in the use of women and youths who want something that doesn’t knock them on the ground. They are also used in many sanctioned competitions, where do you think your gun range will have flame throwing competitions held and how many of them would be sanctioned and by whom.

      Don’t see the purpose!

  • Joleolsen October 2, 2015, 5:51 am

    I draw the line somewhere between plasma rifles in the 40 watt range (good) and high yield thermonuclear devices (not so good).

    • Lee October 6, 2015, 8:04 am

      That my friend, is funny. Laughed out loud.

  • James M. October 1, 2015, 8:52 am

    I like it. Not as a weapon, or to be used as one. The first thing I thought about when I saw it was the bees nest that my little ones were stung 46 times by. Would I go out and buy it? No. For a grand that’s just a really expensive tool. And if a criminal wanted to go on a killing spree that’s the price of a car. Or a million other items that could be used as a weapon. Even if today our government kicked in every door that had a firearm behind it people would find ways to kill others. But we as “THE” people would no longer have the same means to protect ourselves, our loved ones, or our rights. The more out government opresses the people, the more oppressed people will lash out.

  • Eric October 1, 2015, 8:17 am

    I read the story about the flame thrower and all of the responses, what a great follow up article! I could not have written it as well but I am in total agreement. Keep the reviews and articles coming.

  • John Martin September 30, 2015, 10:47 pm

    This fits no definition of a firearm. The consumer product safety folks could regulate it without remotely running afoul of the constitution. What is next – A stainless steel squirt gun that shoots out acid?

    • Rob Cavanaugh October 5, 2015, 5:44 am

      Your correct it may not fit the definition of a firearm, but our Bill of Rights doesn’t say a right to bear firearms. It says arms which I would say this fall in to. Or we could just call it a mobile spot griller and sell it at kroger or home depot.

    • Bradley October 5, 2015, 9:53 am

      The second amendment does not use the term “firearms” “Arms” are any type of weapon, armor, or equipment used to fight with.

      • Doc Loch October 5, 2015, 7:27 pm

        Bradley,
        Your sentence does not make sense. I hope you meant to say, “The second amendment DOES USE the term Arms” which is short for armament which is defined as ar·ma·ment
        ˈärməmənt
        noun
        military weapons and equipment.

        The persons who wrote that defining statement had just fought a military war as insurgents (or domestic terrorists if you will) against their own countrymen. They felt it was imperative that the average joe be able to have the means necessary to meet violent force with overwhelming and decisive violent force to oppose any tyrannical government especially the one they were in the process of founding. Anyone who doesn’t understand this is either criminally ignorant, the peon of a tyrant, or a tyrant themselves! It is okay for ignorant people to have opinions. It is NOT okay for ignorant people to be shielded from the consequences of their opinions!

    • Gordon October 5, 2015, 4:28 pm

      I agree John, but then a number of individuals on this site will tell you it’s their god-given right to have Molotov-cocktails, pipe-bombs and fully automatic weapons. I’m sure they’d love to have Truck Bombs like Timothy McVeigh; as I’m sure it was his 2nd Amendment right to bomb a building filled with women and children, along with the Federal employees he was targeting since in his mind, the Federal Government was suppressing his rights… Gordon

      • Tom October 6, 2015, 7:43 am

        I understand your point up to the part where you state it was his 2nd amendment right to bomb a building or any other property not his own. Without considering people injured or killed the right of “peaceful” protest is not the 2nd amendment’s jurisdiction.

      • John Conrick October 6, 2015, 4:58 pm

        Why do people like you go absolutely crazy when people discuss the true meaning of the second amendment? It did say “arms”, not guns. We used to be able to own cannons and even have them on ships to be used against our enemies. But when one person uses one of these arms for an evil purpose people like you want to ban them and disarm the American people. We can no longer fight our military should they side with a tyrant, the original intent of the second amendment. Much of the reason is people like you who make weapons evil instead of the people that use them. Shame on you!

      • Matt December 10, 2016, 12:41 am

        Unfortunately yes the right should be there. Again govt regulation can’t fix stupid. Gotta deal with the fact that nutsos are out there and they will find a way but can’t punish everyone else cuz of a couple bad apples. There will always be nutsos (Muslim jihadists) but u can’t punish the majority cuz of the actions of the very minuscule minority…and even if u do punish the majority it won’t change a thing except we can’t protect our rights and property. Stupid will be stupid govt regulation just hurts the good people doesn’t affect the ignorant nutsos.

    • Jay October 5, 2015, 7:44 pm

      1. Apparently some people have never done some CRP (tall dead grass) burning in the spring. We use a handheld sprayer filled with diesel fuel and a handheld propane torch to do this all the time. Its range is slightly shorter than the XM42 but I am sure there are better sprayers out there at Home Depot. The point is that this product is no different than something that is already available to the general public. They just improved the user interface so what is the big deal? You could probably use a super soaker for that matter. What you going to do? Outlaw sprayers, grill propane tanks, balloons that hold liquid, super soakers, bottles, buckets……..?

      2. If you read up about flame throwers from say WW2 you will see that the army’s analysis of them indicates that more enemy soldiers were shot in the back when running away from the flame thrower team than were actually burned. Any semi-auto is more dangerous than this flame thrower in most situations so it should be no big deal even to you 2nd Amendment “Moderates” out there. Imagine trying to hit a moving target with it.

    • Ron October 6, 2015, 12:18 am

      If you are a responsible adult, you should be able to own any type of weapon other than a mass destruction device.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend