Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumWarren moves to ban sale or possession of flamethrowers
He just wants to extinguish any chance to publicly own flamethrowers in his city before a small spark can become a full-blown blaze: literally and figuratively.
It describes a flamethrower as any transportable device that can emit a burning stream of combustible or flammable liquid at a distance of more than two feet. It doesnt include open-flame cooking devices as defined by the International Fire Code, torches used for industrial purposes or smaller flame-producing devices, like cigar lighters. It also makes exceptions for any officers, employees or members of the Armed Forces, law enforcement, fire department or local, state or federal government workers on duty and acting within the scope of his or her employment.
Theres just no justifiable reason for the public to use this. It shouldnt be available to the public, Fouts said. Anybody can just go to their website and provide credit card information and buy one. Minors could get ahold of a credit card and buy one. You couldnt do this if you wanted to buy a gun. There are background checks, etc. I have no problem with the Second Amendment. But this is not in the same category as guns or firearms.
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/general-news/20150819/warren-moves-to-ban-sale-or-possession-of-flamethrowers
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)Probably should as that is pretty dangerous and if you want a really long flame substitute starter fluid (ether) for the hair spray. WD-40 is good as well.
Then there are prickly pear burners that have been used by ranchers during droughts in Texas for nearly a century. The older models used pressurized gasoline the newer ones use propane or butane to burn spines off the pads so the cattle can eat them for moisture and some nourishment.
ileus
(15,396 posts)DonP
(6,185 posts)Maybe that's where this Google dump belongs. Certainly not firearms policy issue.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,350 posts)... I don't remember any big problem with flamethrowers back then, but maybe things have changed.
The mayor adds a lot of exceptions to his ban. I hope that includes teachers. Teachers could really use a good flamethrower at times.
Response to SecularMotion (Original post)
Post removed
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Of course, please keep up with the laws governing firearms in moving watercraft.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)In one statement, he shows how little he knows about living on a farm in the country.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Where have we heard that sentiment before?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)If a church can have a prayer station inside city hall, then an atheist can have a reason station there, too.
That's what a federal judge concluded today in ordering the city of Warren to allow an atheist man to set up a so-called "reason station" in the atrium at city hall, similar to the one his religious counterparts have...
..."The reason station will be allowed to operate on terms not less favorable than the terms granted to the prayer station," wrote Hluchaniuk, who also ordered the city of Warren to pay the ACLU $100,000 for costs and attorney fees.
The case involves Warren resident Douglas Marshall, who sued the city of Warren and Mayor James Fouts last summer after his request to set up a "reason station" inside city hall was denied. Fouts feared the atheist man's table would discourage the practice of religion and create chaos in city hall, so he rejected his application for a station.