It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Flamethrowers being sold to general public.

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   
They are now being sold to the public, no background checks and persons under 18 can even buy them.

Flamethrowers were gruesome weapons of war and so controversial that the U.S. military stopped using them after Vietnam.
But as crazy as it may sound, they are available for sale to the public.

A Cleveland startup called Throwflame is selling flamethrowers for $1,599 that can shoot fire for 50 feet. Another company, Ion Productions Team of Detroit, is selling $900 flamethrowers that can eject flames for 25 feet. Both companies started selling them this year.
The flamethrowers are marketed not as weapons, but as fun devices.
"We always have the people who just want it for fun. Impress the neighbors at the BBQ," said Throwflame founder Quinn Whitehead.
Both Whitehead and Ion CEO Chris Byars said their flamethrowers have caused no injuries, and safety is a priority. But Ion notes on its website that the flamethrower "may result in injury or even death."

the rest of the story...

money.cnn.com...

What the Hell..this is beyond scary.




posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Hidinout

No more scary than a firearm, just more dramatic.
I don't know if you support gun ownership but if you do, what possible reason could you have to wish the banning of these?



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Hidinout

I imagine a few houses getting on fire when the owner really wants to kill that spider.





posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
A child playing with matches can cause enough damage. Flamethrowers are only useful in war... or maybe in a swarm of killer bees. But that's about it.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Hidinout

i predict this will end badly



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Hidinout

I imagine a few houses getting on fire when the owner really wants to kill that spider.




I used to kill them with a can of Axe and a lighter.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
You can go to home depot and buy the parts to make one for a lot less money.
Pressure tank, hoses, fittings and a valve.
It's just a big super soaker.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Hidinout

No more scary than a firearm, just more dramatic.
I don't know if you support gun ownership but if you do, what possible reason could you have to wish the banning of these?

I totally support gun ownership and if you don't see any difference between a flamethrower and a gun I don't know what to say.


originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Hidinout

i predict this will end badly
No kidding. I'd rather be shot than incinerated any day.

edit on 14-8-2015 by Hidinout because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

just WTF ???????????



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hidinout

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Hidinout

No more scary than a firearm, just more dramatic.
I don't know if you support gun ownership but if you do, what possible reason could you have to wish the banning of these?

I totally support gun ownership and if you don't see any difference between a flamethrower and a gun I don't know what to say.
What? The flame thrower can maim/kill up to 50 feet you say, what is the range of an AR15? I bet I could kill more people with an AR15 than with a flame thrower.
Yep, if you support gun ownership then I see no reason for you to wish the banning of flamethrowers.

How about explaining why rather than coming out with a lame line like "I don't know what to say", this is a discussion forum so please do share why you think it is okay to own an AR15 but not a flamethrower?

*Edit*
@ignorant_ape , I refer this reply to your good self as well.

edit on 14.8.2015 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Hidinout

You're just now finding out about this? Flamethrowers have been legal since forever.

I guess that's the bad part about waiting for CNN or other propaganda outlets to tell you what should bother you. Flamethrowers just wasn't that high on their list of priorities. They needed you to be upset about assault weapons (i. e. guns that look scary), Confederate flags, Iran, Syria, gay wedding cakes, undocumented immigrants, domestic terrorists, the Kardasians, Miley Cyrus, etc.

Flamethrowers just weren't on their radar. Must have been a slow news day.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Here we go again....

I am so glad I am not going to be here for this one.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: grainofsand

Here we go again....

I am so glad I am not going to be here for this one.
Yeah me too!

I'm sorry I brought this up. I won't be back because I am going out to buy a flamethrower so I can do some brush clearing on our forty acres.

Cheers



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

I don't agree with owning an AR15 or a flame thrower. They're both ridiculous weapons to have in the hands of the general public. Both weapons in the hands of a mentally ill person or terrorist could kill many innocent lives. What's next, are we going to allow the general public to purchase chemical weapons, grenade launchers etc....

Would you feel comfortable if you lived next door to someone you knew was mentally ill but owned an AR15 or a flame thrower? I'm sure you nor anyone else would. It's one thing to arm yourself with a rifle or hand gun to protect yourself, family or your property, but it's another to arm yourself with a weapon which in the wrong hands could cause death on a massive scale.

I doubt our founding fathers never considered the type of weapon development we would have in the future when they wrote the 2nd amendment.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Have thought about making one myself over here in the UK to tackle the back garden when it gets a bit too rough but anything more than a giant bunsen burner on a pole is a section 5 firearm which pretty much means its a police/army item and getting the permits for it would be beyond most people.

but how the hell they'd find out you had modified a weed sprayer with something to be able to handle the heat at the business end i'll never know (assuming you don't burn down the entire neighbourhood while drunk)



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hidinout

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: grainofsand

Here we go again....

I am so glad I am not going to be here for this one.
Yeah me too!

I'm sorry I brought this up. I won't be back because I am going out to buy a flamethrower so I can do some brush clearing on our forty acres.

Cheers
Oh that's a pity, usually in a discussion forum someone posts an opinion and they engage in conversation with people who may have a different perspective on the particular subject.
Why start the thread if you only wanted replies from people who agree with you?

You expressed outrage/fear that flamethrowers are on sale in the US, I expressed an opinion that I could kill/maim many more people with an AR15 at a much greater range than 50 feet. For that reason I cannot understand why you or anyone else wishes flame throwers to be banned if it is okay to own AR15's.

So, what is it? Why are flame throwers with a range of 50 feet so scary to you and should be banned?
I agree that legal sale to under 18's is a strange one, but the flame thrower itself is no worse than a firearm.
If you want to go down the road of 'oppression from the state' then surely a flame thrower could have its uses for any militia, but I'd prefer to have a firearm.

Now, do you wish to discuss comparisons between weapons in this thread you started, or do you only want to hear from people who agree with you?



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Future prediction: Riot police vs protestors wearing flamethrowers...not good



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Skywatcher2011

Why would protesters use a flame thrower with a lame 50 feet range if they wanted to kill cops?
Surely it would make more sense to pick them off with a firearm from a couple of hundred yards away.

All this hyperbole about the flame throwers when there are far more effective killing tools available to the average US citizen.
I know one thing, if I was offered a flame thrower or an AR15 I'd take the AR15 every time. A flame thrower is pretty crap in comparison, yet the OP is more scared of it than the firearm.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Flame throwers are a pretty niche weapon really. They are pretty easy to counter, you simply shoot the individual using it. Preferably from around 55 feet or so lol.

OMG, it sounds so scary! Ban it!!!!



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Maybe a flamethrower wouldn't be as dangerous as a assault rifle in the UK environment. But in Australia (for example) you could easily start a massive bush fire and take out thousands of houses and a lot of people as well. We're not even allowed to have bqq's on really hot days, because of how prone our bush land is to fire.

Some fool who decides to clear the overgrowth on his property on the wrong day could cause a lot of damage. You could end up taking out an entire town!

Definitely more dangerous than a AR-15.




top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join