Do you own a firearm, AAA?
For someone so smart on a whole range of issues in politics, you are surprisingly ignorant on this one. Advocating that everyone should be able to buy flamethrowers (or bazookas, etc) just gives ammunition to the anti-gun crowd to push their agenda. It allows them to go "See? They're totally off their rocker - they think it's just fine for people to own flame throwers." That's precisely what Ricter just proved at your expense.
The reason a flame thrower shouldn't fall under the same category as a gun is because a gun is perfectly designed for personal protection. It is compact (hand held without external apparatus or appendages), perfectly efficient (with training) at killing the enemy and no one other than the enemy with very little collateral damage (again, with training). It is instant, it is easily used, and it is relatively inexpensive.
The argument of "well why can't we just give people bazookas or flamethrowers, or tanks, etc" is because while each of those can kill, they are not designed for self-defense on a personal scale. They are subject to significant collateral damage, require a lot more investment and training, and are meant for "mass casualties". The 2nd amendment was never designed to give people the ability to cause mass casualties and carnage. It was designed to oppose tyranny and protect oneself, one's family and one's property.
When you imply that people should be able to torch a mob outside their store, you've gone beyond protecting oneself and entered mass murder. And you give the liberals all the ammo they need to point at you and say "See? Told ya!"
I maintain that this issue - the right to bear arms not being infringed - like many other issues, can only be won on facts and common sense. It cannot be attacked from the right with the same tactics the left uses (just opposite stances with no logic). The facts are in favor of our position. Use them, wisely.
