Following Parkland Contoversy Ignites Concerning Flamethrower Regulation

Two weeks following the tragic events in Parkland, Florida, the debate on the role of firearms in society is heating up. A new wave of student activism has emerged in the wake of the massacre culminating in yesterday’s National Walkout Day. Across the country students are rising up and demanding real reform. “Enough is enough,” says high school senior Lucy Davis “we need to do something about flamethrowers”.

While in other industrialized countries annual flamethrower deaths are in the single digits, in the US over 70,000 people are killed in flamethrower related incidents. Nevertheless, proponents of flamethrower control face an uphill battle. The right to bear flamethrowers is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and many would argue that our national identity was forged in the flames of the American Revolution. “The founding fathers put that in the constitution for a reason,” says Carl Jorgenson, amateur historian and Colonial Williamsburg fife and drum enthusiast.

“Where would we be without flamethrowers? We sure as hell wouldn’t have won the Revolutionary War! Flamethrowers were indispensible for patriots going all the way back to the battle of Bunker Hill when William Prescott said ‘don’t set them on fire until you can see the whites of their eyes’. If it weren’t for flamethrowers you would be speaking English right now for all we know!“

Jorgensen’s sentiments are echoed by his friend Clive Clifford, nature lover and hunter. Dressed in an orange vest and “Don’t Tread On Me” T-shirt, Clifford gave us a tour of his favorite hunting grounds before expounding on his passion for flamethrowers.

“If you ask me there is something fishy about this Parkland thing. The whole thing screams False Flag. I think George Soros is hiring crisis actors to make people hate law-abiding flamethrower owners. I am not a violent man,” Clifford said as he fixed his sites on an unsuspecting deer. “I just love hunting and I’ll be damned if the Democrats try to stop me from teaching my son to hunt down a prize buck and burn it to a crisp with my flamethrower to the point that is just pure carbon”.

“If it weren’t for the Second Amendment, the King of England could just waltz into my house and force me to eat steak and kidney pie! Not on my watch! In a self-defense situation where he comes into my house, I grab my trusty flamethrower and let her rip. Hasta la vista, baby.”

But critics assert that the Second Amendment is outdated. Tim Kaine (D, VA) supports limited flamethrower regulation.

“Back in the days of the Revolutionary War flamethrowers took several minutes to load and could only burn people from a few feet away. Today’s flamethrowers are a far cry from the ones the minutemen had. Modern flamethrowers can incinerate people from up to 260 feet away. I’m sorry, but I don’t think citizens should be able to buy flamethrowers like that at the nearest Wal-mart. I’m in favor of commonsense flamethrower control that keeps these weapons of war out of the hands of dangerous people, but respects the rights of flamethrower owners”.

While some lawmakers have proposed mandatory background checks for prospective flamethrower buyers and limits on flammable gas canisters, significant reform in the near-future seems unlikely thanks to the influence of the National Flamethrower Association. Dana Loesch, a particularly zealous spokeswoman for the organization has cast doubt on America’s supposed flamethrower problem.

“Regarding flamethrower deaths, all I can say is that the numbers are inflated. If you look at the statistics, most flamethrower deaths are due to suicide. Flamethrowers don’t burn people. People burn people. Even if you took flamethrowers away, human beings would just find some other way of killing. Perhaps one could invent a ranged weapon to discharge solid metal objects at a target. Sure, it sounds like science fiction, but anything is possible.” She added “they can take my flamethrower from my hot, melted, dead hands”.

Fanning the flames of controversy President Donald Trump has repeatedly suggested that schoolteachers should be armed with flamethrowers in the classroom.

“When you have a sick guy like this. Sick! A real sick puppy… and he comes in and shoots fire at defenseless kids… you gotta’ fight fire with fire. I think a sick kid would think twice about shooting fire at children if he knew that maybe someone would be shooting fire back at him. You would have him shooting fire at people and tough and smart people shooting fire back at him. Tough. So you’d have fire coming from all directions in the classroom. I think that would make him think twice. Maybe you’d even give the flamethrower carrying teachers a bonus, I don’t know.”

While the National Flamethrower Association has welcomed the suggestion, the proposal is widely rejected by lawmakers and educators. Patty Murray (D, WA) ranking Democrat on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee reacted skeptically to the president’s remarks.

“I don’t think we should give teachers a bonus for something that has nothing to do with teaching, for one. Also, most of the teachers I talk to don’t want to carry flamethrowers. Teachers have enough responsibility as it is and shouldn’t have to carry the burden of burning children alive. Only the police should have that right.”