Actually in the USA flamethrowers are unrestricted as they haven't really been used in a violent crime yet, and we operate on a "leave it alone unless it becomes a problem" mentality. Except California, which tries to ban whatever they can get away with. That applies to brush cleaning flamethrowers, military ones, and vehicle mounted ones.

On the topic of suppressors, there is a much more low-tech, and more effective, solution if you want to shoot at something without producing a lot of noise. Set up with your rifle so that you are shooting out of a window, but from well within the building. When you fire, most of the noise of the report stays inside the room. Make sure you've got ear plugs in...

Oh, the things you learn when you grow up in an area where poaching is commonplace, and enforcement is just strict enough that you need to be a little ingenious about it...

And with that in mind, the USA are selling 6 predator drones to one of the worst warmongers in the world, this very year. Hopefully they are intelligent enough to keep the emergency shutdown codes (if such a thing exists) around.

Who?

On the topic of suppressors, there is a much more low-tech, and more effective, solution if you want to shoot at something without producing a lot of noise.  Set up with your rifle so that you are shooting out of a window, but from well within the building.  When you fire, most of the noise of the report stays inside the room.  Make sure you've got ear plugs in...
 
Oh, the things you learn when you grow up in an area where poaching is commonplace, and enforcement is just strict enough that you need to be a little ingenious about it...

Who?

I'm happy you did read my posts so very carefully and took the diligence to understand them properly prior to replying. For the record, I do not support Trump in any way.

Your idea about the "original intention" could not be further off.

Standing armies are not the only possible source for tyrannical activities. The most dangerous source is the governing force put in power by the people. That is the purpose of the 2nd amendment. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, ..." does not mean to protect our selves from just foreign entities, but also our own established governments. America is not the "free state" the constitution was referring to. Their were 13 original states when the US declared independence. The collection of the states are what form America as a whole.

That's exactly what I was getting at. When I said that the founders saw standing armies as tools of tyranny, I was talking about your own government being the tyrant, and the militia being required to protect the people from the violence-arm of their own government.

The government was not originally intended to maintain a standing army -- it would only assemble one in times of need, as maintaining one in times of peace would serve no purpose other than to impose tyranny. The presence of a domestic standing army acts as a counter to the power of local militia, nullifying this defense of freedom.
The very fact that you do have a permanent army means that the constitution / militias have failed. The fact that the citizenry cannot possibly challenge their own government in the form of an armed rebellion, due to the restriction on arms to the citizenry that does not apply to the state's army, also means that the constitution has failed.

-The US military is not tyrannical. Expansionism is dead and we are not holding our boot to any nations throat.

You cannot be serious?

I see this argument posted a lot. The goal of a militia in a modern USA wouldn't be to fight the predator drone directly with manpads or something, but to kill the pilot's family and him when he leaves his base of operations.

The original intention of an armed populace though, was to be able to take on the armies of tyrants - by forming into an army if required - which means that the citizenry need to be able to posses any weapon of war.
At the time, a town full of men and muskets could directly challenge a battalion of evil soldiers with muskets.

Now, they cannot, as they have rifles while the enemy has tanks, jets, missiles, bombs...

If the government is restricting the citizenry's right to bear arms to the point where they are unable to compete against armies of tyrants, then that's already trampling all over the intention.
Either you disarm the military, or you arm the population further -- anything else is an attack on freedom.

The problem with gun control is that it simply does not work.
Criminals have guns, and will have guns.

Except when it does.
The US has does have successful arms restrictions: you don't often see people with the extremely prohibited ones, such as tanks, missiles, etc. For them, it does work for the weapons that they do restrict. For us, we just happen to restrict a hell of a lot more weapons, and it works for them too.

Here (Australia), "normal" guns (say, an AR-15 or an M1911) are extremely prohibited. People love to trot out the "criminals will get them anyway" argument, but the fact is that they're wayyyyy to risky to posses, and demand for them is way lower than other highly illegal things, like kilograms of cocaine, so it's very hard to find them. Why would a criminal want to rob people with a gun, when simply walking down the street with the gun in their bag is a far, far, bigger crime than knocking down someone's door with an axe? Similarly, I'm sure in the US it's possible to get your hands on 100KG of semtex, but it would be hard to source, and why the fuck would you when doing so would risk getting disappeared to Guantanamo bay?

Gun crime here is extremely rare, and no, before someone trots out the other common rebuff, levels of other armed-crimes do not rise to fill the void left by the reduction in gun-crimes. Likewise, non-gun suicide rates do not rise to fill the void left by the massive decrease in gun-based suicide.

At the end of the day, I am simply not afraid of being attacked by criminals with guns. When I'm walking home late at night through a bad part of town, maybe I'm afraid of being attacked by fists that outnumber me -- that's a possibility. Perhaps a few thugs with a knife, though even that's pretty unlikely (carrying a knife in public carries a decent penalty)... but being held up by someone with a gun? That doesn't even register as something that's possible to happen to me.
Americans are 11x more likely than an Australian, or 10x more likely than a German to be killed by a gun. I know you're full of fears, but they are mostly in your imagination (unless you want to travel to a 3rd world country / USA any time soon).

Now of course, this doesn't mean that the US can simply follow our lead. There's already more guns than people in the country, and a hell of a lot of people who will never hand them over. Even with extremely harsh penalties on possession and nationwide "buy back" programs, it would take an eternity to remove the existing black market supply :(
Also compared to Europe, we're a island that intercepts illegal boats and puts their inhabitants in fucking concentration camps for life, whereas European borders are Swiss cheese... So we're not exactly a fair example to look up to...

Who?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1_Predator#Operators

Given what has recently happened (and still is happening) and the recent, not altogether unbelieveable allegations of Hamas-involvement, it seems like a truly bombing idea to give this man yet another 6 flying nightmares with a close-to-1000-km range. Which he controls without supervision then.

Ah you mean Turkey. Just wanted to clarify who you were talking about.

The government was not originally intended to maintain a standing army -- it would only assemble one in times of need, as maintaining one in times of peace would serve no purpose other than to impose tyranny.

The Continental army(later transforming into todays US Army) was formed to fight Great Britain before we even declared independence. So until we were done fighting that war, some 8 years later, you think the army just disbanded and everyone went their separate ways? The framers of the constitution specifically added a clause to allow congress to "raise and support Armies". Yes, there was opposition to this on both sides, but none the less, it entered the constitution.

Article 1, section 8, clause 13: "To provide and maintain a Navy".

clause 16: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

Sounds like maintaining an army to me. Just because their was opposition to it, does not mean it was never the original intention. You can argue that the idea, definition or purpose, of a maintained militia has changed since, but that is not the argument.

heh, I love the way the gun debate keeps coming up over and over... and I don't know why; the debate in the USA is over.

The day a bunch of young children were murdered and NOTHING WAS CHANGED was the day it became obvious nothing will ever change.

Every shooting since then has been met with a shrug because this is just how life is in the USA.

And that's why the idea that HC will "take away the guns" is laughable and if you believe it you are an idiot.

Every thing you just stated is factually false. Every shooting that occurs, their are riots. Every shooting that occurs, is an excuse for another HRC rally where she cries out for more gun control, or for house democrats to launch a sit in for gun control. You come off as one of those people who are a part of the problem. If someone died from a brain freeze by eating ice cream too fast, you would rally to ban ice cream shops. You sound like one of the people who rallied to ban Christian owned flower shops because one of them refused to serve a gay couple, but every Muslim owned bakery does the exact same thing and cries of outrage are no where to be heard. You are the type of person who results to name calling and screaming profanities.