TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

H. R. 4901: The “Flamethrowers? Really? Act”

4 点作者 mkeeter超过 7 年前

3 条评论

sweb超过 7 年前
<i>The term ‘flamethrower’ means any nonstationary or transportable device designed or intended to ignite and then emit or propel a burning stream of a combustible or flammable substance a distance of at least 6 feet.</i><p>This bill is clearly in reaction to The Boring Company flamethrowers (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.boringcompany.com&#x2F;not-a-flamethrower" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.boringcompany.com&#x2F;not-a-flamethrower</a>), yet their definition of a flamethrower doesn&#x27;t even cover those flamethrowers. From the videos that Musk has posted none of the flames from the boring co. flamethrowers shoot out 6 feet...
buffaloo超过 7 年前
Sugar cane farmers will not be pleased.
评论 #16328837 未加载
IntronExon超过 7 年前
<i>SEC. 2. FLAMETHROWERS TREATED THE SAME AS MACHINEGUNS FOR PURPOSES OF ALL FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS RELATING TO FIREARMS.</i><p>Why? With a real machine gun you could level a whole crowd in a minute. With a flamethrower, you can mostly make an ass of yourself unless the people you want to harm are in a pillbox. They’re not equivalent threats to others, and frankly a flamethrowers is mostly a threat to the carrier.