>> that existing laws
>> if enforced would keep nut cases from ARMING a restored Cobra, B17, or M8
>> armored car.
>
>This is a rude flame and name calling to boot. I do not know what Jeff
Jeff should have been nicer about what he said, but look at it this way. He
is right about existing laws.
Somebody mentioned about the fact that the whitehorse could be attacked by a
tank loaded with demolitions, and they would not be able to protect it.
Okay, if that happened, we have laws to catch, try, convict if guilty and
punish persons responsible for such actions. We have a democratic process
where a Vice President steps in, and appoints a 2IC to replace him. We have
everything covered! Stiff penalties to discourage people from doing this
stuff to boot. Why add more laws and more enforcement duties to already
overstrained agencies? If some one wants to do this terrible act, you can't
stop them unless you catch them in the act no matter how you legislate.
If you legislate against certain small groups of people with like interests,
that is discriminatory law. We know where that can lead to. It lead to a
terrible period for Jews, Catholics and African Americans in this country,
not to mention how far it went with the Native Americans. I don't want our
country to return to that type of law making and enforcement again.
My wife works in a hospital which was founded by Jewish families in
Baltimore, because the hospitals extant at the time it was founded would not
treat Jews. At the time it was founded, the hospital council decided that
they would not turn away residents of the City of Baltimore regardless of
race or religion as a social protest against the unfair practices of the
city. There were no laws at the time enforcing such segration, just social
custom. Social custom was born out of fear, mistrust, religious zeal and
the economic power to enforce those customs. Jews, African Americans, and
other minorities at the time were politically voiceless.
We are voiceless in this hobby. We are disorganized, and now we are not
part of the social fabric through which our politicians weave their webs.
Our hobbies are endangered by fear, mistrust, political zeal, and economic
power beyond our means. We could compromise, and allow them to legislate
against tanks, supersonic aircraft, machine guns, and other items, hoping
our hobbies won't be affected. But are we really standing for what is right
in these cases when we say, "Take his, just leave mine alone?" If those
original council members at the hospital had drawn a line within their own
community, instead of reaching out to the other members of the city, I doubt
they would have been as successful as they are today. I think we should
take example of this.
I don't always agree with and am sometimes leery of the practices of the
NRA. But their basic premise, which as I understand it advocates the safe,
responsible private ownership of firearms certainly falls in line with my
strong belief that we are entitled to safely, responsibly own former
military vehicles, and engage in any type of commerce surrounding that
ownership as long as it does not harm our fellow citizens. I am not
advocating an alliance with the NRA in its present form. But this may
become an eventuality.
In addition, reference your concerns about ownership of tanks, machine guns,
etc. and the fact that there should be controls on their private ownership
and use, I have one important question that we all should ask ourselves. If
you are afraid of individuals owning these items, why are you not afraid of
police organizations, military organizations, and paramilitary organizations
owning them?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 02 2000 - 09:32:40 PDT