From: Paul A. Thomas (bluewhale@jaxkneppers.com)
Date: Sat Aug 30 2003 - 10:44:24 PDT
Hi Doc:
To me, laws are promulgated upon rules. Standards are one set of
rules. The Powers That Be state a vehicle must have X components if it was
built in X year. These are minimum standards, to be sure, but they are
stated standards. They are what determine whether we are allowed to drive
our vehicle on the road or not. The DOT and Highway Patrols have to have a
published set of rules to determine whether or not X vehicle will be
allowed on the street. And they do. This is what I referred to as
'standards'. What something was originally built to do has no bearing on
the current use of it. Whether it is ' safe ' to operate is the primary
issue. Beyond safety, what business is it of someone else to tell a MUTT
owner not to drive their vehicle? As the laws currently stand in the US
there is no such 'right'. At least I can't think of any other issue that
absolute ( banning something as opposed to trying to tax it out of
existence ) policy is based upon currently. Can you?
My point is that signalling out one class of vehicle, in this case
military vehicles, for special treatment is wrong. The standards ( laws )
are there to keep the public safe. I can not see treating one sub-set
specially, especially when it is to destroy those historical
vehicles. There are exceptions in most state emissions standards which
exempt old vehicles: the idea there is probably to keep the vehicles around
instead of just destroying history as it drives down the street. MilVeh's
are history too.
IF this is the ONLY issue regarding destroying Hummers ( oops: is
that the civilian model? ) then the hummers should be allowed. if they are
deemed to be too unwieldy for the general public to drive then make the
general public obtain a higher class drivers license and penalize them with
points the way truckers are currently. but to just waste the money used to
build them, to simply destroy them, makes no sense to me.
Just my 2¢
Paul
MVPA# 24986
'53 REO M35 Fire Conversion
'53 AEC Chevy 3/4 Ton
*****************************************************************
At 12:20 AM 8/30/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Paul,
>
>This is where I disagree with you and Steve.
>
>Just because it meets a standard (i.e. it is accepted) does not mean that
>it is acceptable for civilian use. I think that is what who ever decided
>the Mutts got the cruncher instead of surplused out to unrestricted civilian
>use was thinking.
>
>A grey market BMW is still a car. Not some device built for military
>purposes.
>
>"But it's over 25 years old." Hey, don't apply a civilian vehicle standard
>to a military vehicle. They get built under different rules and used under
>different rules. Aside from some inner city residential areas, most drivers
>of civilian vehicles do not venture into free fire zones. Most drivers do
>not have a mission statement past being a delivery vehicle for soccer kids
>that includes combat medevac, ammunition resupply or carting Generals about.
>
>I do not see where you can come up with some "standard" that the Mutt meets,
>and then take that logic jump and say it's okay in civilian use. You can
>say, well, in the past other military vehicles have been sold off to
>civilian ownership. That is true, some were sold to State and Local
>governmental agencies, and then wended their way into civilian hands. And
>no one paid too much notice. As time passed, the rules regarding vehiclar
>safety got changed.
>
>Now here comes the Mutt. It gets bad press as an unsafe vehicle for even GI
>use. And we all feel our GI's are pretty well trained in doing what they
>do. Yet, it gets a bunch of them hurt in accidents. Someone takes notice,
>and the reaction from the Powers That Be is, "Well, these deathtraps are not
>going to go anywhere but the smelter.."
>
>Some do get out. Now, here comes another sticking point. Just because a
>few find civilian homes, should what ever ban seems to have been placed on
>them be released?
>
>But somebody, somewhere, above your and my pay grade, decided the Mutt was
>not supposed to be a civilian vehicle. Go back to the conspiracy theory.
>That's more fun to blame every zig and zag of human misdaventure on a
>conspiracy.
>
>I feel this way about it. If you want a Mutt, and you are accepting of the
>fact that it has a bit of a sordid history, and you understand that like
>many other choices you make in life, it may prove to your next of kin to be
>a bad one, if you can accept that, and not go whining off to lawyers when
>you roll it into a bus load of Nuns, then buy the damn thing. And if your
>state DMV has some category for licensing it, hey, knock your self out. Buy
>two even, they're small!
>
>And if you can buy a Mutt, I sure would be interested in owning an F-4E
>Phantom II, or an F-106 Delta Dart!
>
>I hate to be in the position of devil's advocate here, but I have yet to
>really see anything that would change my opinion of the Mutt story.
>
>Doc Bryant
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:23:38 PDT