The founding fathers gave us rights.....and thats it! The government was to
protect out shores..now they govern how much money our states get for
hiways, educate our children and regulate our access to arms...it's not
right. We have laws..to deal with bad guys who would do harm. Use them and
leave the rest of us alone!
We don't need 150 mph cars, hi performance civilian aircraft, or 125 mph
boats...or M2HBs, but lots of people laid it down, big time, to make sure
people could make choices like that. Thats freedom...to choose...and do
what you please.
I for one am not afraid of alleged hate groups and the like...they are
tools of our government to suppress us! In the name of safety or some other
trash .
To take rights from all to achieve a little feeling of security is not
worth it. And the founders would have not stood for it!
Wake up! The government wants to turn you from a citizen to a
subject....plain and simple!
Let them rule you and all is lost....
Jon
just my rant tonight!
At 11:45 PM 3/1/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Well,
> I think that some short-sighted individuals within our "elected"
>government would probably like to go home at night feeling safe that some
>military vehicle nut won't come tearing throught his house with an armored
>vehicle. Laughing at this?
>
>You shouldn't. There are lots of people out there who really have lost
>complete faith in the ability of the Federal Government to justly and
>reasonably govern the Citizens of the United States. Including many members
>of the US Government. And they are afraid of fringe elements. Don't you
>think that every government worker doesn't look at rental trucks parked
>outside their offices with some sort of trepidation? They do. And
>government workers are having unprecedented numbers of hours of training in
>counter-terrorism, disaster management, etc. I know, as I work for the
>Department of Defense.
>
>The Citizens and Government workers are not afraid of you in your little
>WWII jeep. But they are afraid of groups who buy tanks and armored vehicles
>and perform combat training with them. And that is what this executive
>branch wrangling is about. They essentially cut out the availability of
>armored vehicles to the public by demilling the majority of them. But they
>could not control the importation of foreign vehicles. Or at least they did
>not have a reason to mess with this practice. Evidently, they feel that
>they need to stop this flow into the country, for whatever reason. Are the
>reasons benign, like trying to control access to armor by hate groups, ultra
>left and right, etc? Or do they just not trust any US citizens with this
>type of technology any more? Hey, all you have to do is watch Jerry or
>Oprah to realize that John Q Public with an easily available destructive
>device and a tank will not resolve his conflicts in a positive and
>constructive manner.
>
>You can cry and moan about how your freedom is being subverted when they ban
>tanks, and cannons, and other devices. But do you really want them openly
>available to anybody who has a checkbook? You need to REALLY think about
>that one before you answer. With twelve years in the military, I feel
>reasonably secure in the knowledge that if I personally own any type of such
>devices, I will maintain them properly and not engage in any activities
>which would offend my neighbors. But how does a Government determine which
>people are 'safe' to own such devices? Let's use the Littlefield Scud as an
>example. I don't know Jacques Littlefield, but to my knowledge, he has
>never committed a felony, or belonged to any organizations which openly
>advocate the overthrow of the United States Government. He imports a Scud.
>His intention is to have the vehicle and missile as a part of his
>collection. But is he accompanying the missile and transporter through all
>phases of its movement? No. Does he personally supervise the proper safe
>rendering of the missile (or even know how to do it)? No, and it bites him
>in the ass. How difficult would it be for a 'bad' organization to get hold
>of this non-demilled missile, fill it with anthrax, and send it?
>
>Well from personal experience training to perform ship raids, and some
>knowledge of the practice of launching missiles, not very. These are very
>real threats. How difficult would it be to drive a privately owned armored
>vehicle down to the center of the city, and start firing Sarin shells
>randomly? Very easy. Remember Tokyo? Three ziplock bags of Sarin. 5500
>victims.
>
>Wake up, guys. While they may be fighting the citizenry, and depriving
>rights, and quashing hobbies, they have bigger fish to catch. Important
>dangerous ones which may be out there to hurt you and your family. And if
>you get caught in the net, that's your problem. And if it really bothers
>you, start electing people who really work to resolve social conflicts which
>lead to the proliferation of radical fringe elements in the beginning,
>instead of playing them off against each other in political games.
>
>Let's say this was my 5 cents worth.
>
>john@astory.com
>http://www.astory.com
>
>
>===
>To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
>UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.
>
===
To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.