<< John,
You have just illustrated my point. The logic behind all these government
actions is one of simplification. If ___ (fill in whatever, tank, guns, cars,
cigarettes,etc) are illegal then the only ones who have them are criminals. No
more grey areas no more stopping to think if the owner is a legitmate owner or
not. Think of everytime you have heard of a police raid going down at the
wrong
address and JQ Public gets shot for displaying a weapon. Under the
simplification process that goes away. This is what is happening in the
government.
Maybe the government should address some of the grevences and the fringe
elements will go away. Remember the abolitionists & states rights people were
once considered fringe elements and we wound up fighting a Civil War because
the issues were never addressed. I don't think that a civil war will happen I
am just illustrating a extreme example of what happens when issues are never
addressed.
Rick >>
Att: List
As a retired law enforcement officer and as a former military officer in S-2
(intell)...I want to state the obvious from a professional point of view:
It is highly unlikely that any credible, albeit limited, terroristic threat
could result from the control of an old, demilled, ex-military armored
vehicle. In terms of risk management the actions taken by BATF, that is to
retrict such vehicles for importation, offer no justiable benefit to public
safety. The decision lacks any factual basis and is flawed beyond reason. The
cost-benefit is in very poor judgement and should not be tolerated.
The vehicles in question are inheritantly problematic for any number of
reasons. Consider the TOT (time on target) for task specific terroristic
attacks. It's a joke. More likely, such slow, cumbersome and highly obvious
vehicles would be by every account a hinderance, rather than help in any such
mission. You could despense Sarin gas faster and more effeciently from a
moped than an old tank! Escape would be a hell of a lot more likely too.
Should we ban mopeds, motorcycles and scooters then?
The old armor at best (or worst, depending on your perspective) would serve
only a very limited value and it's costs far outweight it's benefit factor.
Perhaps in an open field combat stituation where you are making a run for it,
such a vehicle might help, hard to say. But, armor by itself, even modern
armor, is very vulnerable when acting solo. It presents no more risk than a
farmers tractor.
Further, these old armor vehicles begin to lose tactical value almost
exponentially as the invironment/terrain becomes more urban/congested.
Imagine making a run in a bomb ladden half-track from Yonkers over to the
World Trade Towers. Long, slow, tedious ride in an obvious and vulvernable
vehicle... some great plan! Better to steal a van... like they did.
To almost anyone with an IQ that is above a rock's it becomes blatantly
obvious that an old, slow, unarmed ex-mil veh presents no national security
problem!
Only fear absent the facts could lead to such stupidity. And stupidty at the
highest level of government.... now there is a security problem, there is our
real risk! Better we remove the stupid bureacrats than antique mil-vehs. The
guy who came up with this policy change must be a mental... it wouldn't
surprise me if he was a pervert, a liar, uh wait a second...I think I know
where it came from now!
Jack Lee
===
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>.