>But, Geeze, John! Many of the vehicles currently on the road have no
>"side-impact engineering," my '69 Chevy PU among 'em. It's my daily driver
>and will continue to be. That's hardly any reason for scrapping perfectly
>servicable vehicles (not that I'm saying you agree with that solution). It
>sounds like an excuse to me for something else.
Yea, well.... If you believe that the government is in control and the
government grants rights and the government is responsible for everyones
safety and well being then you get alot of the "Oh please government, help
us" type of attitudes. I'm really surprised that so many people here fall
into the trap and believe the excuses handed out.
There is another connection here that could be made. There are alot of
people who do not think that you should be able to own ANYTHING ex military
or reproduction even. Sara Brady for one has gone on record stating that she
does not believe people should be able to have/wear military uniforms (I
believe she was refering to bdu's). Her and others of her mind set end up
in high places and push there silent agenda. With all the talk of nhtsa,
does the name Joan Claybrook (sp?) ring a bell?? Wasn't she in charge of
nhtsa around the time of the mutt mess?
je
===
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>.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 05 2000 - 22:42:07 PST