----- Original Message -----
From: "Timothy Smith" <timothy.smith1@worldnet.att.net>
To: "Mil Veh List" <MVlist@egroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 10:40 PM
Subject: responding to islander
> Steve, et al...
>
> I was left with the feeling that the last time this bill was shot down it
> was shot down for having language that was too broad in scope. What gives
> me the willies is that these guys have SEEN this item before, they KNOW
why
> it was pigeon-holed the first time and yet here it is AGAIN, resubmitted
in
> its original form and STILL too broad in scope. These being the
> circumstances, I must suspect that they want it broad because they want a
> lot of lattitude.
>
> While I quite agree with you that at the moment it is higly unlikely that
> they would come after some fella with an M35 (for example) bet let me
share
> something with you and other readers. We have had some intel at work
lately
> that suggests that round two with these terrorist types will be them using
> some type of emergency equipment (at first thought one would think of a
> firetruck or ambulance or police car) but why not a modern military truck?
>
> Hypothetical situation: Terrorist picks up an M35, straightens it up and
> loads it up with God-knows-what-kind-of-nasty-thing. Terrorist gets his
> Army Surplus uniform on and drives said truck straight into Manhatten
> tomorrow, unchallenged and BOOM....award round two to the terrorists as
> well.
>
> So, given my scenario, now are M35's significant?! You BET, baby! Do you
> think they'll be coming for the rest of the M35's out there? Uh HUH
(they'd
> be crazy not to).....and hell, they gotta look like they're doing
SOMETHING
> for the voters!
>
> So you see, that word "significant" is a relative term open to great deal
of
> interpretation, given the circumstances at the moment. Do not think for a
> moment that this proposed bill is good in any way shape or form. It is
> poorly written and too broad in scope and furthermore it is a like trying
to
> use a sledgehammer to drive a finishing nail and I, for one, am against it
> as it is currently written.
>
> The only thing I have to hang on to is the fact the the DoD never owned my
> White Scout Car cause the DoD didn't exist until 1949. I don't know what
> the rest of you guys are gonna do, though.
>
> Better visit www.senate.gov if you know what's good for you.
>
> Regards and sweet dreams.
> TJ
> MVPA 21162
>
> PS...maybe they'll only make you run your trucks through the shredder just
> once.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 08 2001 - 10:59:01 PDT