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>.