- 9,604
- 1,493
- 113
- Location
- mid- michigan
opcorn:opcorn:opcorn:
Steel Soldiers now has a few new forums, read more about it at: New Munitions Forums!
This is not the place to share those kind 'facts'. Please stop posting political stuff here. You're going to get this thread closed/deleted....this is NOT a political statement! This is a statement of FACT.
Ummm, you cant own a tank? Since when? Better get the word out quick. There are many privately owned armored vehicles out there. Including dozens owned by members here on SteelSoldiers.February 26th, 2014.
MRAP is almost indestructible. And ask yourself why you can't own a tank that is fully operational....probably for the same general reason.
Reasonable is a matter of degrees also:Ummm, you cant own a tank? Since when? Better get the word out quick. There are many privately owned armored vehicles out there. Including dozens owned by members here on SteelSoldiers.
MRAPs are not a threat to the public any more than the armored vehicles already out there. When is the last time a privately owned armored vehicle was used in the commission of a crime? I'd be surprised if anyone can cite an example. The M60 mentioned above was a CA National Guard tank, and the "kill-dozer" was not an armored vehicle as designed. It was an ordinary bulldozer home brewed into an armored contraption.
Actually. The mrap was not purpose built to be indestructible. It was designed to sacrifice itself to save the crews life.February 27th, 2014.
When I mentioned tanks, I meant fully operational, as in main mount operative. But I might also point out to the comment on subs, anyone notice the drug lords in Columbia buying or building semi-submersibles to avoid radar detection? From there it is only a small step to buying and using, say, Russian navy surplus subs in illegal endeavors. As for myself, I have patently decided that I shall not trade barbs, or even serious thoughts, with folks less inclined to be introspective.
The MRAP was purpose built to be nearly indestructible, the hardened Peterbilt in your example, or the Komatsu was not and thus contained defects in design. However, your logic is not followed to the end, as you are thereby justifying the destruction of property or lives by any deranged individual that can build or obtain such a beast. Between you and I, I will always give the stopping power to the military or the PD's, as they are apt to use it in our service, not to destroy or take life idly.
However, please note in "Politics affecting the hobby", " Representation Clarification"
the following post from M16TY:
"Think of it this way, leave the ex-military truck aspect out of it. These trucks are government surplus that do not pass federal safety standards. It makes no difference if you are a collector, commercial business that uses these trucks, or just somebody who likes a big 6X6, if they get banned or restricted from public use, everybody that owns one of these (or hopes to own one in the future) will be affected.
Let a couple of high profile accidents happen with these trucks and there's a good chance we could all suffer. When they restrict them from public use everybody that owns one will suffer, it doesn't make a difference what you use it for or what you think it represents. "
Pretty much this is the point I was trying to make on the MRAP's, and by extension, Armor. I will place the thought in front of you that if a civilian lays hands on a functional MRAP, or tank, and does something exceptionally stupid or criminal with it, your truck or vehicle may be the next one recalled on a Demil Code change. We have seen it happen on the HMMWV's, just because AM General did not want to affect their sales of the H-1. If that had happened after WWII, how many MB,M38, and M38A1's would we now have?
The pot is not worth stirring unless something positive comes out of it. So I shall not stir further.