A couple of years ago we had a woman who went crazy and decided to take her Ford Expedition and run over a bunch of people. I think she killed 8 people which is enough to be a mass killing. She wasn't working construction or anything that required a vehicle of that size just a regular soccer mom. We need to get these monsterous trucks off the street. We have all seen those monster trucks on television and the destruction they can do. I think we should call them assault trucks. I mean why does any guy need a truck that sits 4 feet off the groung and has a loud exhaust other than to run over other cars and stuff. He could get a full tank of gas and then go drive down some sidewalk somewhere. We could permit the people who need them. No where in the constitution does it say your allowed to go off roading. I realize that we can't keep people from doing crazy stupid things were just trying to minimize the damage that they can do.
Assault trucks
- Thread starter G.barnes
- Start date
- Status
You do realize that there are people who would agree with the idea that those vehicles should be restricted to commercial use, right?
In many countries they're classified differently than cars and you have to be issued a separate license to drive one.
In many countries they're classified differently than cars and you have to be issued a separate license to drive one.
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
While I understand your sentiment, if you include something about firearms in your assault truck post you stand a better chance of it surviving to be read and discussed.
Do you keep a truck gun in your truck? I do when I'm out in the desert camping, but remove it/them when in the city and parked for the night... that sorta thing?
Do you keep a truck gun in your truck? I do when I'm out in the desert camping, but remove it/them when in the city and parked for the night... that sorta thing?
You can run over people with a Yugo just as easily. We have enough restrictions and special permits for various items without having to have "special papers" to drive a truck.
We need less government restrictions (control), not more.
We need less government restrictions (control), not more.
Al Thompson
Moderator Emeritus
I suspect sarcasm. Needs more smilies. 
PedalBiker
Member
The Army switched from gasoline to diesel a while back because gasoline is so dangerous.
My in laws (who despise "AK-47s") were wondering why I would put a smoke detector in our garage. I told them there was 20 gallons of gas in our minivan and they come back with "how is it going to ignite" - hot engine, sparks from battery???
Meanwhile my son leaves 5 burning candles on the dining room table and the only punishment is that he doesn't get to light them again.
I leave my assault truck keys hanging in the office in full view of the kids and the paranoid in laws don't bat an eyelash - in fact their assault vehicle keys get left on the kitchen desk in full view of the children.
Americans are just bad at math.
My in laws (who despise "AK-47s") were wondering why I would put a smoke detector in our garage. I told them there was 20 gallons of gas in our minivan and they come back with "how is it going to ignite" - hot engine, sparks from battery???
Meanwhile my son leaves 5 burning candles on the dining room table and the only punishment is that he doesn't get to light them again.
I leave my assault truck keys hanging in the office in full view of the kids and the paranoid in laws don't bat an eyelash - in fact their assault vehicle keys get left on the kitchen desk in full view of the children.
Americans are just bad at math.
Carl N. Brown
Member
Assault Trucks is not that big a stretch....
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/hopes-raised-strong-arms-trade-treaty-2012-07-27
Some supporters of the UN Arms Trade Treaty see no difference between miltary vehicles and police vehicles for purposes of arms control; would not be much of a stretch to include civlian trucks, 4 wheel drives, or ATVs similar to military vehicles.
They also see no material difference between tactical shotguns and deerslayer brush guns, or between military/police sniper rifles and long range target guns either.
kinda hard to select a smilie or
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/hopes-raised-strong-arms-trade-treaty-2012-07-27
Some supporters of the UN Arms Trade Treaty see no difference between miltary vehicles and police vehicles for purposes of arms control; would not be much of a stretch to include civlian trucks, 4 wheel drives, or ATVs similar to military vehicles.
They also see no material difference between tactical shotguns and deerslayer brush guns, or between military/police sniper rifles and long range target guns either.
kinda hard to select a smilie
or Aaron Baker
Member
Looks like some folks don't have their sarcasm meters working. Since I do, I'll just say that the problem isn't with the assault trucks. It's with their high capacity gas tanks.
Limit the gas tank to less than 10 gallons, and the driver will be much less likely to hurt someone with it.
Aaron
Limit the gas tank to less than 10 gallons, and the driver will be much less likely to hurt someone with it.
Aaron
I didn't think of the gas tank limit. I should have made it more apparent it was a joke, but in all seriousness it's pretty close to the way they look at guns. As others have said though other counties have taken away people cars because the government thought it was bad so where does it stop after guns.
MachIVshooter
Member
Not long ago I posted a thread asking people to stop using car-gun analogies. There is a good reason.
Exactly. Some places already have laws on maximum vehicle heights, maximum bumper heights, exhaust dB, etc.
This kind of argument will backfire. Cars are a privilege, not a right, and plenty of people would love to see big, loud trucks and powerful sports cars banned. Don't give them any more ammunition.
Exactly. Some places already have laws on maximum vehicle heights, maximum bumper heights, exhaust dB, etc.
This kind of argument will backfire. Cars are a privilege, not a right, and plenty of people would love to see big, loud trucks and powerful sports cars banned. Don't give them any more ammunition.
monotonous_iterancy
Member
- Joined
- May 27, 2012
- Messages
- 915
We need reasonable car restrictions. You don't need to have a car that goes over 90 mph. Only police need vehicles that can go that fast. There's no road in America you can legally go over 85 or so, therefore it is ridiculous and irresponsible for Americas drivers to be riding machines that are capable of such speed. All they do is allow people to outrun cops, and encourage illegal street racing. People die in street racing.
By using common sense and capping all engines at 90 mph, we can respect America's cruising heritage while keeping the wheel of danger out of the wrong hands.
By using common sense and capping all engines at 90 mph, we can respect America's cruising heritage while keeping the wheel of danger out of the wrong hands.
I'd appreciate a link to an article about this if possible. One of the comebacks by the anti's when enlightening them that more people die from car wrecks than homicides is that cars aren't used in mass killings. This would be good evidence to the contrary.
MachIVshooter
Member
OK, one more time
STOP IT WITH THE CAR-GUN ANALOGIES.
It won't help the pro-gun argument, and could later have a negative impact on automobile related legislation. We have enough of that already. Do you really want the EPA to decide that if you don't have a legitimate purpose for owning a truck, you are not allowed to purchase and register a vehicle getting less than 30 MPG? Because they would LOVE to push that one through. They have already mandated total vehicle sales averaging minimum fuel economies. You guys want to see GM, Ford and Chrysler killed off because the civilian truck and SUV market is legislated away? You want to be stuck buying a little econobox like everyone drives in Europe? Keep it up........
STOP IT WITH THE CAR-GUN ANALOGIES.
It won't help the pro-gun argument, and could later have a negative impact on automobile related legislation. We have enough of that already. Do you really want the EPA to decide that if you don't have a legitimate purpose for owning a truck, you are not allowed to purchase and register a vehicle getting less than 30 MPG? Because they would LOVE to push that one through. They have already mandated total vehicle sales averaging minimum fuel economies. You guys want to see GM, Ford and Chrysler killed off because the civilian truck and SUV market is legislated away? You want to be stuck buying a little econobox like everyone drives in Europe? Keep it up........
Ex-MA Hole
Member
I came up with this a few years back....quoting myself...
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=12000.0
Hear me out-
I have a thought&.ALL MEN NEED TO CUT YOUR PENISES OFF&.this makes perfect sense if you think about it...
1. Its for the children. If men didnt have a penis, the small percentage children being raped and molested would go to zilch. Disregard the other ways of forcibly violating someone, its not prudent to this conversation.
2. It would cut down on global warming. Since we couldnt reproduce naturally, there would be less children. Less children = less people. Less people = less global climate change.
3. Only the high class and wealthy would be able to afford to have their wives artificially inseminated. Therefore, the common person couldnt afford it. This would stop the average person from reproducing. We would have a much better caliber (like the pun?) of people. You know, the wealthy, the ones that could afford to have children, the average could not. Wait a minute- youd need a special license to have children. Yeah, then the Government could regulate it for us. You could charge a fee for this right/ license to generate revenue. That way the common person couldnt afford it. We don't need the average citizen having children.
4. Since only a few select people would have children, they would lock in the future for the world. They would (obviously) control the world in short time, since they were to only ones that would be around.
5. Rape and sexual assaults would decline across the board&No one would have a penis, so no one would be raped. Again, disregard dildos, broom sticks, hamsters, fists, etc. We all know that there are no dildos in the world, so that would cease to be a problem.
6. The pornography industry would come to a grinding halt. No penis, no sex. After all, since the religious groups all (just go with this for the sake of my theory ) dictate that sex is for procreation only, sex is only had via missionary position. Everyone knows that the penis is the cause of love. Love = sex, since people only have it with their significant others.
7. It would be easy to accomplish this. You simply make it a law, and men worldwide would just voluntarily, without any fight, cut their penises off. After all, if it is a law, everyone would be on board. Then you can send special teams door to door to hold an inspection to make sure that all penises are gone.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=12000.0
Hear me out-
I have a thought&.ALL MEN NEED TO CUT YOUR PENISES OFF&.this makes perfect sense if you think about it...
1. Its for the children. If men didnt have a penis, the small percentage children being raped and molested would go to zilch. Disregard the other ways of forcibly violating someone, its not prudent to this conversation.
2. It would cut down on global warming. Since we couldnt reproduce naturally, there would be less children. Less children = less people. Less people = less global climate change.
3. Only the high class and wealthy would be able to afford to have their wives artificially inseminated. Therefore, the common person couldnt afford it. This would stop the average person from reproducing. We would have a much better caliber (like the pun?) of people. You know, the wealthy, the ones that could afford to have children, the average could not. Wait a minute- youd need a special license to have children. Yeah, then the Government could regulate it for us. You could charge a fee for this right/ license to generate revenue. That way the common person couldnt afford it. We don't need the average citizen having children.
4. Since only a few select people would have children, they would lock in the future for the world. They would (obviously) control the world in short time, since they were to only ones that would be around.
5. Rape and sexual assaults would decline across the board&No one would have a penis, so no one would be raped. Again, disregard dildos, broom sticks, hamsters, fists, etc. We all know that there are no dildos in the world, so that would cease to be a problem.
6. The pornography industry would come to a grinding halt. No penis, no sex. After all, since the religious groups all (just go with this for the sake of my theory ) dictate that sex is for procreation only, sex is only had via missionary position. Everyone knows that the penis is the cause of love. Love = sex, since people only have it with their significant others.
7. It would be easy to accomplish this. You simply make it a law, and men worldwide would just voluntarily, without any fight, cut their penises off. After all, if it is a law, everyone would be on board. Then you can send special teams door to door to hold an inspection to make sure that all penises are gone.
Highland Ranger
Member
That's a thread killer.
MachIVshooter
Member
Good. This one should die.
PedalBiker
Member
Do you really think the Feinstein/Boxer/Waters crowd is NOT after our cars too?
Hitler didn't stop at Jews. These boneheads won't stop at guns either.
Over the last few years our local papers would have headlines like "SUV kills cyclist" or "SUV flips over killing driver". The campaign has already started and an awful lot of envious urban dwellers are already on board. It doesn't hurt to call them on it.
MachIVshooter
Member
I know they are. That's why I said:
Please try to read beyond the bolded large font. You're arguing with the wrong person
Oh enough
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll