Originally posted by Thurisaz
ok so I have read the thread and I am confused by the term 'assault vehicles'
I am in the AU and I have never heard that terminology... so maybe you mean 'high performance' cars?
An "Assault vehicle" shall be defined as follows:
Any conveyance having at least 3 wheels, and one or more of the following features found in military vehicles:
1) an engine fueled by a volatile substance, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. Such engines are capable of propelling the vehicle forward at great
speeds, developing an overabundance of kinetic energy which is frequently used to kill innocent and unsuspecting people, especially on highways.
2) a windshield. These devices can be used to spot unwary prey persons for targeting. A windshield was used for targeting purposes in the
2006 attack on a crowd of human beings in Chapel Hill, NC
, in which
several were injured. If these High Visibility Targeting Devices (HVTD's) are banned, they are far less likely to be used in targeted assaults such as
the Chapel Hill Assault. They have no place on a civilian conveyance, because civilian conveyances should not travel at military speeds, thus
3) Doors. These devices are found on many military vehicles for ease of ingress and egress. They are entirely unnecessary on comparable civilian
sporting vehicles, such as those used for hunting.
4) A refillable fuel tank. These are entirely unnecessary on civilian vehicles. They should be reserved only for the military and governments.
Civilians can make do perfectly well with hay-fueled horses (except "war-horses" - those should be reserved for the military only as well, as the name
5) Windshield wipers. These are used to remove dirt, debris, and water from the targeting devices of assault vehicles. No one needs them but the
military. There is no need for windshield wipers on civilian conveyances - where would you put them on a horse anyhow?
6) Radios and other sound-making devices. These only distract the civilian driver, and should be left in the hands of the professional military and
governmental entities. Civilians are obviously not competent enough to use them wisely.
7) Seat belts. These pose a strangulation hazard, and may conceivably trap civilians in burning vehicles. Proper use of them requires extensive
training, not generally available to the civilian user. However, proper training in their use can be gained from any sworn Law Enforcement Officer,
provided such LEO observes the civilian not using such seat belt devices, presumably for lack of training. A permit scheme for seat belt use can and
should be instituted to permit those so instructed to use such dangerous devices, after they are registered with the State as having been properly
instructed in the use of seat belts. Such permits could be renewed every 4-5 years, pursuant to proficiency testing and recertification.
edit on 2013/1/30 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)