From: davidson@net1.net Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 00:25:02 -0700 Subject: The Need For APC's (armored personnel carriers) In reviewing the Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the Lekan case (http://www.ezez.com/free/deaths.html) I noticed a remarkable similarity. At all three events, the feds moved up armored personnel carriers. I believe at Ruby Ridge they had some difficulty with the terrain, but part of their standard approach is to bring in what is basically a tank. Among the other benefits, it allows their personnel to move into place unmolested by small arms fire. Now, there are some difficulties in getting a weapon into ones possession which will take out a tank. And firing such a weapon is a pretty aggressive act. But it really isn't all that difficult to build an armored personnel carrier. Just take any sound chassis and decently powerful engine and weld thick steel plates all around. Why? Well, look at the Lekan case. They brought an armored personnel carrier up and the Lekans couldn't do much about it. That allowed the tear gas to get in. But what if the Lekans had an armored personnel carrier of their own. They simply get into it in the garage, and head out of the house. Now instead of being trapped, they're free. Instead of having only local interest in their story, they can tell their story anywhere in a 200 mile radius. Instead of destroying the family home in an obscure neighborhood, the fascists have to destroy the APC in the middle of downtown, and, in front of everyone's cameras, drag the dead bodies out of the APC. There is a point of view that would put a big howitzer on the APC to blow the "enemy" out of the way and do as much damage as possible. This "declaration of war" mentality has a certain satisfaction. But I am not making that recommendation. Then there's the question of money. Not everyone can afford to build an APC. Perhaps we need to have regional placement of these, with our safe houses. Local personnel on the scene (whoever runs the safe house) can decide on their own whether the APC is to be run out to a home under attack. Two-way radio gear and cel' phones should allow communication with trapped occupants. Call it "The Equalizer Project." Finally, there is the issue of me discussing this project in the clear. One of the well-known strategies employed by major governments is "deterrence." Fear will keep the local populations in line, to paraphrase Grand Moff Tarkin in _Star Wars_. Having the APCs is more effective if their presence is known than if not. Especially if they are purely defensive vehicles. Go telling people that they have .50 cal. machine guns and 75 mm artillery on them, and someone is sure to attract the interest of the BATF and other undesirables. While that might lead to some interest precedent-setting court battles ("What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?"), it goes against the grain of our basic non-violent approach. But there is nothing inherently violent about an armored vehicle. It is just a big, gasoline or diesel hogging, heavy, clunky, hard-to-penetrate-with-bullets automobile. If it has a powerful filtering system to take in CS gas- or tear gas-laden air and filter it for such unpleasantness, if it has its own supply of power (generator) for up to 18 hours of operation, if it has its own oxygen supply for emergency use, if it is equipped with gas masks, if it has a hatch for rapid entry through the side so that it can be pulled up next to a home for loading folks who need rapid loading, if it has two-way radios and other commo gear, if it has a modem connection to the internet with a few strategically placed cameras, it is still not a violence-generating vehicle. If it also has a very powerful engine that permits it to move at very high speed, armor-plating and all, then it is potentially a very tactically interesting vehicle. And if there are such vehicles known to be in private residences in many different parts of the country, they may act as a deterrent force. Jackbooted thugs don't like folks who can really defend themselves. Jackbooted thugs prefer to attack homes in secluded neighborhoods rather than engaging in tank battles in the heart of downtown. There is no reason not to have curious mounting mechanisms and perhaps a few very unusual bulges that make the vehicle look like it _could_ be equipped with a .50 cal. gun or might have a hidden mortar or grenade launcher behind a cleverly placed panel. Just because it is non-violent doesn't mean that it has to look non-violent. Now, finally, there is the question of cost. Steel plate a quarter to half an inch thick isn't cheap. Welding that stuff, as a close friend who manufactures rockets for Texas Rocket Company has told me, isn't easy. Putting 50 of these vehicles together in major cities isn't going to be cheap. Setting up their commo gear isn't inexpensive. Adding filtration, power generation, food storage, oxy bottles, gas masks, bullet proof vests and helmets...we're talking about a major defensive expenditure. So it may take some time to get these vehicles put together. Hell, it may be easier to buy something ready-made and add a few items. Can somebody look into the regulations on buying armored personnel carriers, perhaps used ones? Should be easier than buying a tank, since they can be more readily stripped of weapons, and I know there are some guys out there with tanks. This project will require some serious money. It may not be possible to raise that money from the Internet resources at our disposal alone (though it has such style that I'm eager to try). It will, of course, attract some local attention when you drive your used APC into your garage, or when you start welding plate steel onto a chassis in your driveway. The neighbors will ask. Which is a great time to pass out some literature. The local papers will ask. Which is a great time to pass out some literature. The government may object, which is a great way to generate additional publicity. Licensing the thing will take some doing, and should be undertaken for two reasons. First, it will be an amusing exercise. (DMV clerk: "Make, model, color, and year." LRT activist: "Liberty Round Table, APC-1, mostly grey, 1997." DMV: "Gee, I've never heard of that manufacturer." LRT: "Really, let me get you some literature." DMV: "Gee, I've never heard of that model." LRT: "Oh, the APC is a really nice souped-up vehicle. Engine makes 450 horsepower...etc. It's all in the literature.") Second, we will want to take these vehicles out on the public streets and drive them around to keep them in top condition and to make sure that folks know they are around. We will want to move them quickly along city streets in emergency situations, and we don't want any proper cause for the cops to stop us. Besides, the one in New Hampshire won't be complete without those "Live Free or Die" plates. Just another idea for a "little" project. Jim Davidson Chairman & CEO Interglobal Paratronics, Inc. davidson@net1.net http://www.ezez.com/ "The Center of the Web[tm]" Ipse Libero See our latest project at http://www.alf.net/ The Adults for Legal Freedom Web Site "The Center of the Web" is a trademark of Interglobal Paratronics, Inc.