Being driven round the S bend

[nexor]

 

[nexor]

This clip proves what I wrote in a previous post concerning these Mini Bus Taxi's.
Watch the top left hand corner of the screen, A car approaches two stationery cars on a bend in the road with this mini bus coming up from behind, remember, we drive on the left hand side, and our cars are right hand drive.

http://www.msn.com/en-za/cars/traffic/video-taxi-drivers-lucky-escape/ar-CCsR8m?li=AAaxc0E&ocid=U218DHP

[Art Blade]

 :o WHAT DAFUQ?! ???

[PZ]

 ???

[DKM2]

That's what happens when gas prices drop a few cents, people go crazy.

[Art Blade]

 :-D

[fragger]

Whoa :o

lol DKM2 :-D

I don't think I'd get into one of those taxis for a million bucks. Well, maybe for a million. Nah, make it two million, and throw in an Ironman suit.

[mandru]

Is it nerve or stupidity that allows someone think they can push on the gas pedal knowing that there's no brake.  ???

I don't know nex, That's sheer crazy.  I would think that if it could be documented by a dash cam someone or some group seeking safer roadways would be happy to pay some kind of bounty for every one of these rolling death traps rendered permanently inoperable.

No really.  I have bad dreams about driving a car that slowly creeps out into an intersection or onto a railway crossing no matter how hard I'm standing on the brake.  :o

[Art Blade]

give your dream a twist and think you're a vehicular headbutt champion ready to show off. :-D

[fragger]

No really.  I have bad dreams about driving a car that slowly creeps out into an intersection or onto a railway crossing no matter how hard I'm standing on the brake.  :o

Isn't it funny. I don't have that one, instead my recurring bad vehicular dream is I'm riding a motorcycle which is gradually deteriorating - bits are falling off and parts stop working. I usually end up by the side of the road or some place trying to fix it, and of course being a dream the parts morph into the wrong things or I just can't figure out how to get them to fit. Often as the dream wears on it ceases to be a motorcycle at all and becomes a pallet jack or a wheelbarrow or something.

Stupid dreams ????

[Art Blade]

I'm more into Russ Meyer-themed dreams.

[Binnatics]

lol ^-^ You're the melon type

[Art Blade]

funny with double-vision  :-()

[nexor]

Is it nerve or stupidity that allows someone think they can push on the gas pedal knowing that there's no brake.  ???

I don't know nex, That's sheer crazy.  I would think that if it could be documented by a dash cam someone or some group seeking safer roadways would be happy to pay some kind of bounty for every one of these rolling death traps rendered permanently inoperable.

No really.  I have bad dreams about driving a car that slowly creeps out into an intersection or onto a railway crossing no matter how hard I'm standing on the brake.  :o

There are an estimated 200,000 of those mini bus taxi's on our roads mandru, I would guess about a third of them are totally un roadworthy, and about half of those 200,000 taxi drivers have bogus drivers licences.
The traffic authority cannot/will not do anything about it simply because these taxi's transport the millions of black workers to and from w@&k daily, and also many of these taxi's are owned by traffic cops     :D

[Art Blade]

 ??? :D

[PZ]

 :o

[fragger]

 ???

Hard to battle something so well entrenched and with some "authority figures" being a part of it.

[mandru]

Yeah sounds like our current administration.

They have penchant for violating constitutionally guaranteed civil rights by trying to disarm U.S. citizens through creating new oppressive restrictive regulations in the name of gun control instead of enforcing the laws that are already on the books on one hand while at the same time they've run thousands of guns to murderous Mexican drug cartels (Fast and Furious a failed then abandoned sting operation) and equipped and trained foreign armies known to throw down their weapons and abandon post running for their lives at the first sign of the enemy leaving all of that armament, ammo, vehicles and the bases we paid to house them in the hands of terrorists.  :D

[fragger]

I know I'm potentially sticking a fork in the toaster here :-() but I am curious about something. It's to do with the constitutional rights of all American citizens to bear arms, and the American attitude towards it.

I know it can be a touchy subject and I don't wish to start any kind of moral, political or ideological debate about whether it's good or bad, or right or wrong. Not being an American and never having lived there, I don't think I'm qualified to make any kind of definitive statements about it. But I can't help thinking why exactly this constitutional right appears to ignite such inflammatory debate in America.

It's not so much the right to own a gun that I'm on about here, but at what point a weapon is deemed acceptable for general public ownership. I don't see that anyone needs a Vulcan cannon to defend their property, but some firearms enthusiasts in the U.S. seem to believe that the Second Amendment confers a right for them to own any kind of firearm at all, no matter how ridiculously disproportionate to the actual need for it.

I stress I'm not being critical, merely curious. I'd also like to say here at the start that I believe people have an intrinsic right to defend themselves from physical attack by whatever means come to hand, just as any animal will naturally try to defend itself.

Here is the wording of the Second Amendment from the original hand-written copy (the ratified version has slightly different punctuation and capitalisations, but the words are the same):

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

My understanding for the reasoning behind the inclusion of the Second Amendment, and the reason for the wording, is this (and anyone please correct me if I've got anything wrong here):

When the Constitution was drafted, the country had just fought a war for the survival of its national ideals and to be free of the yoke of crippling taxes and duties from the English Crown. The War of Independence (or the Revolutionary War, whichever the correct term is) hadn't gone well for the fledgling country - in fact its leaders were very acutely aware that if it hadn't been for the aid and alliance of the French, who at that time were also at war with England, they would not in fact have won that war. The reason was the sheer lack of American numbers. By itself, the American military at the time simply didn't have the numerical strength to repel an attack from England on its own and there was no guarantee that England may not try to whip the colonial upstarts back into line again at any time. Nor was there any assurance that some other European power wouldn't try to attack them for whatever reason. And next time, they might not have a powerfully ally which was prepared to fight on their side.

So in the event of an attack by any major foreign power, the American military forces simply would not be sufficient to meet the threat on its own. Their numbers would have to be bolstered by the addition of armed private citizenry. Thus the concept of the "Minuteman" was born - civilian militiamen who could be called upon and be ready "at a minute's notice" to take up arms and do their patriotic duty to defend the country. It would fall to ALL Americans, military and civilian, to protect the homeland.

Less than a century later, the Civil War ripped the country apart and once again demonstrated (to American sensibilities) a need for citizens to be armed, not just against threats from overseas but now even from threats at home. The impact of the Civil War on the American national psyche cannot be understated. The historian Shelby Foote called it "the crossroads of our being" and claimed that

"Any understanding of this nation has to be based, and I mean really based, on an understanding of the Civil War. I believe that firmly. It defined us. The Revolution did what it did. Our involvement in European wars, beginning with the First World War, did what it did. But the Civil War defined us as what we are and it opened us to being what we became, good and bad things".

The drafters of the Constitution weren't oracles - they had no idea of what would happen in the future and certainly could not have foreseen a world like that of today. As far as they knew, there would always be foreign threats to the United States and its citizens would always need to be on hand to help deal with any threats that arose.

It must be borne in mind too, I think, that a firearm in the eighteenth century was a flintlock weapon which had to be painstakingly reloaded after every shot, and due to its projectile being a loosely-fitting, roughly-cast ball that rattled its way down the length of a smooth, unrifled barrel when fired meant that the weapon was hopelessly inaccurate at a range of anything more than about fifty yards. The drafters of the Constitution could not have foreseen the technological developments of the future regarding weaponry. Even the inclusion of rifling for sidearms and shoulder arms as part of a mass production process wouldn't be widely adopted until around the time of the Civil War (though rifling was known about at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, but because of the degree of precision required for it to be effective it meant that it was largely restricted to the manufacture of large-scale weapons like cannons).

So I guess what I'm curious about is why Americans still cling so fiercely to the Second Amendment, since the very real and practical need for its inclusion in the Bill of Rights passed long ago. The citizens of no other country in the world seem to be so passionate about defending their right to own firearms as those of the United States. I have no doubt that this attitude has been forged in the conflicts that marked the country's historical evolution. I'm just curious as to why it endures so strongly, why the defense of the Second Amendment is so vehement, and why there are those who take it to what seem to me to be ludicrous extremes. I would have thought that a Glock 19 would make a home invader just as dead as an AR-15 would (and might go easier on the decor).

It should be pointed out too that the Second Amendment is not an American constitutional innovation. It was based on a statement from the English Bill of Rights (1689) which decreed that the right to bear arms was a common-law right, not only as a defensive measure for the country but for the citizens themselves against any personal threat.

Final thought: Does the word "arms" actually imply firearms only? A rock in your fist is essentially an "arm". Any hand-held object used to inflict wounds - a knife, a sword, a pitchfork - is an arm. But I'm getting into semantics here.

[Art Blade]

well put fragger, I am curious in the very same way. I am looking forward to replies from our American friends now :)

[PZ]

Quite complicated in my opinion. I do not see a reason for automatic weapons either - in the 1920's you could purchase fully automatic machine guns through mail order.  Now full auto is illegal for most citizens, but rapid fire semi automatic assault weapons are not.  Some people seem to enjoy playing with them, others think it ridiculous.

The NRA is a huge organization that I cannot ever see go away, and wields considerable political influence. Gun ownership is such a bid deal that politicians have problems even with strengthening the background checks.

Some people simply should not have weapons - a few months ago a young mother was shot by her small child while they were shopping.  Her idiot husband made her go to concealed carry classes and then carry a weapon in her purse - while riding in the shopping cart, the child picked it up and accidentally shot her in the head killing her instantly.

Just this week some idiot husband, who had also purchased a weapon for his wife (baby blue Glock) claimed to be disassembling the weapon to clean it and shot her accidentally in the chest killing her.  Although it could be argued that he is lying and simply murdered her, the stories are not unique.

I personally also carry a weapon whenever I go hiking or anywhere we are in a somewhat isolated area.  A few years ago someone was murdered on a hiking trail not far from here, one which my wife and I frequent.  I even keep the weapon close all the time, but NEVER have a round chambered.  After all, it takes only a second to rack a round.  My golden rule that I never violate - when a round is chambered, I am prepared to fire the weapon within the next few seconds.

One time decades ago I was deep in the national forest with my girlfriend - had a day camp setup.  A couple of Deliverance hillbillys drove to within 100 yards or so of us and simply sat there staring at us until I let them see I had a weapon - then they backed the way they came and left the area.  I would have felt quite helpless had I not had that weapon, so I always have one near when in any kind of sketchy area.

Maybe I'm just a paranoid violent kind of guy, but I would not willingly give up my weapon.

[DKM2]

We Canadians just carry bottles of Maple syrup and a few strips bacon.
'want some?' they give up every time!
;)

And that's how the war of 1812 was won! 

[PZ]

 

[fragger]

 :-D :-X

[mandru]

fragger, your query about the tenaciousness of many U.S. citizens and their 2nd amendment rights has many facets and it would be easy to go off in too many long drawn out directions.  I'm going to try to avoid getting too far out in the weeds by attempting to keep my reply simple as simple and on point as possible.  :-\\

First I'll toss out the premise that if the undercutting and Governmentally enacted illegal encroachment on any Civil Right is allowed then it follows that every other Fundamental Right is on the auction block to be destroyed or twisted to oppress the citizens.  There are laws that protect our Rights and while those laws through proper actions and consensus of the full powers of the Congress if upheld by the Supreme Court (establishing that there is no infringement of the core foundation of that Right) can be changed.   Any other method to attempt by any means the violation or stripping of any those Fundamental Rights Must Be defiantly opposed and resisted by the Citizenry!

I've stated elsewhere in these forums that a Governmentally created (not by Full Congress) enforcement office the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has claimed full control and ownership of every raindrop that falls in the U.S. and if a citizen is found in violation of hoarding rainwater in any way the EPA can bring legal action against them levying monetary fines retroactively from the start date of the citizen's violation and possibly leading to imprisonment and seizure of their property if compliance is not met.  Congress has never allowed the EPA this power of law but there it is.  Regulation backed with the Enforceable Power of Law.

If the EPA can claim control of every raindrop it is not a hard stretch of the imagination to see the possibility of a Governmental office drunk with power deciding they also own and control all of the equally natural occurrence of sunlight.  And yet this tyranny has been nurtured and allowed to spread because We as amassed citizens have become too comfortable and unfortunately too many of us are willing to surrender Rights for the security of protection.  Besides most of us have no need or desire to own a rain barrel, right?  But it's that indifference that has given the Government a foot in the door leading us to be nibbled away by actions seemingly as harmless (without deeper examination of their long game) as being nibbled at by penguins.


While (as you observed) the founding fathers of our country were not oracles they were (within the quorum of their combined and long internally debated discussions of the parameters that would be essential for the type of government they wanted to establish and live within) scholars of history and the very nature of Rulers and the Governments that had preceded them..  They were acutely aware that there was a critical mass that occurred in every form of Leadership that would eventually devolve into nothing more than a ruling class , favored citizenry, and essentially bonded slaves/peons who could never hope to elevate themselves out of poverty.  Each and every preceding form of government no matter how benevolent the intentions of those who founded it always drifted towards the eventuality where the growth and empowerment of the Leaders became the primary focus of Government and the needs and dignity of the people were debased and abused.

As the parameters for the revolution and creation of a new Government was being debated the founders of what would become the U.S. knew the grasp of tyranny.  Personally each of them (in the early colonies) chaffed against the fact that ultimately they did not own the land on which their homes were built or the land they had cleared and developed into usable farmable property so that it could be held within future generations of their families.  Everything belonged perpetually to the Crown of England and each ascendant to follow.  The acting agents of the Crown could at any time and on any arbitrary whim arrive and sweep families off the Crown's holdings and deed the fruit of their efforts to someone who had more favor with the Crown or even His agents.  It was deeply understood by the quorum of the founder's that Generational tyranny always ramps up never down unless countered with focused strength of revolt.


The often overlooked lesson in Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar is that each dagger plunge by each of the Senators there on the steps "Of the Voice of the People" was a dissenting vote cast against their leader Caesar.



I'm sorry fragger this has become far longer than I wanted but you ask important questions.  I was trying to avoid eating up my full morning responding and now it's noon.  :(

I'll try to sum this up by saying any tyranny even the subtle Soft Tyranny of "It's for your own good!" (which your questions about many of our attitudes towards protecting the 2nd Amendment falls firmly within) is most often best met with torches and pitchforks the instant it pops its ugly head up.  If only to defer and delay further attacks as an attack on any Right is an attack on all Rights.

We had a Mayor (Bloomberg) in New York City (which for a very long time now has had a near total ban on all handguns) who placed a ban forcing the city's restaurants to remove salt from the customer's tables and made the sale of fountain drawn sugary drinks over 16 ounces illegal.  He has now tossed his hat into the upcoming presidential election (an equally lunatic billionaire to confront Trump's billionaireness?  ::) ) and because the citizens didn't en mass jump up and kick the snot out of his overreaching sorry butt you know he will drag that over inflated mentality "It's for your own good!" into the White House if he gets voted in.

Every Right that is diminished (not just the 2nd Amendment) devalues and corrodes the foundation of every other Right.  And it's not just the 2nd Amendment that's currently under concerted attack.  The attack being directed on our Freedom of Speech (our 1st Amendment) through the Political Correctness Front is equally as slimy but far more subtle and insidious.  By making words criminal and their utterance punishable by law as Hate Crimes that makes it so that citizens are forced with an iron fist to reconfigure in their thoughts and behaviors.  It's not popular speech that needs to be protected.  There's a movement here in the U.S. pushing to make speaking out or presenting evidence to the contrary about the validity of Climate Change criminal.

The 1st Amendment was created to protect unpopular or offensive speech as often Foundational Truth is highly offensive to anyone standing on the wrong side of what is right and wrong.  The deepest irony surrounding the attack on the 1st Amendment is that the PC police has only succeeded in making the progress and gaining the popularity it has by fully leaning on their Right to lie openly twisting and redefining the meaning of words as protected by the very same amendment they seek to pervert and corrupt.

But then it's not PC to argue in favor of the 2nd Amendment thus we are painted as vigilantes, red necks, scoff laws and every other dirty name in the book that would never be tolerated being applied to any other protected demographic in the country...  And the penguins continue uninterrupted to nibble away.