Ban idiots, NOT PWC
ted carey
the bashing going on. Not just here but in the media as well.
I have owned a Jet Ski for years and I also own a pontoon boat. I have
been around boats most of my life. I am 41 years old and have 2 kids
that also use the PWC. I taught them how to safely operate a PWC at 13
years old and they are both responsible, courteous operators. None of us
have been involved in an accident.
Sure I have seen some careless PWC drivers. But I have seen all types of
boaters doing all kinds of idiotic stunts. I don’t hear anyone whining
about the extremely loud drag boats with NO mufflers at all racing up
and down the lakes that I go to. I see sailboats all the time anchored
at night with a deck full of people partying with NO lights on
whatsoever in the middle of the lake. I also see and hear 200+ HP bass
boats screaming down the lake at 60 MPH at the same time. Oh yeah, and
the times I have seen yachts practically swamp small fishing boats when
they all looked back just laughing at the poor lower class occupants
holding on. Then there are the slobs that clean their fish on the boat
ramp, leaving behind a stinking mess. Or the guys that have to wipe down
their precious ski boats on the boat ramp while others are waiting to
load. PWC owners do not have a corner on the dumb-ass market by a long
shot! Enforcing current laws on ALL boaters would make it safer for
everyone.
I hear all the time that PWC are too loud, this is BS! My STOCK Jet Ski
has 100 HP and its a lot quieter then my 1998 Mercury 115 HP OB.
Isn’t boating supposed to be fun? What’s wrong with a craft that is
extremely maneuverable and has excellent acceleration? Lighten up! It is
fun! Does it make you jealous that a lot of PWC can go circles around
most of your boats?
I get the impression that most boaters who are against PWC are just
pissed because they are so affordable that they allow many more people
on the water then ever before. I don’t think most of you really care
about the safety issue, I feel its more of an elitist selfish attitude.
We have to pay registration, taxes, and insurance like other boaters and
therefore have the same rights. I know that law enforcement are also
biased against them…..I cant tell you how many times I have been asked
(harassed) for registration and been inspected for safety equipment on
my PWC when I was just putting around. (And I have never received a
citation or warning) But I can tell you on my pontoon boat that it has
never happened.
So…Y’all just get over it! OK?
Ok, I feel better now….I had to get it off my chest.
Ted Carey
BSmith1752
I totally agree with you. Especially the part about being singled out by law
enforcement. I never have been stopped while out in our ski boat for any
reason. As far as noise outboard fishing boats make more noise then my
kawasaki jetski.
hkrause
>
> Its time someone took a stand for PWC owners! Does it make you jealous that a lot of PWC can go circles around > most of your boats?
Naw. My little boat is faster than most PWC's and if I wanted to, I could run
circles around them if the water is choppy. But all I really do is cut off the
fun of aggressive PWC'ers who think they'll ruin my day by passing me at WOT
when I'm just cruising along at 40 mph.
> I get the impression that most boaters who are against PWC are just
> pissed because they are so affordable that they allow many more people
> on the water then ever before. I don’t think most of you really care
> about the safety issue, I feel its more of an elitist selfish attitude.
Really? I think it elitist and selfish of that large minority of PWC'ers who
think that everyone else on the waterways has to be exposed to the noise,
distraction, danger and antics of PWC's.
> We have to pay registration, taxes, and insurance like other boaters and
> therefore have the same rights.
Pleasure boating is not a right. It is a privilege.
I know that law enforcement are also
> biased against them…..I cant tell you how many times I have been asked
> (harassed) for registration and been inspected for safety equipment on
> my PWC when I was just putting around. (And I have never received a
> citation or warning) But I can tell you on my pontoon boat that it has
> never happened.
If you were driving your pontoon boat at 50 mph though crowded areas, near
swimmers or between fishermen, it would happen.
>
> So…Y’all just get over it! OK?
>
> Ok, I feel better now….I had to get it off my chest.
>
> Ted Carey
--
Harry Krause
EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
- - - - - - - - - -
"A bad workman always blames his fools." -- The Doctor
Sma4264
>ted carey wrote:
>>
>> Its time someone took a stand for PWC owners! Does it make you jealous
>that a lot of PWC can go circles around > most of your boats?
Jealous??? Hell no, I would be having a great time too if I was on one. What I
WOULD NOT do is run right across someones fishing lines or right where their
bait is sitting. that happened to me yesterday. The SOB figured it out after I
hit his PWC with a 6 oc. torpedo sinker. Just a little courtesy is all I ask
for.
Captain Bill Tyndall
ted carey wrote in message <3606BF8F...@onramp.net>...
>Its time someone took a stand for PWC owners!
>that also use the PWC. I taught them how to safely operate a PWC at 13
>years old and they are both responsible, courteous operators. None of us
have been involved in an accident.
That is great that you took the time to instruct your kids on boating
safety. As the PWC is affordable for many, it opens the door for many
un-instructed boaters on the water. As long an operator remembers that the
PWC is a vessel and has to operate under the same rules and regulations as
larger vessels things will be great. I dislike PWC or any other boaters
that have to get close to a larger vessel, not understanding that is takes
longer for a large vessel to respond to the helm or to stop.
your statement :
>PWC owners do not have a corner on the dumb-ass market by a long
>shot! Enforcing current laws on ALL boaters would make it safer for
everyone.
this is true - but they seem to have thier fair share
Captain Bill
ted carey
hkrause wrote:
ted carey wrote:
>
> Its time someone took a stand for PWC owners! Does it make you jealous that a lot of PWC can go circles around > most of your boats?
First off I think its bad form to cut and paste out of context other peoples posts.
Naw. My little boat is faster than most PWC's and if I wanted to,
I could run
circles around them if the water is choppy. But all I really do
is cut off the
fun of aggressive PWC'ers who think they'll ruin my day by passing
me at WOT
when I'm just cruising along at 40 mph.
So you cut off PWC operators because you think THEY are aggressive?
Really?
I think it elitist and selfish of that large minority of PWC'ers
who
think that everyone else on the waterways has to be exposed to the
noise,
distraction, danger and antics of PWC's.
What is this noise stuff? Have you ever even been around a PWC or do you just sit there and type stuff you know nothing about? Distraction? Come on! Hopefully ANY boat you come near while underway will distract you enough so you operate your craft defensively…. Just like in a car.
Pleasure boating is not a right. It is a privilege.
Please explain your cliché. As an owner of a registered, licensed, & insured class A motor boat, I don’t have the RIGHT to safely operate in the same waters as other class A owners?
If you were driving your pontoon boat at 50 mph though crowded areas,
near
swimmers or between fishermen, it would happen.
Your assuming that all PWC users do this. If you spent any time on the water you would know that generalizations like this are just BS and it just enforces my claim of elitist prejudice.
Thanks for helping to support my point.
Ted Carey
mudfly
>
> >ted carey wrote:
> >>
> >> Its time someone took a stand for PWC owners! Does it make you jealous
> >that a lot of PWC can go circles around > most of your boats?
>
> WOULD NOT do is run right across someones fishing lines or right where their
> bait is sitting. that happened to me yesterday. The SOB figured it out after I
> hit his PWC with a 6 oc. torpedo sinker. Just a little courtesy is all I ask
> for.
What kind of rig is good for catching a PWC? What #test line do you
reccomend, and finally how well do they fight when you set the hook?
Rick
Larry
wrote:
>Its time someone took a stand for PWC owners! I am getting tired of all
>the bashing going on. Not just here but in the media as well.
>
Ted, et. al., tonight I attended a meeting called by a conservation
group and a salt water anglers group to show support for more public
boat landing facilities, ramps, parking for the 30,000 registered
boats in Charleston County (SC) held at the DNR Ft Johnson Research
and Tax Collection Center. (my name for it). In spite of the anglers
efforts, the hall was about 1/2 empty which didn't bode well with the
senior bureaucrats and politicians who DID show up at the meeting. I
was one of about 4 or 5 ACTIVE participants in the crowd of around 60
of these boaters that showed up in the rain. After the meeting, I
talked with the prez of the anglers and the other groups present and
told them I was going to take my sheaf of extra pre-printed sign-here
self-addressed post cards, in support of the efforts of our Parks and
Recreation Dept (who run our boat ramps in the county) back to (gasp,
choke) MY JETSKI CLUB who, obviously from their absence, knew nothing
about it. The CCJSC (www.charleston.net/org/ccjsc) is VERY active
doing good things for boaters and jetskiiers in Charleston, SC. It's
a kind of informal club (We've always had the same self-appointed
officers, for instance) but have done lots of charity poker runs, put
up signs warning jetskiiers of their responsibilities at every boat
ramp, and lots of other GOOD things.
When I got home, I printed out the web pages for the anglers club prez
and faxed them to him so he can contact the jetski community leaders
to get them involved. The groups are totally unaware of each others
efforts to the benefit of all trailered boaters, evidently. He didn't
know they existed, even though the club's signs are everywhere.
I hope to get the jetskiiers, hundreds of young, active people, to
help get the political machine moving to approve the new, HUGE boat
landing facilities on the South end of the old Charleston Naval
Base...real close to Charleston Harbor...for the benefit of ALL.
I hope you'll continue to persue getting the jetskiiers and other,
more conventional, boaters together. Best of luck. I keep seeing
more and more PWC on yachts and being towed by pontooners like you...a
good sign!
Larry...
BikeMan1
well that i swhat every one hates about them. the thing it self is not bad but
most people driving them are ass holes.
there has to be a reason for everyone disliking them right? or are we makeing
up in are heads.
if so theer is alot of us doing that for some reason
hkrause
Ted Carey wrote:
> First off I think its bad form to cut and paste out of context other peoples
> posts.
What are you, the Ms. Manners of the newsgroups?
>
> Naw. My little boat is faster than most PWC's and if I wanted to, I could run
> circles around them if the water is choppy. But all I really do is cut off the
>
> fun of aggressive PWC'ers who think they'll ruin my day by passing me at WOT
> when I'm just cruising along at 40 mph.
>
> So you cut off PWC operators because you think THEY are aggressive?
> Really?
Duh. Try reading for content. I said occasionally I cut off "the fun" of smug
PWC'ers, I never said I cut them off or ran the boat right in front of them, as
you are inferring.
>
> I think it elitist and selfish of that large minority of PWC'ers who
> think that everyone else on the waterways has to be exposed to the noise,
> distraction, danger and antics of PWC's.
>
> What is this noise stuff? Have you ever even been around a PWC or do you just
> sit there and type stuff you know nothing about? Distraction? Come on!
Yeah, I've been around gaggles of PWC's frequently. The din is horrendous.
> Hopefully ANY boat you come near while underway will distract you enough so
> you operate your craft defensively…. Just like in a car.
>
> Pleasure boating is not a right. It is a privilege.
>
> Please explain your cliché. As an owner of a registered, licensed, & insured
> class A motor boat, I don’t have the RIGHT to safely operate in the same
> waters as other class A owners?
No more than driving a car is a privilege, not a right. Your privilege can be
taken away from you. Of course, so can a right...but pleasure boating is a
privilege, not a right.
>
> If you were driving your pontoon boat at 50 mph though crowded areas, near
> swimmers or between fishermen, it would happen.
>
> Your assuming that all PWC users do this. If you spent any time on the water
> you would know that generalizations like this are just BS and it just enforces
> my claim of elitist prejudice.
Really? How does objecting to boats running at high speed through groups of
other boats make one an elitist? And I'm not assuming ALL PWC'ers do this, just
a large minority.
> Thanks for helping to support my point.
>
> Ted Carey
You had no points and your efforts to make some fell on their collective butts.
Your "arguments" are illogical and you counter with amphigories. Utter nonsense.
--
Harry Krause
EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
- - - - - - - - - -
"Don't call me 'barkeep!' I'm not a 'barkeep!'" - Quark
lightnup
ligh...@mindspring.com
www.mindspring.com/~lightnup
----------------------------
Larry
Toyscarab
Being an elitist powerboat owner, I take offense to the PWC'ers who have cut me
off at 60 miles an hour so that they can jump the wake of the boat in front of
me, and I have no idea which way they might turn, since their manuverably is
much greater than mine. PWC'ers for the most part, do not believe that they
must follow the rules of "no wake" zones, when there are boats tied and
anchored, with children swimming or floating in the water. I have been known to
throw full cans of pop at them to get their attention to slow down and follow
the bouys marked for safety. This is a very common complaint toward most
PWC'ers. Then there are those who do not think that they will ever fall off,
so they do not attach the kill switch cord. So when they do fall off, God only
knows what the PWC may run into, (like an anchored boat). I had a friend get
one hell of a hole put in his hull by this very sort of inconsideration.
Donna (ToyScarab)
hkrause
Obviously, you have not read the rulebook of PWC Huggers Anonymous. You are not
allowed to specifically single out PWC's just because an incredibly large
minority of PWC'ers act like blooming idiots on the waterways.
While it is true that a minority of conventional boaters also act like idiots,
there are some differences:
* Fully 30-40% of all PWC'ers I see act like idiots on the waterways. Only
rarely do I see a conventional boater acting like a complete idiot on the
waterways.
* Because of the pattern of use of PWC's (flocking together, if you will, near
other boaters, beaches, swimmers, et cetera), the annoying behavior of this
large minority is there for all to see, hear, smell, et cetera.
* Many PWC'ers actually believe non-PWC'ers *want* to see them drive their
little boats within earshot or, worse, within a few yards of small children
swimming in the same water. I know a waterfront restaurant owner who complained
to the police that buzzing PWC'ers were ruining his outside cafe business. He
was right...the damned buzzing was incessant. The water cops chased the PWC'ers
away. One of them claimed the restaurant patrons "enjoyed" the show. Duh.
What is sad is that the majority of PWC'ers I've seen do behave on the water and
are safety conscious and considerate of others. They are feeling the effects of
moves to ban or restrict PWC's because of the large minority of idiots who are
giving their past-time a bad name.
What's the answer? Dunno. It's hard to teach manners to a young adult.
--
Harry Krause
EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
- - - - - - - - - -
"Don't worry, I'm fluent in weirdo"
lightnup
>On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 12:13:38 GMT, ligh...@mindspring.com (lightnup)
>wrote:
>>But then, who would ride them?
>huh??
I rest my case. :-)
Steve (all in good fun)
ligh...@mindspring.com
www.mindspring.com/~lightnup
----------------------------
BGN5731
Harry Krause wrote>
>What's the answer? Dunno. It's hard to teach manners to a young adult.
Well, it's not just the young adults. This summer, while my wife and I were
fishing in our pontoon boat, a old gray hair hippy... with pony tail no less,
thought we needed enteraining. He spent almost all afternoon turning circles
some 100 feet from our boat, looking at us all the time to be sure we were
appreciating his great performance!
We were in an inlet with no other boats within half a mile so I guess audiences
were few and far away that day
Cheers
Bill.
Curtis Wheeler
> No more than driving a car is a privilege, not a right. Your privilege can be
> taken away from you. Of course, so can a right...but pleasure boating is a
> privilege, not a right.
You have continued to say this, Harry. On what grounds do you make that
claim? Is this the law according to Harry - it's the way you see it so
that's the way it is. Or do you have a legal basis for the claim? Can
you tell us where the law says using navigable waterways is a
privilege? Is there a court case somewhere?
I am asking because I don't know. I have asked before and the answers
come back a bit split over the issue. But nobody ever backs up their
"answer" to the question with a legal reference.
The question - is boating on the navigable waterways of the United
States a right or a privilege? Please provide the legal basis for your
arguement.
I recall someone in this NG (quite a while back) giving a fairly
detailed explanation of why it was a "right". But I have not been able
to dig that back up. The last time I asked this question, I was hoping
to catch that persons attention.
--
Curtis
"Fast Forward"
Toyscarab
Actually Curtis, Harry is right, and wrong.
In Kansas and Missouri, driving an automobile is a right that can be taken
away. Too many tickets, DWI's, we all know what can get us in trouble.
Unfortunately, most, (if not all) states do not require any type of
"operators liscence to operate a non-comercial vessel. All of us are "required"
to follow the rules of maritime law.
(That means everything from a stand-up JetSki, to offshore race boats W/blower
motors).
But if you break those laws, there is no "operators liscence" to revoke.
So, Iguess, operating on any waterway may be a "right" that everyone has.
I hope I am wrong.
Mike G. (H82LUZ1)
Rod McInnis
> . PWC owners do not have a corner on the dumb-ass market by a long
> shot! Enforcing current laws on ALL boaters would make it safer for
> everyone.
They may not have the "corner" on the dumb-ass market, but they
certainaly have a disproportionant amount of them. As an example to back
up this statement, I quote from the 1997 California Boating Accident
Report:
"As mentioned earlier, PWC were involved in a disproportionately high
number of accidents. Exhibit II-7 presents registration and accident
statistics for open motor boats, PWC, and other
vessels during 1997. PWC accounted for 17% of registered vessels, but were
involved in 42% of accidents, 52% of all injuries, 19% of all fatalities,
and 22% of all property damage. "
The reason that PWC gets so much attention from law enforcement and
govenerment agencies is because that is where the largest problems exists.
In reality, it is not the PWC owners that are the problem. The problem
is that the owners loan their craft out to friends who have no experience
or boating knowledge. The following statisitc is also from the 1997
California Boating Accident Report:
"Nearly 71% of PWC involved in accidents were operated by someone other
than the registered owner. Over half (55%) were borrowed and another 16%
were rented"
> Does it make you jealous that a lot of PWC can go circles around
> most of your boats?
No, but it does piss me off when they *do* run circles around my boat.
> I cant tell you how many times I have been asked
> (harassed) for registration and been inspected for safety equipment on
> my PWC when I was just putting around. (And I have never received a
> citation or warning) But I can tell you on my pontoon boat that it has
> never happened.
>
Again, this is enforcement where the problem exists. In California,
pontoon boats were involved in less than 1% of all accidents. Where would
you suggest the law enforcement spend their time, in a one prercent
catagory or a 42 percent catagory?
What needs to happen is that PWC owners need to stop loaning out their
craft. California attempted to pass legistlation last year that would have
put a damper on it, but it got watered down and by the time it made it into
law it was no longer effective.
So, to summerize my point of view, their is nothing wrong with a PWC per
se. All the PWC *owners* that I know operate their craft in a safe and
reasonable manner. It's when they hand the craft over to their friends
that the problems arise.
Rod McInnis
Terry
boat operator licensing program. Something needs to be done to protect
those who play by the rules from those that don't. Of course on the flip
side, at most of the lakes I frequent there are not enough patrols to
enforce anything... then again perhaps the licensing fees could support
expanded patrolling... sheesh, who am I kidding!
Anyway I agree that it's the fool at the helm we need to be concerned with
more than the vessel. I have enjoyed an occasional bomber run on a PWC, but
I don't jump peoples wakes or buzz anchorages. I also have a VERY fast
motorcycle, but that doesn't allow me to break motor vehicle laws with it.
I also see many people driving regular boats who don't have a clue. Last
weekend I watched in a busy cove as two drivers pulling kids on tubes
(looking backward trying to swing them out of the wake) came within inches
of collision. Some people just leave their brain at the dock!
We need to drop back to reality and realize that some are abusing a freedom
that probably won't be with us much longer. There are already legal efforts
underway to ban PWCs in some areas (some already done) and to make them wear
helmets. The lawmakers are pressured by the increasing number of accidents
and fatalities. Certainly some of this will spill over to impact all
boaters.
Toyscarab wrote in message <19980922135547...@ng01.aol.com>...
Captain Bill Tyndall
Curtis Wheeler wrote in message <3607DB...@ccnet.com>...
>that's the way it is. Or do you have a legal basis for the claim? Can
>you tell us where the law says using navigable waterways is a
>privilege? Is there a court case somewhere?
While the newsgroup researchs that .... there may be a right to persue
happiness (boating) - but as long as that right does not infringe on the
safety of others. When a boater, on PWC or small fishing vessel or a
tanker operates in an unsafe manner, the operator and the owner should be
held responsible. Repeated offensives should be met with registrations
being cancelled & fines.
The Navigation rules does state that all vessels should operate at a safe
speed at all times.
>come back a bit split over the issue. But nobody ever backs up their
>"answer" to the question with a legal reference.
>
>The question - is boating on the navigable waterways of the United
>States a right or a privilege? Please provide the legal basis for your
>arguement.
Maybe it shold be proven the other way - show where the people are given a
right to operate on the water! Not defined in the Bill of Rights.
Captain Bill
Captain Bill Tyndall
>
>What kind of rig is good for catching a PWC? What #test line do you
>reccomend, and finally how well do they fight when you set the hook?
> Rick
I would suggest 1/2" nylon connected to a 75' sea going tug. The first run
would be exciting, some jumping, do not let them have any slack, and keep
the stern towards the critter. After a short fight, it will be just dead
weight. I understand the retail value is fair.....
Captain Bill
DONNA742
Terry wrote...
>As much as I hate to consider increased bureaucracy, it may be time for a
>boat operator licensing program.
I agree 100%. I hate to see it come down to that. BUT, it aint fair to punish
all PWC owners just because most of them "seem" to be idiots and a$$holes. It
may be hard to enforce, but no harder than enforcement of the laws are now. And
if someone is caught without a license, (thanks for the <sp> correction), that
gives the officer more power to act on rather than write another ticket to a
person who has no insurance, no brains, and no respect for the law or his/her
fellow boaters.
Mike G. (H82LUZ1)
DONNA742
Now THAT was funny.
Captain Bill wrote...
lightnup
>I agree 100%. I hate to see it come down to that.
>BUT, it aint fair to punish all PWC owners just
>because most of them "seem" to be idiots and
>a$$holes.
I assume that an a$$hole is just a rich asshole?
Steve
ligh...@mindspring.com
www.mindspring.com/~lightnup
----------------------------
cpa...@usf.teradyne.com
Rod McInnis <rmci...@teleworld.com> wrote:
> In reality, it is not the PWC owners that are the problem. The problem
> is that the owners loan their craft out to friends who have no experience
> or boating knowledge. The following statisitc is also from the 1997
> California Boating Accident Report:
>
> "Nearly 71% of PWC involved in accidents were operated by someone other
> than the registered owner. Over half (55%) were borrowed and another 16%
> were rented"
It seems to me that this statistic in and of itself should be enough
justification to PREVENT any bans, and Implement some kind if
license program. This way you could only loan your PWC (or other boat)
to another LICENESED boater.
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
WHardy1902
>Being an elitist powerboat owner, I take offense to the PWC'ers who have cut
>me
>off at 60 miles an hour so that they can jump the wake of the boat in front
>of
>me, and I have no idea which way they might turn, since their manuverably is
>much greater than mine. PWC'ers for the most part, do not believe that they
>must follow the rules of "no wake" zones, when there are boats tied and
>anchored, with children swimming or floating in the water. I have been known
>to
>throw full cans of pop at them to get their attention to slow down and follow
>the bouys marked for safety. This is a very common complaint toward most
>PWC'ers. Then there are those who do not think that they will ever fall off,
>so they do not attach the kill switch cord. So when they do fall off, God
>only
>knows what the PWC may run into, (like an anchored boat). I had a friend get
>one hell of a hole put in his hull by this very sort of inconsideration.
> Donna (ToyScarab)
Donna,
Seeing as how your AOL profile lists your hobbies as "boatin and boozin">Being
an elitist powerboat owner, I take offense to the PWC'ers who have cut
>me
>off at 60 miles an hour so that they can jump the wake of the boat in front
>of
>me, and I have no idea which way they might turn, since their manuverably is
>much greater than mine. PWC'ers for the most part, do not believe that they
>must follow the rules of "no wake" zones, when there are boats tied and
>anchored, with children swimming or floating in the water. I have been known
>to
>throw full cans of pop at them to get their attention to slow down and follow
>the bouys marked for safety. This is a very common complaint toward most
>PWC'ers. Then there are those who do not think that they will ever fall off,
>so they do not attach the kill switch cord. So when they do fall off, God
>only
>knows what the PWC may run into, (like an anchored boat). I had a friend get
>one hell of a hole put in his hull by this very sort of inconsideration.
> Donna (ToyScarab)
Seeing as how your AOL personal profile lists your hobbies as "boatin and
boozin" you're a fine one to be critical of anyone else.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Not Harding
It's Hardy
As in Hardy Har Har
Lyle Rooff
>extremely maneuverable and has excellent acceleration? Lighten up! It is
>fun! Does it make you jealous that a lot of PWC can go circles around
>most of your boats?
>
No, what makes me angry is when they DO go in circles around my boat, either
when I'm at anchor for lunch or to fish, or when I'm up on plane and they
cut back and forth in front and astern without any thought about safety --
including their own.
>I get the impression that most boaters who are against PWC are just
>pissed because they are so affordable that they allow many more people
>on the water then ever before. I don’t think most of you really care
>about the safety issue, I feel its more of an elitist selfish attitude.
Yep, that must be it. I'm a rich elitist out slumming in my 1976 18'
Bayliner. I've got news for you -- the people most annoyed by hordes of
PWC's are working folks like me and others on this group who have to put up
with swarms of them blasting around the docks, marinas, fishing areas and in
no-wake zones. The motor-yacht crowd is out to sea with their large boats
and don't have the constant contact that the rest of us do.
>We have to pay registration, taxes, and insurance like other boaters and
>therefore have the same rights. I know that law enforcement are also
>biased against them…..I cant tell you how many times I have been asked
>(harassed) for registration and been inspected for safety equipment on
>my PWC when I was just putting around. (And I have never received a
>citation or warning) But I can tell you on my pontoon boat that it has
>never happened.
>
That might have to do with the fact that law enforcement officers aren't
deluged with complaints about pontoon boats pulling all the stunts that an
unfortunately large segment of PWC operators do. I have no doubt that there
are also a large number of people such as you who use their PWC's in a
reasonable way, and who are considerate of the rest of the people on the
water. It doesn't take a lot to spoil it for everyone, just as one or two
supercharged 454 hi-pro ski boats can generate a lot of prejudice against
all performance boats by hotrodding in congested areas.
Eliyahu (Lyle) Rooff
lro...@bmi.net
Visit my website, "Cats, cars, ships, space and Synagogue" at
http://www.bmi.net/lrooff/Home%20Page.htm
Lyle Rooff
Captain Bill Tyndall wrote in message <3607fd6f$0$25179@mojo>...
>
>
>>
>>What kind of rig is good for catching a PWC? What #test line do you
>>reccomend, and finally how well do they fight when you set the hook?
>> Rick
>
>would be exciting, some jumping, do not let them have any slack, and keep
>the stern towards the critter. After a short fight, it will be just dead
>weight. I understand the retail value is fair.....
>
real pain.
Todd H
right to operate said boat. Everyone with a boat has the right to use it on
public waterways. If you get in legal trouble on the water, they can take
your boat (Departments of Fish and Wildlife in some states have this
authority), but as long as you can buy another one, it is your right to use
it.
Driving a car is a privilege licensed to us by the state in which we reside,
and revocable by that state.
License=privilege
No License=right
--
"I just drive the boat Boss... Don't really navigate" - Captain Ron
Curtis Wheeler
>
> Again, this is enforcement where the problem exists. In California,
> pontoon boats were involved in less than 1% of all accidents. Where would
> you suggest the law enforcement spend their time, in a one prercent
> catagory or a 42 percent catagory?
I would have to say that from my observations, the Contra Costa County
and San Joaquin County Sherriff marine patrols seem to be quite ready to
stop any boatfor violations. Most of the vessels I see stopped are not
PWC.
I have been in areas where PWCers are "harrased". Repeatedly jacking up
a PWCer that is not doing anything wrong is not an effective or
appropriate use of law enforcement.
I would also add that PWC accident rate has been going down in
California since 1995.
> What needs to happen is that PWC owners need to stop loaning out their
> craft. California attempted to pass legistlation last year that would have
> put a damper on it, but it got watered down and by the time it made it into
> law it was no longer effective.
You are correct that non-owners are involved in the majority of PWC
accidents, and that PWC owners should exercise extreme care when
"loaning" out their vessels. There was a thread in r.s.j a while back
regarding the subject - someone loaned out his PWC, failed to provide
any instruction or verify that the "user" knew what he was doing, then
didn't supervise the operation (wasn't even watching). When the person
that borrowed the jetski smashed into the group's houseboat, the jetski
owner felt no responsibility at all and called the rider an idot for
getting in over his head.
I quoted what you said above because I think it needs clarification.
Some not familiar with the California legislation you mention might
infer that it was a PWC bill that got watered down. It wasn't.
It was a legislation that would have required mandatory education for
all boaters in California. It was boating interests (Recreational
boaters of California, several yacht clubs, and boat manufacturers) that
claimed it was an infringement on "boaters' rights". This lobbying
effort was what watered it down. It was not personal watercraft
interests that did it - in fact most of what left and became law was
aimed specifically at PWC.
> So, to summerize my point of view, their is nothing wrong with a PWC per
> se. All the PWC *owners* that I know operate their craft in a safe and
> reasonable manner. It's when they hand the craft over to their friends
> that the problems arise.
Although I don't think this is completely accurate, it is enough so that
I will say I agree.
--
Curtis
"Fast Forward"
Nathan Barnett
The real benefit of the harpoon is that it leaves the other hand free to
hold your beer.
Nathan Barnett
Curtis Wheeler
>
> Curtis Wheeler wrote in message <3607DB...@ccnet.com>...
>
> >that's the way it is. Or do you have a legal basis for the claim? Can
> >you tell us where the law says using navigable waterways is a
> >privilege? Is there a court case somewhere?
> While the newsgroup researchs that .... there may be a right to persue
> happiness (boating) - but as long as that right does not infringe on the
> safety of others. When a boater, on PWC or small fishing vessel or a
> tanker operates in an unsafe manner, the operator and the owner should be
> held responsible. Repeated offensives should be met with registrations
> being cancelled & fines.
One might try to "persue happiness" in a car at 100 MPH, but driving is
still a privilege (though you have a right to own a car - its property).
If boating is a right it can still be taken away through due process of
law. Just like felons can't vote or own firearms - those rights have
been taken away from them through due process.
If boating is a right, you can be arrested or cited for violations of
law - but you must be afforded due process before anyone can say you
can't boat anymore or we are taking the registration for your boat.
If boating is a privilege, it just means you don't necessarily have to
be afforded due process in order to lose it. You could essentially make
rules that say, effectively, you are guilty until proven innocent when
it comes to violations. There are rules like this that apply to one's
driver license in most states.
My question regarding this has to do with "licensing". You cannot
require someone to obtain a license to engage in something he has a
right to do. So I asked what is the legal grounds for someone to say
boating is a right, or a privilege.
> The Navigation rules does state that all vessels should operate at a safe
> speed at all times.
But is operating a vessel at a safe speed a right or a privilege? :-)
>
> >come back a bit split over the issue. But nobody ever backs up their
> >"answer" to the question with a legal reference.
> >
> >The question - is boating on the navigable waterways of the United
> >States a right or a privilege? Please provide the legal basis for your
> >arguement.
> Maybe it shold be proven the other way - show where the people are given a
> right to operate on the water! Not defined in the Bill of Rights.
The bill of rights is not the only place where rights are determined.
They are just the one that the framers of the Constitution felt needed
special attention when they estanlished the rules of government. The
"right to the persuit of happiness" is not in the bill of rights either
- it isn't even in the Constitution. It's in the Declaration of
Independence (a historical document, but not one that governs us).
--
Curtis
"Fast Forward"
hkrause
>
>
> My question regarding this has to do with "licensing". You cannot
> require someone to obtain a license to engage in something he has a
> right to do. So I asked what is the legal grounds for someone to say
> boating is a right, or a privilege.
Of course you can. The gun lobby says citizens have a "right" to own firearms.
Buy a pistol and in many locales, that weapon must be licensed, or registered.
lightnup
>Captain Bill Tyndall wrote in message <3607fd6f$0$25179@mojo>...
>>
>>
>>>
>>>What kind of rig is good for catching a PWC? What #test line do you
>>>reccomend, and finally how well do they fight when you set the hook?
>>> Rick
>>
>>I would suggest 1/2" nylon connected to a 75' sea going tug. The first run
>>would be exciting, some jumping, do not let them have any slack, and keep
>>the stern towards the critter. After a short fight, it will be just dead
>>weight. I understand the retail value is fair.....
>>
>Actually, I find that a harpoon works best. Either way, cleaning them is a
>real pain.
>Eliyahu (Lyle) Rooff
1. So, okay, if I want to have one mounted, how do they charge - by
the pound, the horsepower, 1, 2 or 3 seats, what?
2. Is there a catch limit?
3. Are any manufacturers coming out with an Ass Boat, specifically
designed for high performance PWC fishing? Hmm...maybe professional
Ass Tournaments - just anchor in a smooth-as-glass cove (which is all
the bait they need)and wait for a school of them to show up. Yeeeehaa!
Like shooting fish in a barrel, so to speak.
Steve
ligh...@mindspring.com
www.mindspring.com/~lightnup
----------------------------
lightnup
I'll probably be sorry for even stepping into this but, what the hell,
here goes...
Harry, why do you phrase it: "The gun lobby says..." instead of, "The
2nd amendment to the constitution says..."? Just curious.
Steve
ligh...@mindspring.com
www.mindspring.com/~lightnup
----------------------------
hkrause
Because the Constitution doesn't say that. It cites the need for a
"well-regulated militia." We don't have a well-regulated militia, at least not
in the sense of a para-military organization that comes together with its
weapons in time of need for the common good. Hell, we don't have any kind of
militia, except those anti-government gun nuts who run around blowing up
buildings, writing checks on accounts that don't exist and killing federal
agents.
That's why.
You know the NRA has never tested the 2nd Amendment properly before the US
Supreme Court. Ever wonder why?
--
Harry Krause
EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
- - - - - - - - - -
"Ramirez was an effete snob." -- The Kurgan
WHardy1902
>The real benefit of the harpoon is that it leaves the other hand free to
>hold your beer.
>
>
The real benefit of the harpoon is that it leaves the other hand free to jack
off.
Er eee Er eee Er eee Er eee Er eee Er eee
RGrew176
I think the title block says it all. If we can somehow ban the idiots that
should take care of the PWC problem once and for all. The hard part is finding
a way to ban the idiots. Any ideas.
Todd H
for the actions of anyone with his permission to use the craft?
A law like this, coupled with a few highly publicized
convictions/cases/lawsuits, would probably dramatically reduce "loaning" of
PWC's to inexperienced riders, and thusly (according to stats mentioned
earlier in this thread) reduce PWC idiots and accidents.
--
"I just drive the boat Boss... Don't really navigate" - Captain Ron
Remove X to reply.
RGrew176 wrote in message <19980923080525...@ng88.aol.com>...
hkrause
There's no need for such a law. It is quite do-able. If you loan someone your
car and he/she wrecks it and another car, too, you can be successfully sued.
Car, PWC, airplane...no difference.
Is it your position that PWC owners are not aware of this? If not, then clear
warnings might help. But it seems to me that experiences in and knowledge of
what happens in car accidents would be understood by boaters...that they can be
held financially liable for damages their vehicle causes, even if they loan it
out.
--
Harry Krause
EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
- - - - - - - - - -
"Are those Valerian canapes?" -- Admiral Nogachev
lightnup
>lightnup wrote:
>> I'll probably be sorry for even stepping into this but, what the hell,
>> here goes...>>
>> 2nd amendment to the constitution says..."? Just curious.
>Because the Constitution doesn't say that. It cites the need for a
>"well-regulated militia."
Gee, Harry, this is strange. My copy of The Bill of Rights clearly
says,
Article II
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be
infringed.
I guess mine must be a misprint. I'll just white-out the part about
the right to bear arms so that mine matches your personalized version.
Steve
ligh...@mindspring.com
www.mindspring.com/~lightnup
----------------------------
hkrause
Mine says the same thing. Note the first clause, "A well-regulated militia being
necessary..."
The intent of the framers was that private citizens, NOT an army, would be
organized and prepared to fight the country's battles. The framers feared
standing armies, and for good reason. Before the War, they had had bad
experiences with Brit soldiers on colonial soil.
As I said, there is no well-regulated militia or body of "citizen-soldiers."
Other countries do, but we do not. We have uniformed armed forces, not a
militia. Some have maintained that the National Guard is our "militia," but, if
that were true, it would restrict arms to just those in that group. Now THAT is
a scary thought indeed.
Note that I am not opposed to private ownership and legitmate use of
non-automatic rifles and shotguns that cannot easily be concealed. I own several
shotguns myself and enjoy killing as many skeet as I can find.
--
Harry Krause
EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
- - - - - - - - - -
"For dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."
lightnup
>lightnup wrote:
>>
>> hkrause <hkr...@erols.com> wrote:
>> >lightnup wrote:
>> >> I'll probably be sorry for even stepping into this but, what the hell,
>> >> here goes...>>
>> >> Harry, why do you phrase it: "The gun lobby says the people have a right to bear arms..." instead of, "The
>> >> 2nd amendment to the constitution says..."? Just curious.
>>
>> >Because the Constitution doesn't say that. It cites the need for a
>> >"well-regulated militia."
>>
>> Gee, Harry, this is strange. My copy of The Bill of Rights clearly
>> says,
>> Article II
>>
>> A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
>> state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be
>> infringed.
>>
>> I guess mine must be a misprint. I'll just white-out the part about
>> the right to bear arms so that mine matches your personalized version.
>>
>> Steve
>Mine says the same thing. Note the first clause, "A well-regulated militia being
>necessary..."
Well, if yours and mine say the same thing, how can you conclude that
it does not say that the people have the right to keep and bear arms?
Unless what you're saying is...because no one has formed a
well-regulated militia, there is no right for the people to bear arms?
I would submit that, if the people have no right to keep and bear
arms, you can kiss off the idea of a well-regulated militia ever
happening, as we sink deeper and deeper into a "government's going
take care of me" malaise in this country.
Steve
>The intent of the framers was that private citizens, NOT an army, would be
>organized and prepared to fight the country's battles. The framers feared
>standing armies, and for good reason. Before the War, they had had bad
>experiences with Brit soldiers on colonial soil.
>As I said, there is no well-regulated militia or body of "citizen-soldiers."
>Other countries do, but we do not. We have uniformed armed forces, not a
>militia. Some have maintained that the National Guard is our "militia," but, if
>that were true, it would restrict arms to just those in that group. Now THAT is
>a scary thought indeed.
>Note that I am not opposed to private ownership and legitmate use of
>non-automatic rifles and shotguns that cannot easily be concealed. I own several
>shotguns myself and enjoy killing as many skeet as I can find.
ligh...@mindspring.com
www.mindspring.com/~lightnup
----------------------------
hkrause
>
>
> Well, if yours and mine say the same thing, how can you conclude that
> it does not say that the people have the right to keep and bear arms?
>
> Unless what you're saying is...because no one has formed a
> well-regulated militia, there is no right for the people to bear arms?
What I am saying is that the sentence in the Amendment in question is comprised
of clauses, and one cannot stand without the other. The first part of the
sentence states the need for a well-regulated militia and envisions that
ordinary people, not soldiers, will comprise it. That's why the second clause
talks about the "right" to bear arms. The way the Amendment is written, you
can't have one without the other. No need for a well-regulated militia? No need
for a right to bear arms.
A standing army is not a substitute for a "well-regulated" militia. We don't
have any legitimate militia. And if we did, then gun ownership would be
restricted to its members.
The biggest fear of the NRA is that someday a suit will be brought that tests
that very issue and the Supremes will rule that the Amendment doesn't really
apply to individuals.
As for your societal implications, well, those are separate and apart.
Gould 0738
Steve observed:>Gee, Harry, this is strange. My copy of The Bill of Rights
clearly
>says,
> Article II
>
>A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
>state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be
>infringed.
>
>I guess mine must be a misprint. I'll just white-out the part about
>the right to bear arms so that mine matches your personalized version.
>
>
>Steve
>
>
Try reading "the people" as a pluralism; sort of as in the Preamble where the
same authors state "We, the people."
The founding fathers didn't reserve the right for every farmer to have a
squirrel gun, because back in the 18th Century such a gun would be considered a
neccesary tool for survival; much like a plow or a butterchurn. It wasn't
important to put into the Constitution that there was in individual right to
own farm implements; just as if the document were being written today we
wouldn't have to include a specific "right" to own a refrigerator.
The Constitution and the 2nd Amendment did not and does not exist in a vaccuum.
At the time the document was written, firearms were not usually kept in homes
in towns or villages of any size. They were kept in blockhouses, to which the
population would rally if threatened with attack. It was an attempt to seize
just such "arms" (as well as a few rebel leaders) that caused the British to
march on Lexington and
Concorde. Odd that some of the first important shots in modern American
history were fired over the issue of whether the central government should be
allowed to confiscate weapons........odder still that some of the more militant
gun nuts would, (if they had their way), see to it that some of the last shots
might be fired over the same issue.
Did the founding fathers believe that no individual person should own a gun?
Undoubtedly no; many Americans lived in frontier conditions at the time.
Did the founding fathers mean to imply that regulations which prohibit the
average stock broker, pipe fitter, truck driver, real estate agent, or drug
dealer from stockpiling assault weapons were anti-freedom and not in the
general public interest? (Had they been able to envision such weapons) Most
probably again, no.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land; but laws can and must change
with the times (which is why the authors of the constitution included the
amendment process in the first place). How many of us send a passenger ahead on
foot, waving a red lantern, before we drive our automobiles across a bridge?
There was a time when many localities had just such a law in this
country...passed in the genuine interest of the public good at the time.
Theoretical question: Since the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed, why is there no outcry
among the pro-gun lobby demanding that private citizens be allowed to own
nuclear missles? Or even tanks? Why isn't there a groundswell of support for my
right to mount torpedo
launchers on the deck of my personal boat? These are, in the modern context,
"arms". Is the 2nd Amendment now obsolete? Or is it being oft quoted for a
purpose for which it was never intended? (Such a purpose being the seeking of
a constitutional reason to avoid the regulation of firearms and their
distribution in society).
((notice the ref. to boats and torpedo launchers...stayed on topic just
barely))
hkrause
>
> Why isn't there a groundswell of support for my
> right to mount torpedo
> launchers on the deck of my personal boat?
I support such an effort. In fact, I'm negotiating with the North Koreans who
get theirs from the Chinese via the French who stole the designs from the
British who printed the instructions in Arabic. $999.99 each, plus shipping.
--
Harry Krause
EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
- - - - - - - - - -
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want." - Calvin
Pete Gordley
vessel. But they need to have courtesey toward other folks. Period.
Curtis Wheeler
>
> Curtis Wheeler wrote:
> >
> >
> > My question regarding this has to do with "licensing". You cannot
> > require someone to obtain a license to engage in something he has a
> > right to do. So I asked what is the legal grounds for someone to say
> > boating is a right, or a privilege.
>
> Of course you can. The gun lobby says citizens have a "right" to own firearms.
> Buy a pistol and in many locales, that weapon must be licensed, or registered.
There is no question that people in the United States have a
constitutional right to own firearms (you don't have to be a citizen).
And I know of no place in the U.S. that requires a license to own one.
I apologize to the NG if this turns into another gun thread. But lets
note that Harry started it - again.
--
Curtis
"Fast Forward"
Skip Gundlach
Terry wrote in message ...
>Anyway I agree that it's the fool at the helm we need to be concerned with
Absolutely - but not a pwc issue: a safe boating issue...
>more than the vessel. I have enjoyed an occasional bomber run on a PWC,
but
:{)) See my post about props! Likewise, in a regular stinkpot (vs
sailboat, not a commentary on the quality of my exhaust!), but also
stipulated that not done until the yahoos (my label for the folks that run
from one end to the other just to see how fast, or how noisy - have you ever
heard the muscle boat, WOT? Makes a PWC sound like a bee/mosquito - they
can be) have left for the season...
>I don't jump peoples wakes or buzz anchorages. I also have a VERY fast
I really only replied here about this... :{))
I live near a marina, where there are a variety of large-wake inducing craft
which come and go on the same tributary (flooded, in a man made *big* lake).
One of the things I actually enjoy about those wakes is watching the PWCs
waiting for the next one to come, and doing some amazing aerial stuff. In
my experience, they operate safely (or, at least as safe as 10' of air and
40-50' of airborne can be). That is, they don't get in anyone's way, and do
about the same as mogul runners do on ski slopes - wait your turn, and give
it all you have!
That said, I don't much like the whine (the PWC, not the tone of the
group) - and I think that to be a large part of the offense taken to them.
Clipped from below, agreed that bigger watercraft operators can be equally
stupid, and that, IMHO, is where we have to start.
(Driver education equivalent)...
Entry is too easy the smaller you get. But, it is easy to buy a used boat
for the same money as a PWC. It just appeals to a different mindset.
FWIW, I neither own, nor have even ever ridden a PWC...
L8R
Skip
Skip Gundlach
Skip Gundlach
hkrause wrote in message <3608F407...@erols.com>...
>There's no need for such a law. It is quite do-able. If you loan someone
your
>car and he/she wrecks it and another car, too, you can be successfully
sued.
>Car, PWC, airplane...no difference.
Interesting concept...
In my (admittedly non-legally-professional) experience, the insurance
follows the vehicle, not the driver.
Can the loaner successfully sue an at-fault driver of loaner's vehicle for
the losses incurred at the driver's actions? I.e. increased premiums, any
deductibles, impact on credit reports, loss of use, etc.?
Skip
Skip Gundlach
hkrause
>
> hkrause wrote:
> >
> > Curtis Wheeler wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > My question regarding this has to do with "licensing". You cannot
> > > require someone to obtain a license to engage in something he has a
> > > right to do. So I asked what is the legal grounds for someone to say
> > > boating is a right, or a privilege.
> >
> > Of course you can. The gun lobby says citizens have a "right" to own firearms.
> > Buy a pistol and in many locales, that weapon must be licensed, or registered.
>
> There is no question that people in the United States have a
> constitutional right to own firearms (you don't have to be a citizen).
> And I know of no place in the U.S. that requires a license to own one.
>
Uhh, say, son, do you have a license for that handgun? What...Curtis told you
you don't need one?
Richard C. Eriksson
>
>
> There is no question that people in the United States have a
> constitutional right to own firearms (you don't have to be a citizen).
> And I know of no place in the U.S. that requires a license to own one.
>
> I apologize to the NG if this turns into another gun thread. But lets
> note that Harry started it - again.
>
> --
> Curtis
> "Fast Forward"
Maybe not a "license", but here in Massachusetts, one must obtain a
firearms permit from your local police department, even to purchase
a BB or pellet rifle. Found with a gun or rifle without this permit
is supposed to result in a 1 year mandatory jail sentence, although
I don't think it has been enforced.
DE
L4FOTO
Let's get back to the issue of pwc. If I want to learn about gun righst, I will
do so in another web site!!! Larry
Myles J. Swift
because you are now a known loaner. If the vehicle in questions was taken
without your knowledge and/or approval then you could sue the "borrower".
Myles
Skip Gundlach wrote in message <6ub5mv$9d3$2...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Julian M. Frost
> Mine says the same thing. Note the first clause, "A well-regulated
> militia being necessary..."
>
> The intent of the framers was that private citizens, NOT an army, would be
> organized and prepared to fight the country's battles. The framers feared
> standing armies, and for good reason. Before the War, they had had bad
> experiences with Brit soldiers on colonial soil.
>
> As I said, there is no well-regulated militia or body of
> "citizen-soldiers."
When the 2nd Amendment was written, the term "Well regulated" meant "well
equipped". The "militia" meant all able bodied men. This is clear if one
bothers to read the Federalist Papers and other writings of the Founding
Fathers.
Julian
Todd H
held liable for ALL actions of the borrower. For example: A borrowed PWC
operator gets a ticket for operating above wake speed in a No Wake zone. The
operator should get an even bigger ticket, for giving the idiot access to
the vessel in the first place.
In addition, the insurance companies could help reduce borrowing of PWC's.
According to previously mentioned stats, the big risk is in borrowed craft.
Insurance companies could restrict coverage to the owner, and other users
listed on the policy (typically family members).
Nathan Barnett
argument with Harry in the middle of it.
Nathan Barnett
hkrause
>
> On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, hkrause wrote:
>
> > Mine says the same thing. Note the first clause, "A well-regulated
> > militia being necessary..."
> >
> > The intent of the framers was that private citizens, NOT an army, would be
> > organized and prepared to fight the country's battles. The framers feared
> > standing armies, and for good reason. Before the War, they had had bad
> > experiences with Brit soldiers on colonial soil.
> >
> > As I said, there is no well-regulated militia or body of
> > "citizen-soldiers."
>
> When the 2nd Amendment was written, the term "Well regulated" meant "well
> equipped". The "militia" meant all able bodied men.
Hmm. I've been checking on the etymology of both phrases. I'm also familiar with
the writings of George Mason and of parts of the U.S. Code.
The word "regulated" has not changed much in meaning over the centuries. It
still means "controlled." I've found no cite that "regulated" means "equipped."
If you have one, please share it.
While the word "militia" may well have meant "all-able bodied men" to the
writers of the Amendments, they used the phrase to be as inclusive as possible
about the need for citizens, in the absence of a real draft and lack of a
standing army to provide for the national defense.
Ordinary citizens who own guns today are NOT part of a "well-regulated" militia,
nor are they responsible nor could they be for the nation's defense.
Again, the NRA runs away from any legal challenges that would bring this concept
before the Supremes.
Bill Smotrilla
Lyle Rooff wrote:
It's not that hard to fillet em, use a 1/2 hp reciprocating saw with a metal cutting blade. Of course hearing protection and safety glasses are a must. The bummer is they taste really oily and smell funny,BillActually, I find that a harpoon works best. Either way, cleaning them is a
real pain.
hkrause
Perhaps, Nathan, you'd prefer a society controlled by a "well-regulated
militia?" If so...plenty come to mind...
--
Harry Krause
EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
- - - - - - - - - -
"Imaginary Numbers... Like Eleventeen and Thirty-Twelve."
DONNA742
>
>I assume that an a$$hole is just a rich asshole?
Just trying to be "computer" polite.
DONNA742
>
>License=privilege
>No License=right
>
Yea, Thats what I ment to say.
(Finally, someone sums it up in 5 words)
Toyscarab
>Seeing as how your AOL profile lists your hobbies as "boatin and boozin"
yes, these are my hobbies but, at least I do not do both things at the same
time.
And when I am in my boat, I tend to make sure that I am not causing others
to be concerned about the fact that their small children may be run over by my
boat. Donna (ToyScarab)
Toyscarab
>The real benefit of the harpoon is that it leaves the other hand free to jack
>off.
I guess if you have nothing better to do with your time or your hands than
that, I can see why you spend so much time slamming others. Everyone is
entitled to his own I guess. Donna (ToyScarab)
Toyscarab
> The
>bummer is they taste really oily and smell funny
You mean they don't taste like chicken? Donna (ToyScarab)
Toyscarab
>Nathan Barnett wrote:
>> Somehow you had to figure that this would end up as an off-topic
>> argument with Harry in the middle of it.
Harry replied...
>Perhaps, Nathan, you'd prefer a society controlled by a "well-regulated
>militia?"
Harry, What in the helll prompted that response?
ray_pulley
>
>Nathan Barnett wrote:
>>
>> Somehow you had to figure that this would end up as an off-topic
>> argument with Harry in the middle of it.
>>
>
>
>Perhaps, Nathan, you'd prefer a society controlled by a "well-regulated
>
>
>--
>
No he probably just wants to talk about boats. Novel concept.
Ray
Nathan Barnett
>
> Nathan Barnett wrote:
> >
> > Somehow you had to figure that this would end up as an off-topic
> > argument with Harry in the middle of it.
> >
> > Nathan Barnett
>
> Perhaps, Nathan, you'd prefer a society controlled by a "well-regulated
> militia?" If so...plenty come to mind...
Can I be in charge? That would be cool!
Nathan Barnett
Captain Bill Tyndall
Todd H wrote in message ...
>Is anyone aware of law or precedence established to hold a PWC OWNER liable
>for the actions of anyone with his permission to use the craft?
>
No need for another law - Marine courts have held the operator and the
owner as well as the vessel it self liable for any damage.
Captain Bill
Curtis Wheeler
>
> lightnup wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well, if yours and mine say the same thing, how can you conclude that
> > it does not say that the people have the right to keep and bear arms?
> > Unless what you're saying is...because no one has formed a
> > well-regulated militia, there is no right for the people to bear arms?
> What I am saying is that the sentence in the Amendment in question is comprised
> of clauses, and one cannot stand without the other. The first part of the
> sentence states the need for a well-regulated militia and envisions that
> ordinary people, not soldiers, will comprise it. That's why the second clause
> talks about the "right" to bear arms. The way the Amendment is written, you
> can't have one without the other. No need for a well-regulated militia? No need
> for a right to bear arms.
If we don't need the second ammendment, have it repealed. You know how
to do it.
There is no requirement for the government to operate a well regulated
militia for one to exist.
> A standing army is not a substitute for a "well-regulated" militia. We don't
> have any legitimate militia. And if we did, then gun ownership would be
> restricted to its members.
Essentially - the ammendment says that anyone with a firearm would be a
member. In other words - being in a militia is not prerequesite to
owning a firearm, but rather owning a firearm is a prerequisite for
being in a militia.
> The biggest fear of the NRA is that someday a suit will be brought that tests
> that very issue and the Supremes will rule that the Amendment doesn't really
> apply to individuals.
Already happened.
US v. Miller defined "who" was the militia. US v. Verdugo-Urquirdez,
and many lower court cases, have held bearing arms to be an individual
right. The "people" refered to in the 2nd ammendment are the same
"people" refered to everywhere else in the Constitution.
With over 200 million privately owned guns in this country, I fail to
see a gun crisis. More people are killed in automobile accidents than
by firearms.
Don't forget... "Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I
have killed with my gun."
As for trying to deny an individual right to bear arms through crafty
court cases or even ammending the Constitution... be careful what you
wish for. Remember all of the wonderful social "improvements" the 18th
ammendment gave us.
Back to boats - did you notice Mexico released Scott McClung? This was
the guy that was arrested for having guns on his boat in Cozumel.
--
Curtis
"Fast Forward"
Brian Grant
>
> hkrause wrote:
> >
> > lightnup wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, if yours and mine say the same thing, how can you conclude that
> > > it does not say that the people have the right to keep and bear arms?
>
> > > Unless what you're saying is...because no one has formed a
> > > well-regulated militia, there is no right for the people to bear arms?
>
> > What I am saying is that the sentence in the Amendment in question is comprised
> > of clauses, and one cannot stand without the other. The first part of the
> > sentence states the need for a well-regulated militia and envisions that
> > ordinary people, not soldiers, will comprise it. That's why the second clause
> > talks about the "right" to bear arms. The way the Amendment is written, you
> > can't have one without the other. No need for a well-regulated militia? No need
> > for a right to bear arms.
>
Remember that the definition of the militia was the citizenry of an age
able to act as such. Virtually every home in colonial times had guns
and the revolution was primarily fought with citizen soldiers (as has
every war since that we have entered). The intent of the writers of the
constitution was to ensure that the citizenry was capable of defending
itself from despots, both internal and external.
Garrett Krueger
>
> < ... snipped ... >
>
> Because the Constitution doesn't say that. It cites the need for a
> "well-regulated militia." We don't have a well-regulated militia, at least not
> in the sense of a para-military organization that comes together with its
> weapons in time of need for the common good. Hell, we don't have any kind of
> militia, except those anti-government gun nuts who run around blowing up
> buildings, writing checks on accounts that don't exist and killing federal
> agents.
>
> That's why.
>
> You know the NRA has never tested the 2nd Amendment properly before the US
> Supreme Court. Ever wonder why?
>
> --
>
> Harry Krause
Well Harry, once again you've screwed it up by posting a half-assed
statement.
The constitution most certainly DOES provide for the right to bear
arms. In point of fact, the 2nd amendment reads as follows:
"Right to bear arms"
"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."
BGN5731
>You mean they don't taste like chicken? Donna (ToyScarab)
Youse people are reallly sick....but funny!!!!
Dale 3
Harry Clinton said:
>Mine says the same thing. Note the first clause, "A well-regulated militia
>necessary..."<BR>
Then possibly by your logic the government has dropped the ball by NOT forming
a militia?
Bruce Edwards
Shreveport Yacht Club
hkrause
>
>
>
> Remember that the definition of the militia was the citizenry of an age
> able to act as such. Virtually every home in colonial times had guns
> and the revolution was primarily fought with citizen soldiers (as has
> every war since that we have entered). The intent of the writers of the
> constitution was to ensure that the citizenry was capable of defending
> itself from despots, both internal and external.
Our non-military "armed citizenry" is more adept at shooting family members than
any real enemies, internal or external.
--
Harry Krause
EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
- - - - - - - - - -
"Our kind don't have a history of hospitality toward each other."
bgro...@my-dejanews.com
ligh...@mindspring.com wrote:
> "Lyle Rooff" <lro...@bmi.net> wrote:
>
> 3. Are any manufacturers coming out with an Ass Boat, specifically
> designed for high performance PWC fishing? Hmm...maybe professional
> Ass Tournaments - just anchor in a smooth-as-glass cove (which is all
> the bait they need)and wait for a school of them to show up. Yeeeehaa!
> Like shooting fish in a barrel, so to speak.
>
I think you need to work on this. The BEST boat for catching them is one that
throws a huge wake. Run it at full power untrimmed perferably near some of
their nesting areas. If its leagal in your area use a large net and you can
catch more than one at a time.
If you must fish in a cove looking for natural signs of them.
1. no wake buoy
2. swimming bouy
3. docks
4. groups of anchored boats
Hope this helps,
ben
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
bgro...@my-dejanews.com
hkrause <hkr...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > Remember that the definition of the militia was the citizenry of an age>
> >
> >
> > able to act as such. Virtually every home in colonial times had guns
> > and the revolution was primarily fought with citizen soldiers (as has
> > every war since that we have entered). The intent of the writers of the
> > constitution was to ensure that the citizenry was capable of defending
> > itself from despots, both internal and external.
>
> Our non-military "armed citizenry" is more adept at shooting family members
than
> any real enemies, internal or external.
>
> --
>
> Harry Krause
Isn't the above statement by Harry a classic of anti-gun nuts. I cann't win
the argument and I don't have a leg to stand on but I'll make a negative
statement and pretend it changes everything.
With Harrys way of thinking, all you boat nuts better get rid of those damned
murderous boats before someone drowns. Didn't you idiots learn anything when
the Titanic sunk!!! Most drownings from a boat occur with friends/family
members nearby on the same boat. BTW I made this up but I bet its true :)
Next he'll start spouting the kids killing kids data. Where a kid is defined
as anyone under 25.
sheesh,
lightnup
>I think you need to work on this. The BEST boat for catching them
<i.e., PWCs>
>is one that
>throws a huge wake. Run it at full power untrimmed perferably near some of
>their nesting areas. If its leagal in your area use a large net and you can
>catch more than one at a time.
>If you must fish in a cove looking for natural signs of them.
>1. no wake buoy
>2. swimming bouy
>3. docks
>4. groups of anchored boats
>Hope this helps,
>ben
Yes, you're right. I should have thought of that. I was thinking of a
quiet cove only because that makes it easier to prepare for catching
them by listening for their distinctive warble.
Steve
ligh...@mindspring.com
www.mindspring.com/~lightnup
----------------------------
MarkypieP
hkrause, whipped into a frenzy by moral indignation over Clinton's trials and
tribulations wrote:>Our non-military "armed citizenry" is more adept at
shooting family members
>than
>any real enemies, internal or external.
>
>
You just can't let it go, can you Harry? Why don't you just admit that you're a
professional troll? The rest of the newsgroup can accept it, why can't you?
mudfly
>
> In article <6u9ikj$spa$1...@camel15.mindspring.com>,
> ligh...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > "Lyle Rooff" <lro...@bmi.net> wrote:
> >
>
> > 3. Are any manufacturers coming out with an Ass Boat, specifically
> > designed for high performance PWC fishing? Hmm...maybe professional
> > Ass Tournaments - just anchor in a smooth-as-glass cove (which is all
> > the bait they need)and wait for a school of them to show up. Yeeeehaa!
> > Like shooting fish in a barrel, so to speak.
> >
>
> throws a huge wake. Run it at full power untrimmed perferably near some of
> their nesting areas. If its leagal in your area use a large net and you can
> catch more than one at a time.
>
> If you must fish in a cove looking for natural signs of them.
> 1. no wake buoy
> 2. swimming bouy
> 3. docks
> 4. groups of anchored boats
>
> Hope this helps,
> ben
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Better check with Fish and Game, Throwing a big wake to attract the PWC
may be considered "chumming" which is illegal in some areas.Here in NY
we have a Bow season for carp,I've written the Governor asking that
PWC's be added to the species that may be taken by Bow
Rick
G. Gerald Barr
and has become very adept at catching *fish* and since he follows a catch &
release program, many of the *fish* get caught over and over and over again.
It seems to be a bit of a take off on the story about the psychiatrist and
the light bulb.
How many psychiatrists does it take to catch a fish. Only one, but, the
fish must want to be caught.
MarkypieP wrote in message <19980924110421...@ng81.aol.com>...
hkrause
Harry Krause wrote:
>
> > Our non-military "armed citizenry" is more adept at shooting family members
> than
> > any real enemies, internal or external.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Harry Krause
>
> Isn't the above statement by Harry a classic of anti-gun nuts. I cann't win
> the argument and I don't have a leg to stand on but I'll make a negative
> statement and pretend it changes everything.
>
> With Harrys way of thinking, all you boat nuts better get rid of those damned
> murderous boats before someone drowns.
The statement stands. Ordinary citizens with guns (not the military or its
affililates) are more likely to shoot their own family members than our enemies.
The idea that a bunch of totally disorganized and non-military NRA members could
somehow defend America from an invasion of the mainland Chinese is nothing more
than a masturbatory fantasy.
I am not an anti-gun "nut." I have a nice collection of shotguns which I use to
slaughter hundreds of skeet any chance I get. I have no objection whatsoever to
the private ownership and use of full-sized shotguns and rifles that cannot be
easily concealed or fired "automatically."
I carry these arms when I cruise in certain waters. Ergo, the post is on target
for this newsgroup.
Smoke them apples.
hkrause
>
> hkrause, whipped into a frenzy by moral indignation over Clinton's trials and
> shooting family members
> >than
> >any real enemies, internal or external.
> >
> >
>
> professional troll? The rest of the newsgroup can accept it, why can't you?
Actually, MarkyPie, I am a professional writer. I was found much too tall for
acceptance into the Brotherhood of Trolls. How *is* your life under that bridge?
--
Harry Krause
EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
- - - - - - - - - -
"Chess is the art of battle for the victorious battle of
hidda
and
>tribulations wrote:>Our non-military "armed citizenry" is more adept at
>shooting family members
>>than
>>any real enemies, internal or external.
>>
>>
>
>You just can't let it go, can you Harry? Why don't you just admit that
you're a
>professional troll? The rest of the newsgroup can accept it, why can't you?
Why is what Harry said a troll. What he said is absolutely true. When was
the last time we were invaded by a foreign force that our armed forces
couldn't handle? When was the last time that ordinary citizens needed their
guns to repell an armed force that has turned on the citizens? It's more
likely that a gun in the house will kill a family member than an enemy of
state.
Dennis
Remove HORMEL from hi...@yaHORMELhoo.com to email
hkrause
Harry
"Latin me that, my trinity scholard,
out of eure sanscreed into oure eryan!"
Mark Lenox
>
>
> If you must fish in a cove looking for natural signs of them.
> 1. no wake buoy
> 2. swimming bouy
> 3. docks
> 4. groups of anchored boats
Besides these signs, I have found swimmers and waterskiers to be especially
effective "bait". This is especially true if the skier is wakeboarding at slow
speed, the combination of large wakes, and somebody they can injure often proves
completely irresistable, and attracts them in large numbers.
Mark Lenox
Pete Gordley
Myles J. Swift
themselves against the average well equipped professional soldier, whether
that be a foreign soldier or a domestic soldier acting against the common
weal.
With that definition you can ban handguns because they are not any good
against the average well equipped soldier. Today everybody needs a good .50
cal machine gun and a few sidewinders. Tomorrow it will be the family
atomics.
Myles
Brian Grant wrote in message <3609B729...@nospam.please.erols.com>...
>Remember that the definition of the militia was the citizenry of an age
cpa...@usf.teradyne.com
gkru...@cleosci.com wrote:
> Well Harry, once again you've screwed it up by posting a half-assed
> statement.
>
> The constitution most certainly DOES provide for the right to bear
> arms. In point of fact, the 2nd amendment reads as follows:
>
> "Right to bear arms"
>
> "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."
It never ceases to amaze me how many people can read this
sentence and ignore the first phrase "A well-regulated militia".
Since this is ONE complete sentence, representing ONE complete
thought or idea, you should take it as such. It is NOT correct
understanding of the thought or idea to take the last part
of this sentence out of the context created by the first part.
If you believe that this sentence applies to individuals, then
you must explain how a "well-regulated militia" is meant to
represent individuals. Otherwise it represents a group of some
kind, and phrase "the people" collectively represent the members
of this group.
Similary the sentence, "A well trained crew, being necessary to navigate
the high seas safely, the right of the people to keep and wear PFD's
shall not be infringed.", Would pertain to the rights of the crew of
a particular ship to wear life jackets while sailing, not necesarily
all people all the time.
Steve Herman
wrote:
>
>MarkypieP wrote in message :
>>
>>hkrause, whipped into a frenzy by moral indignation over Clinton's trials
>and
>>tribulations wrote:>Our non-military "armed citizenry" is more adept at
>>shooting family members
>>>than
>>>any real enemies, internal or external.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You just can't let it go, can you Harry? Why don't you just admit that
>you're a
>>professional troll? The rest of the newsgroup can accept it, why can't you?
>
>
>Why is what Harry said a troll. What he said is absolutely true. When was
>the last time we were invaded by a foreign force that our armed forces
>couldn't handle?
Yesterday, all along the border with Mexico.
> When was the last time that ordinary citizens needed their
>guns to repell an armed force that has turned on the citizens?
Uh, Waco, Texas? Ruby Ridge, Montana?
> It's more
>likely that a gun in the house will kill a family member than an enemy of
>state.
>
>Dennis
>
It's also more likely that the knives in your kitchen will kill a
family member, or the car in your garage will kill a family member,
than an "enemy of the state". What if the "state" becomes the "enemy"
of the people, as our founding fathers feared? Oh yeah, "it can't
happen here".
Steve Herman
RAFA (Rhythm Ace Full Auto) Productions
Curtis Wheeler
>
> Brian Grant wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Remember that the definition of the militia was the citizenry of an age
> > able to act as such. Virtually every home in colonial times had guns
> > and the revolution was primarily fought with citizen soldiers (as has
> > every war since that we have entered). The intent of the writers of the
> > constitution was to ensure that the citizenry was capable of defending
> > itself from despots, both internal and external.
>
> any real enemies, internal or external.
You can prove that? You can tell me of a study (by name/when) that? I
can only think of one that I think came out of Washington state. It
said something like a gun in the home is more likely to be used on a
family member than an intruder. Even the author of that one had to
retract most of that study - the study was skewed by fundemental flaws.
And Harry - you are always the first to demand that any statistics be
backed up with scientific data.
--
Curtis
"Fast Forward"
Lyle Rooff
bgro...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6udf2i$2i4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <6u9ikj$spa$1...@camel15.mindspring.com>,
> ligh...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> "Lyle Rooff" <lro...@bmi.net> wrote:
>>
>
>> 3. Are any manufacturers coming out with an Ass Boat, specifically
I hate to have to quibble about stuff, but if you're going to snip my entire
post, snip my sig at the top,as well, so it doesn't look like I wrote what
bgroover wrote. This entire post had my name at the top of what I didn't
write. Thanks.
Eliyahu Rooff
lro...@bmi.net
Visit my website, "Cats, cars, ships, space and Synagogue" at
http://www.bmi.net/lrooff/Home%20Page.htm
ray_pulley
>and
>>shooting family members
>>>than
>>>any real enemies, internal or external.
>>>
>>>
>>
>you're a
>>professional troll? The rest of the newsgroup can accept it, why can't you?
>
>
>Why is what Harry said a troll.
Because these long drawn out off-topic threads are very troll-like, and Harry is
often right in the middle of them.
Ray
ray_pulley
>
>MarkypieP wrote:
>>
>> hkrause, whipped into a frenzy by moral indignation over Clinton's trials and
>> tribulations wrote:>Our non-military "armed citizenry" is more adept at
>> shooting family members
>> >than
>> >any real enemies, internal or external.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>You just can't let it go, can you Harry? Why don't you just admit that you're a
>> professional troll? The rest of the newsgroup can accept it, why can't you?
>
>acceptance into the Brotherhood of Trolls. How *is* your life under that bridge?
>
>--
>
>Harry Krause
>EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
>- - - - - - - - - -
>"Chess is the art of battle for the victorious battle of
"Troll" as in one who trolls the ng's baiting the innocent (and not so innocent)
into off topic discussions hopefully leading to all out flame wars. Height, or
lack thereof is not a prerequisite.
Just wanted to clarify, and I must admit, Harry, you appear to fit the above
definition as you do not often discuss boats unless you are starting an argument
about them.
Ray
Michael Stern
hkrause wrote:
> lightnup wrote:
> >
> > hkrause <hkr...@erols.com> wrote:
> > >lightnup wrote:
> > >> I'll probably be sorry for even stepping into this but, what the hell,
> > >> here goes...>>
> > >> Harry, why do you phrase it: "The gun lobby says the people have a right to bear arms..." instead of, "The
> > >> 2nd amendment to the constitution says..."? Just curious.
> >
> > >Because the Constitution doesn't say that. It cites the need for a
> > >"well-regulated militia."
> >
> > Gee, Harry, this is strange. My copy of The Bill of Rights clearly
> > says,
> > Article II
> >
> > A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
> > state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be
> > infringed.
> >
> > I guess mine must be a misprint. I'll just white-out the part about
> > the right to bear arms so that mine matches your personalized version.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > ligh...@mindspring.com
> > www.mindspring.com/~lightnup
> > ----------------------------
>
> Mine says the same thing. Note the first clause, "A well-regulated militia being
> necessary..."
>
> The intent of the framers was that private citizens, NOT an army, would be
> organized and prepared to fight the country's battles. The framers feared
> standing armies, and for good reason. Before the War, they had had bad
> experiences with Brit soldiers on colonial soil.
>
> As I said, there is no well-regulated militia or body of "citizen-soldiers."
> Other countries do, but we do not. We have uniformed armed forces, not a
> militia. Some have maintained that the National Guard is our "militia," but, if
> that were true, it would restrict arms to just those in that group. Now THAT is
> a scary thought indeed.
>
> Note that I am not opposed to private ownership and legitmate use of
> non-automatic rifles and shotguns that cannot easily be concealed. I own several
> shotguns myself and enjoy killing as many skeet as I can find.
>
> --
>
> Harry Krause
> EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
> - - - - - - - - - -
> "For dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."
Harry,
Its nice to hear that you enjoy your shotguns. What do you plan on doing when the anti gun folks want to take them
away from you?
I like putting holes in paper with my guns (both hand and long arm) and I don't plan to stop without fighting.,
what about you?
Michael
Michael Stern
hkrause wrote:
> Brian Grant wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Remember that the definition of the militia was the citizenry of an age
> > able to act as such. Virtually every home in colonial times had guns
> > and the revolution was primarily fought with citizen soldiers (as has
> > every war since that we have entered). The intent of the writers of the
> > constitution was to ensure that the citizenry was capable of defending
> > itself from despots, both internal and external.
>
> Our non-military "armed citizenry" is more adept at shooting family members than
> any real enemies, internal or external.
>
> --
>
> Harry Krause
> EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
> - - - - - - - - - -
> "Our kind don't have a history of hospitality toward each other."
Does that mean that you Harry are more likely to kill someone in your family?
Michael Stern
cpa...@usf.teradyne.com wrote:
Harry,
What law school did you go to? Seems like you think you know what is meant
by the sentence. Shouldn't any lawyer be able to take up your point and win
the argument for the anti gun lobby?