Have all boaters gone insane ??

[Gerritt]

Gerritt!!!!! The Constitution Act of 1867! Hell I know...I was there with Canadave when it was first read!

 

 

 

Ohhh my dang god!!!...

 

 

There is a HUGE difference between the Constitution and the Constitutional Act....

 

 

a HUGE difference!

 

Gerritt.

[canadianguy33]

lol. Garritt....buddy...you're really reaching if the best you can come back with is that Canada doesn't have a constitution. I mean, are you serious, because your remarks seem kind of thrown together in a half witted manner. Do you really want me to give you the Webster's definition of the word?

 

if Britain goes to war.. Canadian troops could be conscripted

 

Okay, prove it. You've made the claim so the onus is on you.

 

 

however as humans we have emotions and I personally think emotions come before law when it comes to major cases

 

Just because emotions often do override the law doesn't make it right. I mean, have you ever heard of conflict of interest? There's a reason such precedent has been set. I'm pretty sure it dates back to Hammurabi's code even. lol

 

have innocents been jailed?? Yes! but we have a system that allows them to appeal etc... and when they come out... they have won the Government Lotto!...

 

Where do you come up with this stuff? Out of thin air I presume? The fact is that the Canadian government is under no obligation to provide compensation to unlawfully persecuted persons. Nor do people that receive non-guilty verdicts receive any monetary compensation regardless of whether or not they were imprisoned.

 

Also, I do see mandatory insurance as a sentence. If, by your logic we can appeal and win the lotto then I assume I'll be able to ask the insurance companies for my money back after twenty years without making a claim and swearing I'll never drive a boat again. lol

[POLLIWOGG]

I'm with the canadianguy on this one, If you know what your doing on the water the need for insurance is limited to bumps and scrapes around the dock or protection from the other uninsured guy that doesn't know what he's doing. Unfortunately you can't just get liability you have to get a package that puts you in with the guys that rip their outdrive off every year.

 

If you run over a swimmer that doesn't have a flag with him its not your fault as long as you keep a proper look out so your insurance won't pay out on it anyway.

 

I can also tell you for fact that mandatory insurance is coming, my guess is within 5 years.

[canadianguy33]

"Until I impede on your personal freedoms it is unconstitutional to persecute me by way of money. It's my right to be on the water. It's your choice to have kids; it's your choice to take the kids out boating. Rights win over choices every time...or at least they should."

 

Obviously you don't have children, or you could'nt possibly defend that position. You are big on rights, so here's aquestion for you:

 

What about my right to enjoy a resource, be it road or water responsibly without some irresponsible jerk who cares about nothing but himself (if that) risking my life or others. Is there no such right?

 

Well, who are you to define what's responsible and what's not? Just because you have kids doesn't mean that your rights are greater than people that don't have kids. That's a fact by the way. Not an opinion.

 

Using your logic, I should never leave my house, because if I walk down the street and someone mows me down on the sidewalk, I should have known that there was that risk, and take personal responsibility for that.

 

Well, you do know that there's a risk when you're walking the streets right? I hope you haven't went your entire life thinking that it's not possible. I mean, I had 200 neighbors last year that were mowed down on the sidewalk. So, if you don't want to risk being mowed down then you shouldn't leave your house and whatever you do, DON'T WALK ON THE SIDEWALK!

 

To put a twist on your comments about the legal system, I would rather that 100 irresponsible idiots be prevented from using the water, than 1 innocent, responsible person be killed for no fault of his/her own.

 

Being "irresponsible" and impeding on another person's freedoms are two very different and distinct things. Being "irresponsible" is subjective, impeding on another person's freedoms is CRIMINAL.

[Gerritt]

From Websters....

 

 

Constitution

Noun

 

1. Law determining the fundamental political principles of a government.

 

2. The act of forming something; "the constitution of a PTA group"; "he still remembers the establishment of the hospital".

 

3. The way in which someone or something is composed.

 

4. United States 44-gun frigate that was one of the first three naval ships built by the United States; it won brilliant victories over British frigates during the War of 1812 and is without doubt the most famous ship in the history of the United States Navy; it has been rebuilt and is anchored in the Charlestown Navy Yard in Boston.

 

 

 

 

CONSTITUTIONAL ACT

 

Specialty Definition: Constitutional Act of 1791

 

(From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia)

 

The Constitutional Act of 1791 was a British law which changed the government of the province of Quebec to accommodate the many English-speaking settlers, known as the United Empire Loyalists, who had arrived from the United States following the American Revolution. Quebec was divided in two. The western half became Upper Canada (now southern Ontario) and the eastern half Lower Canada (now southern Quebec). Upper Canada received English law and institutions, while Lower Canada retained French law and institutions, including seigneurial land tenure, and the privileges accorded to the Roman Catholic church. Representative governments were established in both colonies with the creation of a legislative assembly; Quebec had not previously had representative government. Along with each assembly there was also an appointed upper house, the Legislative Council, created for wealthy landowners; within the Legislative Council was the Executive Council, acting as a cabinet for the governor.

 

The Constitutional Act also tried to create an established church by creating clergy reserves – grants of land reserved for the Anglican Church. These reserves created many difficulties in later years.

 

The act was problematic for both English speakers and French speakers; the French Canadians felt they might be overshadowed by English settlement and increased rights for Protestants, while the new English-speaking settlers felt the French Canadians still had too much power. However, both groups preferred the act and the institutions it created to the Quebec Act which it replaced.

 

 

 

 

 

Here is some more....

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution

 

and here is another...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Act

 

 

There is a large difference... I am shocked you cant see it to be honest..

 

Gerritt.

 

PS... My wife with her Masters in History is shaking her head at us....

 

 

Sheesh....

[canadianguy33]

I'm with the canadianguy on this one, If you know what your doing on the water the need for insurance is limited to bumps and scrapes around the dock or protection from the other uninsured guy that doesn't know what he's doing. Unfortunately you can't just get liability you have to get a package that puts you in with the guys that rip their outdrive off every year.

 

If you run over a swimmer that doesn't have a flag with him its not your fault as long as you keep a proper look out so your insurance won't pay out on it anyway.

 

I can also tell you for fact that mandatory insurance is coming, my guess is within 5 years.

 

 

O please. Have any of you guys ever run over a swimmer? Have any of you guys ever caused an accident that maimed or killed someone?

 

The FACTS and PROBABILITY say that you haven't. Also, out of those 200 people that die every year in boating accidents, how many of those guys are to blame for their own deaths? I'd bet my left nut that at least 50% of them caused their own deaths. 38% of those deaths involved alcohol which I assume isn't forced down their throats, so I think it's pretty safe to say that 1 in 10 die because of their own stupidity.

[canadianguy33]

From Websters....

Constitution

Noun

 

1. Law determining the fundamental political principles of a government.

 

2. The act of forming something; "the constitution of a PTA group"; "he still remembers the establishment of the hospital".

 

3. The way in which someone or something is composed.

 

4. United States 44-gun frigate that was one of the first three naval ships built by the United States; it won brilliant victories over British frigates during the War of 1812 and is without doubt the most famous ship in the history of the United States Navy; it has been rebuilt and is anchored in the Charlestown Navy Yard in Boston.

CONSTITUTIONAL ACT

 

Specialty Definition: Constitutional Act of 1791

 

(From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia)

 

The Constitutional Act of 1791 was a British law which changed the government of the province of Quebec to accommodate the many English-speaking settlers, known as the United Empire Loyalists, who had arrived from the United States following the American Revolution. Quebec was divided in two. The western half became Upper Canada (now southern Ontario) and the eastern half Lower Canada (now southern Quebec). Upper Canada received English law and institutions, while Lower Canada retained French law and institutions, including seigneurial land tenure, and the privileges accorded to the Roman Catholic church. Representative governments were established in both colonies with the creation of a legislative assembly; Quebec had not previously had representative government. Along with each assembly there was also an appointed upper house, the Legislative Council, created for wealthy landowners; within the Legislative Council was the Executive Council, acting as a cabinet for the governor.

 

The Constitutional Act also tried to create an established church by creating clergy reserves – grants of land reserved for the Anglican Church. These reserves created many difficulties in later years.

 

The act was problematic for both English speakers and French speakers; the French Canadians felt they might be overshadowed by English settlement and increased rights for Protestants, while the new English-speaking settlers felt the French Canadians still had too much power. However, both groups preferred the act and the institutions it created to the Quebec Act which it replaced.

Here is some more....

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution

 

and here is another...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Act

There is a large difference... I am shocked you cant see it to be honest..

 

Gerritt.

 

PS... My wife with her Masters in History is shaking her head at us....

Sheesh....

 

There's no need to copy and paste your own definition. Here's a url for the definition of the word from the official site.

 

Anyways, does it really matter if my definition fits your definition. I think the fact that you pointed to the Charter of Rights proves that you understood what I was implying. You're grasping at straws trying to prove a point that can't be proven.

 

I'm challenging any and all of you to rebuke my opinion with some solid evidence or facts. Thus far, all I've seen is emotional pleas.

 

P.S. I don't really care if you wife is a rocket scientist or a plumber as her status is irrelevant to the conversation. Jesus was a carpenter and he had more knowledge than all of us.

Edited August 15, 2007 by canadianguy33

[Zamboni]

so if you see me jumpin your wake when you're goin across the lake... dont think i'm tryin to impress you... i'm tryin to impress your daughter hahaha. anyway guys just my two cents... by all means let me know what ya think

 

Well, my daughters only 7-what really impresses her is when I adjust the nozzle on the jet pump to fire a rooster tail....I think you should choose boats to 'buzz' carefully.

[Gerritt]

There's no need to copy and paste your own definition. Here's a url for the definition of the word from the official site.

 

Anyways, does it really matter if my definition fits your definition. I think the fact that you pointed to the Charter of Rights proves that you understood what I was implying. You're grasping at straws trying to prove a point that can't be proven.

 

I'm challenging any and all of you to rebuke my opinion with some solid evidence or facts. Thus far, all I've seen is emotional pleas.

 

P.S. I don't really care if you wife is a rocket scientist or a plumber as her status is irrelevant to the conversation. Jesus was a carpenter and he had more knowledge than all of us.

 

 

 

PS.... I am a carpenter by trade....

 

and yes My wife honestly has a degree in History...Her masters in fact... and I am proud of her for that

 

She told me straight up... none of us know what the *&^% we're talking about... she tried to explain... but being the guy I am I lose my attention after 39 seconds LOL... she was the one that provided the references however...and I did not post any of MY OWN definitions.. those were straight from Websters....and Websters redirects to Wiki often... Just an FYI

 

But whatever if your interested in a pissing match then challenge away...

 

and I will use standard definitions anyone else can find... including the university Library...

 

or you could chill out and acknowledge there is a difference between a constitution... and Canada's constitutional act..

 

I leave the choice up to you...

 

 

PS... there is a difference and I tried to show it to you... just read...

 

Gerritt.

[Gerritt]

I should add.... that if you or anyone else would like to continue this debate... lets please take it to PM's... is it is removing from the original point of Lew's thread... or lets start a a new thread so we are not highjacking his thread and what it was meant to be about...

 

 

Sorry Lew... this has got a bit carried away...

 

Gerritt.

[canadianguy33]

What do you mean "it's removing from Lew's original point of the thread?"

 

If I had posted 20 posts in this thread about how other boaters had cut me off and agreed with Lew would that be acceptable?

 

I'd like to continue the conversation as is, with all my words and everyone else's laid out in black and white. This thread began with a question "Have all boaters gone insane?"

 

Just because you don't agree with what some people are saying is no reason to close this thread and end the conversation.

 

P.S. Gerritt, you've offered no facts to your argument other than your wife has a master's in history and she says we're full of poop. I have diploma's too. It's easy to say someone is full of it, but it takes facts to back it up. Please prove I'm full of it.

Edited August 15, 2007 by canadianguy33

[markiemark70]

I vote for keeping the thread as is. Nothing wrong with healthy debate.

 

Canadianguy, you are contradicting yourself. You on one hand say that individual rights trump all, and at the same time, say that 38% of those boaters who died were idiots for drinking. Well if individual rights are the only rights that matter, and its "criminal" to impede them, then who are you or anyone else to say that those people did not have every right to get behind the wheel drunk? Don't judge them. They were just excersizing thier individual rights.

[canadianguy33]

I vote for keeping the thread as is. Nothing wrong with healthy debate.

 

Canadianguy, you are contradicting yourself. You on one hand say that individual rights trump all, and at the same time, say that 38% of those boaters who died were idiots for drinking. Well if individual rights are the only rights that matter, and its "criminal" to impede them, then who are you or anyone else to say that those people did not have every right to get behind the wheel drunk? Don't judge them. They were just excersizing thier individual rights.

 

 

Firstly, thank you for voting to keep this thread open. I really do believe that this is an important issue we all should discuss.

 

I don't believe I'm contradicting myself. My ideas of what's idiotic isn't law, nor do I think it should be. "Idiocy" in itself is subjective and mostly a moral judgment.

 

With that said, I'm about to get really unpopular and tell you that I don't entirely agree with the drinking and driving laws as they are. Organizations like MADD would like you to believe that drinking and driving is the big killer in Canada, killing tens of thousands of people, however, the facts are that drinking and driving deaths are only about 1,000 people per year nationwide (click this link to see for yourself), which is also pretty close to the 1/50,000 boater deaths given the total driving population.

 

Personally, I don't believe the laws we have accurately represent the risk, and preserve the freedom a person should have to drink and drive. Taking note from the very basis of our judicial system that 10 guilty people roam free to preserve one innocent man, a law should only be enacted if the number of people effected exceeds 10% of the population.

 

Now, I agree that is an extreme example. I wouldn't wait until 3.5 million Canadians were dying in DUI accidents to enact an anti-drinking and driving law. However, 3.3 million deaths vs the actual 1,000 deaths per year sure does put things in perspective. Is the risk of 1/33000 really worth impeding on everyone's personal freedom? What about 1 in 100,000? What about 1 in 1,000,000? Where is the line drawn?

 

Does anyone get what I'm saying? You can't put the needs of a few ahead of everyone else. I mean, 1,000 people out of a population of 33 million is nothing.

 

**dodges flying tomatos**

Edited August 15, 2007 by canadianguy33

[JerseyDog]

I have insurance on everything I own.

 

If you are not dirt poor, have a family to take care of or anything to lose - you should do the same.

 

I couldn't care less if its mandatory or not - if I get sued, the insurance company picks up the first two million which means at minimum they'll hire you a great lawyer.

[misfish]

I needed two coffees just to catch up on this one.

We went from crazy boaters to getting buzzed by boats,boaters card,insurance,the consitution oh wait,first the gun reg then the constitution then to the history of our country,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

Did this thread make anyone change thier minds about getting insurance?????????????????

 

Morning all.

 

Let the game continue.LOL

 

BTW

1983 RANGER 18 FT.,1995 115 MARINER 1983 RANGER TRAIL TRAILER,1,000,000 DOLLARS LIABILITY COVER,FULL REPLACEMENT VALUE WITH 1000 DEDUCTABLE. $245 A YEAR.

First of all it is required by the tourney organization second,thats a cheap price to pay for piece of mind.

[danbouck]

Firstly, thank you for voting to keep this thread open. I really do believe that this is an important issue we all should discuss.

 

I don't believe I'm contradicting myself. My ideas of what's idiotic isn't law, nor do I think it should be. "Idiocy" in itself is subjective and mostly a moral judgment.

 

With that said, I'm about to get really unpopular and tell you that I don't entirely agree with the drinking and driving laws as they are. Organizations like MADD would like you to believe that drinking and driving is the big killer in Canada, killing tens of thousands of people, however, the facts are that drinking and driving deaths are only about 1,000 people per year nationwide (click this link to see for yourself), which is also pretty close to the 1/50,000 boater deaths given the total driving population.

 

Personally, I don't believe the laws we have accurately represent the risk, and preserve the freedom a person should have to drink and drive. Taking note from the very basis of our judicial system that 10 guilty people roam free to preserve one innocent man, a law should only be enacted if the number of people effected exceeds 10% of the population.

 

Now, I agree that is an extreme example. I wouldn't wait until 3.5 million Canadians were dying in DUI accidents to enact an anti-drinking and driving law. However, 3.3 million deaths vs the actual 1,000 deaths per year sure does put things in perspective. Is the risk of 1/33000 really worth impeding on everyone's personal freedom? What about 1 in 100,000? What about 1 in 1,000,000? Where is the line drawn?

 

Does anyone get what I'm saying? You can't put the needs of a few ahead of everyone else. I mean, 1,000 people out of a population of 33 million is nothing.

 

**dodges flying tomatos**

 

 

I honestly can't believe that I just read this.

 

and good morning all!

[pigeonfisher]

I think you all need something to chew on.

 

DANG...BEER...CHICKEN WINGS...ELITISM

 

I am sure that we could argue this until blue in the face; however, one point and one point only struck me during this thread. Someone mentioned that you (Canadaguy33) likely don't have children, by many of your comments I would have to agree with that. Strike me if I am wrong but at some point we have to take trust in our neighbour to be a better man. If we argue over lawn cutting I trust that we will enjoy a beer the next day and not worry about him seeking revenge, if we drive on the same street I would trust that he would obey the laws of common sense and not rip along through a school zone (disregard Canadian Law for a minute). I have confronted people on my street (I live on a corner) about the speed in which they drive blindly around the corner. To make my point with them I usually bring Cooper (my 3 year old) with me. They then see another side of the coin and generally wave as they drive by next time. They weren't intentionally trying to kill Cooper, just being careless. Now they think about it differently and picture him being around the corner when they are coming.

 

We have to TRUST that people are doing the right thing, and if confronted about doing "the wrong thing" as judged by our laws of common sense (the laws of the water are generally common sense) that they will participate in the conversation with open ears and eyes.

 

This thread was started as a conversation about people on our waterways that are acting inappropriately. To that end I will bring one analogy that stems from the manufacturing sector, " You can't inspect quality into your parts", people have to believe in the company and the process to make things right. In this case we can't legislate common sense onto the waterways.

 

I will leave you, CanadaGuy and Gerritt with one lasting remark that has changed my life.

 

Don't judge people by their actions, but by their intentions.

 

You and I expect to be judged by our intentions, when a mistake is made we always come back with "that isn't what I meant" or "You have mis-understood me". We expect people to judge us not on our actions but on our intentions. Take this line of thinking and "Pay it Forward" (the movie was on last night). Don't guess here, if you are unclear about the persons intentions...ASK.

 

To the unfortunate boater that sent his kids to hospital in an act of carelessness as he threw the tube he was towing into an anchored boat...We know you didn't mean to, but please be more careful.

[Jer]

So only a thousand deaths with the fairly severe penalties, laws and enforcement we now have in place...

 

...imagine the carnage if it was a free-for-all!

 

Again a contradiction, did you stop to think that maybe the death rate is so low (your opinion, not mine) is at least partially (if not mostly) due to the fact that we have such laws in place. I too would like to live in a fantasy society where everybody acts responsibly and in the best interest of others (kinda like OFC), but unfortunately, as the thread subtitle suggests, too many morons out there!

 

I hope your 10% rule doesn't apply to murder, that kinda makes about 3 million Canadians expendable each year...

[lookinforwalleye]

I vote that the mods flame this thread I think it`s all pretty much been said and we have clearly established who the wingnuts are/is.

[Roy]

Thanks for that, Steve. You're wise beyond your years. On that note, I think that this one has run its course.