Boebert: Biden’s ATF rule banning pistol braces causing millions of boating accidents

[1srelluc]

Sometimes you get lucky!

I could have that Romy up and running in no time.

Thanks OP, some of these memes I haven't seen in years.

 

[miketx]

Beats me clown. I never saw one, knew anyone that had one, or had one myself. No one cares about that junk and you can bump a rifle without having one.

Pnoppp shows just how stupid he is...

 

[Oddball]

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Its a joke,

Yep. Ooops. Like millions of others, lost my pistol brace and some other guns in a boating accident.

 

[Oddball]

 

[miketx]

Is this what happened to all the bump stocks?

Here's my new assaults weapon. Top of the line...

 

[Lord Long Rod]

Jesus, Op… dense much???

 

[Oddball]

 

[Oddball]

 

[Oddball]

bumpdiggity

 

[The Duke]

This thread delivers!

 

[Ropey]

Did Boebert actually say: Biden’s ATF rule banning pistol braces are causing millions of boating accidents?​

Fact Check: Lauren Boebert Satirical Tweet About 'Millions Of Boating Accidents' Caused By ATF Pistol Braces Ban Widely Misinterpreted | Lead Stories

Did Rep. Lauren Boebert literally mean that banning pistol braces is causing "millions of boating accidents" when she posted a...

hoax-alert.leadstories.com

No. She said an old joke and the left twisted panties again.

 

[Oddball]

 

[Ropey]

I wonder if it's painful to be this stupid. Are there even a million boating accidents in a year in this country? In a decade?

Maudes creating bait threads in the gen forum?

 

[Ropey]

BQ: Can the left understand memes or satire?

A: Not if their lives depended on it.

 

[Ropey]

Fact Check: Lauren Boebert Satirical Tweet About 'Millions Of Boating Accidents' Caused By ATF Pistol Braces Ban Widely Misinterpreted | Lead Stories

Did Rep. Lauren Boebert literally mean that banning pistol braces is causing "millions of boating accidents" when she posted a...

t.co

 

[Chillicothe]

Geeeez!! What a great opportunity to bring up that 'strict liability' movement.
Hell, it seems like there is movement in that direction. Baby steps to be sure...but still going in the right direction.

As most gun owners know...."strict liability" is the idea that if you are the owner of record of any firearm and it is used to cause harm then you bear some liability. If you own its benefits then you own its harms. Someone steals it from you while you are the OOR and kill the cheatin' girlfriend...well, you are on the hook for part of the blame.

OK, where is it taking the baby-steps?
In Michigan it seems. They have or are in the process of passing a 'Safe Storage' law. Meaning (I think) that if you are the OOR and a minor gets your gun and does harm with it you are criminally liable.

Would that the idea of responsibility with a liability kicker accrue along with all those 'rights' and benefits for owning a gun. Great stuff.

I'm cool with that.


*By the way, I would also advocate that ALL guns must have an OOR...from the moment it is legally identified as a valid 'gun' at the manufacturer it is assigned an OOR (meaning, in the factory the manufacturer is the OOR. And they are liable for any harms it causes.)

And then the distributor becomes the OOR (and the manufacturer is off the hook)....then the distributor sells it to a retailer and the liability transfers to the retailer. So the retailer better have it locked up really really well so no smash & grab Dicks don't put him and his business in a really really bad spot if those Dicks kill a 7-11 clerk.

And you know what follows.....the retailer sells it to you. And you are now the OOR. With all that entails (see above).

I personally think that is a great suggestion. Mainly, I think that ---'cause no one has been able to convince me with a compelling enough case that it ain't.

IMHO


ps....even a gun at the bottom of some lake will still have an OOR --- who as we know.....is liable if bad juju happens with it. Once it is found. No?

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Geeeez!! What a great opportunity to bring up that 'strict liability' movement.
Hell, it seems like there is movement in that direction. Baby steps to be sure...but still going in the right direction.

As most gun owners know...."strict liability" is the idea that if you are the owner of record of any firearm and it is used to cause harm then you bear some liability. If you own its benefits then you own its harms. Someone steals it from you while you are the OOR and kill the cheatin' girlfriend...well, you are on the hook for part of the blame.

OK, where is it taking the baby-steps?
In Michigan it seems. They have or are in the process of passing a 'Safe Storage' law. Meaning (I think) that if you are the OOR and a minor gets your gun and does harm with it you are criminally liable.

Would that the idea of responsibility with a liability kicker accrue along with all those 'rights' and benefits for owning a gun. Great stuff.

I'm cool with that.


*By the way, I would also advocate that ALL guns must have an OOR...from the moment it is legally identified as a valid 'gun' at the manufacturer it is assigned an OOR (meaning, in the factory the manufacturer is the OOR. And they are liable for any harms it causes. And then the distributor becomes the OOR (and the manufacturer is off the hook)....then the distributor sells it to a retailer and the liability transfers to the retailer. So the retailer better have it locked up really really well so no smash & grab Dicks don't put him and his business in a really really bad spot if those Dicks kill a 7-11 clerk.

And you know what follows.....the retailer sells it to you. And you are now the OOR. With all that entails (see above).

I personally think that is a great suggestion. Mainly, I htink that 'cause no one has been able to convince me with a compelling enough case that it ain't.

IMHO


ps....even a gun at the bottom of some lake will still have an OOR --- who as we know.....is liable if bad juju happens with it. Once it is found. No?

So if someone steals your car, and uses it to commit a crime (including murder), then you would be okay with bearing some liability for that, right?

Think!

 

[Chillicothe]

So if someone steals your car,

Cars ain't guns.
Guns are different than cars.
Trust me.

 

[Oddball]

Geeeez!! What a great opportunity to bring up that 'strict liability' movement.
Hell, it seems like there is movement in that direction. Baby steps to be sure...but still going in the right direction.

As most gun owners know...."strict liability" is the idea that if you are the owner of record of any firearm and it is used to cause harm then you bear some liability. If you own its benefits then you own its harms. Someone steals it from you while you are the OOR and kill the cheatin' girlfriend...well, you are on the hook for part of the blame.

OK, where is it taking the baby-steps?
In Michigan it seems. They have or are in the process of passing a 'Safe Storage' law. Meaning (I think) that if you are the OOR and a minor gets your gun and does harm with it you are criminally liable.

Would that the idea of responsibility with a liability kicker accrue along with all those 'rights' and benefits for owning a gun. Great stuff.

I'm cool with that.


*By the way, I would also advocate that ALL guns must have an OOR...from the moment it is legally identified as a valid 'gun' at the manufacturer it is assigned an OOR (meaning, in the factory the manufacturer is the OOR. And they are liable for any harms it causes.)

And then the distributor becomes the OOR (and the manufacturer is off the hook)....then the distributor sells it to a retailer and the liability transfers to the retailer. So the retailer better have it locked up really really well so no smash & grab Dicks don't put him and his business in a really really bad spot if those Dicks kill a 7-11 clerk.

And you know what follows.....the retailer sells it to you. And you are now the OOR. With all that entails (see above).

I personally think that is a great suggestion. Mainly, I think that ---'cause no one has been able to convince me with a compelling enough case that it ain't.

IMHO


ps....even a gun at the bottom of some lake will still have an OOR --- who as we know.....is liable if bad juju happens with it. Once it is found. No?