This is what I did with my afternoon.

[Timco]

Originally Posted by Mark_T

Easy there, Timmy, already said I'm not offended and have owned many firearms in my time (Another American tendency - get your panties in a twist at the slightest perceived criticism of your gun obsession. I'll bet you're a big Ted Nugent fan)

I'm also betting my cred as a sport shooter tops yours by a long shot - 1990 Canadian champion, standard pistol; 1990 Western Canada Summer Games provincial pistol team; 1988 provincial champion, free pistol; Manitoba provincial pistol team, 88 - 91. Further, I spent 3 years working for the RCMP in the capacity of Assistant Chief Firearms Officer. I hold a master instructor designation for the Canadian Firearms Safety Course, and I am an approved firearms verifier. It's just possible that I might know a thing or two about firearms.

My only bone of contention here is, as stated above, is I don't see any good reason for military-style assault weaponry to be in private hands. It's my opinion, which last time I checked I am entitled to, that the risk outweighs any possible benefit. How many more high school slaughters have to happen before you people get this?

Wow. You really lay it on thick.....

Timmy?
Obsession?
Panties?
Ted Nugent is a POS draft dodger, for the record and makes all gun owners look bad.

I never attempted to deny any of your creds, just wanted to defend the size of my penis vs gun ownership. You throw out a lot of insults in a very nice way...

I load every bullet I shoot, (almost) and load match grade ammo and repro USGI rounds for antique rifles. I am a gunsmith here in UT but only do mine and friends at no charge. I built my ARs and my AKs. Never won any awards, though..(who is obsessed with diminishing the other guy's penis and bragging about who has more shooting honors?)

Some pictures got posted. Topic is guns. Deal with it....

Oh no!!! Lock this thread!!! Fascinations! Obsessions! Compensating!!!! Not on topic (but I am reading it and responding to it)!!! I'm offended by the sight of an AR15!!!

I have not heard this much butt-hurt over a thread since Essex Pete posted a topless woman driving a Porsche. Just to clarify, THAT, my friends, is porn. Not a picture of a gun.

[Lobo1186]

Top Gear Drive by Shooting Test

Hammond did his with a GT3, is there anyone with some land that could test this out with the Boxster? clearly top down it would hand it to a Cayman. or any other Porsche Coupe!

[Timco]

Originally Posted by Lobo1186

Top Gear Drive by Shooting Test

Hammond did his with a GT3, is there anyone with some land that could test this out with the Boxster? clearly top down it would hand it to a Cayman. or any other Porsche Coupe!

Pretty sure it's a felony to shot from a moving vehicle, maybe not on private land but I am not clear on that. Those stunts are obvious pokes at those who legally own them and do not shoot from a moving vehicle. Again, that's the perceived use of every AR-15 and makes us look bad.

[Lobo1186]

Originally Posted by Timco

Pretty sure it's a felony to shot from a moving vehicle, maybe not on private land but I am not clear on that. Those stunts are obvious pokes at those who legally own them and do not shoot from a moving vehicle. Again, that's the perceived use of every AR-15 and makes us look bad.

I feel on a forum dealing with cars that easily break the law, we can assume that with such things that could be illegal you know the law before you try. States laws vary so if someone is going to do this follow all laws. I feel like this needs not be said.

It seems it has pretty much been done already.

It is Top Gear, they poke fun at everyone all the time. While perception is often the uneducated person's reality, sometimes I like to have a good time regardless of what others may think.

[RawleyD]

Originally Posted by Mark_T

I don't see any good reason for military-style assault weaponry to be in private hands. It's my opinion, which last time I checked I am entitled to, that the risk outweighs any possible benefit.

I'm not an avid shooter myself, but know how to handle firearms well.

But I just wanted to make one remark about your above quote, no harm intended..

You might not be aware that when the United States of America was founded, our forefathers wrote into our Constitution that citizens shall always have the right to bear arms, and this was NOT for hunting, shooting sport, etc. It was so we would always have the means to resist our government if/when they try to take away our rights and freedoms as citizens.

Most non US citizens might not understand, but this is the basis of why we are very fond of our guns. They form the core of our freedom and we are very proud, not ashamed, of that fact.

[Timco]

Originally Posted by RawleyD

I'm not an avid shooter myself, but know how to handle firearms well.

But I just wanted to make one remark about your above quote, no harm intended..

You might not be aware that when the United States of America was founded, our forefathers wrote into our Constitution that citizens shall always have the right to bear arms, and this was NOT for hunting, shooting sport, etc. It was so we would always have the means to resist our government if/when they try to take away our rights and freedoms as citizens.

Most non US citizens might not understand, but this is the basis of why we are very fond of our guns. They form the core of our freedom and we are very proud, not ashamed, of that fact.

Military-style assault weaponry.....lol, it's a semi-automatic rifle. Like 'banana clips' or 'high-speed ammo' or 'the folding thing that goes up'?

I guess our constitution isn't a "good reason" to some. Why others care that I go to a range and discharge that rifle (slowly, no rapid fire allowed) is beyond me.....

Why own or have available to the public a car that can exceed any speed limit in this nation?? I don't see any good reason. Sounds like we need a(nother) law....

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by RawleyD

You might not be aware that when the United States of America was founded, our forefathers wrote into our Constitution that citizens shall always have the right to bear arms, and this was NOT for hunting, shooting sport, etc. It was so we would always have the means to resist our government if/when they try to take away our rights and freedoms as citizens.

Mmm... I'm no proponent of tinkering with the Constitution but from my own studies, it's not that simple. The 2nd Am is the only one that is predicated with a condition.
We mirrored the English Bill of Rights after the King tried to pick and choose who could bear arms on the basis of religion, so as a response to this their Bill of Rights gave that freedom it to all its citizenry, with the intent of arming insurgency against tyranny, not as an indvidual liberty to fight provincial crime in the absence of a full-time police force.
If you will note, all other Constitutional freedoms here in America, are written absolutely, without condition. At the time we did not have a standing army so in lieu of this we were given the right to form our militias with muskets. If the founding fathers (a very shrewd bunch) intended for you to have a musket for any purpose you wished, be it militia forming, or turkey shooting or 4th of July celebrations, they would have stated it simply, without condition, exactly as they stated all our other Constitutional rights. In other words, in my view, had the founding fathers wanted the 2nd Am to be an absolute indiviual liberty, they would have simply stated "you have right to bear arms. period." And there would be absolutely no debate. If a tyranical govt were to take hold, your unconditioned right to bear arms could readily be used for decapitating the unlawful despot. But the founding fathers didn't do that... They gave that right an express purpose, in a singular context. Just like the 3rd and 4th Am's are each written within a very explicit context.
And the Courts, including conservative ones appointed by Republican Presidents, saw it this way for a very, very long time before lobbying became a big business.

I'm not arguing that guns should be banned, but I don't see how someone can argue that we have an absolute and unlimited right to buy arms for whatever purpose or desires we wish when it wasn't written that way by the founding fathers.

[RawleyD]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

I don't see how someone can argue that we have an absolute and unlimited right to buy arms for whatever purpose or desires we wish.

OK. I'm not seeing where anybody is arguing that?
Nobody here said it is fine and dandy to buy a gun and go shoot up a school.

[Lobo1186]

I'm also betting my cred as a sport shooter tops yours by a long shot - 1990 Canadian champion, standard pistol; 1990 Western Canada Summer Games provincial pistol team; 1988 provincial champion, free pistol; Manitoba provincial pistol team, 88 - 91. Further, I spent 3 years working for the RCMP in the capacity of Assistant Chief Firearms Officer. I hold a master instructor designation for the Canadian Firearms Safety Course, and I am an approved firearms verifier. It's just possible that I might know a thing or two about firearms

Cool stuff man, really it is. I wish I had the time to compete. You definitely are distinguished in the marksmanship arena.

I will completely stand by my previous assertion that AR platform makes for great marksmanship rifles. You must know because of your experience that even if an AR could not compete in a standard known distance traditional match (which it can, competition grade ARs are all over the place case in point mine is ) ... 3 gun shooting competition has completely taken off to which the AR style weapons are king. Shooting culture has evolved in the last 10 years.

As to what are my qualifications to be so bold to disagree? I'll just leave it at I am a Boxster-phile who also loves American weapons.

Another American tendency - get your panties in a twist at the slightest perceived criticism of your gun obsession. I'll bet you're a big Ted Nugent fan

IDK, maybe the ad hominems that you lace with your commentary are a part of it. I find it insulting and ironic that you feel you can judge the size of someones junk based on the rifles they like. The irony being we are on a Porsche forum where the rest of the world thinks that of us because the cars we drive...

[Lobo1186]

some other options...

[Mark_T]

Guns, especially assault rifles, are a very contentious topic. They tend to bring out very strong feelings in people, both for and against, as is clearly evidenced by this thread.

Tim, I have found myself in agreement with just about everything you have ever posted in this forum. We seem to think alike on a great many topics but here we seem to have hit a topic we would be wise to avoid, as there will not be a middle ground for us. Sorry for getting personal about it. It was disrespectful of me and you did not deserve that.

Btw, I also did gunsmithing as a sideline, but mainly just shotgun performance mods and handgun action tuning, never rifles. And I'm wickedly fast with a Winchester pump.

Peace dude

[Timco]

Originally Posted by Mark_T

Guns, especially assault rifles, are a very contentious topic. They tend to bring out very strong feelings in people, both for and against, as is clearly evidenced by this thread.

Tim, I have found myself in agreement with just about everything you have ever posted in this forum. We seem to think alike on a great many topics but here we seem to have hit a topic we would be wise to avoid, as there will not be a middle ground for us. Sorry for getting personal about it. It was disrespectful of me and you did not deserve that.

Btw, I also did gunsmithing as a sideline, but mainly just shotgun performance mods and handgun action tuning, never rifles. And I'm wickedly fast with a Winchester pump.

Peace dude

Same back at ya bro. I don't discuss politics with any customers for a reason and really do respect others feelings. I will never be that guy with an AR15 on his back at Walmart. Mr Nugent and other fanatics make all of us look bad when in fact I don't even hunt. It's a hobby for me and yes, I have two pistols I consider self defense, I'm not making the stretch that owning semi auto rifles is for protection. The laws here allow it and I enjoy the upkeep and sport in general.

In fact, I am the NRA's worst enemy because I own a very well rounded collection of firearms but do think its way too easy to transfer guns and the AR/AK platforms are a very capable gun to put it that way. I don't have the answers but enforcing existing laws is always a good start.

I'm sure OP meant no offense, and it's easy to call someone obsessed when to us its just a simple right and no big deal.

Sorry to go all Nugent on you! I enjoy this site and your posts as well as PW. We just need to agree to disagree, which I'm good with.

Oh, and Ted is a poacher. The biggest POS around.

[Lobo1186]

Here it is on wiki.

[Timco]

The sad part is that a simple picture causes some to judge and criticize other members who were just posting and helping each other earlier. What if it turned out a member was gay? Or into guns? Or 16 years old? That is now how they're judged, not by a common interest in these cars. Why should I be judged or feel the need to hide the fact I lawfully own guns and shoot them, and transport them in a Boxster sometimes? What other factors do some here judge by? I've seen more bragging on this site about cars than any gun site, but gun owners are obsessed and compensating....Nothing like being persecuted for lawfully enjoying a sport.

And trash the thread ? Really?? Over pictures??? And they say the right is the intolerant side.....

[Perfectlap]

Okay perhaps I shouldn't have said unlimited, as someone could infer any manner of things like you indicated, but I still dont see how a conditioned right has been expanded to sport and home defense when militias were not used for those purposes in 1776. Unless you were wealthy enough to hire your own private militia to protect your estate. And again, there was no standing army, thus our lack of one was the founding father's only stated rationale for giving us that right.

[RawleyD]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

And again, there was no standing army, thus our lack of one was the founding father's only stated rationale for giving us that right.

But, a standing army won't protect me or my property/family from home invasion out here in the country.

[986_c6]

Just to keep this simple...

I have gone to the range where I had to drive another vehicle besides my Boxster due to rifle case fitment issues. So, this thread is relevant imo.

TUL ammo is is not even up to par for simple plinking (many jams in my pistols).

And, the ONLY time some crazy a**hole/bad guy STOPS shooting (in a mall/theatre/school/etc) or STOPS attacking, is when, and ONLY when a good guy with a gun shows up!

That group of terrorists in China with machetes--->they stopped chopping people up when the police arrived with GUNS! I will never relinquish my right to bear arms in MY country. God bless America!

[Mark_T]

Those "right to keep and bear arms" provision were made in another era when the was a real need for them that is no longer true today, and that provision is being used by individuals to own property that, in many cases, is simply inappropriate to be in private hands, just because it's "fun"

Here's an example. Here in Canada, firearms laws are continually being made more restrictive, but when the law changes, 'grandfathering' provisions are written into the new law that basically say that if you legally owned one of these now-prohibited firearms prior to a certain date, you are allowed to keep it and given a special permit, and there are often special conditions attached to its use. That's the back story.

Where I am going with this is that back when I was involved with shooting sports I had the opportunity to fire several legally ownerd fully automatic weapons - Sterling, Sten, Thompson, USAS12 (OMG!!) Uzi... I even got to stand with an UZI in each hand and chatter them both together - tell me that doesn't make you feel like Arnold. My point being that it was an incredibly fun experience and one I would repeat anytime, but I would never ever try to make the case that my fun was so important that these incredibly dangerous weapons should be legalized and put carte blanche into the hands of private citizens who have absolutely no justifiable reason for owning them, other than that they are "fun".

And this is how I feel about assault style rifles. There is no justifiable reason for owning them. "But i like them and they're fun" is not a justifiable reason and certain is not reason to put aside public safety. The fact that they are presently semi-auto is irrelevant. Every one of them can be fairly easily modified to full auto. Combine that with a couple of jungle-clipped banana mags and you have an assault weapon that simply could not be possible with your standard 5-round hunting or target rifle. To me, the need to protect our kids from the occasional whackos that get their hands on these guns completely outweighs personal enjoyment. There's lots of other great hobbies out there - pick one.

[Lobo1186]

Originally Posted by Mark_T

To me, the need to protect our kids from the occasional whackos that get their hands on these guns completely outweighs personal enjoyment.

By that logic, we are focusing on the wrong weapon. If we truly wanted to curb firearm tragedies and murders the handgun would be it.

The issue is that everyone has these motivations which are not bad. To protect posterity to end senseless killing.

No one has the cojones to go after the real killer on the streets, the handgun. Instead they go after the new comer, the one that looks different. In reality even if there was a wholesale ban of even every firearm other than hand guns. retroactive and proactive it would barely dent the murder rate.

Good news is, murder rate is down by several thousand since 2007

[Timco]

Originally Posted by Lobo1186

By that logic, we are focusing on the wrong weapon. If we truly wanted to curb firearm tragedies and murders the handgun would be it.

The issue is that everyone has these motivations which are not bad. To protect posterity to end senseless killing.

No one has the cojones to go after the real killer on the streets, the handgun. Instead they go after the new comer, the one that looks different. In reality even if there was a wholesale ban of even every firearm other than hand guns. retroactive and proactive it would barely dent the murder rate.

Good news is, murder rate is down by several thousand since 2007

Good thing California banned the .50 before a single crime was ever committed in the entire US!