This is what I did with my afternoon.

[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.

[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

[Jamesp]

Originally Posted by Lobo1186

I did not see where you asked until I went to reply! I was going to ask you. Honestly, I am stumped. It kinda looks like it could be a "cowboy gun" by design of the breach. But, it lacks the classic horned hammer, and it is not lever action. My guess is that it's a pump action and it is a larger "pistol round" .45LC or something big yet short.

This is a Winchester model 1903 .22 Automatic. The serial number on this gun shows it was manufactured in 1913. The ammunition for this gun is not a standard .22 round. it is called ".22 automatic" and has not been mass produced since 1932. There still are specialty runs made so I have plenty of ammunition for it. The Pic below shows the difference:




So this is a semi-automatic rifle produced well before The Great War. It must have been the IPOD of it's day. Winchester chose to change the ammunition to set this gun apart from the crowd, which may have been what eventually killed this model. It is an absolute joy to shoot.

And I have to say some folks have really got their panties in a twist over this post! Reading the old "compensating" cliche was hilarious. I grew up with guns and gun safety, so to me they are a tool, like a hammer or wrench. I see nothing wrong with a conversation on how to carry them in a Boxster. I'll be doing that myself next time I go out to the range, after I change out a heater core, and a newly leaking left radiator that is...

[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.

[Lobo1186]

Originally Posted by Jamesp

This is a Winchester model 1903 .22 Automatic. The serial number on this gun shows it was manufactured in 1913. The ammunition for this gun is not a standard .22 round. it is called ".22 automatic" and has not been mass produced since 1932. There still are specialty runs made so I have plenty of ammunition for it. The Pic below shows the difference:

So this is a semi-automatic rifle produced well before The Great War. It must have been the IPOD of it's day. Winchester chose to change the ammunition to set this gun apart from the crowd, which may have been what eventually killed this model. It is an absolute joy to shoot.

And I have to say some folks have really got their panties in a twist over this post! Reading the old "compensating" cliche was hilarious. I grew up with guns and gun safety, so to me they are a tool, like a hammer or wrench. I see nothing wrong with a conversation on how to carry them in a Boxster. I'll be doing that myself next time I go out to the range, after I change out a heater core, and a newly leaking left radiator that is...

It looks fun and I was way off. Very cool. I read on wiki that it was the first semi auto by winchester.

any possibility you will do a center radiator mod while you are in there? or maybe the center radiator hidden missile launcher mod from earlier in the thread?

[Davev]

The fact is this subject is offensive to some people. Like it or not- that's just the way it is. Since we all get along so well on this forum- why stick something in the face of others? There are plenty of places on the web to talk about any subject.

I guess what I am trying to say is regardless of which side of an issue we are on- if our friends are offended- then we should go on to another subject.

Guns don't offend- people do.

[Jamesp]

Originally Posted by Lobo1186

It looks fun and I was way off. Very cool. I read on wiki that it was the first semi auto by winchester.

any possibility you will do a center radiator mod while you are in there? or maybe the center radiator hidden missile launcher mod from earlier in the thread?

I've got a center radiator already, or I'd go with the missiles.

And DaveV - What truly offends me is being politically correct and shutting down conversations because someone is "offended". Seems like more and more folks are making their living being offended now days, and more and more things are becoming offensive. That whole line of thinking makes me want to puke. Historically there have been other societies that made up their minds of what was "politically correct" / offensive and folks ended up walking around with stars on their chests. I have been "offended" by some of the strings on this very forum, and I didn't whine and wring my hands looking for my mommy, or a moderator, to make it right, I just avoided those strings. Folks should say what they want, at their own risk, and if you don't like it avoid it. If they are too far out of hand they'll get banned, but thankfully from what I've seen that's unlikely. I'll take freedom over comfort any day.

[Davev]

Originally Posted by Jamesp

And DaveV - What truly offends me is being politically correct and shutting down conversations because someone is "offended". Seems like more and more folks are making their living being offended now days, and more and more things are becoming offensive. That whole line of thinking makes me want to puke. Historically there have been other societies that made up their minds of what was "politically correct" / offensive and folks ended up walking around with stars on their chests. I have been "offended" by some of the strings on this very forum, and I didn't whine and wring my hands looking for my mommy, or a moderator, to make it right, I just avoided those strings. Folks should say what they want, at their own risk, and if you don't like it avoid it. If they are too far out of hand they'll get banned, but thankfully from what I've seen that's unlikely. I'll take freedom over comfort any day.

Just so we're clear- I AM NOT OFFENDED- but seems others are or might be. My mother always said I was the peacemaker in the family. Just trying to express my opinion in 100 words or less. Just trying to help everyone get along and offering MY opinion.

[Lobo1186]

Originally Posted by Davev

Just so we're clear- I AM NOT OFFENDED- but seems others are or might be. My mother always said I was the peacemaker in the family. Just trying to express my opinion in 100 words or less. Just trying to help everyone get along and offering MY opinion.

I can honestly say that I enjoy opinions of all sorts. I often find myself perusing forums or youtube or whatever you may have to just read what people think. I do not feel I have been hostile to anyone in this thread even when overt hostility was directed towards me.

I look back and laugh because I was sitting there for an an hour or two just trying to cut the foam to fit it exactly how I wanted all the while being pumped that my new gun case fits in my car! The first picture I posted was here because I felt it the most relevant forum! Little did I imagine the repercussions.

Unfortunately, I will not be able to put the case in my car for a week or maybe even a few. However, once I do I fully intend to show the fitment of the case for all those who are interested. Those who are not by all means necessary please do not take a gander at my post. Even if you do and you post how much you hate it, I will not mind.

[coreseller]

In reading some of the responses I personally cringe at the tone of some people's response at the mere pictures of semi-automatic rifles (please educate yourselves as to what is what weapon wise). Taking myself out of the equation, I think of my Father's stance on what has been voiced here......He was the first family member to make it past the 6th grade education wise in his family, made it through school and college on a football scholarship, retired after 30 years in United States Army Field Artillery as a Lt. Colonel, VERY smart guy.

I often hear myself reiterating what I heard him drill into me for a couple of decades to my kids. Now that the Icon has been gone for a few years some things ring loud and clear. Conceptually one of the things thus far my kids repeat back at me with a laugh but I don't smile so much any more at hearing it......Political Correctness will be the Ruination of what was once a Wonderful Nation.

[doragman]

Originally Posted by particlewave

Don't click on it?
I'm on a Porsche forum and made the mistake of thinking the thread was relevant.

As far as the porn comment, take a look at the pictures in this thread. It's pretty clear what it's about, and it's not Porsches. No , I'm not trying to police, just don't see why you feel the need to post this in a car forum (and not even in the off topic area).

Yep, I was offended and said so. Sick of seeing violent images, including oversized Americans with oversized guns that they have "for protection".
So, why don't you go get overly offended and yap about your right to protect yourself on an appropriate forum.
Claiming that it was appropriate is a stretch. I could post a picture of my weiner size and steering wheel clearance issues, but it would be pretty clear what I was actually posting about.

Now that I know what this thread is actually about, I won't be clicking on it anymore
Thank you!

I believe the topic was "This is what I did with my afternoon"...if someone took their Porsche to go shooting I believe that is just as relevant a subject as anything else I've seen posted ..... mostly I just get offended when people get offended and want to impose their morality or lack of respect for the laws in this country on others.....be and let be and don't tread on me

[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.....

[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 ekam

^Kunming knife attacks show China has a terrorism problem too - World - CBC News

29 people killed, 143 people injured in China by people with knives last Saturday.

Yep, better to be away from there.

sure. But that took quiet a few people to pull off. Here in America one guy walking into a college class room, supermarket, movie theater or kindergarten school can kill 29 all by himself. A dozen kooks with 3D printed high capacity... oh boy.

p.s.
for the record I think gun control laws are pointless. state borders are as air-tight as a collander. Legally purchased guns in VA can easily end up in the NYC black market.

[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.

[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.