This is what I did with my afternoon.

[Lobo1186]

Since it seems people I was not clear enough upfront, the reason I spent my afternoon setting up this case was so that I could have a case that fits perfectly in the Boxster rear trunk. It is a little tight so i will have to do a little bit of modification to make sure it fits even better. I am currently moving but once I get settled in I will look into trying to create a front trunk hidden weapon "compartment". so stay tuned!

New case, fits perfectly in trunk of the Boxster. What ya'll think not too shabby imo.

[RedTele58]

Are you part of the extraction team going in after Johnny Danger?

Be careful and godspeed!

[Kenny Boxster]

Not impressed, you need something like this man:

[Davev]

You'll shoot your eye out!

[Lobo1186]

Ya the car rocket mods are slow going. I do want to make a hidden rifle case specifically for the frunk. Similar to a hidden amp I saw someone do.

[rick3000]

Originally Posted by Lobo1186

Ya the car rocket mods are slow going. I do want to make a hidden rifle case specifically for the frunk. Similar to a hidden amp I saw someone do.

I was contemplating this mod for my 986, hood mounted machine guns and rockets instead of a 3rd radiator!

[ekam]

What's the make/model of the case? Does it fit the front or rear trunk?

Moderators are going to move this so I'm inserting Porsche content below.

[Nine8Six]

ahhh an assault rifle, bolt action, lethal scopes, the icons of violence, human killings and conflicts..... war etc. Exceptionally beautiful in all sense isn't it

As much as I miss home, I sometime find myself really fortunate to be away on occasion

(peace)

[Lobo1186]

Originally Posted by Nine8Six

ahhh an assault rifle, bolt action, lethal scopes, the icons of violence, human killings and conflicts..... war etc. Exceptionally beautiful in all sense isn't it

As much as I miss home, I sometime find myself really fortunate to be away on occasion

(peace)

At first I thought you were being sarcastic!!! No, unfortunately for me it is not an actual assault rifle as it does not have a select fire lower. I like to think however it is not the scope that is lethal, rather the person behind the ocular lens!

[ekam]

Originally Posted by Lobo1186

At first I thought you were being sarcastic!!! No, unfortunately for me it is not an actual assault rifle as it does not have a select fire lower. I like to think however it is not the scope that is lethal, rather the person behind the ocular lens!

He's from Quebec, the most anti-gun province in all of Canada. Quebec is also the province where most of the mass shootings took place in this country.

It's amazing how people relate to inanimate objects, such as tools being used, with death.

Cars have killed more people everyday around the world, so why not ban high powered cars that can do twice or three times the speed limit? Ban sport bikes while they're at it too, nobody needs those.

[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.

[Nine8Six]

Yup the (now trendy) work of outsiders, not done by Chinese. An invasion my man

and they were machete, not knives as reported.

[ekam]

Originally Posted by Nine8Six

Yup the (now trendy) work of outsiders, not done by Chinese. An invasion my man

and they were machete, not knives as reported.

icons of violence, human killings and conflicts..... war etc



When are they going to ban machete in China?

[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.

[Timco]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

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.

Flip side. One guy with one gun and one bullet can stop the guy with the high-cap mags ('banana clips' for all the MSNBC watchers) and semi auto rifle ('military-style assault weapon' for that same crowd) before a shot is fired.

And not the printed gun thing again.....

He used a nail for a firing pin, and it was single use, so no such thing as high capacity printed gun. I can do better with oak or a steel pipe (or pressure cooker). And what does a 3d printer cost? Remember all the Glock hype about a "plastic gun" when they never did get through a single metal detector? We may as well ban phasers unless they only produce them with stun power and they don't have a selector switch for kill.

As for state borders, any controlled item like guns or drugs or pills or fruit can be illegally transported anywhere in the US and I do not look forward to state border checks. Maybe patrol your own streets and enforce existing laws and put thugs away for longer before trampling on my rights? If someone is willing to shoot a store clerk in the face for $30 in till, are they obeying any law at all? Seems those laws only apply to me.

Sorry, but that's how the constitution was written. It may have indeed intended a citizen army, but they also had no grocery stores. Was one guy supposed to be a designated hunter for everyone, or do we suppose that right may have also covered a person's right to eat meat? Hmmmm, doesn't say. We give them credit for being so smart, but complain this is so vague.

[Lobo1186]

I think what is cool about Guns and cars. Specifically, for us here guns and Boxsters is that in the United States we have a completely different mentality about them.

I was reading an editorial and a foreign car maker sent a designer here to try to understand why Americans care about things like cup holders and the like in cars. When he returned after traveling all over he commented something to the effect that the USA is so big and the cities are generally so spread out that you cannot help but see your car as a place you spend significant time and so eating, drinking and focusing on things other than pure driving are a must.

With guns, I have met a few military people in my life from our allies. Keep in mind that our military guys are generally the biggest proponents of firearms in this country. (war and the military is the sole reason for the explosion of the AR styled rifle phenomenon.) I was chastised on multiple occasions by guys carrying their full auto service weapon about how crazy Americans are for wanting to have AR styled weapons. To me I just wanted to say look at you! To them they saw no issue at all because they were in the military and that line between civilian and military is so stark they do not see the need for citizens to have anything near what the military has.

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by Timco

Sorry, but that's how the constitution was written. It may have indeed intended a citizen army, but they also had no grocery stores. Was one guy supposed to be a designated hunter for everyone, or do we suppose that right may have also covered a person's right to eat meat? Hmmmm, doesn't say. We give them credit for being so smart, but complain this is so vague.

The explicit language in the Constitution was by design. If the founding fathers wanted no limits to gun ownership they would not have bothered to condition it any way. Why condition gun rights but every other Constitutional right stated therein is not? You have the right to vote, for its own sake, not for you to join the Whig party or the Federalists, it's entirely, and only up to you to decide how you use that right. You have the right to free speech, not to voice an anti-monarchist view, but to use free speech however you wish, without condition. You have the right to practice religion, not for the purpose of being a Catholic or Puritan, but to simply use your right to pray or not to pray, there's no condition whatsoever. The founding father's were clearly trying to make a point in stating a singular purpose for the right to bear arms.


At any rate, mine is purely an argument of intent. Not of the issue of gun ownership. In the end this will always be a gun-owning culture. Once you've got hand guns into the hundreds of millions the laws become inherently ineffective. Legislative action and funding to enforce it becomes a waste of money and time because with that much supply $20 will get you a handgun anytime of the day in a city like Newark despite the state's severe sentencing guidelines. And frankly if any actual gun control ever were to take place it would nearly impossible to enforce and even with new laws you would still have more access to more types of guns and ammunition than any other country in the world that isn't run by Somali warlords. And really fights over this issue only polarize the country when there are enough things that the corrupt political parties of America can actually agree on. But sometimes I think the politicians like to rattle the cages of the 2nd Am simply to increase political donations and drive sales to the gun manufacturers that support their party. It's been workign like a charm so far, just look at SWHC, up like 300% since the '12 election.

[Timco]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

The explicit language in the Constitution was by design. If the founding fathers wanted no limits to gun ownership they would not have bothered to condition it any way. Why condition gun rights but every other Constitutional right stated therein is not? You have the right to vote, for its own sake, not for you to join the Whig party or the Federalists, it's entirely, and only up to you to decide how you use that right. You have the right to free speech, not to voice an anti-monarchist view, but to use free speech however you wish, without condition. You have the right to practice religion, not for the purpose of being a Catholic or Puritan, but to simply use your right to pray or not to pray, there's no condition whatsoever. The founding father's were clearly trying to make a point in stating a singular purpose for the right to bear arms.


At any rate, mine is purely an argument of intent. Not of the issue of gun ownership. In the end this will always be a gun-owning culture. Once you've got hand guns into the hundreds of millions the laws become inherently ineffective. Legislative action and funding to enforce it becomes a waste of money and time because with that much supply $20 will get you a handgun anytime of the day in a city like Newark despite the state's severe sentencing guidelines. And frankly if any actual gun control ever were to take place it would nearly impossible to enforce and even with new laws you would still have more access to more types of guns and ammunition than any other country in the world that isn't run by Somali warlords. And really fights over this issue only polarize the country when there are enough things that the corrupt political parties of America can actually agree on. But sometimes I think the politicians like to rattle the cages of the 2nd Am simply to increase political donations and drive sales to the gun manufacturers that support their party. It's been workign like a charm so far, just look at SWHC, up like 300% since the '12 election.

"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."

What if this militia also includes my right to preserve my freedoms against my own government? Seems we did just that when our previous gov taxed without rep. What if it was meant to keep our own gov honest?

[Lobo1186]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

At any rate, mine is purely an argument of intent. Not of the issue of gun ownership. In the end this will always be a gun-owning culture.

Intent... Intent is so important but impossible to divine once the opportunity to know it has passed. We have some writings from our founding fathers which can help us to understand but there will always be argument.

I believe that they intended to keep weapons in the hands of citizens as a means to fight tyranny. As we all know, the first battle of the Revolution was when the Brits tried to take a strategic colonial stockpile of weapons. The lesson being the only freedoms a person has is one they have the ability to fight for.

This ideology is what makes us as you say a gun-owning culture.

There are only two ways of dealing with people, persuasion or force. The first amendment protects persuasion and the second amendment protects force.

[OKCShooter]

If you SBR it you won't need to break it down to fit into a big case...ask me how I know