Holster mounting options?

[HebrHmr]

I'm traveling so I can't run out and look but maybe you could attach to a thin

Amen brother, I for one would like to own a Panzer tank and SR-71 Blackbird, sadly those nasty folks at those three letter agencies wouldn't look too kindly upon it. (sarcasm for those that can't tell)

I really think we need to start considering owning firearms as more of a privilege (since most of the world isn't as lax), that would solve most of these issues of "don't tell me I can't have one". I fully support the right for people to own guns, but I think we need to take the approach that Germany does with drivers licenses, you can have one, but you have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you can handle a car at 200mph, further if you screw around or don't follow the law you get your license revoked forever, period, no "re-training" classes. It is a high bar that keeps out the riff raff and means that certain sections of the Autobahn can have no "official" speed limit, that only works when people take things VERY seriously.

Not sure why you'd only want a second generation main battle tank but here's a T72. Much better bang for your buck over a Panzer and parts will be easier to source.

T72 - Armour - MILWEB CLASSIFIEDS

 

[SeminoleFSU]

its a free country.

LOL. Sure it is.

 

[Jashev]

Wasn't trying to make this a 2nd Amendment issue, however I felt compelled to respond to the poster who was giving incorrect information regarding the law and its requirements. When I was younger, I never felt the need to carry. Now that I'm older, I don't feel as comfortable in my ability to defend myself. I often find myself in areas where that can be a concern so I carry a weapon for self defense. Sorry if that offends anyone, but I am a law abiding citizen who is simply exercising my rights.

 

[coqui33]

Ironically, this ad just showed up on my Facebook feed, and it actually looks pretty good.
Vehicle Holster

Thanks. I just ordered one. Will let you know how I like it.

 

[kort677]

In our state (Virginia), the state police know you are carrying before they walk up to your vehicle.

the police there would only have that knowledge if the car's owner also had a carry permit. if the driver does not have a permit there is no info to be in a data base. FWIW: here in FLA the police do not have direct access to the weapons license data base.

 

[kort677]

I really think we need to start considering owning firearms as more of a privilege

how many other rights would you be willing to eliminate to suit your views?
maybe you'd like the government to institute a state religion.
how about they eliminate your right to post a comment like this openly?
it is sad how some people seem to be ready to give up their rights so easily.

 

[kort677]

Additionally, in the event of a police stop, I always immediately inform the officer that I have a permit and am carrying a concealed weapon (even though with the exception of Louisiana and Ohio that is not required). Prevents any misunderstandings. "

here in FLA there is no requirement to inform a cop that you are carrying and sometimes offering such information unsolicited can lead to other problems, however if asked you must inform, I would never volunteer such info.

 

[Jashev]

here in FLA there is no requirement to inform a cop that you are carrying and sometimes offering such information unsolicited can lead to other problems, however if asked you must inform, I would never volunteer such info.

I spend a great deal of time in FL and in fact have a non-res permit there. I understand its not required, but after many conversations with friends in law enforcement, the consensus is that no leo likes to be surprised. If they ask for my drivers license and I reach for my wallet and expose a gun, the situation goes downhill quickly (and personally I don't blame them). I have found that being upfront, most of these guys act professionally. Of course I'm not a person of color and if I was, I might think differently.

 

[obrien28]

how many other rights would you be willing to eliminate to suit your views?
maybe you'd like the government to institute a state religion.
how about they eliminate your right to post a comment like this openly?
it is sad how some people seem to be ready to give up their rights so easily.

Wow, how quickly we went from me suggesting caution and safety to you throwing words in my mouth. Did I say anything about forcing a religion? or removing free speech or the right to repair, all issues that I strongly support. Our founding fathers made very sound choices about letting people speak and associate freely, as well as practice their own religion, but they also recognized that the court system and the laws it upholds are necessary to keep order in a civil society. These laws are ever changing as new science and information comes to light, the constitution is not just a static document but a collection of things which the founders deemed important, we have added to it and changed it over the past 240 years as times have changed.

What I am suggesting, is placing parameters, much as we do with free speech (libel and hate crimes) or freedom of religion (you can't go kill or injure people in the name of God). As someone who lives in the very state (not 45 minutes away) from where 20 children were shot fatally by a deranged person using a legally acquired weapon and ammunition, that kind of thing is not what our founding fathers had in mind when they said "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." Infringed is very different than let anyone who can afford a gun be able to buy one and use it in any manner they see fit. I don't see how in my state, asking for background checks and fingerprinting as well as mandatory training and safety classes before you can own a deadly weapon is infringing on your right, you still get to have one. What it is doing is weeding out people who shouldn't be carrying a tool designed to kill, most gun owners support laws preventing felons from owning weapons, my stance is no different, in fact I fully support the gun owners in my state, however, many states in this union do not have the same level of rigor regarding ownership.

You are required to be of age before you can drink, you need to take a test (frankly one not stringent enough in my opinion) to get a license before you can pilot a 5000lb vehicle or fly a similarly heavy plane, you are not allowed to call people derogatory names or falsely mar their name in public, you must get a license before you can broadcast on the publics airwaves, etc etc. The way I think about it is simple, when your rights infringe upon mine then there is a problem, as a civil society we use the law to arbitrate these tricky grey areas while maintaining broader rights for all.

Also, can we please get back to sharing Amazon links for holsters and talking about Tesla's? This seems like the wrong forum for discussing the nuances of the law and constitution.

 

[Jashev]

legally acquired weapon

I agree (and most gun owners I know) with reasonable regulations. I have never been able to purchase any weapon without a background check. Same goes for my carry permits. Those rules are in place already. The shooter you referred to did not legally acquire the weapon. He killed someone and stole the weapon and ammunition. Don't blame the tool he used. Look what the guy in the U.K. did with a car. The problem is a society that creates these monsters.

 

[kort677]

Wow, how quickly we went from me suggesting caution and safety to you throwing words in my mouth. Did I say anything about forcing a religion? or removing free speech or the right to repair, all issues that I strongly support. Our founding fathers made very sound choices about letting people speak and associate freely, as well as practice their own religion, but they also recognized that the court system and the laws it upholds are necessary to keep order in a civil society. These laws are ever changing as new science and information comes to light, the constitution is not just a static document but a collection of things which the founders deemed important, we have added to it and changed it over the past 240 years as times have changed.

What I am suggesting, is placing parameters, much as we do with free speech (libel and hate crimes) or freedom of religion (you can't go kill or injure people in the name of God). As someone who lives in the very state (not 45 minutes away) from where 20 children were shot fatally by a deranged person using a legally acquired weapon and ammunition, that kind of thing is not what our founding fathers had in mind when they said "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." Infringed is very different than let anyone who can afford a gun be able to buy one and use it in any manner they see fit. I don't see how in my state, asking for background checks and fingerprinting as well as mandatory training and safety classes before you can own a deadly weapon is infringing on your right, you still get to have one. What it is doing is weeding out people who shouldn't be carrying a tool designed to kill, most gun owners support laws preventing felons from owning weapons, my stance is no different, in fact I fully support the gun owners in my state, however, many states in this union do not have the same level of rigor regarding ownership.

You are required to be of age before you can drink, you need to take a test (frankly one not stringent enough in my opinion) to get a license before you can pilot a 5000lb vehicle or fly a similarly heavy plane, you are not allowed to call people derogatory names or falsely mar their name in public, you must get a license before you can broadcast on the publics airwaves, etc etc. The way I think about it is simple, when your rights infringe upon mine then there is a problem, as a civil society we use the law to arbitrate these tricky grey areas while maintaining broader rights for all.

Also, can we please get back to sharing Amazon links for holsters and talking about Tesla's? This seems like the wrong forum for discussing the nuances of the law and constitution.

your arguments aren't valid because your facts are incorrect.

 

[obrien28]

your arguments aren't valid because your facts are incorrect.

You have posted that same sentence at least three times, yet each time you fail to PROVE or SHOW that my facts are incorrect with regard to child deaths due to gun accidents. I invite you to look at the research and articles linked below, this tragedy is very real and very unfortunate, worse yet many of these could have been prevented with more attention to storage and education. So unless you are telling me that the families of these children are exaggerating or wrong and have evidence to actually prove it, then I suggest you take the trolling somewhere else.

Then again, you are the same person that says he doesn’t except that the Cubs won the 2016 world series (in your own signature), a verifiable fact from news reports, official sports scores, eyewitnesses, and photographs as well as video evidence. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Chronicle of agony: Gun accidents kill at least 1 kid every other day
Gun Violence: Facts and Statistics
New CDC data understate accidental shooting deaths of kids
Accidental Gun Deaths Involving Children Are A Major Problem In The US
A child dies every other day from gun accidents in U.S.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/us/guns-children-deaths.html?_r=0
We Were Wrong: More American Children Die From Accidental Shootings Than We Originally Thought
FastStats

 

[kort677]

You have posted that same sentence at least three times, yet each time you fail to PROVE or SHOW that my facts are incorrect with regard to child deaths due to gun accidents. I invite you to look at the research and articles linked below, this tragedy is very real and very unfortunate, worse yet many of these could have been prevented with more attention to storage and education. So unless you are telling me that the families of these children are exaggerating or wrong and have evidence to actually prove it, then I suggest you take the trolling somewhere else.

Then again, you are the same person that says he doesn’t except that the Cubs won the 2016 world series (in your own signature), a verifiable fact from news reports, official sports scores, eyewitnesses, and photographs as well as video evidence. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Chronicle of agony: Gun accidents kill at least 1 kid every other day
Gun Violence: Facts and Statistics
New CDC data understate accidental shooting deaths of kids
Accidental Gun Deaths Involving Children Are A Major Problem In The US
A child dies every other day from gun accidents in U.S.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/us/guns-children-deaths.html?_r=0
We Were Wrong: More American Children Die From Accidental Shootings Than We Originally Thought
FastStats

trolling? I am not going to engage you on this tesla forum on this subject beyond calling you out for posting bad information. if you care to offer a more appropriate place to continue this discussion I can and will refute EVERY point that you've offered.

 

[HebrHmr]

You have posted that same sentence at least three times, yet each time you fail to PROVE or SHOW that my facts are incorrect with regard to child deaths due to gun accidents. I invite you to look at the research and articles linked below, this tragedy is very real and very unfortunate, worse yet many of these could have been prevented with more attention to storage and education. So unless you are telling me that the families of these children are exaggerating or wrong and have evidence to actually prove it, then I suggest you take the trolling somewhere else.

Then again, you are the same person that says he doesn’t except that the Cubs won the 2016 world series (in your own signature), a verifiable fact from news reports, official sports scores, eyewitnesses, and photographs as well as video evidence. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Chronicle of agony: Gun accidents kill at least 1 kid every other day
Gun Violence: Facts and Statistics
New CDC data understate accidental shooting deaths of kids
Accidental Gun Deaths Involving Children Are A Major Problem In The US
A child dies every other day from gun accidents in U.S.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/us/guns-children-deaths.html?_r=0
We Were Wrong: More American Children Die From Accidental Shootings Than We Originally Thought
FastStats

You used an 'appeal to emotion' alongside the incorrect fact that the firearms were legally acquired as the basis of your argument.

Now you're using a 'burden of proof' with a pinch of 'ad hominem' supported by a healthy dose of 'the texas sharpshooter' to argue further.

While this is an interesting case study in the complex use of logical fallacies, it does not make for a sound argument.

P.S. I believe his signature is a retort on the "Not My President" movement but I am just speculating.

 

[Austral]

Blaming the tool would be analogous to blaming Tesla or the car itself as an evil weapon of death. Sorry but the fact is "cars" (actually careless drivers with no skill, who got a license as a privilege not a right--Constitutional or basic human right) kill more people than "guns." That aside, you may not believe in limiting or taking away the rights of others, but I do support your right to freedom of expression, albeit I doubt I would come into BMW forum for example and argue that they are all killing the planet with their ICE vehicles. Just would be odd and ineffective.

That say I don't recommend mounting a weapon to any car. Always keep positive control of your weapon on your body unti. It's a big responsibility. You never know how the day may turn out if someone surprises you in your vehicle and you get yanked from that vehicle. It's a cold, cold world out there with a lot of angry people.

 

[ThisIsTrue]

Sigh. I was interested in the actual topic of this thread, not the political arguments, complete with poor reasoning and selected "facts" leading to sniping, whining, and name-calling. Thanks, OP, for starting this, but I'm "unwatching" so I don't see more of it.

TL;DR - stay on topic, folks.

 

[obrien28]

You used an 'appeal to emotion' alongside the incorrect fact that the firearms were legally acquired as the basis of your argument.

Now you're using a 'burden of proof' with a pinch of 'ad hominem' supported by a healthy dose of 'the texas sharpshooter' to argue further.

While this is an interesting case study in the complex use of logical fallacies, it does not make for a sound argument.

P.S. I believe his signature is a retort on the "Not My President" movement but I am just speculating.

The guns used in the Newtown shooting were legally bought by Lanza's mother and kept without much regard for security in the same house as a child who had known developmental disabilities and a history of mental illness among other issues, that strikes me as somewhat irresponsible. From the same link below you can see numerous other incidents with this same pattern, a lack of diligence and care when selling people guns who have no business owning them. That is not a sharpshooter argument, there is a clear pattern of this happening over and over in the US, I don't see a similar pattern in Canada, Norway, Sweden, the UK or other comparable western countries that have much tighter controls about owning fire arms.

I'm sorry if you think I'm being emotional but 20 innocent children will never get to grow up, while that may not be "the gun's" fault per se, it certainly falls on his parents, our mental health system, and the ease and carelessness with which we treat the "right" to gun ownership, thankfully some states have learned this and corrected their laws to try to prevent (but of course never fully eliminate) the chance of this happening again.

As for ad hominem, I made no rude or damaging remarks to kort677's character or personal life so I'm not sure how I attacked him. Burden of proof, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, I provided several sources showing a pattern of child shootings many fatal and many more injuring either adults or children, when I pressed him to give me evidence to the contrary I'm told (now of course) that this isn't the right venue to debate the matter, well if that's the case then he shouldn't have made the same comment repeatedly without any evidence to aid his claims. If he wants to show I am wrong (after I provided sources) then I expect the same level of rigor used in the sciences, either show me evidence as to why your alternate theory is correct or go get some. Don't whine that you shouldn't have too, is it up to me to prove my own data wrong now? Good grief Charlie Brown!

Thanks for the clarification on the Cubs comment, I tend not to read the daily raft of news especially when it comes to sports, so I am sometimes in the dark as to the latest "in joke".

I fear I am outnumbered by Constitutionalism defenders, maybe we Yankees aren't as afraid of our neighbors or of an impending state take over by hostile parties, besides, what is a Glock/Sig/S&W really going to do against the might of the US Army, Navy, and Air Force, put your pistol away, sit down, and talk it out with your elected officials, your will not win a fight against the worlds largest and most expensive military.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html

 

[ucmndd]

I fear I am outnumbered by Constitutionalism defenders

Or maybe some of us are more interested in talking about cars in this particular setting vs. gun policy.

I find the barrel-polishing macho man fantasy of defending oneself with an always carried handgun to be particularly absurd, but I also find asking about mounting a holster in a Model S to be a perfectly reasonable topic of conversation in a Model S discussion forum.

 

[Austral]

Sigh. I was interested in the actual topic of this thread, not the political arguments, complete with poor reasoning and selected "facts" leading to sniping, whining, and name-calling. Thanks, OP, for starting this, but I'm "unwatching" so I don't see more of it.

TL;DR - stay on topic, folks.

True, but at least I didn't write a book and post it. :0)
OMG, no way in hell I'm reading some of these pedantic posts or clicking on some corporate tool media owned by 15 billionaires (source: Forbes, hey it's that one too? lol), who say we should all be disarmed while they have armed bodyguards. I think I hear a glass of Scotch calling. lol

 

[Austral]

Message likely lost in all the hurt feelings, but I do not recommend placing your weapon in a holster attached to a vehicle. Too easy to forget when you get out of the vehicle, no positive control, and I doubt most of you will ever practice drawing your weapon and firing from a vehicle. When you do practice you see how awkward and potentially dangerous it is to you and passengers. Take a professional course from a reputable company like ITI and they will confirm my opinion. Keep your weapon on your body. Good luck ladies and gentlemen.

Apologies if I have offended anyone with my view. Hope it is helpful to a couple of good people. Responsible gun ownership is very important as there are also good people that would like to take away your rights, using the mistakes of others.