Do You Support Ownership of FA (full auto) Firearms?

Do you Support FA Firearm Ownership?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1,021 73.6%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 189 13.6%

  • No

    Votes: 177 12.8%
  • Total voters
    1,387
blaxsun

blaxsun

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
769   0   0
Location
Where the wind doesn't blow - it sucks
This isn't necessarily a cut-and-dry choice, so read through this before voting...

Yes - anyone and their dog with an RPAL can purchase a FA firearm, subject to the following: Availability (will be scarce), cost (will be prohibitive) and licensing will be stringent (requiring consent of LE, RCMP/CSIS background check and fingerprint/photo ID on record with a national database). Same as the US.

Maybe - limited availability (prohibited PAL course, certification and/or additional training required, in addition to the same conditions as "yes").

No - either the requirements of the two preceeding options are too steep (but they're not going to change for the purpose of this poll, sorry), or you completely disagree with the concept of FA firearms ownership as a whole.

Incidentally, these are the same requirements as in the US. In addition, all FA firearms would need to be transferred through a prohibited firearms dealer (no direct individual sales allowed).

There is no wrong answer, and the poll is private. Comments and (lively) discussion as always is welcome! :D
 
Last edited:
I commented in the "licensing poll" that your should be able, with your "license",to own FA's, suppressors, grenade launchers etc.
If it meant a "tax stamp" and fingerprint submission like the US then absolutely, there system works.
 
Last edited:
Treat them like a handgun, if you must restrict them at all. Personally, I wouldn't allow them for hunting, or having seen some of the stuff I've seen, shooting in the bush, also a familiarization course seems reasonable due to the number of misconceptions that exist about FA fire.
 
Well this is me being a party pooper, but I voted maybe. Realistically that is the most probable option, adding a pPAL which requires a course, test, background check. The political and social atmosphere in Canada is too anti to support "uncontrolled" acces to "military assault machine guns".
I would like to see civilian ownership and safe usage, because really it's not fundamentally more dangerous than a semiautomatic, or a manually operated firearm. The practice of denying people an item or service based on what they might potentially do is unjust.
 
mildot said:
I commented in the "licensing poll" that your should be able, with your "license", able to own FA's, suppressors, grenade launchers etc.
If it meant a "tax stamp" and fingerprint submission like the US then absolutely, there system works.
Click to expand...

i thought it takes like 20 grand or more to own a full auto in the usa. i wouldnt say their system works. but i guess its still better then ours. :)
 
I was going to vote yes.... then maybe.... then due to the ridiculous background checks ID's National CSIS blah blah blah.... I haven't even made a vote yet. I can't say no so I think if you have a Non-Res license you can have it! Just FA (mode) is prohibited for hunting. Going semi-auto or 3 round burst is legal. Shooting in non-range places should be OK too (boonies or in the woods)...
 
I'm for Yes with the addition of mandatory training of some kind. maybe a minor tax and yes they should be range only. as for finger prints, i think thats a bit excessive and pointless. since they would be registered, if they find the firearm at a crime scene, they should already know who's it is and i cant think of any other situation where that would be useful in the slightest.

if they were to some day be legal it would also be nice for most if not all currently restricted firearms to enter NR status and only automatics and and such will occupy the restricted status.

a little off topic but related since someone above also mentioned them, i'm not sure about suppressors. those should either be legal or not. restrictions would not make any sense for them as there would be far too many gray areas since they are accessories that could potentially fit a number of different firearms. There's also fairly good reason to use them at any shooting event and location for the purposes of hearing protection.
 
An RPAL is an RPAL. Why are you trying to make some guns more villainous than others? Where's the "dog with an RPAL and nothing more" option?
 
I voted maybe. I think handguns/AR/scary black semi autos could be moved out of restricted and into non-restricted while introducing full auto into the restricted category so that you could have your fun at the range in 'controlled' conditions if you passed a relevant course, checks, etc.
 
Voted no. Very little practical usefulness. It would just add to the image of gun owners as gun crazy lunatics. Even in combat, full auto is rarely used.

Go to a range in the US, buy lots of ammo, rent a full auto and get your fix. That's WAY cheaper than buying your own, even including airfare!

 
If you can be trusted with a bolt action, you can be trusted with a full auto. There's really no difference. I voted yes, but I don't agree with licensing of any sort.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I never get the concept of owning a full auto firearm?
First...you can't target shot with full auto...you wont hit ****.
Second...you will be broke from all the ammo cost.

cadgo said:
^ moron.

If you can be trusted with a bolt action, you can be trusted with a full auto. There's really no difference. I voted yes, but I don't agree with licensing of any sort.
Click to expand...


There is no difference in bolt action and full auto?
Who's the moron ... lol
 
i vote yes- the COST alone of running an f/a ( even in 9) will itself regulate the use of the f/a feature- i'm one of the few that can actually have one ( grandfathered) and a half box of ammo gone in 5 seconds or less wears off the "charm" pretty quickly- it's fine if the queen or taxpayer is paying for my ammo, but it can really hurt if i'm paying for it- and as far as reloading goes, if ( and i do) reload for the buzz guns, you just burn more than you would on semi-
i've had mine ( uzi) since about 1990, and used it till 2005 when that damned letter came down- so i know of which i speak- and i've burned through one barrel- which is the other side to f/a
 
marcham said:
Voted no. Very little practical usefulness. It would just add to the image of gun owners as gun crazy lunatics. Even in combat, full auto is rarely used.

Go to a range in the US, buy lots of ammo, rent a full auto and get your fix. That's WAY cheaper than buying your own, even including airfare!

Click to expand...


Thank you FUDD. :rolleyes: If I can afford it and I want it and I'm not a criminal I should be able to have it. "Practical" has nothing to do with it. And I personally don't care what some tree huggin', latte sippin' urban yuppies think about me. If they don't respect my right to lawfully do what I want they can kiss my a$$.
 
andrew3081 said:
I never get the concept of owning a full auto firearm?
First...you can't target shot with full auto...you wont hit ****.
Second...you will be broke from all the ammo cost.

There is no difference in bolt action and full auto?
Who's the moron ... lol
Click to expand...


I didn't say there was no difference.... I said if you can be trusted with one, you can be trusted with the other.

Explain the difference in owning a bolt action or a full auto?

Both are dangerous, if you can be trusted with one then you can be trusted with the other.
 
No need for name calling.

Although I see no real practical purpose to own a F/A firearm, I vote yes due to my libertarian leanings. For much the same reason I am for concealed carry....properly vetted, of course.

BTW, I am FOR a licencing scheme, or at least, as the NFA pushes for, a certification program. Licencing or certification helps separate "us" from "them".

Sorry to hijack, but I think the time and effort spent to make licencing go away is folly.
 
EDX2308 said:
I was going to vote yes.... then maybe.... then due to the ridiculous background checks ID's National CSIS blah blah blah.... I haven't even made a vote yet.
Click to expand...

Evil_Edie said:
I'm for Yes with the addition of mandatory training of some kind. maybe a minor tax and yes they should be range only. as for finger prints, i think thats a bit excessive and pointless.
Click to expand...

That was the whole point of the poll. The requirements were based on the same NFA regulations in the US. I actually neglected two additional requirements: 1. The meticulous attention to detail when submitting an application (which can entail a 6-12 month transfer period) and 2. That all FA firearms are transferred through a Class-3 firearms dealer (or in Canada, one with a prohibited business license).
 
if you can legally own and follow the rules for restricted handguns what would be so different then allowing F/A ownership with SAPR to cover the range to home movement.... frankly I would love a MP5 and a full auto ar15 with a .223 upper and a 9mm upper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom