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
Frankly, I wouldn't want a FA gun, nor should ANY Canadian gun owner want a FA gun if all it leads to is more red-tape and more layers of bureaucracy. Once the government gets involved, it is near impossible to get them back out after you figured out you've made a mistake and asked for the wrong thing in the wrong way.
I agree, I rather see it fall under the current system(restricted/non-restricted). And that needs to be overhauled or preferably eliminated.
 
Are you baiting me?;)

Why not offer more choices instead of creating a poll fitting for the newspapers of Toronto? Because except for the hints that YOU as a firearm owner are not to be trusted, I don't have a problem with YOU having full auto. You have an RPAL, don't you? Doesn't that mean that you have passed all the criteria to own a firearm? Why would I want to impose some further caveats on you?

Are you implying that maybe you are not as sane and responsible as you claim to be? We await your response.:D

Only if it's legal. :D

Because I'm inherently lazy? ;) Seriously, I just wanted to keep it simple(r). The hints that I'm not to be trusted; not entirely sure I follow? I'm probably fine with having full auto, although to be perfectly honest it's not one of those "holy firearm grails" for me. I imagine it would be fun a few times for sh*ts and giggles, but then the inherently cheap bastard in me would start calculating ammunition costs and it would be all downhill from there...

No, if I could have three firearm wishes, they'd be: 1. Integrated ATT/no shooting restrictions, 2. Suppressors and 3. Full capacity magazines. I'm not entirely sure how realistic any of those are, but hey - here's dreaming...

Yes, I do have an RPAL. In fact, all I've ever had is an RPAL. My first firearm purchase was a Glock 17. Bit different operating a semi-automatic than an AR15 in full-auto. For that matter, the RPAL course is actually quite lacking with respect to black rifles (not sure if that's a glaring oversight or not).

I'd like to think I'm very responsible. And sane, although this is my favourite quote: "Madness does not always howl. Sometimes, it is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, 'Hey, is there room in your head for one more?' " :D
 
Full auto would require a greater degree of training to operate? In what way? You know where your suggestion leads to, right? And why it's a horrible idea?

To avoid people inadvertently killing each other. These are usually the same "slide fire stock" people that seem to perk up Thursdays...

What you're talking about is a "graduated" firearms licensing program, of course run by the government, to the detriment of all gun owners.

Actually, I said certification - and I never really got into the specifics. Maybe it's a 1-week course sponsored by the CF... I don't own a FA and I've never had the pleasure to shoot FA, but even I realize that some level of instruction/supervision beyond the standard RPAL course wouldn't at all be a bad recommendation.

Frankly, I wouldn't want a FA gun, nor should ANY Canadian gun owner want a FA gun if all it leads to is more red-tape and more layers of bureaucracy. Once the government gets involved, it is near impossible to get them back out after you figured out you've made a mistake and asked for the wrong thing in the wrong way.

The Government is involved. The likelihood that at some point they wouldn't be involved is, I'd wager, fairly slim. Do I necessarily like that? Not particularly. However, I'm a realist. And the realist in me says that the perception that we're a rat in a maze is just that. If we get what we want, who cares if we have to navigate the occasional labyrinth to get the cheese...
 
EVERYBODY WHO VOTED YES GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS.


Sure I would love to own full auto but if you stopped for one second to think what it would be like you would realize it is not realistic. Can you imagine all the hill-billy fudds they already have at the ranges shooting like retards with their sks's? Now add full auto the mix and people will be getting killed very fast. Not to mention getting the CFO to certify a range for full auto use would be next to impossible.

Keep living in your fantasy world guys.

Woo! This thread has entered a new level of internets awesome!
 
To avoid people inadvertently killing each other. These are usually the same "slide fire stock" people that seem to perk up Thursdays...

DUDE! You're a good guy and I like your posts, but you are waaaayyyyy off base here.

"To avoid people inadvertently killing each other" is the EXACT SAME language that anti's use in their crusade.

Guess what? There are dumb people everywhere. We are creating more dumb people everyday. You can't legislate morality, nor common sense; and when you try, it generally backfires.

Dumb people are going to kill themselves and others with guns for as long as the world continues to turn - bet on it.
 
DUDE! You're a good guy and I like your posts, but you are waaaayyyyy off base here.

I was attempting to have a bit of fun at the expense of the slide fire stock people... I guess a smiley would've made it more obvious. ;)

Really, this whole discussion is academic - because I think our chances for FA are pretty remote. That and I don't think I could justify $20k for a select-fire AR15...
 
the whole 20k plus thing is an anomaly, if new production guns were allowed, we could have FA norincos for like a grand like they do in the Philippines... which is how it should be, all we really need to do is make a prohib pal attainable as a new issue license, and we dont have to worry about pre ban like the yanks
 
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.

1)I'd have more fun with missing a target with an UZI,
than I would in hitting the bullseye with non-restricted,
unless that non-restricted happen to be chambered in a 50 BMG!
B)I'd be more broke firing the 50BMG
 
the whole 20k plus thing is an anomaly, if new production guns were allowed, we could have FA norincos for like a grand like they do in the Philippines... which is how it should be, all we really need to do is make a prohib pal attainable as a new issue license, and we dont have to worry about pre ban like the yanks

I was just about to post something like this. Those guns are worth so much in the USA because they are not allowed new ones.
 
umm people you do realize there are thousands of full autos held by thousands of guys that had them before 1979 and NO one in canada has been killed by one of these full autos in the last 80 plus years

so get YOUR head out of YOUR as* and do a little reading before you dump on those of us who see nothing wrong with anyone owning a MG

btw where is the choice .....yes period
no restrictions , no special lic , simple rpal and good to go
why isnt this in there?
 
Only if it's legal. :D

Because I'm inherently lazy? ;) Seriously, I just wanted to keep it simple(r). The hints that I'm not to be trusted; not entirely sure I follow? I'm probably fine with having full auto, although to be perfectly honest it's not one of those "holy firearm grails" for me. I imagine it would be fun a few times for sh*ts and giggles, but then the inherently cheap bastard in me would start calculating ammunition costs and it would be all downhill from there...

An RPAL already requires a background check. Which you passed. Now you advocate that further restrictions would be OK for full-auto. What's the matter, don't you believe in that background check already done for your RPAL? Is there still a chance that even though you passed the check and got your RPAL that you would still not worthy of full auto ownership?

Truthfully, even if it were easy to get, I likely still wouldn't have one either. But I really despise how we have come to accept that some guns are more dangerous than others. A gun is a gun. By siding with the mentality that says full auto is too dangerous for some people, we lend credibility to the notion that it's fine to class other firearms as "too dangerous" or "serve no purpose". 12.6 springs to mind. Or 10 round is too dangerous. You can't see that?
 
A firearm is a firearm is a firearm. All these classifications are BS. Too many years of stupid politicians. Hopefully things change after too many years of BS.
 
Absolutely. A firearm is a firearm. The sooner we can get rid of all these categories, the better we will be.
Realistically, I wouldn't be able to $ustain shooting something full-auto anyway (unless it were .22lr), but I sure would love to have one in the collection :D
 
Back
Top Bottom