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
easysauce said:
yeah... ok worst case scenario, some idiot goes YEEHAW and shoots into the air with a full clip... so what? he can do that with semi auto, and shooting a shotgun also puts plenty of lead in the air,

someone having and oops with a FA, and doesnt understand the super complicated proceedure to stop fireing and sprays all up in the air... ok... how did someone get a pal and not know letting go of the trigger is how you stop fireing? they could send multiple shots over the berm with a semi too if they bump fired by accident, or again, if they made an opps with a shot gun, multiple projectiles go over the berm or whatever

80+ years of people owning full auto and there have been no issues, and despite them being illegal for most of us to own, criminals still get them... so whats the point in banning them?
Click to expand...

You still needed a license to buy them though... ( a FAC which is considered a license)

Also they are not banned, they are prohibited, there is a difference because if you do have a 12.2 on your RPAL, you can own them... you just cant use them. Banning means no one can own them.

Not trying to stir the pot but I always wondered why the SPAS 12 and many other short barrelled pistols had to be turned in, but the FA did not... any ideas?
 
contract, you gotta read better man, or stop assuming things that I dont write down...

I didnt say you never needed a license, I said people have owned them for about 80 years with no issues, and despite them now being illegal for most of us (ie those without a 12.x which is most of us) criminals still get them...

prohibiting is just banning by another name, once all the 12.x people die.. thats it, they are banned/prohibited and no new 12.x PALs will ever be issued, some rare specific guns get to be handed down to relatives, but thats the exception not the rule

why were some short pistols and the SPAS determined to be worse then FA, in the sense that even those with 12.x had to turn in certain types?

same reason why they ban/prohibit anything... because they COULD... because some people in the firearms community dont realise we are ALL in this together, no matter if you like fudd guns or mall ninja guns, they are ALL on the chopping block, its just a matter of whats on the top of the big bad scary guns list, and whats on the bottom... but rest assured every gun crossed of that list only means the ones below it are next.

because non firearms owners wont give 2 craps about banning either way, and will support any ban blindly if enough talking heads tell them the guns are big bad and scary enough

I have talked to many of the antis, in both the NDP party and LIB, straight from their mouths that is the goal, total ban on private firearms ownership.

I remember joking to one of them about how stupid a handgun ban would be, since rifles are much more powerful, accurate, long ranged ect...

his response, with a straight serious face was "good point, Ill remember that after we get handguns banned"


it doesnt have to make sense... anyone who thinks that banning/prohibiting guns of any type is for our safety, is WRONG, it is a total ban by 100 small steps, nothing less.
 
tiriaq said:
There have been a number of posts in this thread that are outright offensive.
I suggest that some people go back and edit what they have posted, before someone has to do it for them. Or the thread gets locked.
Click to expand...

That's good advice! And, now someone is here...

Some people need to re-read the rules.
 
Last edited:
I would rather have suppressors, no mag limits and no class restrictions. Voted no Becuase of The wording and I don't think it is a hill worth dieing on right now.
 
joe-nwt said:
Well this thread came to a screaching halt, what did you do, infract eveybody?:p

So what's your take on the FA thing?
Click to expand...


No, just the people who couldn't follow the rules.

I lived in the US for four years, literally around the corner from a class III dealer that rented every FA under the sun. Had friends who owned them, and we shot them in their yards (the ones that lived in the country). Many people do down there and it isn't the collapse of society some people are saying it would be. Used to travel to Switzerland a lot, and they're required to keep their FA rifles at home when they're in a certain age range that requires them to be in the militia. Heck, you would often see people walking across town or even in the airport with the SIG slung over their shoulder no case or anything. Again, no widespread shootings...
 
I support all guns, and all should be non-restricted. If you, a friend, or a family member has adequate land to shoot on, why can't I shoot my pistol or full-auto. I have family in the states and we shoot pistols, AR's and guns on their farm ( some that are prohibited in Canada). No problems, lots of fun for the kids too, we are still "wholesome people".

But alas, I shiver at the thought of my fellow countryman's reaction to the mere mention of full auto period.
 
f60f968070f21ba3f1b42d856e26a10f921fda19.jpg
 
No restrictions on gun OWNERSHIP what-so-ever. Anything less is tyranny.

(with the obvious exceptions of real mental health issues or violent crime record etc.)

Carry and use are another matter.
 
I voted yes but should actually have voted no.

I disagree with the requirements you propose because they are too steep.

So... Yeah, one less yes vote and one more no vote. This poll would have been much more effective if you left the requirements out of it and simply asked peoples yes, no or maybe answer
 
Full auto is over rated. I voted yes, no restrictions to firearms ownership.
There is a real misconception I feel on full auto. Fun for the range but not that practical for much else besides suppressive fire.
I wouldn't be as concerned about bad guys having them, lots of holes in the wall but the watch too much TV to be effective with them.
 
i vote yes, but only b/c the rifles and whatnot are SELDOM FIRED in full auto in real life, and then for AMUSEMENT or SUPPRESSIVE FIRE situations- what good is a round that climbs 3 or 4 feet after the first round?- that's what most of the 308s do- never fired a 223 in full , so i can't speak to that- did use the smg in full auto in training, as well as the uzi, and gave herman a nice smile with the stirling, and chewed his ear off with the uzi
and if you're paying for your ammo, it gets BLOODY EXPENSIVE
 
I say start by eliminating magazine restrictions, restricted class and legalizing silencers. Everything else is secondary.
 
Last edited:
gjams said:
Ignoring the political realities around us, I'd say in theory they should be legalized but more heavily regulated than the rest.
If most crimes involving firearms are committed with illegally owned or acquired ones, then it shouldn't make a difference whether or not responsible owners (legal owners who have subjected themselves to the rigorous standards we have) have them.
In terms of regulation, I'd say maybe a 3rd tier of training above restricted would be necessary to get the right license, so that there aren't any accidents like the little girl with the Uzi in the US. Or maybe it should be something like a holster certification, since it's a unique risk associated with a different class of firearm.

Just my $0.02.
Click to expand...

I don't think the kind of people willing to fetch that amount of $$$ for one would be the kind of people you'd worry about being inexperienced.

I myself couldn't give less of a damn about autos, I'd rather have full capacity magazines, silencers and be able to shoot the host weapons in da woods..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom