Canada bans 1500 kinds of military style weapons.

[eider]

All the more reason to allow civilians to own real machine guns and mortars. A MAG is a dual-use weapon- it's great for hunting, and if you ever need to overthrow a government, it's pretty handy.

And tanks. Trouble with the neighbours?
Gaa...dooof! No probs. :chuckle:

 

[chair]

And tanks. Trouble with the neighbours?
Gaa...dooof! No probs. :chuckle:

Tanks are expensive, but maybe clubs can afford them. I personally have no experience with them- but I have friends and relatives who are. Maybe we can get together.

Imagine what the scene at the Michigan State House would have looked like with some REAL weapons!

 

[eider]

Tanks are expensive, but maybe clubs can afford them. I personally have no experience with them- but I have friends and relatives who are. Maybe we can get together.

Imagine what the scene at the Michigan State House would have looked like with some REAL weapons!

Thing is, if armed tanks would be legal, then maybe anti tank rockets might be. ?
Nasty......

I have often wondered what a civilian would use a semi auto rifle for.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Would you let a poor person die for want of medical care?
Would you let folks be mass murdered by nutters with fast fire guns that no civilian needs?

Why anyone would have an issue with health care being available for all is anyone's guess.

 

[ok doser]

I have often wondered what a civilian would use a semi auto rifle for.

I use mine for shooting critters, often at the extreme range of my rifle, or in conditions where it's difficult to take a good first shot.

Being able to take a second, third, fourth shot while remaining on target is lot more successful than taking a shot, cycling the next round manually, reaquiring the target through the scope and taking the second shot.

 

[Gary K]

Here is the reason any form of socialism must end in totalitarianism.

ECONOMIC CONTROL AND TOTALITARIANISM

The control of the production of wealth is the control of
human life itself.​

Hilaire Belloc
​

Most planners who have seriously considered the practical
aspects of their task have little doubt that a directed economy
must be run on more or less dictatorial lines. That the complex
system of interrelated activities, if it is to be consciously directed
at all, must be directed by a single staff of experts, and that
ultimate responsibility and power must rest in the hands of a
commander-in-chief, whose actions must not be fettered by
democratic procedure, is too obvious a consequence of under-
lying ideas of central planning not to command fairly general
assent. The consolation our planners offer us is that this authori-
tarian direction will apply "only" to economic matters. One of
the most prominent American planners, Mr. Stuart Chase, assures
us, for instance, that in a planned society "political democracy​

can remain if it confines itself to all but economic matter". Such
assurances are usually accompanied by the suggestion that by
giving up freedom in what are, or ought to be, the less import-
ant aspects of our lives, we shall obtain greater freedom in the
pursuit of higher values. On this ground people who abhor the
idea of a political dictatorship often clamour for a dictator in
the economic field.
The arguments used appeal to our best instincts and often
attract the finest minds. If planning really did free us from the
less important cares and so made it easier to render our existence
one of plain living and high thinking, who would wish to
belittle such an ideal? If our economic activities really concerned
only the inferior or even more sordid sides of life, of course we
ought to endeavour by all means to find a way to relieve our-
selves from the excessive care for material ends, and, leaving
them to be cared for by some piece of utilitarian machinery, set
our minds free for the higher things of life.

Unfortunately the assurance people derive from this belief
that the power which is exercised over economic life is a power
over matters of secondary importance only, and which makes
them take lightly the threat to the freedom of our economic
pursuits, is altogether unwarranted. It is largely a consequence of
the erroneous belief that there are purely economic ends separ-
ate from the other ends of life. Yet, apart from the pathological
case of the miser, there is no such thing. The ultimate ends of the
activities of reasonable beings are never economic. Strictly speak-
ing there is no "economic motive" but only economic factors
conditioning our striving for other ends. What in ordinary
language is misleadingly called the "economic motive"
means merely the desire for general opportunity, the desire for
power to achieve unspecified ends. 1 If we strive for money it is
because it offers us the widest choice in enjoying the fruits of

our efforts. Because in modern society it is through the limita-
tion of our money incomes that we are made to feel the restric-
tions which our relative poverty still imposes upon us, many
have come to hate money as the symbol of these restrictions. But
this is to mistake for the cause the medium through which a
force makes itself felt. It would be much truer to say that money
is one of the greatest instruments of freedom ever invented by
man. It is money which in existing society opens an astounding
range of choice to the poor man, a range greater than that which
not many generations ago was open to the wealthy. We shall
better understand the significance of this service of money if we
consider what it would really mean if, as so many socialists
characteristically propose, the "pecuniary motive" were largely
displaced by "non-economic incentives". If all rewards, instead
of being offered in money, were offered in the form of public
distinctions or privileges, positions of power over other men, or
better housing or better food, opportunities for travel or educa-
tion, this would merely mean that the recipient would no longer
be allowed to choose, and that, whoever fixed the reward,
determined not only its size but also the particular form in
which it should be enjoyed.

​

From The Road to Serfdom by Frederick Hayek.

Now, refute Hayek's reasoning with solid argument and evidence rather than the usual, I don't like what he says so I'll just ignore what he says and cast slurs at him. As he won the Nobel Prize for Economics he's a very knowledgeable source on how economies and economics actually work, whereas you guys demonstrate very little knowledge of how economics actually work.

 

[way 2 go]

I use mine for shooting critters, often at the extreme range of my rifle, or in conditions where it's difficult to take a good first shot.

Being able to take a second, third, fourth shot while remaining on target is lot more successful than taking a shot, cycling the next round manually, reaquiring the target through the scope and taking the second shot.

canada also banned : Missile Launcher FGM-148 Javelin , Missile Launcher FIM-92 Stinger

 

[eider]

Here is the reason any form of socialism must end in totalitarianism.

From The Road to Serfdom by Frederick Hayek.

Now, refute Hayek's reasoning with solid argument and evidence rather than the usual, I don't like what he says so I'll just ignore what he says and cast slurs at him. As he won the Nobel Prize for Economics he's a very knowledgeable source on how economies and economics actually work, whereas you guys demonstrate very little knowledge of how economics actually work.
​

TLDR
Why don't you post the above on a thread about socialism?
That would be best.​

 

[ok doser]

canada also banned : Missile Launcher FGM-148 Javelin , Missile Launcher FIM-92 Stinger

Bummer - would have been a lot of help controlling nuisance beavers

 

[eider]

I use mine for shooting critters, often at the extreme range of my rifle, or in conditions where it's difficult to take a good first shot.

Being able to take a second, third, fourth shot while remaining on target is lot more successful than taking a shot, cycling the next round manually, reaquiring the target through the scope and taking the second shot.

Critters?
Don't you actually know what you're shooting at?
The extreme range of even assault rifles can be several hundred yards. If you're banging off at chances at that range then you're a bit of a chancer, maybe?

 

[ok doser]

I have often wondered what a civilian would use a semi auto rifle for.

Also, very handy for that second shot when the first shot doesn't kill - can stay on target through the scope while the gun automatically cycles and deliver the second shot to a wounded/ slower/knocked down target


Basically the answer is this - the civilian would use a semi-auto rifle for the same reason a soldier would use a semi-auto rifle. To deliver a killing shot more effectively/efficiently/swiftly.

 

[eider]

Why anyone would have an issue with health care being available for all is anyone's guess.

Amazing.
The arguments against can tell so much.

Do you or were you ever a shooter?
I was a saltwater wildfowler through the 60s, and shot full and small bore competition. The one discipline messed up the other imo, but I became moderately good with both shotgun and rifle. No star though.


​​​

 

[ok doser]

... a single crazy with a fast fire rifle (or pistol) can mass-murder scores and scores of innocent people.

My fast fire rifle and pistol have NEVER mass-murdered scores and scores of innocent people

Maybe the problem isn't the fast fire rifle or pistol


Maybe the problem is the crazy people.

 

[ok doser]

Critters?
Don't you actually know what you're shooting at?

of course I do

The extreme range of even assault rifles can be several hundred yards.

The M16, for example, with the 5.56 NATO round, has a maximum firing range of 11,811 feet, over two miles

If you're banging off at chances at that range then you're a bit of a chancer, maybe?

If I was trying to shoot a target two miles away with an M16? Definitely.

But my semi-auto rifle isn't an M16.

And if I miss, I always make sure my backstop is clear

 

[User Name]

Maybe the problem is the crazy people.

Maybe the problem is the crazy people with access to guns, as I explained in the second post on this thread: "The reactionaries among us will obviously decry this attempt to deprive the mentally ill and those who "snap" from having easy access to such weapons."

 

[eider]

But my semi-auto rifle isn't an M16.

Of course it isn't.
And maximum range for most semi-automatic rifles in average hands is 4-600yds.
But at that range which you tell us you are shooting, at a person stands about 3/8" high, and you shoot 'critters' all that way off?
And you bang off several rounds?

Well......... that sorts that out for sure.

And if I miss, I always make sure my backstop is clear

Really?
:help:

 

[eider]

My fast fire rifle and pistol have NEVER mass-murdered scores and scores of innocent people

Maybe the problem isn't the fast fire rifle or pistol

Maybe the problem is the crazy people.

What you do in the USA is up to the USA. But you average daily deaths by gun is quite high.
Canada, New Zealand, the UK and several other countries think differently about who needs to own such guns.

 

[eider]

Also, very handy for that second shot when the first shot doesn't kill - can stay on target through the scope while the gun automatically cycles and deliver the second shot to a wounded/ slower/knocked down target

So you need a 2-3 shot semi auto rifle.
Anyway..... what was the target?

Basically the answer is this - the civilian would use a semi-auto rifle for the same reason a soldier would use a semi-auto rifle. To deliver a killing shot more effectively/efficiently/swiftly.

Yes..... we know. Look at the mass killings list.

 

[Aimiel]

What....... a national medical system? Who could possibly want that? :chuckle:
I mean, who would want to provide medicine for everybody?

What an evil idea....

Sounds benign, doesn't work in reality. :duh:

 

[Gary K]

TLDR
Why don't you post the above on a thread about socialism?
That would be best.

It's what I expect from you. Your attention span is too short to read for 10 minutes or so. And, this thread is about socialism. Too bad you don't understand that.