What's your point?

Where are you going with your argument? You make a skeptical challenge about a semi-automatic weapon and whether anyone "Like actually NEEDS it." You then say that a bolt-action rifle is sufficient for hunting, even if you need to hunt for food to live. Are you trying in a subtle way to indicate that you are in favor of banning private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons, regardless of the type of weapon or whether its normally accepted intended purpose is lawful because no private citizen really NEEDS it?

Rather than me trying unsuccessfully to guess, please help me out and tell me what is the endgame, if any, for the argument you are putting forth.