Do You Think There Should Be A Restriction On Certain Weapons?

Derek Stober “Yes. I just don’t see any reason for anybody beyond military or law enforcement to have any assault weapons or armor piercing rounds. I believe in handguns and hunting rifles but beyond that I don’t think there’s any reason for anybody to have any automatic or semi-automatic weapons.”

Jim McKinney “I don’t think there should be any restrictions. That’s how this country was founded when we went to war with England. If we didn’t have guns back in those days, we might not be a free country.”

Daniel Miller “I believe anybody should be able to own anything the government has control over. I believe I have the right to bear any arms because of the constitution. I do believe that armor piercing ammunition goes a little overboard.”

Mark Fields “Yes, there should be. If we’re talking .50 caliber and big guns like that, they have no place for the general population. Those are military weapons, military grade. As far as the general public, they should have weapons for community defense and national defense. It’s been that way since day one, and the constitution says we have the right to do it. However, there should be partial restrictions.”

Ken Heng “I think that’s against the Second Amendment, and I don’t think guns are the problem. Every country that has outlawed guns, the crime rate went up. Criminals are still going to find guns. Guns are not the problem. The person behind the gun is the problem.”

Laveta Wurzer “Yes. People can have .22s and stuff like that, but for those automatic weapons, that should be just in the service I believe.”