Try the political quiz

1,368 Replies

@9XNBWJYWomen’s Equalityfrom Virgin Islands  answered…2 days

@9XFBKGCWorking Family from Texas answered…2wks

@9X9SFHLDemocrat from Michigan answered…2wks

No, increase background checks, close the gun show loophole and ban the sale of assault weapons instead.

@9X98BTFConstitution from Missouri answered…2wks

no any attack on the 2nd amendment should be meant with revolution

@9X7FZ7YLibertarian from Texas answered…3wks

@9RCSPC8Democrat from Minnesota answered…9mos

yes there is no reason why their are these types of guns on the streets.

@StarchDemocrat from Maryland answered…9mos

@9R7ML7GConstitution from Michigan answered…9mos

No, it is a violation of the 2nd, 8th, 9th, and 14th amendments.

@9R5YY4XWomen’s Equality from Arizona answered…9mos

I think military weapons and weapons for government officials for protection are safe, taking away guns removes American's right to the second amendment, and that background checks of gun owners, and license renewal every 2 years.

@9QX9LXDPeace and Freedom from Pennsylvania answered…10mos

No, there should be a voluntary buyback with strong financial incentives and an increase in mental health checks

@madysen21Peace and Freedom from Utah answered…10mos

No, because it's a violation of the 2nd amendment and I value the Constitution. However, I am anti-gun, so any way we can decrease their use I would encourage as long as it falls in line with the Bill of Rights.

@9QTMHZFPeace and Freedom from Minnesota answered…10mos

Yes, but first the government and police should be demilitarized

@9QSWWWCPeace and Freedom from Florida answered…10mos

there should be no private business but intellectual property that can be used in violent crimes, such as guns, should be monitored by the community and the individual should have mental health screenings if they are suspicious.

@9QRY6FYGreen from Georgia answered…10mos

No, increase mental health and background checks instead. Also, make them register their gun with the government.

@9QJ8CKCIndependent from Missouri answered…11mos

No, this violates the 2nd Amendment, but we should have it as an option and demilitarize the police

@9QHWSBVVeteran from Ohio answered…11mos

No, because it violates the 2nd amendment and also it should be up to the state or city in that state.

@9QHSRD6Working Family from Georgia answered…11mos

@9Q4K4G9Democrat from Colorado answered…11mos

Only for weapons that are high caliber since a citizen should never have a high caliber weapon.

@9Q37Y8DRepublican from Connecticut answered…11mos

No, even Michael Bloomberg's own John Hopkins center states that the data does not show a ban on assault weapons as being effective. There is no reason that an adult of sound mind, good legal standing, and sufficient training cannot privately own a firearm of any kind or any accessories to that firearm. Training, mental health checks, and criminal background checks are the only laws that have been proven to work. Even then, training and background checks should be paid for by taxes rather than out of pocket.

@9Q2Q849Veteran from Texas answered…11mos

Assault weapons is a made up term. There should be no restrictions to firearm access

@Kpt18Libertarian from Texas answered…11mos

No, but we should stop selling assault weapons to citizens.

@9PLMD69Democrat from Virginia answered…12mos

No, it should be voluntary. We should also demilitarize local police departments.

@9PJK9WGLibertarian from Illinois answered…12mos

No, it is a violation of the 2nd amendment, plus the word “assault” is a verb.

@9PCGPHVRepublican from Missouri answered…12mos

Yes, but police officers and military should be able to use them.

@9P872PCTranshumanist from South Carolina answered…12mos

we should increase background checks, increase access to mental health care, raise the necessary age to buy a gun, implement biometric locks on guns (possibly implement technology that limits use if the person is angry (subdermal infrared camera), make all guns send a signal when fired with owner, location, and footage, and/or make guns that can't fire except in designated areas), register guns with owners, increase funding for education, give an optional buyback policy.

@9NZWSKWDemocrat from New York answered…12mos

I personally think there should be different laws for guns. Every year there's countless numbers of shootings even sometimes being at public places including schools. Many kids have to fear each day if they'll make it home that day and fear the worst to happen, I know I do. I'm always thinking something will happen and I'm always thinking of ways to get out and what I'd do if I was ever in that situation. I think there has to be certain laws and how many guns someone has, what guns they have and who has the guns. I think it would help even a little bit to bring down the number of shootings and school shootings.

@9NDFQZVWorking Family from Indiana answered…12mos

It should not be up to the federal government to make this call, instead it should be up to either local government or state government or perhaps both. I also think doing so would limit how many people the federal government are looking at as potential threats/red flags and will let the local government or state government a more exclusive look into an individual(s).

@9N5GVLMWomen’s Equality from Connecticut answered…12mos

@9N4MT3KWomen’s Equality from Indiana answered…12mos

Illegal guns will always be available for crime. Assault weapons are not needed in the home, however stronger background checks are needed for legal use and protection.

@9N4FNBXVeteran from New Hampshire answered…12mos

No, Not only is it a violation of the 2nd amendment, but any weapon of any caliber can cause damage either if it is an assault weapon of a pistol. We need weapons just as much as the military would.

@9N3X5TQVeteran from Oklahoma answered…12mos

No, because people need to protect themselves, but if they are convicted of severe crimes, they should have the right to revoke the weapon.

@9N39JHMRepublican from New Jersey answered…12mos

I think we should increase mental health and background checks, but also have strong financial incentives.

@9N373C5Democrat from Arkansas answered…12mos

Yes, but only if the person has a history of criminal activity or psychological rehabilitation centers

@9N2JVLKDemocrat from Texas answered…12mos

If you own a simple handgun, then that's okay, but to own an assault rifle is not necessary, and there should be more background and mental checks.

@9MYSFS4Green from Texas answered…12mos

I believe they should do a buyback, but not mandatory. i think it should be mandatory for them to have to register them in their name, but before they can do so they have to do a few mental health checks beforehand, and if they don't they cant get their gun back.

@9MW7P47Socialist from California answered…12mos

Yes, but only as a voluntary program to not violate the second amendment.

@9MVX5QPWomen’s Equality from Tennessee answered…12mos

yes, but they should also increase mental health and background checks. They should also criminalize the sale/purchase of plastic weaponry

@9MVN9MTConstitution from Georgia answered…12mos

No, the act of buying back arms violates the 2nd amendment, and it forces owner's who own such arms to giving up their private property, with exception, also instead there should be more mental health and background checks.

@9MTSY78Constitution from Illinois answered…12mos

Assault weapons are not a thing. Full auto weapons are already banned to the common civilian.

@9MQ2HRMWomen’s Equality from Minnesota answered…12mos

@9MPSYYFRepublican from Tennessee answered…12mos

no, This seems borderline treason, as it is disarming the american people, as well as how The Avtomat Kalashnikova and the armalite rifle 15 are not "assault weapons" as they are not fully automatic. Also how the selling of Bump stocks which could make nearly any firearm almost any weapon automatic

@9M8VGVJVeteran from Illinois answered…12mos

No. If instituted it should be voluntary, but background checks and a psychological examination when purchasing an assault weapon would make more sense. The government should never implement a mandatory buyback.

@9MJKBS6Women’s Equality from Indiana answered…12mos

No, this is a violation of the 2nd amendment, but, we should also demilitarize local police departments


The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart...