ABC 17 News

ABC 17 News

abc17news.com/polls/
Mid-Missouri's source for breaking news, weather & sports. ABC 17 News is a product of NPG of Missouri, LLC.
Should Missouri ban enforcement of federal gun laws?

Should Missouri ban enforcement of federal gun laws?

Yes. They infringe on my rights.

21

No. The law is the law.

4

Yes. They infringe on my rights.

Should Missouri ban enforcement of federal gun laws?
20 Comments
Matthew Sharon
3
Matthew Sharon

The 2nd amendment is pretty clear

Reply
Jeff McIntosh
2
Jeff McIntosh

The socialist form of government is getting ready to be crammed down our throats, there are shortages of goods and services, gun laws are some of the first things being talked about in the Biden regime, Biden the unifier is undoing everything that his predecessor accomplished, and alienating us.

Reply
val konieczny
2
val konieczny

I believe in our constitution. Our rights are violated on a regular basis. If the people don't act, we'll all be subjected to socialism/communism!

Reply
Karen Voges Schenk
2
Karen Voges Schenk

Missourians have a right to guns and the federal government should not get to override state laws

Reply
Jeff Coats
2
Jeff Coats

My guns, my magazines, my right!

Reply
Amy Wulff
1
Amy Wulff

Lets just have them take all of our rights away, one by one! (insert sarcasm here). if you vote NO you are severely blind to what is happening and you need to take a history lesson!

Reply
Gary Carter
1
Gary Carter

Because the democrats are trying to sneak antigun laws in with the stimulus package!!!!

Reply
Kiegan Osborne
1
Kiegan Osborne

It states clearly shall not be infringed. Any law they create to restrict ownership of arms of any kind is an infringement of the 2nd amendment no if and or buts about it. there are no loop holes in the constitution for creating laws that restrict your ability to own any you desire

Reply
Isaree1102
1
Isaree1102

I feel that if the 2nd amendment is judged and limited, we will go down the path the 1st has- we are judging what speech is and is not okay in public forums, large media is allowed to silence what they don't like, etc. Stop and reflect on how you feel about any and all freedoms. What will be next?

Reply
Border Ruffian
1
Border Ruffian

If the federal government can't be depended upon to preserve constitutional rights, then let that responsibility fall upon the states.

Reply
Fro Jordan
1
Fro Jordan

I can literally go get an illegal gun on ten minutes if I wanted to. People have a right to legally defends themselves. Criminals don't care about your prohibition laws.

Reply
julian dziurawiec
1
julian dziurawiec

because federal gun laws and the creation of the ATF were/are direct violations of the spirit and letter of the law stated in the second amendment. To also include infringing on states rights which the federal government has systematically eroded since the conclusion of the civil war.

Reply
Don Bagley
1
Don Bagley

Quick, severe punishment except for those protecting their life, property, and that of innocent bystanders, while using a legally obtained/owned firearm.

Reply
Sharon Lage
1
Sharon Lage

We have to many of rights taken away everyday.

Reply
Craig Stichter
1
Craig Stichter

States have sovereign rights and able to make the laws that fit our communities. Citizens of CA, MA, NY, etc should not dictate what laws Missourians live by. Disarming law abiding citizens or making law-abiding citizens whom are not able to pay the federal tax rates bend to the favor of the elite.

Reply
Dale Sanders
1
Dale Sanders

It is our constitutional right.

Reply
Charles Crockett
1
Charles Crockett

Because I'm an American that has read and understands the Bill of Rights.

Reply
Randel Hearne
1
Randel Hearne

Gun ownership is given in the constitution and it should not be infringed upon. You should take away the illegal guns from felons before you take away my rights. They lost their rights when they became felons.

Reply
Max
0
Max

It is illegal, to ban a Constitutional Right !

Reply

No. The law is the law.

Should Missouri ban enforcement of federal gun laws?
4 Comments
Mary Kaminski
0
Mary Kaminski

Logic and common decency in keeping our community safe. Enough innocent children have died. Selfishness and ignorance dictate the foolish ban of this law. These ridiculous actions are an embarrassment.

Reply
Lynne Booth
0
Lynne Booth

No civilian should needs weapons that are designed to kill people. They should be outlawed everywhere. Missouri is no exception.

Reply
Letitia DenHartog
0
Letitia DenHartog

There is a reason for laws that are put in place by the federal government and the state shouldn't block those laws

Reply
Karen Voges Schenk
Karen Voges Schenk

obviously you do note about gun owners. What if the government something you did recreationally?

Do you agree with banning sugary foods and drinks from Missouri's SNAP program?

Do you agree with banning sugary foods and drinks from Missouri's SNAP program?

Yes

13

No

10

Yes

10 Comments
Baconface McGee
2
Baconface McGee

Our taxes shouldn’t be paying for other people’s junk food.

Reply
Doug Fisher
1
Doug Fisher

SNAP money should (i) serve basic nutritional needs, not empty food and (ii) should help farmers, not companies making empty caloric food.

Reply
kelly shuler
1
kelly shuler

if taxpayers are paying then should require healthier eating for better health in long term

Reply
Fat Guy Outdoors
1
Fat Guy Outdoors

I'm in favor of eliminating the entire snap program.

Reply
Jimmy Ci
0
Jimmy Ci

The purpose of SNAP is to provide food-purchasing assistance to low- and no-income individuals and families, helping them maintain adequate nutrition and health. It should not be used for anything else.

Reply
Randi W
0
Randi W

People on SNAP may have a proclivity for unhealthy eating. Just as SNAP can't be used for cigarettes and alcohol, it shouldn't be wasted on surgery sodas and unhealthy snack foods.

Reply
michael
0
michael

Curbing sugary foods & drinks significantly decreases chronic illness, which saves tax $$ on health care. The healthier our food choices, the healthier we are. Healthier = happier.

Reply
Dan Mar
0
Dan Mar

Sugary foods are not a necessity. The US has an obesity crisis that is costing taxpayers hundreds of millions every year. I like the sugar tax that Europe is using to help pay for the government health care costs related to junk food consumption.

Reply
Tatyana Karak
0
Tatyana Karak

Sugary food is not essential. SNAP is for people who need to eat food they need not to go hungry. More healthy choices are beneficial for all.

Reply
Patrick
0
Patrick

So taxpayers are 100% funding SNAP and those benefits should be used properly. If SNAP recipients use benefits to buy soda, candy, cake, and other sugary products, we, the taxpayers will also be funding their healthcare for diabetes and other chronic ailments. Enough is enough.

Reply

No

10 Comments
Diane Willoughby
2
Diane Willoughby

Why do we need to control people in our society? Sometimes the only way a child can get a little treat is if their parents can use a little bit of the benefits to buy something a little special.

Reply
michael
michael

Mindful what we call 'treats'! Illness producing, ultra processed 'treats' are literally a sickening way to 'treat' our kids. A handful of delicious blueberries, is a treat. Banana slices spread with peanut butter is a treat. A handful of Skittles & a diet soda is not.

Angel Lopez Jr
2
Angel Lopez Jr

If you look at the cost of less processed goods, you’ll see that you get much less bang for your buck. You spend more and get less whe. You eliminated the processed goods. Rather than hurt the consumer, the focus should be on making these processed foods healthier. This makes sense to parents.

Reply
Patricia Abruzzise
2
Patricia Abruzzise

No one should be banning sweets from SNAP or any other program. This is just a way of controlling people and what is available for them to eat. What is next? MILK?

Reply
Baby Yoda's Dad
2
Baby Yoda's Dad

That is the only time some kids get a little snack.

Reply
michael
michael

Grapes dipped in peanut butter are a snack. So are spoonfuls of yogurt mixed with chopped fruit, plopped onto parchment paper with a popsicle stick stuck into ea & frozen. Dip in melted chocolate optional! As is chia seed pudding. All cheaper than prepackaged, ultra processed snacks & far healthier.

Max
Max

42 million people get an avg. of $178 per month of food that is paid for by the other 295 million Americans that work for a living.

Fred
2
Fred

The poor/lower middle class aren't the problem, it's the billionaires. Prior to Reagan and trickle-down (Voodoo Economics) the bottom 90% of the population held about a third of the wealth and the 0.7% about 7% .... fast forward to today and the top 0.7% have MORE wealth than the bottom 90%!

Reply
Madison Haleigh
2
Madison Haleigh

Because it directly affects disabled and vulnerable populations, people with arfid, People who are trying to buy birthday cakes for their children, people who have disabilities who cannot easily make foods, people who have autism who have safe foods, people with diabetes. It's not right to police us

Reply
Denzel McVeigh
2
Denzel McVeigh

No because there are a lot of people that need those sodas those candies whatever for reasons like oh I don't know to raise their blood sugar up when it gets super low. It's such a misconception and some more false narrative bullshit by these dumbass Republicans like Mike kehoe and Donald Trump.

Reply
Bridget Graham
1
Bridget Graham

Why police people when corporations get away with murder?

Reply
Kimberly Jean
1
Kimberly Jean

Just because a person is less fortunate, doesn't mean they must live in misery at all times. The poor can enjoy life too. If they choose to buy themselves or their family a little treat, they are as entitled to do that as anyone else.

Reply
Anonymous Individual
1
Anonymous Individual

I don't have the right to decide what poor people get to eat. Just because we give poor people money for food doesn't give us the right to take away their freedom of choice. They decide what to put into their bodies, not us. It's their bodies, their choice!!!

Reply
Should the Trump administration extend tariff aid beyond agriculture?

Should the Trump administration extend tariff aid beyond agriculture?

Yes

0

No

2

Yes

0 Comment
No one has commented yet

No

2 Comments
Steve Baumann
1
Steve Baumann

I am not a big fan of bailouts, as Obama did with General Motors, but I do support this President.

Reply
Fred
0
Fred

Even more socialist actions by Trump?

Reply

We use cookies to ensure you get the best possible experience on our website. Learn more OK, GOT IT