The poll would be more useful if it was more objective and less editorial.
That said, I'm inclined to stay out of people's business unless it negatively affects others.
"Weapons of Mass Destruction" violate my tolerance because they are designed to impact lots of other people negatively. If you pick one up at a Taliban garage sale and want to see if it works, that would be bad for other people and no one has that kind of right.
Tanks don't bother me at all, not even if the armaments are functional, as long as you don't cause damage that affects anyone but you. Drive off into your own piece of desert if you want and blast away at your own unoccupied buildings if you like. I see no reason for me to care unless you hurt other people or property.
Military small arms? Why in the world should anyone care. If you plan to invade Mexico with your M-14 you'll die of the runs anyway and regret the decision. If you happen to survive you're Mexico's problem and I'll wager that they can solve it.
Dynamite, blasting caps, skyrockets, firecrackers, howitzers, aircraft carriers ... What's it to me? If you can afford it and won't hurt other people or their property, go enjoy yourself.
I'm not afraid of things and I don't understand why anyone else fears them. I do have concerns about how some people use things. So I've no interest in controlling things or in controlling people either.
For example, it doesn't bother me to be among a bunch of people shooting a bunch of machine guns pointed that way. But point one little .22 single shot this way and I want to put a stop to it fast.
I'm a bit more relaxed than TexasSkywalker, I suppose. A convicted felon who is released into the public after having served his sentence is no longer a convicted felon in my eyes. He is what I would call a free man. He should be able to vote and to do anything else a free man can do--including defend his life and that of his family. So of course he should have the ability to acquire the means to do it effectively. Eternal damnation is within God's exclusive province, not mine or any other human being's. The usual proviso applies: if the former felon misuses his thing he should be cut off from it--not because it's a thing or because he committed some other crime for which he paid, but because of that misuse. I want to encourage people to do right even if they've done wrong, and I don't see how to encourage them if they're not allowed to behave like ordinary citizens.
Good people who are mistrusted and controlled tend to become mistrustful, controlling, resentful, and frustrated. That's dangerous. A society that behaves so is being misled and is foolish to allow it, because there is no profit in creating increasing numbers of such people. That kind of society will fall sooner or later. Bad people who hurt other people need to be stopped. In between those extremes live the majority of us--or maybe just you, because I'm pretty good--and are better left unimproved by all the really smart people who know better than anyone else exactly how everyone else should live. I hate it when they do that. I never liked being forced to eat brussels sprouts when I was a kid just because it was good for me. It wasn't.
People who are a danger to themselves or to others are another story. If their condition is chronic, they do need to be kept from dangerous things such as firearms and tanks: they are not able to control themselves and can hurt other people. But if their condition is temporary, it's to my advantage that they be assisted back to normalcy. Then they can do productive work, pay taxes, and enjoy life. They have the right to defend their lives and to acquire the means to do so. Like Chico Marx, "I don't believe in a sanity clause."
If I've forgotten to mention something specific, apply the above principles to it--including the one about who gets to impose eternal damnation.