After the December shooting in San Bernardino, CA, President Obama stated in his weekly radio address that it was “insane” to allow suspected terrorists on the country’s no-fly list to purchase guns. Shortly after, Senate Democrats introduced a measure that would have restricted anyone on the federal terrorism watch list, also known as the no-fly list, from being able to purchase firearms in the U.S. The measure did not pass after Senate Republicans voted down the measure.
Depends on what they were put on the No-fly list for and I believe the nofly list should be improved for accuracy and includes due process.
No, the no-fly list should be abolished
Yes, but the no-fly list screening process should be improved for accuracy and includes due process, but if the government considers you too dangerous to board a plane you should not be able to buy a gun.
Depends on the reason why your on the no fly list
I mean, I don't really care bro
No, exchanging rights for privileges is the way to communism. Furthermore, the "do not fly" list has already been used as harassment and leverage against citizens and foreigners
It really depends why you are on the No-Fly list.
Yes, and additionally, the no-fly list should include due process and have the screening process improved for accuracy.
Only if they are on the list for threatening violence while in a clear sense of mind, not impaired by any mind effecting substances
I say that unless they have reasonable suspicion that these people are terrorists then they still have a constitutional right
Yes, if there is even a shadow of a doubt that something could harm the populous, there should be some regulation to ratify that problem until it's over
No, just ensure that there is carful consideration as to why they are on the no fly list.
No, they shouldn't be banned but they should be restricted from purchasing fire arms and ammo until they have proved that they are responsible and careful to handle firearms. Previous records should be checked for any criminal records or serious events such as mental health issues.
No so long as those people are American Citizens.
No, depending on the reasoning behind being on the no-fly list
It depends on why they are in the “no fly list”.
You could be put on the no-fly list for any reason, no matter how illogical. Due process remains supreme here.
Absolutely. No flying no buying. There has got to be a limit on what's considered as a violation of rights.
These are two entirely different issues
The Constitution is for our protection..not for the protection of suspected terrorists. If someone is on the "no fly" list... they need to prove themselves innocent/safe. I agree this sounds like it is against "innocent until proven guilty" but do we want innocent until you kill 200 people ?
there are people on the no-fly list for reasons that would not preclude them from being reasonable gun owners. yes a lot of the reasons are certainly good reasons for keeping an individual from owning a gun but you can't throw individuals out for the collective. what is the reason they were put on the No-fly list is that reason to not let them have a gun. don't let them have a gun then. if it isn't though they should still be allowed to have a gun .
There should be no such thing as a "No fly" list. Private transportation entities should be responsible for ensuring the security of their passengers.
No, and drastically reduce the reasons one can be put on the no fly list.
Depends on why they’re on the no fly list.
No, however if there is undeniable proof the individual is a violent offender, then they should not be able to purchase a firearm.
I am unsure what the "no - fly list" is.
No, the no-fly list needs to be reorganized into more than one list, where those who are an extreme danger to the plane and would attempt to hijack and crash it fall under a different label than those who simply are under financial investigation for fraud. Those who fall under the first category should be banned, the other, not.
If only proven they pose to be a threat
It depends on what they were banned for.
yes but with exceptions
No, because some of us were put on there accidentally as a child.
No because what's stopping the government from labeling anyone on the no fly list
No, the no-fly list is not perfect, e.g. different people with the same name
Yes but only if there is a method to be reviewed and removed from the no-fly list for those cases where someone is flagged incorrectly.
If they are on the “no-fly list” they should have due process decided if there place on the list and there request to receive a gun is valid and does not endanger anyone.
No. The federal government should have no power to tell someone what kind of firearms they may or may not purchase. Discretion should be given to local lawmakers and firearms dealers.
Depends on why you are band from flying. If there was violence or a terrorist threat then you shouldn't be able to get ammo or a gun. Now if you had a issue that involves you needing a service animal and your service animal was denied access to you and you ended up with anxiety attacks and they band you then you should be able to buy a gun as long as you are mentally stable.
No, the no-fly list should be banned, as it is does not have due process.
It depends on the situation on why they are on the no fly list.
I think it depends on what they were banned for
Should depend on the reason why they are on the No-fly list
No, but they should be subject to significantly more restrictions
No, it depends on the severity of the reason they are on the no fly list for.
Only until a no-fly list screening process is improved for accuracy and includes due process and it's beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person is too dangerous.
Yes, but only if they have been charged and found guilty of a felony in federal court. The no-fly list itself shouldn't be the sole or primary determining factor
No, not unless their reason from being banned would be constituted as criminal/ seriously dangerous
No, and the no-fly list must be improved for accuracy and to include due process.
The no fly lacks due process and needs major reform before this rule can be implemented
Only if you are tested and said to be dangerous.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
