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.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes
Until someone proves themself safe enough to be off the no fly list they shouldn’t be allowed to purchase a gun
@8VKDDMH2mos2MO
“Innocent until proven guilty”, is a key principle of our entire system of justice. It is not anyone's responsibility to prove that he is not a criminal, or not dangerous, in order to exercise any of his essential human rights; but rather the responsibility of anyone seeking to deny those rights to prove that the person in question is dangerous, and that there is just cause and need in that case to deny those rights.
The very existence of the “no fly list” is a blatant violation of this principle; as would be any expansion of its application to denying any other rights.
@9F4PHHYIndependent7mos7MO
Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bare arms. We are also protected and cannot have our liberties curtailed without due process another constitutionally protected right.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
No, it is unconstitutional to deny someone’s rights without due process
@JonBSimConstitution2yrs2Y
If you're going to keep me off planes, I better get a really good reason from you.
@JonBSimConstitution2yrs2Y
The reason he's on the list may be bunk, so he shouldn't lose his rights unless proven.
@9GZXS755mos5MO
The requirement for due process is right in the constitution. Very clearly. If allowing the government to prosecute, convict, and penalize citizens, without due process is Okay with someone, there is a constitutional amendment process they can use to change it. Good luck with that.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes, if the government considers you too dangerous to board a plane you should not be able to buy a gun
@93ZRL6SLibertarian2yrs2Y
Too many innocent people have been placed on Do Not Fly lists because their name matches someone else that is a person of interest. The list is asinine.
The government has weaponized gun control against black Americans for decades and most likely has done the same with the no-fly list
@9FNGCWMProgressive7mos7MO
I don’t have a constitutional right to fly, I have a constitutional right to purchase and own a firearm. The standard of proof to deprive me of my constitutional right should greatly exceed the burden of proof to put me on the no-fly list.
@9GSFCSQLibertarian5mos5MO
The second amendment should be thought of as an absolute freedom ensured and protected by the constitution for all. The founding Fathers of the United States would have been placed on a no fly list by King George and therefore would not have been able to secure their own freedom through arms. That is why we have the second amendment, to ensure our other freedoms and protect us from tyrannical governments.
@VulcanMan6 5mos5MO
“That is why we have the second amendment, to ensure our other freedoms and protect us from tyrannical governments.”
So why do so many Second Amendment fans defend the opposite?
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes, and ban the sale of guns and ammunition to anyone
@9G9TFLSRepublican6mos6MO
Shouldn't ban this all cause someone is on a certain list. As long as they didn't do anything bad, they should be good.
@9FBJKXZ7mos7MO
The second amendment goes for anyone within reason, just because you aren't allowed to fly doesn't mean you should have your constitutional rights revoked.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
No, this is a slippery slope that will eventually ban the sale of guns to anyone
@9FM3MHP7mos7MO
The "No, this is a slippery slope that will eventually ban the sale of guns to anyone" argument against using the No-Fly List for gun control raises concerns about potential overreach and erosion of Second Amendment rights. It's important to address these concerns by emphasizing the need for due process and accuracy in identifying potential threats on the list. Implementing gun restrictions solely based on the No-Fly List without ensuring transparency and accuracy could infringe on individuals' rights and set a precedent for government overreach.
@9FBJKXZ7mos7MO
The ATF has been unlawfully redefining what they consider illegal and many individuals are being penalized for something that was entirely legal. The people should not be punished for exercising their 2nd amendment right.
@9JXXLR92mos2MO
First, they will start with the no-fly list, then felons, then anyone with a criminal record, then everyone.
Good, I don’t believe you should own a gun if you can’t fly on the no fly list, there should be more ballots where the actual citizens vote on the issues and if it’s a slippery slope there should be safeguards built into the laws
@4XZ73KC3yrs3Y
These are two entirely different issues
@587QZFY3yrs3Y
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 ?
@JonBSimConstitution2yrs2Y
We shouldn't go "Minority Report".
@8YDCCSQ2yrs2Y
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.
@9GZDTYYIndependent5mos5MO
Yes, I believe that suspected terrorists on the federal terrorism watch list should be banned from purchasing guns and ammunition but only after investigation(s) and judicial review of the suspected terrorist have substantial enough evidence to imply the individual may engage in terrorist activities, because at that point the individual has essentially surrendered their right to bear arms by interfering with the rights of others.
@8YWD8TW2yrs2Y
No, and drastically reduce the reasons one can be put on the no fly list.
@8WX2B452yrs2Y
There should be no such thing as a "No fly" list. Private transportation entities should be responsible for ensuring the security of their passengers.
@8GQYS3S4yrs4Y
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 .
@8GDJ4CY4yrs4Y
Depends on why they’re on the no fly list.
@97GLQX31yr1Y
Yes and ensure that list is accurate and fair. Gun ownership is not a right, its a terrible privilege. America has a serious addiction to power, coersion, and violence.
@97N7LGG1yr1Y
What does "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" mean? America has a serious stupidity issue. Why isn't anyone concerned about the fact that 36 million adults in the U.S. don’t have basic reading, writing, and math skills above a third-grade level & the number of functionally illiterate adults is increasing by approximately two and one quarter million persons each year? 27% of eighth grade students are below basic reading level, 39% are below the proficient reading level. They're letting students graduate from high school not… Read more
@9LDXTL31wk1W
No, Suspects are not criminals, if they are not detained then they should have the right to a firearm
@9LD56Y2Progressive2wks2W
No, They just become an uninsured risk. They can’t purchase ammunition supplies without a licenses and proof of insurance.
@9LBJ943 2wks2W
It depends on why they’re on the no fly list. If they’re a terrorist, who has a criminal record, then yes, but that should be covered under other laws. If it’s somebody who got drunk and behaved poorly, no.
@9L7XG423wks3W
The no fly list is easy to get on but near impossible to be removed from, even if you were added by mistake.
@9L4DZRC4wks4W
yes. depends on the reason for the no-fly ban. Due process accuracy needs to be improved and reason needs to be taken into consideration.
@9L3X38T4wks4W
Yes this is protected by the fifth amendment notion of the right to life, liberty, and property without due process
@9L3WZG34wks4W
I think it depends on why they were put on the no fly list because not all of the reasons are due to violence or things of that nature. Going back to what I said earlier we must have proper background checks.
The no fly list is typically dissidents against states. Those individuals should be able to get guns to fight states.
@9KVYCX4Constitution1mo1MO
No, because the government has already showed its abuse of power by adding anyone they deem a threat to the no fly list without any way to argue and reverse that decision
@9KNMPWM1mo1MO
it depends if you are on the no-fly list for a violent crime or act you should be banned from buying guns but if the reason you're on the no-fly list is due to something non violent i dont think you should be banned from buying guns
@9KLLSFBRepublican 1mo1MO
Yes, but if they have proven beyond doubt that they have reformed their ways, then they should be allowed to purchase guns and ammunition with strict supervision.
@9J76CRF 3mos3MO
if the reason they are on the no fly list is related to guns and ammunition then yes but if its not then no
@9H8JQ9V 3mos3MO
No, to ban individuals listed on the No-Fly List from purchasing weapons is constitutionally problematic, because that list lacks basic due process protections and its standards are unconstitutionally vague. (Similar to the ACLU's position)
@9HZD4NKRepublican3mos3MO
It depends on why they are placed on the no fly list. if they are marked as a dangerous individual the sale of guns and ammunition should be banned to that person.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
