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.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Zipcode:
These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of No-Fly List Gun Control
@ISIDEWITH10yrs10Y
Yes
@9F4PHHYIndependent2yrs2Y
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.
@9S6XLS4Progressive1yr1Y
isn't the no-fly list already a reason to remove protected rights of people? I can't think of many more "this person is a huge danger to others" than that.
Until someone proves themself safe enough to be off the no fly list they shouldn’t be allowed to purchase a gun
@8VKDDMH2yrs2Y
“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.
@9S6XLS4Progressive1yr1Y
so the idea of getting on a no fly list, which you are told about and can fight against, and has a rigorous system to be put on, is against your right to be a threat to the safety of people that disagree with you until you get caught? Would the list ever be a good way to determine threat? If so, what would have to change about it?
@ISIDEWITH10yrs10Y
No, it is unconstitutional to deny someone’s rights without due process
@JonBSimConstitution3yrs3Y
If you're going to keep me off planes, I better get a really good reason from you.
@JonBSimConstitution3yrs3Y
The reason he's on the list may be bunk, so he shouldn't lose his rights unless proven.
@9GZXS752yrs2Y
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.
@B3VGV2T 5mos5MO
To effectively argue against denying gun rights based solely on No-Fly List status without due process, it's crucial to present a multi-faceted case grounded in constitutional rights, potential inaccuracies of the list, and the practical implications for individuals.
1. Constitutional Rights and Due Process:
Fifth Amendment: The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Denying someone the right to purchase a firearm, a right recognized by the Second Amendment, without a fair hearing and an opportun… Read more
@ISIDEWITH10yrs10Y
Yes, if the government considers you too dangerous to board a plane you should not be able to buy a gun
The government has weaponized gun control against black Americans for decades and most likely has done the same with the no-fly list
@93ZRL6SLibertarian3yrs3Y
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.
@9GSFCSQLibertarian2yrs2Y
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 2yrs2Y
“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?
@9GZXS752yrs2Y
The No Fly list is a secret list that is being used to restricted constitutional rights. There is no way to redress the matter and no due process is used to put people on in the first place. People are on it because the government thinks they should be. Governmental incompetence can easily be a problem, just ask Cat Stevens (the singer). Just by virtue of the lack of due process, the list is unconstitutional. It should be made public and given a means to contend listings. Restricting someone's right to gun ownership based on such a list is unconstitutional.
@ISIDEWITH10yrs10Y
@ISIDEWITH10yrs10Y
Yes, but not until the no-fly list screening process is improved for accuracy and includes due process
@ISIDEWITH10yrs10Y
Yes, and ban the sale of guns and ammunition to anyone
@9FBJKXZ2yrs2Y
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.
@9G9TFLSRepublican2yrs2Y
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.
@ISIDEWITH10yrs10Y
No, this is a slippery slope that will eventually ban the sale of guns to anyone
@9FBJKXZ2yrs2Y
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.
@9FM3MHP2yrs2Y
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.
@9Z9VFCG11mos11MO
Due process is necessary and constitutional, if due process is overlooked it will give the government too much power.
@9ZS44CSIndependent11mos11MO
Government historically has always taken liberties to try and confiscate arms from people so they cannot defend themselves. If they implement this method, they can make up false charges to get you on that list and suddenly you no longer have the right to bare arms. Slippery slope. Same applies to red flag laws and ALL GUN CONTROL. It is ALL a slippery slope to confiscation. Well meaning or not, it will eventually be abused as history has always shown. Just look at recent historical examples in the last century.
@4XZ73KC5yrs5Y
These are two entirely different issues
@587QZFY5yrs5Y
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 ?
@JonBSimConstitution3yrs3Y
We shouldn't go "Minority Report".
@8YDCCSQ4yrs4Y
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.
@8WX2B454yrs4Y
There should be no such thing as a "No fly" list. Private transportation entities should be responsible for ensuring the security of their passengers.
@8PCXB9V5yrs5Y
No, no adult should be banned from purchasing guns and ammunition
Yes, if the crime is extreme such as a terrorist related threat, threatening harm to the airline or related threats.
@9WKW9FS2mos2MO
#2 Engaged Domestic Policy #3 Engaged No-Fly List Gun Control
The problem is that anyone can be added to the no-fly list without due process, meaning that if the government also revoked the 2A rights of everyone on the no-fly list, the government could potentially take away anyone's 2A rights as long as they are first added to the no-fly list. I'm sure by now you can see how this would be used for government overreach.
@8GDJ4CY5yrs5Y
Depends on why they’re on the no fly list.
@9GZDTYYIndependent2yrs2Y
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.
@8TTGJTT4yrs4Y
No, this is a slippery slope that will eventually deny peoples' rights without due process
@8YWD8TW4yrs4Y
No, and drastically reduce the reasons one can be put on the no fly list.
@988SMGJ3yrs3Y
Yes, but it depends on what they did.
@B7G73W51wk1W
Yes, if they have used guns to murder. No, if they are a felon on something stupid, an example like, shooting a cow, while the cow is on your property destroying it as well.
@B7D74G32wks2W
no, but should have to go through a longer process to ensure they will not do anything bad. and depends on what it is
@B7CGNZT2wks2W
Some people aren't on the no fly list for being dangerous but the people that have been marked as dangerous shouldn't be able to own guns but that doesn't mean we can take that right from them because it would be unconstitutional so no.
@B78GNGH3wks3W
Yes, but you should be able to apply to a system where you slowly build your credit back to then purchase any firearms
@B78FN2KRepublican3wks3W
if that person was on the no fly list for harassing people that's not a reason to ban someone from buying a gun. but if he is a suspected terroist or has a crminal record than no he should not buy a gun.
@B77MYCT3wks3W
They should be banned unless their is a reason other than terrisom that they are banned from a plane
@B77CDQGRepublican3wks3W
I think it would just have to be considered on why they're on the no fly list. If its nothing juristically absolutely horrible, no.
@B77BV283wks3W
I think that no if it was something minor but if it was something major than no they should not be able to perches one
@B74H2SX3wks3W
No because the no fly list may not be an accurate claim against a US citizen; who could have done no wrong and be added to this list for no good reason who is now prevented from buying a firearm which can be used for protection.
Yes if the person is placed in the list for violent or threatening acts or for national security reasons.
@B6ZQ6KP4wks4W
No but if you are deemed unfit by a court that you can't buy a gun then you should not be able to buy a gun
@B6YC6HP4wks4W
I feel that anyone on any government list should be contacted and the matter resolved. If there was criminal activity then prosecute, if there is no grounds for prosecution then get them off the list.
@B6SYW8V1mo1MO
Yes, But only if the cause for being on a no-fly list was severe enough to consider you a public threat.
@B6SNRDH1mo1MO
It is both unconstitutional to ban someone from using guns without due process, AND can open the door for a potentially corrupt government to ban guns entirely for the nation.
@B6RXT4M1mo1MO
Yes, but the process of placing of people on the no-fly list should be reformed to include due process in order to prevent abuse
people should only be banned for guns if they have a violent record/gun violence record. People should be allowed to have guns for protections but limited to when/where guns can be used
@B6P98Z21mo1MO
They should have a full background check, and depending on the reasoning for why they are on the list, a vote should be held to determine if they should be allowed to buy a gun.
@B6NXVDC1mo1MO
I think if the crime committed was inspected and they thought they shouldn't have access to any weapons at all after that then that would be fine
@B3VGV2T 1mo1MO
Whether individuals on the "no-fly list" should be banned from purchasing guns and ammunition is a contentious issue, with arguments focusing on public safety versus civil liberties and due process rights. Supporters of such bans, including former President Obama and some politicians, argue that if a person is too dangerous to fly, they are too dangerous to own a firearm. Opponents, such as the ACLU and NRA-ILA, raise concerns about the no-fly list's accuracy, its lack of due process, and the potential for abuse and discrimination, arguing that it targets individuals without… Read more
@B66H4Q82mos2MO
No but this information should be used in addition to other background and psychological checks to ensure a person is fit to own a firearm.
Deleted3mos3MO
NO... people should not be banned from purchasing guns and ammunition solely based on inclusion in the no-fly list—unless and until that list operates under full judicial oversight, transparent standards, clear redress mechanisms, and constitutionally protected due process. Rights cannot be revoked based on suspicion. The defense of liberty requires the restraint of power.
It depends on why they are on the No Fly list. If its for mental illness or known terrorism, the existing gun laws should ban them from purchasing guns anyway.
@B58NX8HIndependent5mos5MO
Neither they have a constitutional right to buy a gun so taking away that right means that they are ignoring the law
Under the current constitution, it’s unconstitutional to deny someone’s Second Amendment rights without due process. However, we should amend the constitution to ban the sale of guns and ammunition to everyone except the police and the military.
@B52SQBP 5mos5MO
I don’t think being on the no fly list should necessarily mean you can’t buy a gun. Being on that list could mean something minimal, like being overly disrespectful or disruptive
@B522WTV5mos5MO
It should be more difficult to get a gun if on the no fly list and the reason for being on the no fly list should be evaluated before one is allowed to purchase a gun
@B4S4QRZ6mos6MO
No, there should be a separate "red-flag law" that allows qualified persons (medical doctors, social workers) to temporarily ban sale of firearms to the person, but the ban must be appealable.
@B4RKYWV6mos6MO
If the reason for no flying had something to do with a weapon then yes. If someone is labeled a flying hazard and put on that list because they compulsively throw up all the time they should still be able to get a gun. Simple research on these people is all that has to be done.
@B4FRDP76mos6MO
The “no-fly list” is subject to bias and objectively there needs to be in place an unbiased review board of well educated critical thinking individuals to determine the extent to which an individual can be denied such a thing.
@B4FCJW4Republican6mos6MO
No, for the sake of the 2nd amendment, the constitution, freedom, weak government, federalism, and checks and balances.
@B4D6KHP6mos6MO
No, for the sake of the constitution, the 2nd amendment, capitalism, freedom, federalism, weak government, and checks and balances.
@B48ZGNN6mos6MO
As gun laws should be imposed at the state and local levels, this should be up to said states and localities.
@B46F95R7mos7MO
I depends on why they are on the no-fly list now if they are on the no-fly list because they are dangerous then yes they should be banned from buying firearms but if they are no danger to anyone then yes you can buy one.
@B45H84X7mos7MO
Why do we have people in the country that arent allowed to fly and then say "yeah lets sell them a gun", just kill them
@B44HK497mos7MO
People on the “no-fly list” should be banned from purchasing guns and ammunition, as it indicates they may pose a significant threat to public safety.
@B43X7DC7mos7MO
Yes in the case that the person banned was being banned for aggravated assault, trying to use an object as a weapon, or brough an actual weapon on the plane.
@B3ZYM5D7mos7MO
No, because this attacks freedom, the constitution, the 2nd Amendment, weak government, federalism, and checks and balances
@B3Z464M7mos7MO
People who don't pay child support are put on this list. So no because the no-fly list does not imply dangerous person. Bad question.
@B3VNH2P 7mos7MO
Depends on the situation, if it’s because of one’s dangerousness than yes, but with due process if the individual wants to purchase a firearm
@B3H6Q5V7mos7MO
Depending on the reason that you were put on the no fly list and maybe after a little bit of improvement in efficiency and accuracy, you should not be allowed to buy ammunition or weapon
@B35TBHL8mos8MO
Yes if the person on the no-fly-list committed a crime or threat so bad with a gun or verbally threatened to use a firearm against someone.
@B352QD48mos8MO
depending on the offense, because there are some dumb non-violent offenses that can make you end up in the no-fly-list
@B2XK4NLPeace and Freedom8mos8MO
I think it should be on the reason why they had got put on the no fly list because some people could be a harm on the plains but they still need there way to protect themselves in the world and some people could have done something they shouldnt that got them on the list and regret it so I just think it depends on what the person had did to be put on the list and if they should not be allowed to buy a gun.
@B2VGYWQ8mos8MO
I believe they should have a ban depending on what they did on the plane then after they can buy a good if they don't get in trouble with the law
@B2S5B9P8mos8MO
Yes, if they are on the no-fly list for a violent offense, and not until the no-fly list screening process is improved for accuracy and includes due process
@B2R684N8mos8MO
No, convicted criminals maybe. But if you don’t want them to own a fire arm do they really need to be alive.
@B2PKR9S8mos8MO
Only should be banned from purchasing guns if it was confirmed they were doing something that could make them a danger to the public.
@B2MHJJ38mos8MO
Yes, being put on the no-fly list is different. There is a wide range of reasons. If a cop pulls you over for one thing you may get ticketed for something else as well. There are some reasons that should prevent you from purchasing guns and ammunition and others that shouldn’t.
@B2J3B789mos9MO
One solution could be to make people on the no-fly list go through stricter background checks before buying guns. This would let authorities assess if they're a real threat while also giving them the chance to challenge being on the list through a fair legal process.
@B2GSCQC9mos9MO
No, and abolish the current form of the "no-fly list", as it's bypasses due process and only includes names, which means people with common names are falsely flagged.
@B2GCKVG9mos9MO
The screening process for the no-fly list should be improved for accuracy and include due process, and the screening process to purchase guns and ammunition should work the same.
@B2G6DY99mos9MO
It depends on the reason why they are on the "No-fly list" and then depending on varying reasons decisions would be made and stuck with
@B2DHPBLRepublican9mos9MO
I lean towards no you can't take that option away from them because it can lead to ban of guns all together. Although I think thorough checks that are constitutional can ban purchase of guns for certain individuals. And they must be a citizen in the us to buy a gun.
Yes, but depending on why they are in the no-fly list since some people can be put on it for very stupid reasons.
@B2CDSBJ9mos9MO
yes, but it depends on if the record is true and give or take if the record is clean and has no others and its been 2 or more years then they can.
@B2BMDWP9mos9MO
Yes, but this question is irrelevant. Those on the no fly list wouldn't be able to pass a federal background check anyway.
@B24MDMZ10mos10MO
Only restrict gun access if the person attempted to buy a gun is a convicted felon of a serious crime or worse. Don't restrict gun access because of a minor offense.
@B24F78310mos10MO
Depending on what they should be the deciding factor. If they used a weapon, then yes. But if they did something else, then no; it is a constitutional right
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...
Join in on more popular conversations.
