Try the political quiz

1.5k Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...9yrs9Y


 @9FBSXB3Workers from Washington agreed…9mos9MO

Until someone proves themself safe enough to be off the no fly list they shouldn’t be allowed to purchase a gun

 @8VKDDMH from California commented…4mos4MO

No, it is unconstitutional to deny someone’s rights without due process

“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.

 @9F4PHHYIndependent from Texas disagreed…10mos10MO

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.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...9yrs9Y

No, it is unconstitutional to deny someone’s rights without due process

  @JonBSimConstitutionfrom Kentucky agreed…2yrs2Y

No, it is unconstitutional to deny someone’s rights without due process

If you're going to keep me off planes, I better get a really good reason from you.

  @JonBSimConstitutionfrom Kentucky agreed…2yrs2Y

No, it is unconstitutional to deny someone’s rights without due process

The reason he's on the list may be bunk, so he shouldn't lose his rights unless proven.

 @9GZXS75 from Oregon agreed…7mos7MO

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.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...9yrs9Y

Yes, if the government considers you too dangerous to board a plane you should not be able to buy a gun

 @93ZRL6SLibertarian from Utah disagreed…2yrs2Y

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.

 @9GZXS75 from Oregon disagreed…7mos7MO

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.

 @9FN7RMGCommunist from Oklahoma disagreed…9mos9MO

The government has weaponized gun control against black Americans for decades and most likely has done the same with the no-fly list

 @9FNGCWMProgressive from Virginia disagreed…9mos9MO

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.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...9yrs9Y


 @9FZ7SQ7Democrat from New Jersey disagreed…9mos9MO

Just because you arent allowed to fly, doesnt mean that you shouldnt have acces to guns. Although guns and mass shootings are one of the largest problems in the US, they can be used for self defense.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...9yrs9Y

Yes, but not until the no-fly list screening process is improved for accuracy and includes due process

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...9yrs9Y

Yes, and ban the sale of guns and ammunition to anyone

 @9G9TFLSRepublican from Missouri disagreed…8mos8MO

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.

 @9FBJKXZ from Minnesota disagreed…9mos9MO

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.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...9yrs9Y

No, this is a slippery slope that will eventually ban the sale of guns to anyone

 @9FM3MHP from California disagreed…9mos9MO

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.

 @9FBJKXZ from Minnesota agreed…9mos9MO

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.

 @9JXXLR9 from Oklahoma agreed…4mos4MO

First, they will start with the no-fly list, then felons, then anyone with a criminal record, then everyone.

 @9FBSXB3Workers from Washington disagreed…9mos9MO

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

 @587QZFYfrom Florida answered…4yrs4Y

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 ?

  @JonBSimConstitutionfrom Kentucky disagreed…2yrs2Y

No, it is unconstitutional to deny someone’s rights without due process

We shouldn't go "Minority Report".

 @8YDCCSQ from North Carolina answered…2yrs2Y

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.

 @9GZDTYYIndependent from Maryland answered…7mos7MO

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.

 @8GQYS3S from South Carolina answered…4yrs4Y

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 .

 @8YWD8TW from Florida answered…2yrs2Y

 @8WX2B45 from Virginia answered…3yrs3Y

There should be no such thing as a "No fly" list. Private transportation entities should be responsible for ensuring the security of their passengers.

 @97GLQX3 from North Carolina answered…2yrs2Y

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.

 @97N7LGG from Kansas commented…2yrs2Y

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

 @9PKKFQ7  from Illinois answered…5 days5D

Yes, if you are a suspected terrorist or even have a background being so you should not be able to purchase and gun or any weapon of that matter.

 @9NQVP7L from Michigan answered…3wks3W

There must be burden of proof on the part of any government entity to bar individuals from transportation. A free citizen must be treated as a free citizen with regard to weapons and transportation. Anyone not trusted to fly or own weapons should probably remain incarcerated.

 @9N9QMZL from Virginia answered…4wks4W

Once the “no fly list” is fixed so it doesn’t include people who shouldn’t be on the list, I would answer the question as “yes”.

 @9N9KYR2 from Florida answered…4wks4W

I believe that it depends on the circumstances. In general, it is infact unconstitutional to deny someone's rights without due process. However, if the person is clearly shown to be dangerous, or are on the "no-fly list" BECAUSE of an issue involving guns and ammunition, I believe that the government has every right to prevent them from purchasing guns and/or ammunition.

 @9N5PWJL from Florida answered…4wks4W

If the entire concept is that they would turn the plant into a weapon, then, by extension, and by merit, they should not have access to other weapons. Same as felons.

 @9N2N5F4 from Oklahoma answered…4wks4W

Yes, we should ban purchases for proven terrorists, but not if they have not yet been proven to be a terrorist.

 @9N2FJTH from Texas answered…4wks4W

Only citizens have the right of purchasing weapons. Visa recipients should have limited rights to weapons.

 @9MHS4WJ from Indiana answered…1mo1MO

The no-fly list specifically targets Arabs, including children and other innocents. Until this is fixed, the no-fly list is not a reliable source for any legislation.

 @9MGY9BMSocialist from Oregon answered…1mo1MO

Neutral, it depends on the reason as to why someone is on the no-fly list, if they pose a threat, and if they are fit to carry.

 @9MFX8R7 from Missouri answered…1mo1MO

People should be punished for their crime through restitution, flogging, or the death penalty, and assuming they were not put to death, released after punishment.

Those awaiting sentencing should be held in jail until a sentence can be handed down.

All humans have the God-given right to purchase, own, and carry individual defensive weapons, including firearms.

Those who use such weapons to commit crimes must be severely punished, or put to death, depending on intent.

 @9MFL6LN from Arkansas answered…1mo1MO

No, due to unconstitutionality, but make risk assessment and psychological evaluation more thorough.

 @9M82WKD  from Wisconsin answered…2mos2MO

Yes, however there should be due process, because it is unconstitutional to deny rights for any thing without due process.

 @9M4HHY2Independence from Oklahoma answered…2mos2MO

Yes and no they should not have committed a crime, but is given a constitutional right to protect themselves

 @9LYTW45 from Illinois answered…2mos2MO

No, This is a slippery slope and there are documented cases of innocent people with common names that have trouble flying.


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...