Try the political quiz
+

Filter by type

Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.

Filter by author

Narrow down the conversation to these participants:

Voting for candidate:

1.7k Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...10yrs10Y

Yes

 @9F4PHHYIndependent from Texas  disagreed…2yrs2Y

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.

 @9S6XLS4Progressive from Tennessee  commented…11mos11MO

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.

 @9FBSXB3Workers from Washington  agreed…2yrs2Y

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…1yr1Y

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.

 @9S6XLS4Progressive from Tennessee  disagreed…11mos11MO

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?

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...10yrs10Y

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

  @JonBSimConstitutionfrom Kentucky  agreed…3yrs3Y

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…3yrs3Y

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…2yrs2Y

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  from California  agreed…1mo1MO

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

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...10yrs10Y

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

 @9FN7RMGCommunist from Oklahoma  disagreed…2yrs2Y

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

 @93ZRL6SLibertarian from Utah  disagreed…3yrs3Y

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.

 @9GSFCSQLibertarian from Missouri  disagreed…2yrs2Y

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  from Kansas  disagreed…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?

 @9GZXS75 from Oregon  disagreed…2yrs2Y

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.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...10yrs10Y

No

 @9FZ7SQ7Democrat from New Jersey  disagreed…2yrs2Y

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...10yrs10Y

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...10yrs10Y

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

 @9FBJKXZ from Minnesota  disagreed…2yrs2Y

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.

 @9G9TFLSRepublican from Missouri  disagreed…2yrs2Y

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.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...10yrs10Y

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

 @9FBJKXZ from Minnesota  agreed…2yrs2Y

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.

 @9FM3MHP from California  disagreed…2yrs2Y

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.

 @9ZS44CSIndependent from Pennsylvania  agreed…7mos7MO

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.

 @9Z9VFCG from Kansas  agreed…8mos8MO

Due process is necessary and constitutional, if due process is overlooked it will give the government too much power.

 @587QZFYfrom Florida  answered…5yrs5Y

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…3yrs3Y

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

We shouldn't go "Minority Report".

 @8YDCCSQ from North Carolina  answered…3yrs3Y

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.

 @8WX2B45 from Virginia  answered…4yrs4Y

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

 @8PCXB9V from North Carolina  answered…5yrs5Y

 @9GZDTYYIndependent from Maryland  answered…2yrs2Y

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.

 @8TTGJTT from Washington  answered…4yrs4Y

No, this is a slippery slope that will eventually deny peoples' rights without due process

 @8YWD8TW from Florida  answered…3yrs3Y

 @988SMGJfrom Northern Mariana Islands  answered…3yrs3Y

 @B5X4QNTfrom Maine  answered…2wks2W

Civilians should not be allowed to purchase machine guns, carbines, or other military-grade weapons. Only hunting rifles and standard pistols should be permitted for personal use

 @B5VKLZM from Florida  answered…3wks3W

Yes, but limit the duration one can be on a no-fly list based on what they are proven guilty of in a court of law. It should not be left to the discretion of private airline companies.

 @B5NTW32 from Kentucky  answered…1mo1MO

No, people have been put on the no fly list for stupid reasons, or reasons that have nothing to do with physical violence, such as merely being too loud on a plane.

 @B5JX36K from Michigan  answered…2mos2MO

I should depend on why they are on the no-fly-list. Ex. If they only caused a disturbance on multiple situations then sure they can buy a gun, but if they threatened the lives on the people on the plane then no guns.

 @B58NX8HIndependent from Kansas  answered…2mos2MO

Neither they have a constitutional right to buy a gun so taking away that right means that they are ignoring the law

 @B2TDFYSDemocrat  from California  answered…2mos2MO

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  from Florida  answered…2mos2MO

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

 @B522WTV from California  answered…2mos2MO

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

 @B4S4QRZ from Michigan  answered…3mos3MO

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.

 @B4RKYWV from Oregon  answered…3mos3MO

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.

 @B4FRDP7from Guam  answered…3mos3MO

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.

 @B4FCJW4Republican from Georgia  answered…3mos3MO

No, for the sake of the 2nd amendment, the constitution, freedom, weak government, federalism, and checks and balances.

 @B4D6KHP from Georgia  answered…3mos3MO

No, for the sake of the constitution, the 2nd amendment, capitalism, freedom, federalism, weak government, and checks and balances.

 @B48ZGNN from Maryland  answered…3mos3MO

As gun laws should be imposed at the state and local levels, this should be up to said states and localities.

 @B46F95R from Colorado  answered…3mos3MO

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.

 @B45H84X from Virginia  answered…4mos4MO

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

 @B44HK49 from Arizona  answered…4mos4MO

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.

 @B43X7DC from Washington D.C.  answered…4mos4MO

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.

 @B3ZYM5D from Georgia  answered…4mos4MO

No, because this attacks freedom, the constitution, the 2nd Amendment, weak government, federalism, and checks and balances

 @B3Z464M from Ohio  answered…4mos4MO

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 from Maine  answered…4mos4MO

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

 @B3H6Q5V from North Carolina  answered…4mos4MO

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

 @B35TBHL from Illinois  answered…5mos5MO

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.

 @B352QD4 from Texas  answered…5mos5MO

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 Freedom from Colorado  answered…5mos5MO

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.

 @B2VGYWQ from Wisconsin  answered…5mos5MO

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

 @B2S5B9P from Texas  answered…5mos5MO

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

 @B2R684N from Oklahoma  answered…5mos5MO

No, convicted criminals maybe. But if you don’t want them to own a fire arm do they really need to be alive.

 @B2PKR9S from Minnesota  answered…5mos5MO

Only should be banned from purchasing guns if it was confirmed they were doing something that could make them a danger to the public.

 @B2MHJJ3 from Wisconsin  answered…5mos5MO

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.

 @B2J3B78 from Georgia  answered…6mos6MO

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.

 @B2GSCQC from California  answered…6mos6MO

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.

 @B2GCKVG from Texas  answered…6mos6MO

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.

 @B2G6DY9 from Illinois  answered…6mos6MO

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

 @B2DHPBLRepublican from Utah  answered…6mos6MO

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.

 @B2CN2TTVeteran from Texas  answered…6mos6MO

Yes, but depending on why they are in the no-fly list since some people can be put on it for very stupid reasons.

 @B2CDSBJ from Illinois  answered…6mos6MO

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.

 @B2BMDWP from Michigan  answered…6mos6MO

Yes, but this question is irrelevant. Those on the no fly list wouldn't be able to pass a federal background check anyway.

 @B24MDMZ from Missouri  answered…7mos7MO

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.

 @B24F783 from Michigan  answered…7mos7MO

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

 @B23SNG3 from Minnesota  answered…7mos7MO

I think that the government should ban all guns that are not used for protection or violence and only sell hunting guns to let people enjoy nature and not have as many deaths as year as they do with guns like pistols for “protection”.

 @9ZZNQD2Republican from Illinois  answered…7mos7MO

If you are banned from a plane you should not be allowed to buy a gun or ammunition without a more thorough background check and mental health check. If you pass then you will be allowed to have a gun and ammo.

 @9ZYV2BL from Arizona  answered…7mos7MO

yes and no because certain individuals could be on the no fly list purely for reasons like making a scene or getting in a fight reasons that don't constitute no allowing them the purchase of guns

 @9ZV8ZHN  from California  answered…7mos7MO

No, but heavy monitoring of their activities or investigative reports should be done by intelligence agencies.

 @9ZTCNW5 from Kentucky  answered…7mos7MO

Depends on the reason they are banned from flying, because if it involves a gun then they should not be able to own a gun

 @9ZT3Z3Xfrom Maine  answered…7mos7MO

Yes, but let them have at least a not automatic handgun they should be permitted the use of M1911, desert eagles and others

 @9ZR9BQH from Oklahoma  answered…8mos8MO

No, because the vast majority of people on the "no-fly list" are people and children with Middle Eastern names who are falsely placed on this list due solely to their ethnicity.

 @9ZLZ5GF from Pennsylvania  answered…8mos8MO

No, this is a slippery slope issue as not everyone who is listed on the "no-fly" list is a direct threat of firearm usage.

 @9ZKDWLT from South Carolina  answered…8mos8MO

It depends on why they are on the no fly list. If they are on the list for a violent reason, yes, they should not be able to purchase firearms.

 @9ZJ4DM5 from Arizona  answered…8mos8MO

It is dependent on the situation at hand, and not necessarily on the mental state of an individual, an individual can still be in a no fly list and be able to purchase a firearm, a no fly list does not function like a background check.

 @9ZFNMMDRepublican from Illinois  answered…8mos8MO

Depending on what they did if the person threatened people, they were going to harm them then yes they should not be able to own a gun.

 @9YN4J9JRepublican  from Kansas  answered…8mos8MO

There needs to be a due process component to the no fly list. If after a finding of dangerousness or mental illness a restriction on gun purchases would be fine.

 @9YHYCFT from Michigan  answered…8mos8MO

It depends on the mental state of the person if they are prone to hold grudges against things or people and will take it too far.

 @9YHPNNZ from Georgia  answered…8mos8MO

Only if the person was put on the no fly list for violent/attempted crime with a firearm on the plane and is convicted of it in court.

 @9YH8488No Labels from Oklahoma  answered…8mos8MO

Yes, but I would also like to have gun control policies. Not everyone should be able to get a gun. And if so, people should be tested psychologically and do certain test and practices to use guns in a safe way.

 @6WRHQKB  from California  answered…8mos8MO

Yes, and make sure the no-fly list screening process is improved for accuracy and includes due process

 @9XYTSJK from Michigan  answered…8mos8MO

They should be given warning and if happened again they will be permanently on the "no-fly list" for life.

 @9XX5GQ9 from Maryland  answered…8mos8MO

If anyone on the "no-fly list" is disallowed from purchasing arms, then they also shouldn't be allowed to buy cars

 @9XV2TJ9Peace and Freedom from Nebraska  answered…8mos8MO

they should discuss with the people from the no-fly list buying them about what they are doing with them and if they seem really suspicious or if you see possible danger, don't let them buy it.

 @9XT6VFV from Indiana  answered…8mos8MO

if they are on the no fly list for gun activities, then they shouldn't be able to buy t=gun, and ammo.

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...