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.
81% Yes |
19% No |
70% Yes |
11% No |
8% Yes, but not until the no-fly list screening process is improved for accuracy and includes due process |
5% No, it is unconstitutional to deny someone’s rights without due process |
3% Yes, if the government considers you too dangerous to board a plane you should not be able to buy a gun |
2% No, this is a slippery slope that will eventually ban the sale of guns to anyone |
0% Yes, and ban the sale of guns and ammunition to anyone |
See how support for each position on “No-Fly List Gun Control” has changed over time for 7.8m America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
See how importance of “No-Fly List Gun Control” has changed over time for 7.8m America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from America users whose views extended beyond the provided choices.
@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 ?
@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.
@9GZDTYY5mos5MO
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.
Explore other topics that are important to America voters.
@ISIDEWITH6mos6MO
Active 8hrs ago
