Try the political quiz

39 Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...4mos4MO

Yes, and ban all sales to countries with human rights violations

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...4mos4MO

Yes, but I would prefer a ban on all military aid to any foreign countries

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...4mos4MO


 @9LTNFHYSocialist from Tennessee disagreed…3wks3W

Look, I am a leftist, not a liberal. Guns are tools, and in this country, they can be used to fight governmental tyranny. Fred Hampton shouldn't have been killed. The police that were trying to unjustly kill him should have though. I think everyone should be armed on principle, and should learn how to use a firearm.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...4mos4MO

No, this could prevent our allies from defending themselves against our mutual enemies

 @9M53WXB from Alabama answered…2wks2W

to a point, i agree but we should only do it for our allies or NATO unless they show any signs of terrorism to the US but any countries accused should have the victims and accused trialed and if guilty removed from government chairs and withheld in prison.

 @9LZQ7MQRepublican from Florida answered…3wks3W

Yes, unless such arms sales are necessary to their sovereign integrity, in which case arms sales could be negotiated to the benefit of the United States

 @9J95HDZ from Utah answered…4mos4MO

By giving out strict test to see if they pass so they can defend themselves but also we know who is in the wrong.

 @9J954YK from Tennessee answered…4mos4MO

If a country is even suspected of human rights violations, the government should freeze any arms deal with that country until that rumor is either confirmed or denied.

 @9J942XXRepublican from New York answered…4mos4MO

I believe any country with larger amounts of human rights violations should be restricted of any and all military-aid

 @9L6B4ML from Arizona answered…2mos2MO

Yes to a certain degree. Remember we've been accused of the same thing and are probably guilty of it in our history.

 @9L5QKJQPeace and Freedom  from Texas answered…2mos2MO

Yes, but restrictions don't mean banning or refusing to aid allies even in the face of difficult situations.

 @9KX7X9C from West Virginia answered…2mos2MO

I do not feel the government should be in any business, profitable or not. So, I do not believe the government should be selling guns to any one.

 @9KLLSFBRepublican  from Florida answered…2mos2MO

No, this should only be done to organizations that have committed human rights violations and if the whole country has committed such crimes, then that country should be prohibited from purchasing arms.

 @9KFMTQ3 from Georgia answered…3mos3MO

Almost every country in existence has committed SOME human rights violation, so I think no, but if they have been know to repeatedly commit these violations, especially recently (I.e within the last 10-15 years) then yes.

 @9K4BDY5 from Illinois answered…3mos3MO

I believe we shouldn’t use all are tax dollars on funding wars, genocides but beside that I don’t think it should be ban

 @9CNWMJTIndependent  from Texas answered…3mos3MO

I would support such restrictions if such accusations proved to be accurate. If not, it is our word against theirs.

 @9JV6K58 from Utah answered…3mos3MO

Some situations were it's a enemy of my enemy is my friend are potentially acceptable but in general yes to restrictions.


arms sales should always be closely watched and regulated when it's from an official government and some forethought should be put into where those arms end up after the sale as well

 @9J9JCJY from Washington answered…4mos4MO

Yes there should unless it's for government or army uses. also there should be a restriction on government arms sales in countries accused of human rights violations because this is very bad and they could use those weapons to hurt people.

 @9J9GJYS from Washington answered…4mos4MO

No, there could be political issues with allied nations however The countries that are accused of human rights violations should have some kind of investigation and if they are violating human rights then stop selling weapons to them.

 @9J9G6DXfrom Montana answered…4mos4MO

No, accusations should be investigated though, and if proven to be true, potentially prevent future trade.

 @9J95KSCIndependent from New Hampshire answered…4mos4MO

Unless given to the people whom the human rights violations are being held against to fight back against the foreign country's leaders, the weapons shall not be handed out freely and as our government pleases. This could cause our military to be counter-attacked and create more enemies in the long run.


Every situation should be dealt with case by case, this issue cannot be answered properly without understanding circumstance

 @7PTCG38Democrat  from Wisconsin answered…4mos4MO

Yes, cutoff security aid and arms sales to offending countries until those responsible for gross violations of human rights are brought to justice

 @99G5GNZIndependent  from Oregon answered…4mos4MO

Yes, if a foreign military has been credibly implicated in violating humans rights, they should not receive funding or weaponry.

 @9J8JJKL from Pennsylvania answered…4mos4MO

I think this is more complicated than a yes or no answer. Human rights are important but we also want to be able to have allies with other countries. Perhaps there is no answer that will fit for every country.

 @9J8GFKS from Georgia answered…4mos4MO

I think we should limit who we are selling weapons to. There is no guarantee they won’t be used back on us.

 @9J8B3YH from Washington answered…4mos4MO

Neither. Human rights violations are bad for our country to support, even if only the appearance of support. But this does need to be tempered with assisting allies in defending themselves against mutual enemies.

 @Brandonnoe84Libertarian  from Colorado answered…4mos4MO

Yes, ban all military aid to any foreign countries and all sales to countries with human rights violations.

 @9J7ZMJL  from MP answered…4mos4MO

Yes, any country should not sell weapons to other countries.(I am S.Korean, I am shamed that Korea is very big weapon seller.)

 @9LV697SRepublican from Alabama answered…3wks3W

Yes, we should stop aiding them for like a couple of years if a country's committed human rights violations

 @9LLDMH9 from Minnesota answered…1mo1MO

Yes, but only when there is clear evidence beyond reasonable doubt; otherwise our enemies could block our military involvement by making spurious accusations

 @9L7Q9V3 from North Carolina answered…2mos2MO

Yes, but only if said countries are confirmed by non-biased sources to be frequent abusers of human rights

 @9J9DY2T from Kansas answered…4mos4MO

Yes and there should be a restriction to prevent arms sales from countries that have a history or have been accused of human rights violatons

 @9J9DMSR from Florida answered…4mos4MO

The US government has already put sanctions on Russia and Iran, who have numerous human rights violations in them. We should provide weapons for our allies.

 @9J96HJR from New Hampshire answered…4mos4MO

In the text above it uses the word (accused) and that means that it wasn’t proved to be true. Therefore I don’t exactly know if it would be fair or not. If it is true though I would agree that there could be restrictions in place.


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...