Should there be restrictions on government arms sales to countries accused of committing human rights violations?

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

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

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

Country should be vetted to make sure the weapons are not used against American interests or being funneled to adversaries.

I would say it is a case to case situation. I would be against selling to a country that is like Nazi German. But countries that are ran by strick religious beliefs and need to protect themselves, shouldn't be prevented from receiving weapons as long they are able to pay.

Yes, but I would also prefer a ban on all military aid to foreign countries in wars that do not otherwise directly affect the US.

Yes but there should be a high bar for what counts as a human rights violation, not merely an accusation

Yes, restrictions, but not an outright ban. We must weigh the balance of sending aid in times of war with the consequential outlook of America as the arms dealer. The people seeing our name on the weapons used against them may go to blame us more than the perpetuator of war, because the fodder of continued unrest was our creation.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

This may sound wrong but it depends on whether or not it benefits the United States and their citizens

The United States government needs to be extremely careful about the possibility of escalating military conflict through arming combatants. There are many reasons, including the fact that it is typically not right to try to choose winners and losers internationally, and the fact that we may in some cases be enabling serious human rights abuses (objectively considered, not as defined by the UN) by providing weaponry that is highly regulated for possession by US citizens.

i do belive there should be restrictions on it but i also believe that allies should have the ability to protect themselves

The government shouldn't be selling arms to any foreign country. We should bring back the Neutrality Acts.

Yes, but we should not aid any foreign countries unless we are allied with them and they are in need of help.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Yes, the government should not be participating directly or indirectly in any military conflicts or proxy wars. Period. If we're going to war, then it has to be approved by congress. No more shadow wars, no more forever wars, no more proxy wars.

No and they should repossess any arms that are used illegally and in violation of international law.