Summations Only

The government has access to fighter jets, surface to air missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, nukes.... etc. etc.What weapons do you think the citzenry should have access to?

Why?Why not (for example) bazookas?

I find this entire argument that a citzenry should be armed to the point that it can remotely hope to match the firwepower of it's own government bewildering, bizzarre and (more to the point) unrealistic to the point of nonsensical.The US government has a trillion + dollar annual military budget. It has entire research establishments designing cutting edge weaponry to kill people in the most effective ways imaginable. Jets, tanks, submarines, missiles, bombs, chemical and biological capabilities etc. etc. etc. As a military superpower the US has the capability to wipe out whole cities, nations - even continents full of people.Yet the same people (broadly speaking) who support a superpower strength US military capable of taking on the combined armies of most of the rest of the world simultaneously claim that Joe the Plumber and his buddies need to have the firepower resources to take on this same superpower strength military.It just isn't possible or realistic. In fact it's just silly.Of course if you are really concerned about the strength of the government military as compared to that of the US citizenry you could drastically downgrade US government military capabilities.......

Oh stop being sily. I never specifically said YOU did. You have argued that the citizenry should bear arms such that they are capable of taking on the government military.So tell me - Do you think the citizenry should have access to the same level of armament that the military has access to?What level of armament do you think the US military should be eqipped with? Tanks? Subs? Missiles? Fighter jets? Nukes? Smart bombs? Bio tech weapons? What level of armament yom think the military should be equipped with and would you advocate the citenzenry matching that?

I'm glad you are not one of those advocating civilian guns as some sort of method of holding the national military at bay.But the alternative reasons you give for gun ownership don't make much more sense really. For example is there any evidence that governments in places where guns are not widely available (e.g. the UK) go round forcing people out of their homes and suchlike? Is it really because people own guns that the US government doesn't generally do such things? In states where guns are more controlled does this happen more? I'm sure they did. But all the evidence of modern Western democratic states suggests that people being armed really isn't necessary to that end. Well how dangerous is "too dangerous"...? Death rate stats in the US suggest that guns are "too dangerous" don't they?

Well in recent times they foster a climate of fear against a rather vague and never ending threat and then take it in the name of national security. If you think the citizenry owning pistols and suchlike is "something to stand on" then we are back to your idiotic advocacy of Joe the plumber and his buddies taking on the military might of a superpower again.Do you think the citizenry should have access to the same level of armament that the military has access to?The US military is equipped with tanks, subs, missiles, fighter jets, nukes, smart bombs, biotech weapons and heaven alone knows what else.What level of armament do you think the citizenry needs to match that? Quite.