Why should the government have access to better weapons than its civilians?
Citizens don't do any legal activities that require weapons of mass destruction. Why own a rocket launcher? By the time you would need to use it, it's already way to late.
Say your kooky neighbor has a stinger with 6 rockets, 3 full auto AK-47s, an AK-74, and 2 M4 builds with 10,000 rounds of ammo. You think he's nuts. Then North Korea invades. I ask you, to whose home will you be traveling?
DerekA? North Korea invades? You can't actually spend time on thinking,I mean make believing, such things? I hope it is really dry sarcasm because then its too funny.
This user is currently being ignored
The nuke's internal workings are classified for national security reasons. Not necessarily to keep civilians from the technology, but specifically to keep it from our enemies. Our enemies have AT-4s, stingers, full auto AK's, etc. So should we.
By the way, the nuke comment is a libtard talking point... You're better than that bro! ;-)
No, it shouldn't. Governments have also proven themselves to be much less responsible with them than civilians, expensively this one.
They are coming to get us one day.
Gonna load up on feed
On a large scale, for national defense, I think the government should have some good weaponry. Does the local swat team necessarily need missiles, mortars, & bombs? No.
That's how tyranny starts.
This. If their weapons are better, civilians will have a harder fight.