No its not. I see your strawman, and shoot him in the head. There is no equivalence, nor has anyone ever said that there is one, between battlefield artillery and personal firearms, let alone WMDs and personal firearms, yet this fallacy crops up again and again and again among anti-gun people. The fact is that those weapons are for use by nations for doing what nations do in times of war, while personal firearms for civilians have very different uses and purposes.
States? What about insurgents using WMD's or tanks. What about a wacky religious group wanting to see the end of days using a nuke? After all the purpose is essentially the same, both firearms (personal, assault or whatever) than any other type of weapon. They're all designed to destroy. They might be different tools for different situations, but they all perform the same function. Destroy, deterr, defend, whatever you want to call that.
Why, if I'm allowed to have a tool that's designed to kill, am I gonna be restricted in which tool I want. I might feel that's in my safety and liberty sake for me to have a bunch of nukes so the state doesn't come here and take money from me to bailout AIG. If I have nukes at home, they will never press me for money, and I don't want to pay those execs a gotdamn thing! YEEEHAAAA!
Weapons are weapons, not chitlins, cars or soap. Weapons are designed with a specific purpose which really doesn't change between them all: harm. If it fails to harm, you should wonder if it's a weapon. But not everything that harms is a weapon. rigt?
Besides, for civil citizenry to have weaponry, poses a danger to citizens themselves. Having a nuke, a tank or a Luger might change just the "harm" proportion, but not its definite essence and finality.
And I always have to laugh at most pro-gun people I've met on the internet. I've been robbed quite a few times at gun point. I felt the fear of having a cannon pointed at your cock, head, stomach, whatever. Yet, do you see me advocating for more guns? No, never.
I'll always advocate for less weaponry, because the less of it available, the less deaths it will cause. Logical, ain't it? Have you ever faced a gun pointed at you and ready to take shot? Why the fuck do you think you need guns?
Also, I know that it can be hard for people who aren't American to really understand the notion that we have a right reserved for us to rise against our own government if, in the future, it ever becomes corrupted past the point of salvation. It is a part of our basic constitution, and is there as a failsafe should the time ever come. Frankly, it is one of those things that would happen anyway if the shit hit the fan hard enough (arms smugglers are a known and clever lot), but the founders of the country wanted to ensure that the populace of this country would be prepared for that time long before it ever happens. It is almost as much a cultural thing as anything else, and so I don't pretend that other people will understand why some Americans actively defend that right so fervently. Personally, I think that it is worth the risks, because idealogically, I think that it is better to have an armed populace and an honest government then an unarmed populace and a tyrrany.
Oh man you sure make me laugh. Do you really think if the govt went "evil", a handgun armed civil citizenry would be able to fight cops, military forces, etc? Of course not, so I bet you advocate heavier weaponry for civilians. Ok, why not an Abrahms tank? Or ballistic missiles? After all, you're gonna need lots of that to overthrow a waywards US govt considering its military strength. And besides that, wasn't Bush admin the biggest traitor against your own democratic institutions? I never saw any gun advocate rise against that (in fact, probably most gun advocates were extatic during The Passion of the Bush... at elast the NRA was) . BEsides, what about the militia clause on your constitution? Do you really think it was put there as embellishment, or has a central role in what the founding guys wanted on that ammendment??
As for the two party thing: there is always the possibility that the state of things will fall to shit, but the fact of the matter is, the system that is in place where two parties control almost all political decisions and everything is presented as if it is polarized effectively creates a scenario where there really is no difference between the two parties that effectively changes much when one or the other takes power. It looks like it, but in fact, the two are constantly forwarding the same kinds of imperialist or puritanical agendas. It is like having one coin with two faces. Its a farce, a false dichotomy, and gives no real choice to the voters. What you are talking about has already happened in a much more subtle way in America, and most people do not realize it.
So you think there ain't no difference between a con backed political party and a liberal one? LEt's start with, for example, ABSTINENCE ONLY SEX ED, or not giving help to Africa's clinics if they perform abortions and shit (advancing human misery suffering pain and death). Do you really think it's the same? DO YOU REALLY THINK KERRY WOULD HAVE INVADED IRAQ???
No, both parties are different, even when their sponsors might swap sides time and time again. In fact, both parties force themselves to difference themselves, if not, without a minimal polarization, they can't rally no base. We're this, not other. You belong here, not there. Basic human feelings which mostly guide our actions. Not only Mill type o' things, Durkheim had it right too on morale and it's 3 new aspects.