The point is, if your goal is to defend yourselves from the most well funded, trained, and armed military in the world (U.S.), why are you stopping at firearms? You realize how massively destroyed the protesters/civilian militia would get if they tried to fight against even one U.S. army tank division? You would need more firepower to even dent those tanks. So if you follow your logic, you must advocate for at least tanks, mortar rounds, AT-weapons, etc. It is 2019, not 1776. U.S. army has unmanned drones that would take out a whole neighborhood in a second, let alone the airforce etc. Just make your argument logic add up. If you want guns for self defense against criminals, perhaps that is logical since criminals don't have tanks. But if it is for protection against the u.s. govt, good game as they say. I'm all for 2nd amendment rights, but with nuance and careful legislation