The point is, if you are serious about taking on the US government, you would be lobbying for the right to research and own affordable civilian anti-air weaponry, anti tank weaponry, the right to own bombs, grenades and bunker buster ammunition. You should lobby for well regulated militia (oh yeah, you also need to stop pretending that isn't a clause in the 2nd amendment) to receive decommissioned military hardware, including heavy vehicle and even fighter jets and battle ships. You would lobby for money to train and maintain disciplined militias, and compensate them for their time spent training, developing and maintaining their skills.
Or, you can acknowledge that this is a fantasy that will never happen, and real people are dying to keep it alive.
Yes, I'd have to agree. If the country's been taken over by a military junta or some kind of autocratic government determined to torture, kill and strike fear into many of the common people, as in Chile 1973, South Africa under the apartheid regime or Burma from around 1990 - and irrespective of what kind of constitutional or Newspeak excuses they managed to find for taking over - and they have really secured firm control of the state, then a Robin Hood
or Mel Gibson-style rebellion with guys setting up ambushes for a few government units, robbing banks and putting up small resistance posters at midnight armed with a handgun or an assault rifle (?) for their personal protection isn't in itself
what it takes to get rid of such a government, such a rule by violence. Not by a mile, really. The days when Robin Hood or a small "armed militia" working from the mountains or at some farms and cities could topple the well-armed tyrant, who has fully modern equipment plus control of the courts, the media, most schools...and who may be able to cut off access to food, electricity, jobs and money for some of its enemies/resistance folks (even people's own hard-earned money) if it decide those people are being unruly and starting to resist for real - those days are long since over. Neither in Chile, in South Africa, in Poland or Hungary (foreign-supported autocracy), nor in Francoist Spain did that kind of small-arms resistance have any meaningful impact, and we all know it won't mean anything in Syria and had no relevance in Afghanistan, even though both of those last two are countries where lots of people had some kinds of guns even before the current wars broke out.
If you're going to topple Big Brother in the modern world by means of violent resistance and armed rebellion, you do need serious military equipment and a trained army, not sparetime civilian fighters training on a network of farms. Small-scale armed resistance and sabotage actions like in France during WW2 or in Libya when Qaddafi was in power are more about breaking through the sheen of legitimacy that the thug government will always
try to put up for its own violence and suppression, about keeping people aware that this is not a real, democratic or "good" government, than about overhrowing it just by the means of the small "underground militia" itself. That and sonnecting to the bigger picture, offering a legitimate partner for some foreign power that might want to help in some effective way, and making your case to the outside world, telling them "We are the People, not them!
even though they are able to send ambassadors, nice gifts and fighter jets! and even though they control school and courtrooms". Partners such as the US in Afghanistan in the 80s and in 2001, or a growing number of nearby black regimes in southern Africa, Cuba and the Soviet Union (and in a smaller way, Sweden, who also helped make the ANC get seen as legitimate over time by diplomatic means), all of whom helped keep up military pressure on apartheid South Africa in the 1980s with their own troops and instructors and arm the ANC. By themelves and with the kind of weapons you use for hunting in the wild, or even a small stockpile of grenades and machine guns, the militias of Libya, South Africa or Chile wouldn't have got close to toppling their executioners.
Besides, if you want to fracture the legitimacy of a bad regime, then non-violent resistance such as spreading unwanted information, dissenting points of view, questioning what the autocrats and their henchmen will say in their own defence, bringing to light their acts of violence, killing and suppression and removing their own fake reasons - in all, breaking through their wall of silence and lies - are just as essential as questioning their right to use the army, and often more effective
than ambushing some infantry platoon or firing on military police in an alley.
This. All of this. In the modern environment, it is not an armed populace that keeps a military junta at bay - it's the desire of governments to maintain an air of legitimacy in the eyes of their people and their peers. In this context, a strong constitution and a strong, adversarial judiciary are far more useful than a gun in the hands of every citizen - and certainly more useful than an active decision to avoid even the slightest pretense of tracking weapons. (Pop quiz: How many legal guns are there in the US?)
*nods* To keep down the people in a modern country, to make them obey you and accept wht you're doing even when it means hanging a few people without an open and fair trial, squandering state money on a regular basis on more guards for the regime and luxury items for the dear leader and his family and cronies, or muzzling the newspapers and the radio and tv, you need more than just troops and ships, or even high-powered missiles. The tyrant (or occupying power, or "Save the Nation Council" or whatever it might be called) has to cement its version of events in schools, in the courts, in the mass media and to the outside world. Pinochet knew that was what he needed, despite torturing and murdering thousands of people anyway in his own native Chile, Assad knows it, Stalin knew it, even ISIS know it.