Well, that would certainly depend on your POV wouldn’t it? Obviously, if you’re a militia member fighting to restore the government under the present Constitution, you really wouldn’t consider yourself in rebellion?
The point is that one of the principle purposes of the militia was to put down rebellion from the army. It was meant as a bulwark against tyranny from the Feds by being the principle means of defending the U.S. so that an army wouldn’t be necessary. It wasn’t meant to facilitate rebellion against the Feds, and certainly for the mass of the people, the idea that they should hold firearms wasn’t really meant for them to rebel. It was more so they would be ready to join the militia if needed, and one of the needs contemplated was fighting against a tyrannical Federal government if that government raised a standing army and then attempted to use it to extinguish republican government. These guys knew their history, and they knew that sooner or later a central government will tend to accumulate power and use that power against the governed. But the idea always was to defend and protect the Constitution. So by the Constitution’s definition, you wouldn’t ever be in rebellion, would you?
Hamilton spent a lot of time arguing this POV in the Federalist. Do yourself a favor and reread the relevant ones. They’re in the twenties, IIRC.