It is not quite all the US government might muster, but with firepower that includes guided bombs, cruise missiles, tanks and rockets thrown at them, the insurgency in Iraq seems to be pretty effective at thwarting the goals of the U.S. government, and Saddam probably didn’t encourage private gun ownership, so they bootstrapped up from well below what you’d have in a domestic situation.
You don’t have to bring down the government or fight insurrection to check the power of the state - all you have to do is reserve the right to defend your property.
This is happening today. The police have been getting more aggressive with no-knock warrants. A few police officers have been shot by civilians when a sloppily-vetted and administered no-knock warrant has fingered the wrong person and the homeowner thought he was under attack.
Tragic though these incidents are, there is now a move to reconsider no-knock warrants, or at least to make damned sure that there’s an airtight reason for seeking them out in the first place, instead of handing them out liberally as has been happening in the past.
Nope - pink’s definitely not my color. But please explain the reference.
As I tried to make clear in my OP, I’m not becoming less opposed to gun ownership in order to make popular resistance to a tyrannical government more effective. On an intellectual level, however, I do suspect that the potential for such resistance on some level may act as somewhat of a check at an early stage should parties wish to proceed too far down what I consider an undesireable path. Perhaps the legislation/institutions enabling the stormtroopers will not get enacted, long before the doors begin crashing down.
And I would be very surprised if I ever end up owning a gun. Several reasons. I’m not particularly mechanically minded. I’m not interested enough in practicing to become proficient and safe with it. I’m not interested in figuring out what it takes and taking steps to keep it safe in my home - from visitors, theft, etc. And I don’t personally feel threatened by either robbers or jackbooted thugs.
In short, my basic reason is that just because the right to bear arms has not traditionally been terribly important to me, I realize that I ought not assume the position of telling other people what rights they should or should not consider important. Personally, I’m a big fan of free speech and privacy. And I’ve been extremely distressed at what I personally perceive as systemmatic infringements upon those areas. Essentially, many folk are saying my interest in privacy is not as important as I feel it should be. Now some folk will say I’m over-reacting, but I will question their ability to adjudge for me what is the proper degree of reaction. It cast the interests of gun supporters in a new light for me. And the 2d amendment is certainly more clearly stated than a “penumbra”! 
The other day I was going thru my wallet looking for my library card, and I noticed my FOID. I got it a couple of years ago when my son started doing American rev war reenactment, so I could buy him black powder, transport his musket, etc. A friend of mine said he thought everyone ought to get a FOID - even if they did not get a gun - simply so the government did not know who owned what. This kinda clicked with my privacy interests, and complimented my opposition to excessive government intrusion. And from there it was a short step to opposing registration, even of handguns. Simply put, if I’m responsibly exercising my rights, the government has no reason to know. Same reason I oppose drug testing without cause, etc. I realized that it kinda gave me a good feeling having a FOID, as it signalled that I might or might not own a gun - no one but myself needed to know. Silly and minor, true. Just putting it up here for full disclosure.
I also was nudged in my current direction by a couple of acquaintances - who are ardent gun control supporters. One of them is essentially a fulltime gun control advocate, and I realized that if he had his way my son could not even own his brown bess muzzleloading musket. And other ides of his struck me as horrible infringements on privacy.
Yes, I truly appreciate that this administration has had the effect of having me reconsider my thoughts on this issue. Guess that W isn’t all bad, huh? 
It alters the viewpoint of the person kicking in your door, that’s for certain. And you are ignoring the effect on public opinion. The more force that the government is required to use to take away people’s rights, and the more public that force must be, the less likely they are to be able to get away with it. (Also the less likely the lower-level authorities are to be willing to do it). A lot of this is out of sight, out of mind.
The more police forces have to become paramilitary units, the less they can rely on public support. And that shifts the equation. The individual doesn’t need to win, they just need to increase the cost to the authorities to a level where it is no longer viable. Civil disobedience has done this before. Labor Movements have done this before. Unfortunately, I don’t think either movement has the juice in modern day America to do it any more.
Code Pink? Cindy Sheehan? You’ll get it.
As far as the rest: I get it. We all have different values, stemming from upbringing and experience. It’s pretty damned arrogant and self-centered for someone else to tell you that your values, the ideas and rights you value, are less important than theirs.