The contention has come up several times that the 2nd amendment is useless in rebelling against the federal government. It is of course intuitive that in a straight-up conflict an army force will beat a militia force given equal arms due to superior training and teamwork, and also that the army almost always has better arms, artillery, close air support, etc.
But, so what? Assume that there was an insurrection in the U.S. tomorrow, and a cabal of people (we will posit American citizens past 21 years of age with no criminal record) decided to overthrow the government with force of arms. Would it be necessary to engage the army at any point? Why not just become assassins, saboteurs, etc.? I mean, if an insurrectionist with a gun made a point of killing any police officers he saw, it would quickly become both difficult to maintain law and order in the area and to get anyone to investigate the shootings. Get enough people doing this and you get widespread fear and panic, which can turn to widespread anarchy with a few well-placed political assassinations.
Needless to say, I’m not proposing this idea. It just seems to me that people with guns can be a threat to the government no matter how much bigger the other guy’s guns are. What am I missing?