I love that you think the guns are the limiting factor here. Just like you say with the Taliban, the weapons don't matter, in the end. The tactics do.

And who is going to have better tactics, supply lines, equipment, money, support, water supplies, control of the air, control of the electronics in the area, etc? A dude that gave fifteen of his friends his extra AR's and MP10's?

Or people who have extensive training, experience in actual wars, and a sworn duty to protect their homeland from insurgent forces bent on destroying the Constitution?

The "guns protect me from my gummint" argument is cute, but there is no scenario in which it has the underdog winning.

And what, exactly, are they "winning"? They gonna go to DC and dismantle the government? Even when you put a total tit in the Big Chair, they can't accomplish a single thing.

This is the core problem with ALL of these movements: They define themselves as AGAINST something, not FOR anything. So once there is nothing to push against... they fall apart.

They're all shiny and triumphant when they take over a bird sanctuary in Oregon. But within two days they became the laughingstock of the world.

The Bundys, the Michigan Militia, and the others are useful clowns, to allow the police state to show their toys off, and remind the Joe The Plumber why he doesn't rise up against the state in any meaningful way. But ... a force to be reckoned with? Not by any measure.