I continually don't understand this argument. Any group of armed and motivated people intending on taking down the government would be stopped, one way or another, before they can assemble a well-organised militia. The presence of guns might make you safer in a number of narrow scenarios but not against anything as large as a state-wide police force, let alone the US Army.
The Iraqis managed to kick us out with rifles and improvised mines. Not even a single artillery piece, armored vehicle, aircraft, nor any technology less than 50 years old, against $2 Trillion worth of US anti-insurgency doctrine.
