I do not believe that any individuals are seriously gping to "take up arms" against "the government" at all. As far as so-called "militia groups,"
they are small and also far more radical than your average citizen who believes in the second amendment. They may be able to be a thorn in the side of
law & order, but they will never amount to a significant opposition movement. For one thing, they don't have the firepower. I don't care how many guns
or how much ammunition you have stashed away, you can only fire one at a time. They don't have any tanks, but the government does.
The only way I could see anything playing out seriously is if a state such as Texas, Wyoming, Montana, or maybe others legislatively refused to accept
the federal governments edicts. This would, of course, be contested in the courts with the US Attorney General suing the states. The Federal Court
system would get involved, and it would seem to me that the Federal Court System, by and large, would side with the Feds. Duh. If AT THAT POINT the
state(s) in question STILL told the Feds to take a hike, that's where it could get interesting.
Even at this point, though, you would have a significant number of the citizenry who would not go along with this and would protest. There are quite a
few constituent groups who make a fine living having the government give them handouts, and they're not going to want this gravy train to stop.
Another group that has to be taken into consideration is the US military. Many surveys have indicated that US soldiers would not fire on the civilian
populace, but can you be sure of that? Remember Kent State? May 4th, 1970. Four dead, nine wounded, and what did the protestors do? Run. But let's
pretend THIS TIME "protestors" would not run--just for the sake of argument so we can continue this line of reasoning.
Last time this sort of thing happened serously is when George Wallace asserted states rights in terms of segregation. He called up the State National
Guard to PREVENT desegregation. then the President "nationalized' the state National Guard and the very same citizen-soldiers who were ordered to
PREVENT desegregation were then ordered to ENFORCE it. Same companies, same regiments, same people in uniform. Wallace lost.
Now I don't want to debate segregation here. That's really not the issue. The point is that a state (Alabama under Wallace) stood up to the Feds
(under Kennedy) on an issue of States rights and lost. So the question becomes, could a state win ever?
I suspect it boils down to whether the National Guard of a given state would and even could stay loyal to the state. If a state could keep the
National Guard and tell the Federal Courts to take a hike, then the power of the Feds would be challenged to such a point that it could spark
violence.
But it still begs the question of the citizens. Right now in this country we have half the people thinking Obama is a saint and half of them believe
he is the devil. (Obama as a symbol for the Feds and the direction of the country here) If half the citizens in your state still worhip Obama, you're
not going to be getting any revolution going. And you CERTAINLY are not going to get it because the Feds pass an assault weapons ban again pretty much
like we had last time.
OK. Let's go a little further. If the economy tanks, which, of course, every third grader now claims will happen, AND if the military sees its power
eroding as cuts are made, AND if the military brass were willing to violate their oaths of office and the Constitution and turn against the Feds in
support of the states, then the government could fall, and in its place would be a military dictatorship.
Not exactly the revolution all those folks had in mind.
edit on 1/14/2013 by schuyler because: grevious spelling issues
The gun nutters want us dead for simply having an opinion 
