In any case, theoretical scenarios can be imagined until the end of
time, and I’d certainly agree that a great many realistic and highly
unpleasant possibilities would not be mitigated or improved or solved
with the use of guns, but in those cases one would simply not pick up
one’s gun as a response.

But when situations arise wherein having a gun would improve one’s
probability of survival or of prevailing in a violent encounter then I’d
argue having one is a lot better than not, and at those times it’s
generally too late to go get one.

FWIW, I harbor no fantasies of some kind of silly “Red Dawn” type of 
domestic insurgency against a massive conventional army (foreign or
domestic). I’m more concerned about regular old crime, or temporary (or
even permanent) disruptions of civil order during times of large-scale
chaos; a gun was very handy to have if you were stuck in New Orleans in
the days following the flood after Katrina. Or in LA during one of its
periodic  flare-ups of rioting, etc.

So at least in my case the desire to own a well-made assault rifle,
shotgun, and handgun is not motivated by the thought of being ready to
go to war all by myself against a rogue government that possesses heavy
weapons or whatever, it’s about being able to defend myself in a variety
of possible circumstances, most of which are unforeseeable and/or can
turn my home or all or part of society upside-down in mere minutes. 

If (for example) the government is for whatever reason unable to
maintain stability and civil order (maybe it’s busy getting it’s
electronic infrastructure back online thanks to some large-scale natural
or not-so-natural disaster) then armed citizens may well end up using
their weapons in support of the government so as to
help reestablish law and order. This is not unprecedented in the U.S. and in fact was happening as recently as the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.

Basically I’d much rather have a gun I never ended up needing to use
than to not have one if the need did arise (and for me this need has
arisen twice).

The first time I needed one I didn’t have one. If I had, several women
(out of his nine total victims, according to the police) would not have
been raped as I’d have got the rapist when he made a go at my girlfriend
when he climbed in my bedroom window while I was in the bathroom; I
chased him off and threw some strong words at him as that was all I had,
and to this day I still wish I’d killed him on the spot.

 An assault rifle secured in my closet isn’t bothering anyone any more
than my clothes are, and I’ll keep one regardless of whatever laws are
passed about possessing them because those who possess them with
murderous or otherwise criminal intent will keep theirs, too.

Again, comparing an imaginary revolution to wars of the past that dealt with a very different culture and level of technology is pointless, unless your point is “sabotage works sometimes.”  Or “guns aren’t always the answer to everything,” which I think is closer to MY point.  If a war happened right now between then US government and the people who think they need protection from the US government by hoarding lots and lots and lots of household guns, it would not happen like the American Revolution of 1776, and it would happen even LESS like the interaction between Nazi Germany and French rebels in the 1940s, if that’s even possible.

The teenagers with the internet comparison is an interesting one, though I don’t think you really understand WHY teenagers often best trained adults at such things.  It’s not because the training is pointless or because some teenagers are geniuses, it’s the fact that adults need to be trained at all, while teenagers in 2012 have never lived a life without the internet and smartphones and such.  Even the adults who invented these things don’t have that knowledge of technology in the same way simply because it isn’t ingrained in their perception of the world.  I should say, if a home-grown militia army of people who had been learning to shoot handguns and hunting rifles before they learned to talk went up against a government’s military of roughly the same size, or somewhat larger, with all the best stuff, but had never held a gun or used any of the weapons until they first joined the military, the first army would win.  But all of these examples and analogies only work if you assume that the home-grown militias are the ONLY people teaching their children to use guns.  And if you assume that “the government” wants to “take over” your freedoms so aggressively that a bloody revolution is a reasonable or necessary reaction.  Neither is true.

 While such borderline-racist ‘your gun is your big black dick’ humor might be mildly amusing to some 12 year-olds, it’s embarrassingly pathetic to hear amongst grownups except in that it does make it easier to determine whose opinions on the issue can be ignored as irrelevant.

No shit, but small arms used by smart people have often resulted in helping those smart people attain heavy weapons, if necessary. Also, the pilot of a drone or bomber has to know where exactly to drop that bomb and our military was effectively blinded in Iraq when Iraqi insurgents simply quit using the internet, telephone, or radios to communicate. The U.S. may have mostly  withdrawn from Iraq, but it sure as hell didn’t “win” anything.

Also, find and watch an astounding movie called La Battaille du Rail to see how a few French railroad workers messed up the German Army real bad during WWII (which was key to making the Normandy invasion a success) and they rarely used any firearms at all. Sabotage never sleeps, and guerilla wars are won by deception more so than force. The actors in the movie were the actual saboteurs from the war, too since it was made in France in 1946.

Technology creates as many unique weaknesses as it does strengths (official propaganda asserting omniscience and unstoppable dominance notwithstanding). Don’t forget that there are mere teenagers still beating computer security administered by governments and mega-corps with multi-million dollar cybersecurity budgets (and often just for the hell of it, because it’s fun!). And with more and more critical infrastructure dependent upon computer networks I’d say the government’s strategic position is not as omnipotent as it wants everyone to believe.

How long do you think a general who gave orders to carpet-bomb suburban areas to ‘beat’ the revolutionary forces concealed in them would last before somebody, like a corporal guarding the headquarters building shot him? I don’t think he’d last through the briefing where he gave the order.