Naturally, that's your own skeptical estimate, but let's say that it's so. At the low end, that's 6 Million furious patriots who are willing to give all to restore their country to a constitutional republic.
That's a bigger army than the federal gov't has, and it's spread throughout the land. Even if our entire military were willing to take up arms against their own people, they wouldn't stand a chance.
It's taken eight long years of brutal fighting in Iraq, just to quell an "insurgency" of some thousands. And you think there's any chance that 6 Million angry Americans can be stopped through force of arms?
My God, man. The gun owning American public is the biggest military force on the planet.
There will also be a need for leadership prior to a conflict that can instill discipline and confidence in a ragtag army. You have to be able to feed, clothe, train, and provide medical attention for groups of every size. There has to be communications networks, intel, and transportation. Unless this is being done very quietly, and has already started, initial casualties are going to be very high.
Why should we make the mistake of fighting the current revolution with the tools & tactics of prior conflicts? The biggest crime is not that it's illegal to advocate treason & sedition, but because it's ineffective.
If you really want to win this thing, there's 3 things we need to do:
1. The first thing you need to recognize that, yes indeed, we are in a revolution;
2. Secondly, if that's the case, then we need to assess what our enemy's greatest strengths are;
3. Lastly, we need to (a) identify how to weaken those advantages, and then (b) execute a coordinated effort to disable them.
The central government's two greatest strengths are its ability to fund its operations via taxation and credit finance. I reject calls by tax rebels who foolishly advocate breaking the law (which once again merely plays to the government's advantages ie state power and force of law).
So that leaves us with credit markets; that is Treasuries. The ability of .gov to issue debt is based on the perception that it will be repaid. The foundation of that expectation is that future tax receipts will be sufficient to pay accrued interest costs.
OK, so let's get to the crux of the issue: we are funding the very agents of our oppression. But if we were to act in a collaborative fashion to slow the economy down via an incredibly simple yet profoundly effective tactic of "save more, spend less", we would act towards starving the beast by cratering its tax receipts.
Once you do that, .gov has only one recourse - the credit markets. But as the margin expands between the money it has from tax revenues and the money it needs to lend to cover the operating deficits, that cost becomes so expensive that at some point it breaks.
That's where we have them, because then they are either forced to make real budget cutbacks, or they hand off to the Fed to print money. That creates inflation, and does the same job of killing the welfare state since spending cannot possibly keep up with ever escalating prices of goods. (Think of a dog chasing its tail.)
We have a perfectly legal, moral AND effective way of winning this thing. The productive minority, at the end of the day, holds the purse strings. If you continue to donate to Hussein via living a life style based on credit expansion and consumption, don't blame anyone else when .gov has enough money to pull off both health care and energy (cap & trade).
You will only have done it to yourself. So start today vowing to "save more, spend less". Future Americans will thank you for preserving their freedoms and country.