You presume that every person with a verboten firearm (or 10) will sit still and wait for the cops, etc. to come to their home with overwhelming force. One who does that will, assuredly, lose. But fighting an enemy's strength, and at the time and place of his choosing, is not what any smart tactician or strategist will do. Did you ever consider that some people will, when a certain line in their own mind is crossed, decide to go hunting? You see, they don't believe that the bullets should all be going in one direction, and many of them have been trained by Uncle. Nope, they'll hunt down those who give orders, those who passed laws, those who expended great amounts of ink or wattage to support the lawmakers and the order-givers.
That's not a threat by me, nor is it advise or encouragement to anyone to illegally use force against anyone or any property, most especially government employees or government property. No sir. But it is an observation. The relatively few who call the shots (no pun intended) can count - and that is precisely the reason why the 2nd has never really had to be pressed into service. It would be quite tragic if the general societal aversion to simple mathematics has reached the highest levels of our government.
Oh, one thing about tanks (and other modern equipment). There's an apochryphal (spelling??) story about Marshall Tito from his pre-Marshall days as a partisan leader in WW2 Yugoslavia. He was once asked "how can your partisans, with their old rifles, possible tank on the Germans, with their new tanks?" Tito responded, "When the Germans get out of their new tanks to take a piss, my partisans will shoot them with their old rifles." Just a variation on not fighting an enemy at his strongest point.
Uh, TAKE on the Germans....
They know that it would be very difficult to take all those weapons in a number of disparate places by force.
They're first choice will be to use the law to disarm the law-abiding using an incremental 'divide and conquer' strategy – get the EBR's first, then the handguns, then....
The original post to which I responded did not refer to taking his weapons and assassinating officials with whom he disagreed. It referred, at least by implication, to waiting in his home for the government’s goons and then resisting them with equivalent or superior firepower.
My post was not intended as a treatise on the possibilities for guerrilla war in America, merely pointing out that if you try to hold a particular position (your home) against government attack you will lose.
See Ruby Ridge and Waco.
With extraordinarily rare exceptions, guerrilla warfare must always be hit and run. Stand and fight is a synonym for stand and die. Given the weaponry used at Waco, this is likely to include the family, the neighbors, etc.
The “cold, dead hands” proclamation might be brave, but anybody planning to hold his home against attack should recognize that is exactly what will happen. They will take his guns from his cold, dead hands.
BTW, the tactics you propose might work in an America where 80% to 90% of the people support the fighters. It will not work in the much more likely scenario where the freedom fighters are close to or even well under 50% in their support.