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.
During the Revolution, the population was divided into 3 roughly equal camps: revolutionaries, Loyalists and "I don't cares." Of the 1/3 of the revolutionaries, about 1/3 of that population (roughly 10% of the total) actually gave aid and comfort of any kind to the fighters. The fighters themselves numbered about 3% of the total population. This is what defeated the British Empire.
You saw how a couple of mental-case, careless boobs shut down the DC metropolitan area for over a week a few years back: what would several hundred thousand people armed with better weapons, using better tactics (much courtesy of Uncle's training), bringing the fight to their enemies' front doors and with a strong desire NOT to get caught do to this nation. What does the fed.gov do when truckers are threatened and food, gas, etc. doesn't get transported to the big cities?