I hear and appreciate your distinction. In our militarized age of cruise missiles, Bradley tanks B2 bombers and F series fighter jets what kind of resitance are you going to offer at your doorstep with an automatic weapon? By the time you get to use it the war is over.
Arrrrrggh! Off to the brig with you! 73 lashes with a piece of linguine! Off with his head! (lol!)
Sorry, dude. I'm a former Bradley driver, JAFO and gunner, and I cringe everytime I hear someone call it a tank. It's either an Infantry Fighting Vehicle (M2A2), or a Cavalry Fighting Vehicle (M3A2). It's basically a battle taxi with a buttload of weapons, whereas a tank has no provisions for carrying troops, and is a very fast, heavily armored life support system for a great, big, 120mm smooth-bore cannon.
Scouts 0ut! Cavalry Ho!
Again, I'd like to answer the rest of your question, but this is not the time or place. It wouldn't contribute to the issue at hand, and would only serve to stoke the fires of those who think I and others of like mind are "one issue, knee jerk, wacko, gun nuts". If your scenario were to come to pass, it wouldn't be as hopeless as it may seem, though.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
About as much as a cheapo single shot smoothbore .45 pistol would be able to against an army of tanks, fighter planes, trained infantry, etc.
Of course, there could be a number of Germans that might argue about this if they hadn't been killed by a Liberator pistol ... and had their very high quality Mauser rifles, grenades, anti tank weapons, etc. 'liberated'.
There is no useless weapon in warfare as long as there are people willing to figure out how to use it effectively. It's the will that counts, the weapons only determine the overall body count on each side and how long it takes one to win.
All of those assets require crews and materiel (fuel, oil, spare parts, etc...) to operate them. Without supply lines to deliver those materials, those assets will be totally use to any tyrant.
Not to mention the fact that many of the operators of those assets will throw down on the side of the Bill of Rights.
Well, if the military could isolate the rebellious people and put them all in one city with no supporters or other innocent non-partisans then you are right they could wipe them out.
The problem for the government is that they cannot possibly use any of their bombs, missiles, artillery, tanks and other heavy weapons because rebels would be thoroughlyl mixed in with their supporters in the population and they would have absolutely no way to know who would shoot them in the back as they walked past a given house.
In Iraq, all of the people hated Saddam and so our troop got lots of help from the locals.
In Vietnam, many people hated the US forces and as a result they never, ever knew when the enemy was standing right next to them ready to kill them.
That is the difference. That is why all of the bombs, missiles, artillery and tanks of the US military would be useless if a large uprising of armed citizens were to occur.
Have I explained that adequately?