A few thoughts on all this.
First, we are still quite a ways away from any large-scale rebellion. Get the Dems back into the White House, have a serious recession on top of that, things get a little more likely.
Second, everyone here is talking about people taking to the streets and hills with their guns. Folks, you can do possibly even more damage through cyberwarfare. There are one hell of a lot of smart people out there. Am sure some are KFers. And not all the smart people who can carry out cyberattacks work for the government.
Third, in my opinion, you'd save any attacks on Federal people for later. Take a look around you, walking and especially driving. The USA is chock-full of soft targets. Want to get a lot of people pissed off at the powers that be? Start shooting up electricity distribution stations, for example. This has already happened.
en.wikipedia.org
I have passed by that station many times. Still would be fairly easy to hit. And keep in mind that some of this equipment has to be custom-made. The electric company just can't always roll a replacement out of the warehouse.
In the case of this attack, you had one group of people attacking one station. It is entirely possible that a larger group could carry out coordinated attacks on a number of stations, overwhelming the electric grid's ability to make up for the lost power.
Am sure Sun Tzu or someone else smart has said something like, "Yo, dudes. Only dumbshits attack where the defenses are strongest. You take your time, scout around, make a plan, and hit where defenses are the weakest. Then you get the hell out, bide your time, and plan the next action." Asymmetrical warfare.
When you look at Vietnam, Iraq, Cuba, Afghanistan and certain other insurgencies, what did the insurgents always keep in the back of their minds? Something like, "All we have to do is not lose, and eventually the occupiers will get tired and leave., or we can then beat them." Sure did happen in Vietnam. Happened in Cuba. Has happened in Afghanistan. The only insurgency I know of where the insurgents got clobbered was the Malayan Emergency. The Brits fought at the small-level and got the people on their side. Would venture to say if the Rhodesians hadn't been so hamstrung by sanctions they may well have defeated their insurgencies. Same thing would happen here. Don't need to win right off. Not going to win right off, anyway. In the USA, you just not lose and keep wearing the bad guys out until they either quit or are voted out of office. You don't think of or carry out insurgencies in terms of weeks or months. You're talking years.
Face it, the grand gestures will just get you killed and accomplish little or nothing. It's the systematic, coordinated actions over time that tend to get results.
