I don't necessarily agree with that. Maybe it's just me; I don't see a lot of value in assaulting individual officers or slashing tires, really.
If it becomes necessary to revolt, one might as well do it in the most revolting way possible. As Machiavelli said; "never do an enemy a minor injury."
I just wonder how many potential "revolutionaries" think this way.
I fear there are too many couch potatos out here.... or there ..... 
I agree.
At least amongst the Libertarian/Right/gun-culture (I'll call it the LRGC) there's a "you first" dynamic that holds most people back. Not the moral compunction that .gov doing ABC, does not justify me doing XYZ in retaliation. I think a lot of us, .gov doing ABC
does justify doing XYZ in retaliation, we just don't want to lose our house, wife, kids, job over it. So should things get "bad enough" the outbreak of active resistance/violence would be sudden, and unexpected from some points of view.
So unlike other countries, you probably won't see a "ramping up" that's a harbinger of things to come. For many of us, it's "in for a penny, in for a pound."
Also due to the highly individualistic nature of the LRGC, it takes a LOT to get us to agitate publicly. It wasn't until the 2008 elections, and an administration and Congress that hasn't been that leftist since at least Carte or FDR to get people out on the streets in some sort of organized protest activity. This dynamic makes me think that the LRGC does not have much of a throttle. Either we're working within the system and voting... or we're shooting.
Maybe this is all very Walter Mitty of me to think so... however doing some VERY conservative math you get some startling numbers.
- Assume 50 Million gun-owning households in the U.S. (low/conservative on purpose)
- Assume 1% of them poses both the ideology, and the guts, and as such would be willing to "do something" in the event of some sufficient level of provocation from a Leftist/Collectivist/Statist us.gov. Even if it's just logistical/financial/or moral support.
That's 500,000 individuals. (very low/conservative on purpose)
- Now just throw out there a guess that 1% of that 1% is willing to "do something" actively.
That's 5000 "shooters". That may not seem like a lot, but consider that through most of "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland and the U.K. there were only perhaps a dozen or less "triggermen" and/or bombers at any given time who were active. The rest were logistical support. And keep in mind what a huge impact just one or two random shooters have had on an entire urban area here in the U.S. (i.e. the Beltway "Snipers") Now imagine that instead of random psychos, it's people who have the support of a large fraction of the populace, have detailed plans, and are only actively targeting what they see as the "powers that be" with whom they've got a bone to pick.
That's one helluva mess.
But nobody is going to do this en-masse, at least not over pot. Fair or not, the medical legalization angle just looks like a "camel's nose in the tent" front for the outright legalization crowd to the majority of the American populace.
It would take some very clear-cut provocations well above and beyond fringe issues like Medical MJ to get the ball rolling.
