Foolish opinion of armed citizens

Many anti gun people claim that there is no way that an armed citizen could resist the modern US military, armed with fighter jets, machine guns, and armored vehicles. Of course, they are right. It would be foolish for a solitary gun owner to "take on a platoon of Marines." However, to think that this is how it would go down is to be ignorant of history.

In 1776, the British Army was large, well equipped, and had not been beaten on the field of battle in generations. The Colonists were a guerrilla force of lightly armed farmers and shop keepers. How, then did this group of shopkeepers win a war when they were so outmatched?

They changed the rules. At the time, the rules of war were such that shooting officers was deliberately avoided when firing weapons. The theory of the say was that the men were savages, and the officers were gentlemanly enough to prevent a greater slaughter by keeping the men under control. The targeting of officers was just not done. The colonist militia men hid from incoming fire, and deliberately targeted the officers.

On top of that, Washington raised a navy of privateers (legalized pirates) that raided incoming British supplies.

Thus, by attacking the British where they were weak, and avoiding them where they were strong, they managed to hand the British army and navy a stunning defeat, and win their independence in the process.

This is the question that any citizen militia that is trying to win freedom against a larger, better equipped force must answer: Where is the enemy the weakest, and where are our strengths?

The citizen militia's strength lies in the fact  that the government cannot possibly know who they all are, and will have problems rounding them up. The government in this case will attempt to identify and cull the ringleaders. The militia would be foolish indeed to muster on the battlefield and open themselves up to attack by the larger, well equipped force.

Instead, the wise militia commander will attack weak points: Leaders, the factory workers where equipment is made, electric distribution that powers factories, the political masters, and other soft targets. This accomplishes a few objectives:
- It causes the larger force to devote a portion of their own military forces to security operations, and cuts the size of operational forces.
- Attrition of supplies. If the factory that makes the oil filter that your armored vehicles' engines require is burned down, the tanks become stationary pill boxes.
- Demoralizes the leadership. If you are a despotic ruler, and you and your cabinet are facing possible attacks, you tend to be a bit more circumspect when moving forces around.

History is full of examples of one motivated individual changing the course of a nation, armed only with a personal weapon. To think that technology makes this impossible is to be foolishly arrogant.