Pretty sure this is in direct response to the proposed legislation against any group firearms training. Such acts as a range day with friends could be labeled felonious militarism. Forgive me, the specific language escapes me, but it's something like that.

DTOM has always been a battle cry, hasn't it? While you're right in pointing out the imbalance of unarmed anti-gunners, what about the imbalance of less-armed pro-gunners? I do hope your opinion here is a tad overblown; I don't want to see a war over this. There wasn't war over the Bundy uprising, which I think was far more pressing, so I doubt anything will come of it. But recognize the weight of the old addage: the pen is mightier than the sword. In the case of legislation, the pen always carries the weight of violence. Legally protected violence against anyone that defies it. What recourse is there against that, when any minority group is overpowered by a vote of the majority? Sit-ins are a toss up, sometimes you get a civil rights act, sometimes you get shot, sometimes you get maced until you shut up and leave. An armed sit-in seems a much better idea with those odds.

There are ways, as you acknowledge, to balance the issue of firepower if needed. Plenty of legal loopholes and other means (laughably discounting the fact that legality should go straight out the window in such a circumstance). I don't think the government would have as much of an upper hand.

This is an interesting talk to have, and I think having it between level headed people is the way to avoid any negative outcomes. But there is a serious lack of level headed people to have it because guns are such a divisive topic.