Also:

4. Some portion of the military would join the civilians, and bring their military toys along for the fight.

I believe that your #4 is the same as staunch's #2.

My fault. I edited my comment before seeing his.

There have been revolutions that involved zero guns. The most vital part was people, not guns. My Glock still cannot offer the protection from "those in power" that many seem to think. 12 unarmed people could easily take my house over even if I was armed with my Glock.

Anyway, I think a revolution is a separate topic, but I could be wrong. There are many steps between government overreach & the people starting a revolution.

Edit: The quote by Patton comes to mind: "Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of the men who follow and of the man who leads that gains the victory."

Each of those groups was armed by another power at some point during the conflict.

That's not accurate, but even if it was, you now have to argue why this time would be different.

The point is that personal gun ownership is irrelevant, if the government has the backing of the military, either you get some heavy weaponry from foreign powers or you're screwed.

Personal gun ownership has been enough to get you to the point where you're still alive to get some heavy weaponry from foreign powers.

Or you get heavy weaponry from sympathizers in the military - in the United States there would be many, were they ordered to fire on their own people.

I don't understand why opponents of the 2nd Amendment never consider this a possibility, when in fact the military not splintering under those conditions is the fantasy.

Why do you need the 2nd Amendment to get weapons smuggled by soldiers, though?

Correct, you don't.

I was just pointing out that opponents of the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment being a counterweight to an oppressive government almost always say, "you can't fight the army with rifles!"

That argument is coming up a lot in this thread.