The 1993 Battle of Mogadishu isn't the best example, as you alluded to. I'm trying to think of some other representative military actions. The 1944 Warsaw Uprising can be argued to be both evidence in favor of and against your point. It also featured an urban battle between well-trained military forces and civilians with limited supplies, and it's a bit better of an example because it features a much larger military force with the express goal of pacifying the city. The civilian resistance does eventually end up defeated, but only after the Germans essentially destroyed the city and acted without any regard for civilian casualties. You could argue that the Warsaw Uprising shows how much damage a civilian population with limited weapons could inflict. But I would point out that it shows what happens when the nation state doesn't care about collateral damage and needs to crush a resistance (which is why examples featuring the US as the nation state like the Battle of Mogadishu aren't the best).

The surveillance, tracking, and data processing abilities of well funded nation states today make either of those comparisons to what would happen in a future conflict between the US government and its own citizenry grossly inadequate.

In addition, the US military has been training for and getting real-world practice in small-scale urban conflict against guerrilla groups for decades now.

Gun hoarders with fantasies of effectively fighting against such a well-trained, well armed, incredibly technologically sophisticated adversary are deluding themselves.

That wasn't planned as a battle force and it certainly wasn't the "full force of the US military". And what was so shitty about their AKs?