So the reason stated by them is if the government decided to actually confiscate guns that there would be a violent uprising. However the argument of the militia holding down the military, considering their argument points were mainly that "You have no idea just how armed we are and what type of weapons we have."
Its on this point that I attack most, I guess I could have put it into context. I do agree that small arms forces could easily beat a military because there is an aspect of strategy that holds a greater value over the weapons themselves (think Al-Queda which is using the leftover weapons from the USSR regime pulling out of the region being able to stand their ground against the US military for years)
I agree that there is way more to it then just shiny toys, as you point out, but then I would also argue that there is some competence in the US military, I cannot say for certain the extent but there is some.
Fighting for ideology, nation, protection of own house/ family - those are the reasons.
Some revenge, historical chance.
But dying for the confiscation of small arms not many people would found worth.
Let's imagine. Ok, we are the "gun people (GPstan)", and we want to - what?
Follow us, give your lives and your sons for GPstan and you will - have the right to own a gun?
How many followers could they gather?
In reality, those things have great inertia, thus there will probably be some process of making it more difficult to get the guns. Or there will be some option to give the gun voluntarily.