>Even if the lack of anti-military hardware makes the second amendment almost pointless.
The British military thought the same about a bunch of hicks with a few rifles living on the east coast of America. America's military thought the same thing about a bunch of tribal shepherds in Afghanistan. The point is, you don't need to match a military on hardware to defeat them.
Read some history. I would suggest starting with US civil war which notably failed.
The 'US' revolution was losing the war prior to significant aid from France. And this was vs. an oversea enemy using 1700's era weapons and armaments. Vietnam involved some direct military engagements vs. jets and other modern weaponry.
There are a few successful uprising in modern history, and lots of crushed attempts vs. far worse military's than the modern US war machine.
Depends on what you mean by equivalent. Honestly, if the south had the technology and manufacturing advantage it probably would have won as the overall military's started out fairly equivalent.
The most famous of these guns, the Spencer carbine, could fire seven shots in 30 seconds.
Like many other Civil War technologies, these weapons were available to Northern troops but not Southern ones: Southern factories had neither the equipment nor the know-how to produce them.
The British military thought the same about a bunch of hicks with a few rifles living on the east coast of America. America's military thought the same thing about a bunch of tribal shepherds in Afghanistan. The point is, you don't need to match a military on hardware to defeat them.