You acknowledge that you do care about the odds, good. The alternative of handing over all dominion to an authoritarian state is indeed worse than the counter-revolutionary Pyrrhic bloodbath, but most importantly, you keep beating around the bush as to the aftermath. You concede that your views are too complicated to explain here, but do not provide so much as a hint nor a reference or citation for me to gauge them. Your link to the Pournelle chart though implies you're libertarian-leaning to an extent. I can't precisely tell with lack of details.

I don't know who "We" will be in the population after a Second American Civil War. I assume it will be more than the Three Percent. That you tritely rebut again with the apathy strikes me as unprincipled. What, you don't value property, civil liberties and voluntary market exchange now that you've survived and have to rebuild the Republic (assuming you want one and not Rothbard/Hoppe natural order)? Clearly you must set a framework after all is over.

"It's not my job to educate you" makes you sound just like a postmodernist, but I digress.

Alright, TWANLOC. That's a rather naive and almost vicious view, that everyone who is outside your bubble must be a subhuman. Most people are not statist expropriators, and actually are sympathetic to voluntary relations with a classical liberal outlook on things, but again may not break out of the present statist framework. The goal should be exchange of ideas, not slaughtering them like sheep. Such disregard of life, such infringement on self-ownership is ironically borne from the same progressivist authoritarian ideas that lead to molding men and preaching doctrines of original sin. The original sin here being... not agreeing with the Three Percent, I don't know.

"Repression by brute force is always a confession of the inability to make use of the better weapons of the intellect — better because they alone give promise of final success. This is the fundamental error from which Fascism suffers and which will ultimately cause its downfall. The victory of Fascism in a number of countries is only an episode in the long series of struggles over the problem of property. The next episode will be the victory of Communism. The ultimate outcome of the struggle, however, will not be decided by arms, but by ideas. It is ideas that group men into fighting factions, that press the weapons into their hands, and that determine against whom and for whom the weapons shall be used. It is they alone, and not arms, that, in the last analysis, turn the scales." -- Ludwig von Mises

It may well be that people derive similar conclusions but from different a priori frameworks (see: left-libertarians v. right-libertarians). These are not enemies. They are reconcilable.

Hmmm, do you know anybody in the US who's bought a rifle of military utility since 9/11?

Yes. I'm not some pinko hippie gun grabber that you seem to believe I am. You swiftly edited your post though, I'm sorry. Returning to your thesis, you never made it clear you even had one. It is true that Americans are arming themselves at growing rates, and also true that concerns over surveillance are lukewarm at best. What is the conclusion? Is surveillance not a pressing issue?

(I think "progressivist" is a better term for people who believe in molding the individual through state and corporate means.)

Ultimately, your words are all too vacuous, and so my responses are similarly vacuous with no real recourse. Your fondness of divide-and-conquer with a fierce militarist absolutism and subhumanization is also disconcerting.