I don't understand why the pro-gun community doesn't take a stronger stance against mass surveillance, "swamping" a group of law enforcement requires communication that can't be deciphered, and the general public has little interest in that. History tells us that communication wins wars (think cracking the enigma machine), but we're losing the ability to communicate privately at an alarming rate. How do you plan to "swarm" when the safest method of communication is the carrier pigeon?
What "harder stance" would you suggest we take??? We don't exactly view mass surveillance with approval (note how that first vote in the House didn't break along any obvious lines), and I'll attest that, when not legally required, many companies in the guns and ammo business are dreadfully bad at keeping long term records....
The "swamping" concept I was referring to was something of a thought experiment, e.g. imagine an out of science fiction effective speech broadcast to enough people that it doesn't matter that the police know "the people" are coming right now.
As for your general point, people who think about this sort of thing often focus on the old techniques like cells, one time pads, etc., subverting those listening in, etc. etc. Plus I'd add, just how effective do you really think governments are, especially against "non-crazy" people. That's the real danger I see, that "middle class" or thereabouts people like me get upset enough to take up arms, instead of the usual suspects like the Weather Underground. Note our "revolutionary" Founding Fathers, especially apropos this day after the anniversary of Declaration of Independence.
And there's a relatively new "leaderless resistance" concept where individuals not in close communications nonetheless take effective action. Again, see how "effective" for some value of effective Christoper Dorner, working alone, was. One man, or a small group, can be dreadfully effective nowadays.
Per Wikipedia, this concept only goes back to the early '60s, which matches my general reading on this sort of thing in the '70s as I struggled to understand what had just happened in the Vietnam War (I came of political age just as it was ending): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaderless_resistance#History
The early revolution certainly saw the emergence of guerilla warfare if not earlier instances providing that same starting-point. War was a formal issue for many clashes throughout the ages: generally an amassing of resources, a relative comparison and victory to the amasser of "more" with some casualties paid as an afterthought. But guerilla warfare presuposes that a more numerous and detested occupier cannot win because they are faced with a choice of extinguishing their enemies (the domestic population conquered) or being driven from those same holdings.
