You shouldn't accept this line of thinking. Especially in the context of the US.
First, revolutions live or die mostly on the allegiance of the military. To whom are the military loyal to? During much of history the militaries were often loyal to their liege lords, their generals, or their sovereigns. A successful revolution occurs often when a military, or a significant portion of the military no longer support the current regime.
The US Military swears their oath and allegiance to the Constitution. This is the oath for US Armed Forces:
I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (So help me God).""
Not the generals. Not the president. Not congress. Not the supreme court. Not the country. But the constitution.
Second, we've not yet seen such a violent resistance from a country where a massive size of it's people are armed with weapons. We cannot really make a comparison to what such a scenario would like like in the US compared to somewhere else in the world. What we can do is make assessments on what we've encountered so far.
Would such a war be like the Civil War where some states secede – allowing for a creation of their own militaries and pitting one military against another? Would it be city-to-city skirmishes like we're seeing today when the military is called in to quell riots?
Three, military technology as it is currently in developed would not be widely used against US cities due to risk of major civilian losses. Most combat would turn into urban warfare, one of the most difficult means of combat. Urban Warfare negates certain technological advantages: air support, and artillery. If one is to look at the Battle of Grozny, in 1994, as an example, a small troupe of ambushers armed with anti-tank weapons decimated an entire column of tanks. Air support becomes virtually impossible to conduct if the attacking-side wants to reduce civilian casualties. Now, looking at the Battle of Grozny, even though the Russians won against the technologically, inferior Chechens, it resulted in massive casualties for the Russians – and complete obliteration of army morale. In the end, the Chechens were able to retake the city and end the war. This is a decent example of what a very modern military engagement with an inferior force can accomplish.
To be fair, though, the only modern military that I can think of that has seriously developed tactics and strategy in Urban warfare may be the IDF. But even those tactics largely are designed for a specific kind of enemy – with fore-knowledge of what kind of armaments are deployed against them.
And Morale is a huge element that I think most people do not put into US context. Imagine ordering some soldiers from Los Angeles to start shelling the city. Would they wonder if their brothers, sisters, mother or father, or friends would become casualties in the list? Our families in the US are often spread across states – our military is composed of recruits from almost every state, almost every city. They aren't divided on ethnic lines, religious lines, they don't hold allegiances to arbitrary things like nationality, unlike the Chechens fighting the Russians (Both, of whom were, only a decade before, under the same Soviet banner). I think a prolonged conflict where civilian casualties start mounting would take massive toll on the morale of the military.
Keep in mind, most of what I wrote is conjecture. We don't really have much to go off on, as the US is a very unique situation. But I will say with certainty that the idea that US military might and technological advantage in armaments is not really a good advantage that it can use against it's own. The idea that the US military can easily obliterate a massive uprising against the state in the US is highly improbable. If such a scenario does occur, and the US military does win (for the "state" whatever that means) , it would be one hell of a bloody, prolonged, destructive affair that would leave the country scarred for centuries.
Featured
