"Yep, the thing that's going to scare the United States government out of killing its citizens is them armed with arsenals of M-16's against their… F-22s, B-52s, carrier groups, and tanks."
Do not underestimate guerrilla warfare. There are many examples in history when a small, armed group managed to resist huge regular armies for years, decades or even achieve victory. See Afghanistan for example: two biggest military powers on the entire planet (USSR, NATO) failed there. Bombers and tanks won't be very useful against small, mobile groups of fighters, especially in urban environment, unless you are going to raze everything to the ground (like Chechnya or Aleppo).
-The reason a small guerilla may 'win' over a large power is simply (IMHO) because the success criteria are different.
The large power needs to eradicate the guerilla (preferably without too much collateral damage in the population the guerilla is hiding in, as that would -in addition to be plain wrong - increase recruitment to said guerilla.).
The guerilla simply needs to not be eradicated. As long as it exists in any meaningful sense, it will tie up vast resources for the adversary.
Or, phrased simply - the large power needs to win to win. The guerilla needs to not lose to win.
Do not underestimate guerrilla warfare. There are many examples in history when a small, armed group managed to resist huge regular armies for years, decades or even achieve victory. See Afghanistan for example: two biggest military powers on the entire planet (USSR, NATO) failed there. Bombers and tanks won't be very useful against small, mobile groups of fighters, especially in urban environment, unless you are going to raze everything to the ground (like Chechnya or Aleppo).