Bottom line . . . it depends on the objectives of any citizen resistance force. In order to capture the political and resource infrastructure of any medium to large US city or military base a highly organized combined arms unit would be required, i.e. infantry, artillery, armor and air mobile forces working together. In order to hold any seized city, strategic ground or point of infrastructure such as a bridge or highway hub, a large, well provisioned occupation force would have to be assembled. The other thing to think about is modern airpower, which any citizen resistance force would lack, at least in the beginning—although any citizen "air force" would never equal the US government's. One must also take into consideration communication, which is a necessary tool of modern fighting forces—if one plans to organize and coordinate attacks. One of the first strategic actions of US government forces in any war against we the people would be cutting all possible lines of enemy (that's us) communication.
Furthermore, when considering mass citizen resistance in America, one must decide what one's ultimate goal is to be—the goal that ends any such war or at least forces a stalemate. Beyond that, the other big matter to think about is where does the REAL power lie in American government? You'd have to know this and figure out some means of effectively disrupting or ending it—if you ever planned to win the conflict.
Clearly, at least from the standpoint of a foreign power, United States power, real power, lies in its nuclear, biological and chemical weapons stockpile. Other nations do not attack us because they're well award of our conventional and nuclear military response capabilities. But where does true power lie within the United States when searching for it from a rebel or rebellion point of view? Would our own political and military leaders nuke us if our rebel army closed in on some kind of real victory against it? How does one grab hold of the reins of power if one doesn't even know what or where they are?
Fighting a guerilla war is one thing, however, seizing ground and holding it is another matter altogether. Imagine for a moment we've formed a guerilla resistance group and set for ourselves the objective of capturing Dallas, TX for whatever reason. We're a group of say, ten thousand freedom fighters on the march to Dallas. Now imagine that the government's response is to deploy the entire 1st Cavalry division to stop us, complete with full fighter/bomber/gunship air support. Let's even say that only half the men and women of the legendary 1st Cav division decided participate and the other half went AWOL. That's still tens of thousands of mechanized infantrymen, armor crews (tanks), self-propelled artillery—the whole shebang. Let's even say we reached Dallas first and captured the city. As soon as the US Army's 1st Cav division reached the city we're trying to occupy they would proceed to wipe us off the face of the planet with 24/7 combined arms missions and round the clock bombing runs. Finally, let's say that in order to win this one small victory against the government, we absolutely had to take and hold Dallas. There's no way we're holding a city that large with guerilla fighters, against regular US army combined arms forces who have spent the last two decades mastering urban combat.
A hit and run guerilla force is one thing—and could inflict a whole hell of a lot of damage, over time. Seizing and holding major cities and other strategic infrastructure is another thing entirely.