A few thoughts on the subject of "fighting" the federal government:
1-The most useful tool to fight federal over-reach is probably not firearms, but actually something beloved by liberals and hated by conservatives: The United Nations. The United States government has spent the last 40 years or more arguing quite forcefully on the world stage for self-determination.
If the Poles and Ukrainians don't want to be part of the USSR or Soviet Bloc, they have a right to control their own destinies as independent nations. If the Slovs and Chechs don't get along, they have a right to form two different nations. The Jews are entitled to a homeland under their own control. And so on and so forth.
If a bunch of red States no longer care to be micro-managed or have foreign values imposed by the liberal elites in the Bos-Wash corridor and LA/Hollyweird media centers, why are those States any less entitled to self-determination than various peoples of Europe, Asia, Africa, or the Middle East? How does the DC establishment argue for forced union in the face of decades of arguments and wars for self-determination?
2-If it ever does come to violence, I doubt a repeat of the War Between the States. The Vietnamese, Afghans, Taliban, and others have made clear that true guerrilla war is the way to go. Is the federal government really going to burn Georgia (again), Cheyenne, Houston or Dallas, Provo, or a hundred small towns scattered throughout rural America in order to fight a few hundred thousand guerilla fighters who strike and then hide?
3-I'm not at all convinced but what Obama and his ilk would be thrilled to see secession. There can be little doubt that we would be far weaker as two (or three or more) nations than we are as one. What more complete way to destroy our ability to be a major world power (militarily or economically) than to drive the nation to dis-union.
Look at the recent edict on transgender bathroom use. These rare kids have been using public toilets for decades. Incidence of violence against them or other problems seem to be rare. One way or another, the issue seems to be being handled. I expect it is handled differently in a rural conservative area than it might be in the heart of Hollywood. But why do we need a one-size-fits-all "solution"? There was no problem to solve. And it isn't like transgenders make up much of a voting bloc. I think maybe Obama is just looking to create discontent. And if so, to what end?
In like manner, I can assure you that there is no great crisis with western land management. The nation is NOT at any risk of losing irreplaceable vistas or archeological treasures. Ranchers, miners, drillers, and lumber men are not raping the land. Indeed, federal policies involving introduction of non-native wolf species, preventing management of feral horses (romantically referred to as "wild mustangs"), preventing management of forest killing beetles, and gross mismanagement of wild fire risks, along with federal agencies releasing toxins into rivers for which private interests would be bankrupted and jailed, pose far more risk to public lands than anything Western residents would do. So why the push to clamp down on multi-use? Maybe the eco-nuts have just reached the point to flex their muscles and get what they always wanted. Or maybe it is an effort to create discontent, to make certain segments of the population unhappy?
Similarly, why the push to eradicate Southern history and culture with the attacks on all things touching on the Confederacy or the War Between the States. Political Correctness run amok? Or deliberate efforts to incite certain segments toward secession, or violence?
Pushing us into a civil war would certainly damage our nation.
Secession would likely destroy our power on the world stage, even before enemies moved in to make sure we didn't get back together.
I don't much care for the Yankee, urban, atheistic, controlling, deviant, Caligula's bedroom morals, Bos-Wash-Hollyweird culture. It is obvious that those in that culture really dislike rural, God-fearing, sexually uptight conservatives. But if we could manage a little federalism such that they get their culture, and we get ours, and the libertarians in Nevada get theirs, we're a lot stronger together than we would be apart.