Obviously people under these circumstances need to be making their own very adult decisions about what to do, I am only presenting the options as I see them.

From what I can tell, there were no lone wolf retaliatory actions when the Hutaree got rolled up, but then that was a pretty carefully orchestrated operation where none were killed either.

The tipping point from what I have seen has been when innocent bystanders are killed by government operatives, whether it has been overseas or here. The Boston Massacre as seen by the early patriots, the Kent State killings as seen by 1970s militants, some of the larger scale incidents in Northern Ireland were played one of two ways:

If the Irish won some skirmish, then it was a victory that emboldened their existing force and supporters, however the British later on deftly played the victim role in a few incidents where the attacks of the Irish were deemed to be "cowardly", like some Irish calling themselves commandos over killing some low level unarmed patrol officer in England.

If the British won some incident tactically, then it was a "dastardly ambush", and if there were innocents caught in the crossfire, blame went to whoever initiated the gunbattle (as is in established US law also). Generally speaking, the "we need to right the wrong" line was played by Irish recruiters and fundraisers after the incident.

When word leaked of Abu Graib, it emboldened a lot of the Iraq resistance, again, their idea of "righting the wrongs" and somehow forgetting that a lot of those people being given a taste of hell there were former guards, lackeys of the Saddam regime and criminals who were taking advantage of the WROL situation in Iraq to commit heinous personal crimes. Sloppiness in handling apparently had mixed some fairly innocent Iraqis into the piles (literally) of the guilty.

I am not going to begrudge someone surrendering or making a grand last stand, but pointing that there are some legitimate ways to see it more than one way. Among military/political minded people respect goes to those who maintain a cool head and get information out, among warrior minded people, respect goes to those who go out in a blaze of glory with a suitable escort to Valhalla announcing whatever needs to be announced.

In a more serious situation, I think to the opening scenes of the Homefront game (a mandatory simulation experience for board members here). There is a mass arrest and execution being carried out by the occupying Asian forces against the population of Montrose Colorado. The resistance, with limited resources and limited support carries out a prisoner rescue operation on the main player character, then when the resistance gains some steam, they do a couple of larger breakouts, but at not point are they actually "liberating" the entire area. Check out the game and some of the articles and youtube channels on what was researched to bring it about.

Now back to the indefinite detention centers. I am thinking that one demographic right now that has been fairly regularly picked up and held in indefinite detention with little or no objection from most of the patriot movement are the illegal aliens. Hate to see the karma coming to a lot of people from not having stood up for the rights of undocumented immigrants.

So on one hand, there is the issue of limited resources that keeps any resistance movement from fighting on behalf of everybody all of the time, and then there is the patriotic thing of taking "with liberty and justice for all" very seriously, seriously enough to do some killing and dying for. Somewhere in the middle of that, or perhaps on some extreme end, individuals will be needing to decide where to stand on that.