Almost. Its easily possible to get guns today, sure. Guns arent the issue really, they are just tools and they were meant to make my example a bit more realistic (I doubt unarmed people are gonna make much of an impression when they try to shake down the community). However, when there is a strong central government, and when I say strong, I dont mean its present everywhere with high tech surveillance, but strong in the sense it enjoys the support of the vast majority of people, the chances become much smaller that someone wants to start a rebellion, let alone that such a rebellion will be popular. Second, a strong government is legitimized by the people to use what is necessary to stop an armed insurgency within its territory. A strong government is indeed, capable of maintaining general order all around the country.
Government or Military? Atleast be direct! dont beat around the Bush! 
Yes, I doubt many people are willing to take up arms against the government within either the US or Europe. Not to say there arent any people who would actually want to take up arms, but they are a insignificant minority.
Its been said before that it never really matters whether there are laws or not. Rotten apples will grow on any tree. Spray the tree with enough pesticides and all you will have is sour apples.. not rotten but sour.
Man in general? No, most people probably wont. Still, it takes only a few thugs to terrorize a whole neighborhood, even in a society that has laws. Do you really think that group of thugs will decrease when laws disappear, poverty increases, and defenses weaken? I believe almost every human being will always choose himself over unknown others, and I believe he will also seek the easiest way to look after himself. Right now, crime is for many simply not worth the risk of getting caught, send to jail or whatever.
Or is it? There is no death penalty and prison life isnt as bad as they make it out to be.. its still a community ruled by a governing body it just has visible bars instead of invisible lines... no? Because criminals know there will be no retaliation from the victims family.. or friends(anti-vigilantism) the worst that will happen is goto prison.
There is a difference between following the government mindlessly because it is the government and following the government because you understand why it exist and because you agree with its reason to exist.
There is a difference between understanding and agreeing. Exousia. Government exist to govern the general populace which originally was intended for the grownups, the powerfull and the royal to maintain equal control over their flock. While this works for everyone willing to abide by there are those that voluntarily choose to live outside it(See for instance Motorclub charters and their reach for anarchism)
I never said that it was impossible now did I? It is however, far less likely. Having a working government makes it far more difficult to succeed in such an endeavor, while when the country is fractured in small self governing communities who are fractured politically and have almost no means of putting up an effective defense. Well, they would be swept away by a well organized force.
This all depends on the amount of freedom you give your subjects. If you give them alot of freedom the risk of a coup will be higher because there is less observation(logically) .If you give them no freedom and handcuff them... the risk should be lower... but its not because they will simply find better ways to conceal it.
(for reference into counter-intel origins I suggest WW1 and 2 in regards to radio transmissions It backs upmy point but in a very elaborate and roundabout way )
Well, the point was more that a force that aligned itself purely on a voluntary base with the current system can just as easily change their allegiance. There is nothing that stops them from doing it. After all, its voluntarily. If in a government system, a police districts goes rogue, someone somewhere will notice, and he will be able to intervene and stop it. No such fail safes in the Anarchism system.
I dont see how that is any different now.. People switch sides all the time.. or do you think that governments lead solely to patriotism.. because there are just as many non-patriots as patriots. And in regards to who will notice.. its subjective to the situation and therefore hard to judgeon individual basis without true example.(logical fallacy:
argumentum ad ignorantiam)
The point is, some people tend to say that the government is nothing more then an accepted protection racket. The government offers to protect but to do so, it wants taxes. These people are right. The government is nothing more then a legitimized protection racket. However, this protection racket has the monopoly on protection rackets within the country (at least, if its an effective government) and it can ensure that no other protection rackets come along and demand more money from the people. Take out the super big, almost invincible monopoly on protection rackets, and you open the market for a whole lot more. Results could lead from full blown extortion where people have to pay in multiple protection rackets or violence when two rackets clash with each other over territory.
Nothingto add here.. but you didnt really attack anything and you're not wrong
At least it was much nicer. Go on like this and we can be best of friends, and discussions would either be more fruitful for both of us, or at least we dont hate each other at the end of the day for not agreeing with each other.
