Yes and no. Only about 40% of the population actually rebelled. The rest sided with the crown, or just did not get involved. But if you follow revolutions around lately, 40% is a big chunk of change for any revolution. And there was no "ruling" class. There was already a system of local governance (the longest continuing elected body on this continent is the Virginia General Assembly - then called the House of Burgesses).
You still had an instaured governement, didn't you? When the 13 Colonies decided to vote on the Declaration of Independance, it wasn't just a few people who, for no other reason that that, decided to show up.
The Colonies still had an established administration for local affairs that deferred many powers to the Crown, since that's how things were. But you still had a state member of the British Empire, and you had everything in place to rule yourselves afterward.
Now, think for a minute if the people of Virginia happened to rebel against their own governement. They have to throw down their governor/legislative branch, since they are the ones who WERE the governement. You'd end up with a Stateless state. (darn it.. can we call the "states" of the U.S. "provinces" to make an easier distinction?). You'd end up with a stateless province. You could try to form up something to replace it, but it still would be an improvised governement, where the Founding Fathers actually had solid grounds upon which create the USA.
In short, you had a local authority that obeyed the British Crown. And it was that authority that voted Independance. Was there a general referendum at the time? Was it the people, or their representatives that voted to rebel against the Britishes?
It was against an oppressive government. Just because the seat of power was not local does not make it foreign. Try invading Hawaii and see if you dont get the "Sovereign" government to slam you.
If Hawaii decided to rebel to separate from the USA, they wouldn't try to throw down their own state, but to separate from what they would consider an oppressive overlord : the USA. If Hawaii was an independant state, and their people actually threw down the local authorities, you'd have what I call a "Revolution". In the first case, they'd take up arms against the USA's governement, while in the second, they'd take up arms against their OWN governement.
there is a clear dichotomy you have to make: If it's one ethic, religion minority, etc... that tries to separate from an grander/bigger entity (Quebec, the USA, Kosovo, Basques, Scotland, Vietnam, etc...), it's a separatist movement. If you have one country that wants to throw down their own state to replace a new one (France, Russia, China, Cuba, Iran) you'd have what I call a "revolution" of peoples against their state. I don't think any of those ended up well for their own people in the long run (France got the luckiest, but only because they were lucky ennough to have Napoleon and his Code).
The American Civil War was the actions of a separatist movement of the Southern States. You couldn't really call it a "civil war", since they had officially decided to not be part of the USA anymore. There is the general illusion that the USA always were united (that is why it is called a civil war, after all), but History is written by the victors, eh? And the Northen States fought so that nobody could leave the USA (Lincoln's view of the Constitution), but you effectively had States fighting States. And with some exception, you did not had internal conflicts within a same state (maybe Virginia, my knowledge of the specifics is somewhat blur)
Usually, what you people are talking about when speaking of the 2nd Amendment, it's either throwing down your own governement (Federal or State) or separate from the USA (since it maybe would be 15 states out of 50 that would feel persecuted and oppressed). In the second case, you'd maybe need militias to support the National Guard, but you wouldn't need to fear the local governement to steal your guns from your dead cold hands.
On the second case (an actual revolution) you'd effectively be afraid of that. But outside fighting a guerilla warfare against the U.S. Army and the National Guards (which have more combat experience fighting guerilla against much tougher opponents than anything small-time zealot militias or part-time gun nuts could ever muster), you couldn't do much to be able to beat them. You'd need fighter planes, anti-armor weaponry and tactical nukes to even try to make a dent. Now, do you *really* want the average people/criminal to have access to those kind of weaponry?
It's just un-realistic, and it's an empty argument that is nicely rooted into your mindset - since it's so freaking patriotic to refer to the American Revolution and the Constitution -. You cannot fight the state with rifles alone, and you shouldn't fear for your gun rights if your state wants to separate from the Federal Governement. and in both case, you'd end up with a wreaked country.