National armies are not particularly effective forces against soft, mobile, targets on home territory
Absolute nonsense. In the entire history of the human species, there has not been one single case of an armed civilian uprising waging a successful civil war against the armed forces of its own government.
The German Peasants' War involved 300,000 peasants (and some mercenaries) against imperial forces numbering just 8,000. The peasants were utterly slaughtered; they lost ~100,000 people, and surrendered.
- hence why some of these middle east wars drag on despite the disparity in capabilities.
Wrong again. The wars in the Middle East drag on because they involve multiple combatants from different countries, with different aims, sponsored by more powerful nations for their own ends. These combatants are not civilians; they are either trained and well armed militia, or well trained and well armed government forces.
Completely different scenario.
In the event of a national uprising where manufacturing capabilities would be impacted and likely patchy control of the ground concentrated strategically cutting off some supplies you'd quickly run out of missiles, etc. if you were drone striking individual houses without great returns.
Not a chance. The US war machine has total field dominance, and enough manpower and supplies to utterly devastate a civilian uprising within days.
How is a widespread, broad reaching, knee jerk implementation of policy that will have a big effect on 1000s of legal gun owners not extreme?
What exactly is extreme about it? They're banning some semi-automatic weapons (but not all of them). Did you think it was 'extreme' when car seat belts became law?