I’d argue historically is mostly a matter of enough discontent building up and the a flash point.

Unfortunately the vast majority of attempted revolutions fail, and when they do the result is often worse than if it hadn't been attempted in the first place, with retribution coming down on the revolutionaries and anyone associated with them. These failures are usually down to poir or non-existant planning, as after the excitement of the initial surge there is no coherent plan to maintain it.

Any attempt at an armed revolt in the USA would, I am certain, be crushed with excessive force, and would delight the administration as an excuse to crush any dissent even harder. Worst, a thurd of the population would probably stand up and applaud the crushing.

I think that the only revolution that could reasonably be expected to lead to positive changes in the USA would be a massive, countrywide, coordinated, strike. That's not going to happen without a lot of prior planning, building the support networks that would keep the strikers fed and housed for the duration, identifying the key industries and times to disrupt, working to win "hearts and minds" of those who maybe aren't feeling the problems now, or whose world view makes this sort of action hard to imagine and making sure that people and supplies will be where they're needed. Note that calling it a strike doesn't mean it will be any easier that an armed uprising, but whilst the US government can bring overwhelming force to bear, the scales are much more evenly balanced when it comes to withdrawing labour. There will certainly be hardship for all involved, but good organisation and solidarity can mitigate the worst of that.