The only thing that made me choose the "I would probably not" answer is the armed thing. I think armed rebellions are a tricky proposition. They just as often exchange one tyrant for another and in the end you're basically fighting decent people who just happen to work for a totalitarian regime, and may or may not even believe in it.
I would probably be more of a non-violent rebel. Do anti-government propaganda, help out persecuted people, try to spread to the public any news that were censored from mainstream media. Changing people's views of the government is the best way to rebel. If the people of the country grow more and more dissatisfied with the government then they actually become the majority, and the dictatorship becomes the rebellion.
The main problem with dictatorships is that they usually find plenty of people to support it, while quenching all opposite opinions through fear and censorship. An armed rebellion will fail if it doesn't have the support of the majority.
I would probably be more of a non-violent rebel. Do anti-government propaganda, help out persecuted people, try to spread to the public any news that were censored from mainstream media. Changing people's views of the government is the best way to rebel. If the people of the country grow more and more dissatisfied with the government then they actually become the majority, and the dictatorship becomes the rebellion.
The main problem with dictatorships is that they usually find plenty of people to support it, while quenching all opposite opinions through fear and censorship. An armed rebellion will fail if it doesn't have the support of the majority.