Anti-government violence, no. Rampant violation of the Volstead Act, yes.

Daniel Okrent, as does Jerome Skolnick, argues (and I tend to agree) that there were heavy social pressures that redirected anti-Volstead energy into bootlegging rather than violence. So, the churches that controlled rural America tended to be dry in theory, even though their congregants would probably be wet in practice. Because a lot of Prohibition's force wasn't really about alcohol consumption or even the negative social effects of drinking. Instead, it was a broad moralistic social movement by the kinds of people who opposed the country's transformation from a rural, white, Anglo-Saxon society, to the modern, industrial, and pluralistic society that we have today. Prohibition just became the focus point for all of that energy.

It's telling that the greatest opposition to Prohibition came from the big cities, where the effect of Prohibition was to effectively deregulate the alcohol industry.

Because getting booze wasn't hard during prohibition. If you wanted legal alcohol, you could order a grape juice brick at the store (leave it in a cool dry place for two weeks in water, and it's going to turn into wine!), get an alcohol prescription from a doctor, or find a church that was willing to order large quantities of "sacramental wine" for its congregation.