I'd expect a social campaign to go better than an armed revolt against the military (and as mentioned, if the military joined the people, an armed revolt would be unnecessary). Do you think citizens of the Russian Federation would serve themselves better with an armed revolt?
If they actually want full rights to free speech, etc? Maybe. The kicker with armed revolt is that you need enough of the populace engaged and outraged to reach critical mass for it to become an option. In the Russian Federation, for example, it's not really at that point. Its the minority that are being oppressed with the majority cheers them on. But of course, yay democracy right?
It has been challenged 1996, where the Supreme Court upheld it as constitutional 5-4. It should be challenged again yes, but then it should have been ruled unconstitutional the first time.
No argument there.
We both know this won't happen, I just find it disturbing how some people seem to think armed revolution is justified in such circumstances, even when I specify that in this hypothetical scenario, the government was simply following the democratic will of the people.
See my Russian Federation comment above. There are two large issues with the idea of the democratic will of the people somehow being this magical all knowing force.
First it assumes that the majority of people have the best interests of all in mind and are somehow, by the nature of their gestalt power, just.
Second it assumes that this is actually the will of the majority, and not the manufactured result of a corrupt system manipulated by extensive outside forces and determined only by the people that have either decided, been encouraged, or cajoled into voting.
To me, this is clear. The notion that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of private citizens to bear firearms is a modern, and recent, development. Prior to 2008, the United States Supreme Court had consistently interpreted the Second Amendment to apply in the context of a Militia in the service of the United States government.
My point is that both of those decisions were not cases brought to the Supreme Court to actually address the right to bear arms. Both cases were the result of a ruling being made for political reasons (Cruishank's ruling was made to protect others, Miller was made to specifically counter a known criminal's challenge). Did the Supreme Court rule that the Constitution didn't protect the right to bear arms in the Cruishank decision because that was the reasonable interpretation? Or did they rule that way to keep black votes disenfranchised and disarmed? Did they rule in the Miller case after a well considered argument on both sides? (They didn't because there was no counter-argument, the plaintiff didn't even show).
Rulings of the Supreme Court are always going to change with the generations. My thought is that at least the 2008 ruling was specifically addressing the question of the right to bear arms and not a politically charged side issue.