Maybe we should restrict the right to bear arms to the types of "arms" that were available to the Founders when they signed that into law. Hmm...
Picture of a musket
I'm just wondering here, if the Founders could have even fathomed the breadth weapons we were to develop in the 200+ years since their founding of this country. And so long as we're championing "power to the people," explain the electoral college, the division of church and state. The Founders may have wanted to form a democracy, but they didn't "trust" the people. There are checks on "the people" just as there were on the three branches of government. I view this as just another check.
Additionally, I'd like to point out that Thomas Jefferson thought that, for the health of a nation, revolutions should overthrow the government every so often. And I very much agree with what has been said in this thread and elsewhere: the obstacle to having a revolution wouldn't be an under-armed populance, it would be rallying people to fight in the first place. The consolidated media is the threat now.
And one more thing, what would Dr. King say about a means to throw off an oppressor? How successful was the Black Panther Movement compared to the broader PEACEFUL Civil Rights Movement? How well has Palistine done violently attacking their enemies? How did Gandhi get the English out of India? If you ask me, the future of revolutions is not in violent fighting, farmers and what, middle management, versus an oppressive US military. The future of revolutions is about information and the media. Its about informing people about a cause and showing its injustice. That is the lesson to be taken for the successful leaders of recent revolutions, one that current revolutions should note.