The constitution wasn't written with that intention, if you look at the state constitutions (KY words it very well) or the wirtings of the time period they worded it more specifically, the state could revolt against the federal government and the people could hold arms for property protection.

Individuals were not intended to overthrow the government.  Why would a government legally allow itself to be overthrown.  If the individuals are revolting then they wouldn't care very much about the laws of the country the were revolting against.  That argument fails on both fronts.

Are you kidding me?  Unless something is an emergency doctors don't have to do a damn thing if they don't want to.  A lot of them will still treat the patient, but many will not.  Even people with Medicare/Medicaid are getting turned away, not just uninsured people:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/10/AR2008101002679.html

Equal Treatment for the Uninsured? Don't Count on It.

The 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act declares that hospitals cannot refuse care to critically ill patients and that the physician on call must treat them.

"I used to get angry every time the emergency room admitted an uninsured patient," he said. "I would try to spend less time with them -- 20 minutes instead of 30 -- and try to get them out of the hospital quickly and hope they would not come to my clinic."

It's not uncommon for patients with no insurance or poor insurance to receive different treatment. A 2006 study of 25 primary care private practices in the Washington area showed that in nearly one in four encounters, physicians reported adjusting their clinical management based on a patient's insurance status; nearly 90 percent of physicians admitted to making such adjustments. For patients with no insurance, alterations occurred 43 percent of the time; and for the privately insured, just 19 percent.

Some of these adjustments make little difference: Uninsured patients received more generic drugs and multiple drugs. A doctor might prescribe two generic pills for high blood pressure -- an ACE inhibitor and a diuretic, which together would cost $20 for a given period -- instead of a combined brand-name pill, which would cost $241.

The impact of other decisions is more worrying. A heart surgeon told me he operates on uninsured patients but schedules them for the end of the day; if other cases take longer than expected, the uninsured get bumped. Some gastroenterologists are quick to perform endoscopies or colonoscopies on insured patients; not so for the uninsured.

Some uninsured patients forgo tests or treatment. According to a 2003 study, participation in screening tests for breast cancer, prostate cancer or high cholesterol was 30 percentage points higher in some instances among people with insurance than among those without. Once the uninsured become eligible for Medicare, that gap shrinks.

Doctors turning away new Medicare patients.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6488/is_/ai_n25825581

A recent study by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) indicates that the number of family physicians who are no longer taking new Medicare patients is 28% higher than one year ago.

The annual survey of its members by the AAFP finds that 21.7% of physicians surveyed in June 2002 report that they can no longer take new Medicare patients, an increase from last year's figure of 17%. The survey was administered to a random selection of 4,400 AAFP members who are active in patient care, and ...

Fewer Texas Physicians Accepting New Medicare Patients; Payment Cut Would Exacerbate Problem

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/114519.php

Fifty-eight percent of Texas physicians are accepting new Medicare beneficiaries, compared with 90% before 1990, according to a survey by the Texas Medical Association, the Houston Chronicle reports.

Alaska Medicare patients rejected by doctors

http://www.adn.com/life/health/story/562445.html

Write your congressman about that and let me know how it turns out.

This didn't work out so well for the branch davidians.

Why exactly!  The purpose of our own revolution against the original opressive power in the first place.

When it comes to the American Revolution it is imperitive that the bigger picture be understood.

As Tho. Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independance that :

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

sorry for the multiple posts, I guess theres a space max or something;

Anyhou, that paragraph deserves it's own post. back to my rant

THE ENTIRE REASON THIS country was created was to create a bastion against the "way things are". The USA was to be anything but conventional, if even to a fault. Our government was established on the basis of a self-righteous bloody violent revolution. It was therefore in the opinions and interests of these transgressors that the ideal of self rightous usurption of a "traditional government" was to be embraced! not avoided, as in all other societies!

In the history of the peoples in the hearts and heretige of the American Revolutionaries, it was concieved that a central governing power, that was able to issue onto itself liberties and powers of it's own (i.e. interest of national security) that it was inevetible that corruption would settle and opression of the people would therefor (..whats the world I'm looking for) insue.

Thus, the original government knew that this government wouldn't last uncorrupted, therefore they made it certain and unquestionable that the people of this soverign nation MOST CERTAINLY and ABSOLUTELY had the right to OVERTHROW any successor who sought to abuse governmental positions.

Wrong.

The revolution happened because American Colonists weren't getting the same rights as British citizens. If the Colonist had been granted a vote and seats in British Parliament or more autonomy, the revolution wouldn't have happened. The American Revolution wasn't the people rising up against the government, it was two sides: sanctioned (by the English) local governments rising up against the controlling foreign colonial government (England).

That aside, they set up the constitution in a way so that true civil war (non-government v. government) would never happen, and it hasn't. Most problems could be fixed with amendments to the constitution, if not the states could bypass the federal government by calling for a new constitution. It's built right in. The failure came when some states couldn't get enough other states to call a convention to settle slavery once and for all, and the two sides refused to yield. What you had was some state militias v. the federal government.

Nowhere in American History is there successful or popular public revolt. The rebellious actions of some have caused some change, but the major changes were done on a government level.

I disagree. Why else would the founding documents have been written the way they were if thats the case. I believe your statement only applies to one agenda, for one group, compelling one interest. The big picture had to do with an opressive monarchy which previously ruled the colonists and free men of the locality ewhich would become the USA. The sentiments of the hardships of said people is what surfaced during and after the revolution and inspired the founding ideals of this nation.

It is pretty well-outlined in the Declaration of Independence that people have the right to overthrow the government if they see fit.

This isn't really addressed in the Constitution though (and understandably so).

But I do agree that it is our "right" to overthrow the government, although you don't really need guns to do that. Once the government loses the support of the people through abuse of its power, it has already lost. Although guns would prevent that failing government from turning into a tyrant.