You missed the point. This country was founded by an ‘armed insurrection’.
No it wasn't. It was formed by revolution, defended in war. Insurrection is merely a revolt against the existing government, and all governments, includihg those created by our founders, put them down. A revolution is a fundamental change in the FORM of government.
The founders' justification for revolution, set out in the Declaration was two-fold. It wasn't merely the long train of abuses. It was also the FORM of government they lived under. They argued that a new FORM was necessary to correct the abuses.
Personally, I believe we need a new FORM of government. However, under our system, we have means of achieving that end which have yet to be attempted, which must be attempted before revolution would be justified.
And even if or when those means are exhausted, what new FORM is being proposed? Using violence to correct maladministration is simply anarchy, or a coup. It would be a total negation of democratic principles. If we want to be governed by junta, that's the way to go. If we seek ordered liberty, it's a big mistake.