<Abolish it- my emphasis, not Tom’s (which I presume you knew)

“Non-violent expression of discontent - couched in prevailing law and reason as to the specific grievances, and presented to the sitting government in the form of petitions”

That might work if the current system stays intact, but do you remember the young man standing in front of a tank column in Tiananmen Square? I don’t think he was collecting signatures but his peaceful protest was about as effective.

"Who's deciding what's an abuse and what isn't?

I’ve decided the actions taken by our government at Ruby Ridge and Waco amounted to murder.

"The First Amendment carries with it some powerful irony: speech advocating, among other things, the abolition of the government is protected by that government. Now I see the Second does as well: armed citizens organized to (potentially) oppose the government are protected by the law written to permit citizens to be armed for the government's protection.

As far as my interpretation of the second amendment goes, I admit it is a bit of a stretch, but the true irony of the second amendment is that the only viable cause for a rebellion in this country would be the repealing of it.

Regards,
Rob