No, actually, I'm not answering in the negative.
You insist rather emphatically on the significance of “form.” Why?
Because that's what it says:
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.
“No, actually, I’m not answering in the negative.”
I beg to differ. You say it’s a nonsensical question because once the right to revolt is invoked you’re in a state of nature, can’t run to the government, and must wage on the uncertainty of battle. Which implies rights don’t exist without governments to secure them, in which case rights are government-granted, or victory at arms, in which case might makes right.
In short, you say the question is nonsensical because by their fruits you shall know them, and all depends on practical outcome. But we’re talking about abstract rights, which either exist or not regardless of utility. You cannot say the question of whether abstract, universal human rights exist is nonsensical because whether or not a revolution based on such rights prevails is dependent on how the war goes. That demonstrates nothing of the sort. It is, in fact, perfectly equivalent to saying no, we do not have the right to revolution.
“Because that’s what it says”
Yes, at least in that particular invocation. But why underline it so emphatically now? What does it add to your argument.