I hear a lot of this on FR lately - y'all need to think deeply on what you're impying.
Our Founding Fathers spoke of revolution as being a last-ditch effort - that as long as we still had free elections and a working judiciary, then we must work through that process.
I know it's popular to shout: "grab your guns and take over the government" while at your key-board, and we may very well be getting close, but take a loooong deep breath first.
Do you honestly think we have a working Judiciary? The 1919 USSC case Schenick absolutely declared that the 1st Amendment did not prohibit Congress from making law respecting speech/publication. Now, before you say it was 'overturned' take a look at the overturning case: does it say that the 1st Amendment is absolute, or merely impose some new/"higher" standard of acceptableness for justification? What about Wickard? There they declared that intrastate commerce was regulatable under the interstate commerce clause... and Raich expanded that to say that no-commerce was regulatable under the commerce-clause (basically under an "if it was sold then it would be commerce" argument). What about Roe v. Wade where the Judiciary said "hey we can invent new rights and use them to invalidate all States's laws on the subject!", or Affordable Care Act where they said "we can rewrite the law!"
Hell, in my personal experience I've been told --in two different states-- that I cannot challenge a contraconstitutional statute without violating it and therefore being forced into a position of weakness: the accused. Indeed, even accepting that and violating the 'statute' in order to challenge it is an implicit acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the statute.
I know what I'm implying.