First, thanks for being patient. Second, thanks for the thoughtful discussion. Third, my apologies for some of the more flippant remarks. I don't really take this topic all that seriously, for a multitude of reasons. But I understand that you do take it quite seriously, so I'll attempt to respond in kind.
Instead of quoting the entire conversation, I will attempt to summarize my position with the hope that it satisfies your line of questioning. If it does not, I apologize. If there is anything you'd like further clarification on, I'll be happy to answer.
There is no guarantee for anyone to form an insurrection. That is not to say that there is no right for an insurrection. But, as you're aware, rights get trampled on regularly. So when you ask who gets to decide, I can only say it's those that have enough of an organization to actually get it done, because if they don't get it done, I guess their decisions didn't mean much in the end. To paraphrase an old saying; If insurgents win, they're freedom fighters. If they lose, they're criminals. That's just the way it is, and I've no issue with that.
Justification is another topic entirely, which is why I asked you when armed insurrection would be justified. My feeling is that it may be justified when the vast majority of the citizens have no legal recourse for liberty and justice. I know you like to list examples that you believe demonstrate that this has already happened, and perhaps it has, to a degree. Maybe the injustices need more scale, more citizens affected, or more general outrage to motivate people to start doing something about it. Or maybe there isn't as much injustice as needed to spark one. Of course, in a real republic, the "doing something about it" should and does lead people to organize themselves as a voting base, i.e: Tea Party. It's been a fairly effective tool, wouldn't you say? And that's kind of the scary part, isn't it? That someone can organize and motivate that many of a certain type of people.
Your answer to the question of justifiaction leads me to believe that since you don't think it would ever work, it should never be attempted. So why does it work elsewhere?
And, what would motivate you to take up arms against a gov't? Is there anything? If you don't think that a fair question, I've no desire to push for your answer.
To summarize, I do believe there are situations where armed revolt is a viable option, but it is going to be subjective, and there is no complete set of criteria that absolutely must be met.
To the victor go the spoils.