> The fact that it was used in '92 for riots means it will be hard to challenge.
I don't think there is any question about the constitutionality of the Act. I don't think there was any question about the constitutionality of the act in 1992 either. There might be a question about a particular application of it, however.
> I feel it is an afront to the Constitution and the founders' intent, though.
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says Congress gets to deal with insurrection: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
Well, the Insurrection Act, passed a mere 20 years after the Constitution was written, before the last founder President, does exactly what the bit of the Constitution I quoted says. There had been revolts within Washington's presidency, which he himself put down in the field (not from his residence or office).
> Another reason the Second Amendment exists is so that citizens can remove their local police and protect themselves until they organize a new poloce force.
There was no police in 1787, or in 1807 for that matter. There was also no standing army. The militia was all there was, and the militia was just armed citizens. Certainly, many believe that the Second Amendment's purpose is to make feasible a revolt / tyranny difficult to impose, so in that sense you're right, but there was no police in 1807.