Guns are better than rocks if you need to get seriously aggressive on the revolutionary front. In any event, no 'revolutionary' force of civilians would engage in a pitched battle against a superior force because that would be suicidal. (Actually, I can think of one instance - the Battle of Dunbar where the Covenanters who fought against Cromwell gave up every strategic advantage imaginable to fight a pitched battle against the New Model Army because 'God was our side'. Needless to say, Cromwell arse-fucked them sideways).
Speaking of which(suicidal strategy, that is), suicide bombers have been pretty effective in delivering damage disproportionate to their apparent means so far. Also, there isn't an army on the planet that can cope effectively with urban warfare against an organised and uncooperative civilian population; unless you withdraw your forces and just go nuclear. But since that hasn't been tried, it possibly wouldn't be as effective as we might imagine.
Anyway, the whole point of armed revolt is picking your targets - you don't fight tanks with guns any more than you fight guns with rocks.
if you control the amount of arms the general public has access to, and also change the culture so that violence and revolt aren't as easily attempted as solutions, then in my opinion you have a much greater chance at peaceful resolutions to any future conflicts.
Repressive laws are what inevitably lead to a disaffected civilian population; it seems from what you've written here that you imagine everyone else to be willing and able to conduct themselves with middle-class manners and sensibilities. I can't honestly imagine anything further from the truth (although, ironically, for revolutions to be successful, that same mild-mannered middle-class intelligentsia has to be motivated to radical action).
I can see both sides of the argument but I'm most sympathetic towards the right-to bear-arms.
As a matter of interest is there anyone here who subscribes to the absurd view that in order to protect 'freedom' you first have to lose some of it?