We have a second amendment in the constitution for exactly this reason. The pen may be mightier than the sword but sometimes you must write with the blood of your oppressors just to begin to be heard.

> We have a second amendment in the constitution for exactly this reason.

No. We have a second amendment to maintain a "well regulated militia" to protect the state - not to make it easier to overthrow it.

That is an interesting point of view, the government and the state are two separate things. You cannot overthrow a state (since it is a community) but you can overthrow a hostile government.

The American militia were part of the revolution to overthrow the British government and the recognition of that is codified in the Second Amendment.

You're confusing nation[1] with state[2][3] (though you may be correct that it might be more accurate to say "overthrow a government"). The writers of the Constitution didn't envision a standing army (or at least not a very large one) which is why they a) gave Congress the power to raise armies and b) highlighted the importance of a "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state."

"Security" meant repelling foreign invaders and stopping insurrections, not starting them. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions[4]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_Stat...

Honestly, I meant mass-protests, blocking of work, passive resistance, and the like.

I don't think the situation is bad enough to warrant violent revolt (yet).