Listen, I am not sure at all that the parent was attempting to say that violence, in this specific case, was the default solution. I believe, and could be mistaken, that he/she was talking about last resorts. The main premise here is if it is justifiable to break the law if the law is unjust; the answer, according to historical precedent, is a resounding YES. Need a few examples? Civil rights movement in the US, it was ILLEGAL for Americans of African descent to eat at "all white" establishments. This is a prime example of an unjust law, and by staging sit ins and restaurant owners allowing desegregated restaurants they were, by law, criminals. My grandfather was a criminal because he refused to have segregated bathrooms or drinking fountains in his store, he was given numerous tickets and fines over the years and was the object of intense harassment, I live in NC, just so you know. In the face of an oppressive government which, by nominal standards, is criminal armed resistance is certainly a fair choice. The American Revolution, the French Revolution, Cuba, Brazil, the current situation in Iran, these are great examples of justifiable force. The people who advocate a peace only approach are generally the first to surrender their rights, granted not in all cases, but "bloodless" revolutions, even justified ones, tend to end with the rebellion being put down by overwhelming force. An anonymous friend of mine participated in the Iranian Revolution and told me from the start it could only end in one or two ways, the Government using force, or the Resistance using force, the world watched the end result of that little experiment. If you are in a small unarmed group and the government comes with guns saying; "Disband or we attack," there is little you can do. If you are implying that small groups of, terrorists, can't make a difference I advise you to get a history book. Horrible as it may have been good luck arguing that the 9/11 hijackers didn't completely change American history!