You have a good point here. Are we talking revolution by lawful and peaceful means, or armed insurrection? One is very much American. The other....by definition if you're advocating violent overthrow of the nation, I'd say you're probably against it.
We can, if we feel it's necessary, we can stave off a tyrannical government through force - it's a protected right if it's done properly . . . but I don't think that's *ever* necessary and or will ever have to happen. More so valuable and used far more often we have freedom of assembly (so we can protest), freedom of speech (so we can share ideas of change and criticize government's actions) and so forth.
Examples of revolutions that changed our government's focus: Vietnam protests (without the support of the people a war will fail - "Art of War"), Women's right to vote (using our Constitutional rights of assembly, speech, etc - to prove that women were, in fact, equals - and granted women's suffrage), and the abolishing of Jim Crow laws - once again - the people's granted rights trumped the government's actions.
There *indeed* was violence involved in all three of these - often when protests got out of control or when government exerted force on the people in various ways - but these revolutions that changed government *did not* depend *solely* on violence - like a Coup - nor did it require the physical overthrowing of government itself. We, instead, voted out various elected officials that we *did not* approve of or appreciate. Those who remained in power were *forced* to change lest they lose the support of the people.
The violence that goes along with these and other moments of revolution in our history actually center around violence being a method of bringing attention to the issues. . .by gaining attention in the media - thus turning everyone's attentions to the actions *for* and *against* the people's views and stance . . . which helped support the revolution and *make* it happen, or which dissolve the revolution and make it *just a riot*