There is a balance to be maintained, there.
It is not a question of whether segments of the Conservative population would defend, with any means necessary, their way of life and indeed, their lives and those of their loved ones.
It is a question of whether that segment would seek the violent overthrow of the legitimate Government.
The danger comes in where the assumption is made that those who would defend are actively seeking revolt, and while there may be a rare few who would revolt for minor causes, I think the general case is that the vast majority of people would reserve such options for a last resort.
The other danger, is that so much effort would be put forth to 'prove nonviolent aims', that that the option of revolt in extremis, becomes removed from the public psyche.
The credible power the masses hold over government is not at the ballot box, but the ability to forcibly, if necessary, revoke such consent as given there, should the situation warrant.
Government should have a healthy, rational, fear of its constituents, such is the first check to unbridled power.
When government irrationally pursues the means to forcibly remove any perceived source of that fear rather than control its own aims, ambitions, and usurpations, it is a sign that something is grievously wrong with the mindset of our servants in the public sector, military or civilian.
Nicely put. On occasion big words and legalese can be useful.
In short, the most patriotic Americans (mostly conservatives) won't be moved to violently overthrow a legally elected (legitimate) government of the United States. The Federal Government would have to first be delegitimized and unconstitutional (recognized by significant if not majority of citizens).
Certain events ordered by government could solidify the recognition. But they would have to be egregious and made public with grandiose propaganda (more akin to the Revolutionary War).