That point was passed around 1934 during the Imperial Presidency of F.D.R.
It is unlikely to happen now.
“At what point does an armed response become necessary to protect our country from those who would destroy it?”
I am beginning to think our government doesn’t work. We put in a Republican congress in 94 and elected Bush in 2000 and it was a total failure. Conservatives have no representation in the current system.
According to the Catholic Catechism, the following conditions must be met before an armed response is legitimate:
"Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met:
1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights;
2) all other means of redress have been exhausted;
3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders;
4) there is well-founded hope of success; and
5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution. (#2243)"
These conditions are not something peculiarly Catholic. They are identical with the Just War Doctrine's jus ad bellum requirements for a nation going to war, with one important omission. For a nation, there is an additional condition that must be met: war must be declared by competent authority. This exception is critical to any discussion of the morality of armed revolt. It is impossible to prescribe a “competent authority” to call for a revolt. Only the people, who retain the right to govern themselves, can undertake revolt when the above-listed conditions are met.
How do the people undertake a revolt? It has to start somewhere. In the case of the American Revolution, it started at Lexington and Concord, when the British sent troops on a gun-control mission. The local militia resisted, and the war was on. The Continental Congress, a body representing the thirteen colonies, took over management of the revolution. In South America, “resistance juntas” were formed when Napoleon made Joseph Bonaparte King of Spain and its colonies. Simon Bolivar, a member of one of the juntas, took over military leadership of the revolt. The war was long and bitter, but the South American countries eventually gained independence from Spain.
What is true of these two revolutions is true in general. There has to be some spark, some incident, that triggers a revolt. Someone has to decide that his particular “line in the sand” has been crossed. Whether the revolt grows, or instead peters out, depends on the actions of others. If others join the revolt, it may grow. If no one else is willing to take up arms, or is not yet ready, the revolt dies (at least for the time being).
Although the existence of the prior Continental Congress was important in organizing the American Revolution, it's not necessary that there be a formal organization at the start. One person "shooting back" may be sufficient to inspire others to copy his action. It's important, in that case, that the word get out quickly, or the incipient revolt can be suppressed by the authorities simply by preventing anyone else from knowing that it happened.
Initiating a revolution has grave consequences, which should be considered carefully before underaking such a violent act. However, allowing creeping tyranny to grow also has grave consequences. These consequences must also be taken into account in making decisions about initiating armed revolt.
I make no judgment here about whether the conditions listed above have been met, or are on the verge of being met. I present them for information only.
For what it's worth, I teach Just War Doctrine at Yorktown University, an on-line university witha politically and culturally conservative orientation. I am also the author of A Fighting Chance: The Moral Use of Nuclear Weapons, which was published by Ignatius Press (a Catholic publishing house) as a reply to the American Catholic Bishops' blatantly pacifist pastoral letter on war and peace.