My kneejerk response is that if the government is acting in a criminally oppressive way, then a rebellion in order to change it would seem to exemplify support for law and order.
But really, there shouldn't be any confusion about this, at least not here in the USA.
People often quote various historical documents to make points about American society and principles of government. Most often the Constitution; being the foundational contract between the government and the governed.
However, the other document most often cited is the Declaration of Independence, especially a particular passage. Here it is:
Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript
Now to some of us this passage is pretty clear, and shows that it is lawful to try to overthrow any government that acts unjustly when all peaceful avenues are closed.
However, many choose to misunderstand or misinterpret this key passage; that is...when they are not dismissing the entire document as having no value after the ratification of the Constitution.
Such people argue that there is no need for common citizens to keep and bear arms. That is it laughable to think anyone would have any chance of successfully changing or abolishing it by force. This because they think that our government is immune to the corruption leading to tyranny.
They might argue that as long as the government has the support of the majority of citizens, it's actions however capricious and oppressive to some, are still lawful and orderly. That to oppose it violently rather than through the ballot box is not enforcing order or law.
I'd say look at any act of government sponsored "legally authorized" oppression or genocide in our history as a counter-argument for that position...at least as far as the victims were concerned.