Defenestrations, torches and pitchforks have been traditional solutions to rulers not acting in the interest of the populace.
Of course more peaceful means are preferable but the option needs to be kept on the table to remember why we have and want democratic solutions in the first place.
I'd guess the people involved in those rebellions felt the effects of bad governance much more acutely and directly than people do (currently ...) vis-à-vis climate change.
The disruption of food supplies has been causing annual riots all over the world. The US has remained insulated from these effects by virtue of being relatively rich and relying on over-priced, highly processed foods that have enough margin to buffer against price shocks. But this is clearly an untenable situation.
Shit goes south really fast when people can't afford to eat. And the difference between Mexican or Middle Eastern food riots and American ones is that Americans will come with lots of guns.
Just as you always see affinity between police forces and right-wing activists, you'll see the government put on a face friendly to rural gun culture, and that group will be installed as enforcers.
So I don't buy this argument that the wide availability of guns in America in any way ensures a "Freedman's Paradise." It ensures more oppression, as the (expensive) arm of Federal power recedes.
But I do foresee a situation where there's a clash between the well-fed police (who want to keep it that way) and the starving poor in the US. The inner city riots will not be an issue, most metro PDs have experienced and well equipped riot control departments.
It's the armed, rural uprisings that pose a threat. Think Cliven Bundy-types leading a group of protestors in sieges of government or office buildings.