The terms, "assembly" and "revolution" have acquired a bad connotation.

Normally, the function of government is 'to govern'. I realize that's a very general formulation, nevertheless, government has no other function. In Democratic forms of government, the Top is required to follow the Constitution. The function of the Supreme Court is to define those parameters and to guide the formulation of policies and laws that are applied to the Bottom or to government. The First Amendment of the Constitution allows citizens to assemble "peaceably and petition the government for redress of grievances". Now, if we assume some 'dissatisfaction' at the bottom, for whatever reasons, the People are required to assemble "peaceably". Now, there's the kicker. If, the "assembly", for 'legitimate reasons', is not peaceable, the law kicks in and 'achieves' control of the situation. That's not too bad, except for the fact that many reasons can be raised to make the assembly, 'illegitimate', e.g. "that's public property"; "that's private property; "that's destruction of public property"; "that's destruction of private property"; etc.. ( where else can they 'assemble'?) Nevertheless, in a democracy, People have the Constitutional Right to "assemble peaceably". But, this story is different in an Autocratic form of government. Any 'assembly' at the Bottom is usually called 'revolution'. There is no 'middle way', the Top rules completely, and the Bottom remains 'dissatisfied' completely; end of story. There are many ways to abuse government power, and both ways, above cited, are abuses. I cite only the 'most important Right' any People can have, and that is to "register your complaint" and "seek amends". All types of government, including democracies, will abuse the power at the Top, hence 'basic' changes are necessary; after all, the power, in a democracy, emanates from the Bottom. We give 'you' power and 'you' abuse it. Is it any wonder the terms, "assembly" and "revolution" have acquired bad connotations?