But as a practical matter, does that really make much difference? When you defend yourself against an assailant who happens to be a common criminal, after all, you're defending your rights from violation, no less than if your attacker--and aspiring rights violator--draws a government paycheck, carries a tax revenue-supplied firearm, and is acting on government orders. Likewise, in resisting a tyrannical government, you are defending yourself from that government--and the hired muscle of said government, from whom you are defending yourself, is no less criminal than the common street thug or rapist.
To claim a difference, other than one of scale, between a thug who rapes a woman, and a tyrant who rapes a nation, is to elevate the tyrant to something greater than the thug-writ-large he is. It is to claim that he can be resisted only by "revolutionaries," rather than by every man and woman who refuses to submit to thuggery.