Also remember that this by design not accident.
The point is to have riots forever whenever they need them so having an impossible goal to demand is a sure way to have riots from here to the end of time
BLM riots are, arguably, more political terrorism than they are protests. The proof of this is in how people in all walks of life, including the government and justice system, become frozen in fear of them. Protests are meant to be a deterrent to poor behavior, yes, but the riots arguably inspire terror as their main goal, and manipulate people via fear.
The founding fathers were themselves corrupt bureaucrats who cracked down violently on any kind of dissent or insurrection after their rise to power. The whole Constitution's a mess of a trickery and bullshittery to placate the people they manipulated into bringing them control in the first place. Our rights end when the government decides they do, and it's always been that way.
That's because it's a complex thing to leave the door open to 'well you can violently rise up and fix the government if something goes wrong'. There's plenty of discussion via letters and diary entries from the founding fathers about this very matter because of it. The end conclusion was basically 'if you succeed in rising up and overthrowing the government to reinstitute the constitution as it was written, you were right to, if you fail to do so, you were wrong to try'. It's nonsensical, but so is the fact that the founding fathers staunchly believed in inalienable rights for the people that essentially extended to 'the government can't tell you to do
anything' but then still had prisons and police that inherently violate those rights. For a functioning society to exist, certain compromises in their idealism must exist.
If a revolution is needed, the Constitution isn’t being followed anyway, so this could not be what ‘assembly’ refers to, not logically anyway. The Bill of Rights is obviously referring to rights during a compliant government.
There's steps between 'violent revolution' and 'picketing with paper signs'. My point is that a violent protest is within the rights intended by the founding fathers, provided it is
actually a protest and not a looting riot where the people attending it actively don't care about the alleged reasons for the riot (see: early on in 2020 when the Floyd family asked for the riots to stop, and the protestors wearing George Floyd shirts said 'this ain't about him').