Is there anything wrong with wanting to change the Constitution? The Constitution itself contains a process for doing exactly that. It seems like the nature of the proposed change is what would be debatable, not change in and of itself. If it weren't for violence we wouldn't have a country or a constitution. The revolutionaries among the colonists used violence against the legally established government and, for better or worse, they prevailed in forcing that government to relinquish authority. If you are going to make blanket statements against the use of violence then you need to condemn this example of the use of violence as well.
I don't call for violence simply for the sake of violence as Little Joe does. I also don't want to change the Constitution in order to get rid of one of our fundamental rights as Little Joe does. Sorry, calling for violence just because you're upset or wanting to take away a fundamental right is not to be taken lightly.
Calls to burn down the State House and calling for violence in the streets because one doesn't agree with the decision to change union bargaining privileges is sheer lunacy. Indeed, it hints at an unstable mind that could become violent at even the smallest provocation. Amending certain aspects of the Constitution (e.g., limiting the terms a president can serve) should be approached with the utmost caution as the Constitution itself allows, but never, under any circumstances, should our inherent rights and liberties no longer be guaranteed. Never.
He just doesn't seem to mind a guy in the Tea Party wanting to stone people to death for being gay. He finds some types of violence acceptable but if you reference Thomas Jefferson' s Tree of Liberty quote in a political forum, well then you are a violent monster. Selective outrage, go figure.