There is a real question over the concept of "citizen". Just because you reside in what is called a "country" does not mean that you owe your allegiance to that so-called "country".
Iraq for example is not a real "country". It is an amalgamation of several ethnic and religious groups, some who seek independence like the Kurds. Other current examples include the Catalonians and Scots. Past examples include the Irish and the Sudanese.
Another example, that seems not to hit the headlines, is the plight of the Rohingya in what is now Myanmar (Burma). The current government of Myanmar has been accused of ethnic cleansing.
So depending on the definition of "country" many ethnic/religious groups can be defined as either "patriots" or "terrorists". If the international community gets behind certain groups, they will emerge as "patriots" otherwise they will be vilified as "terrorists".
And in-line with those designations the ownership of weapons (and subsequent violence) is either considered justified or considered illegal.
As a nonsensical example. Many in the US scream hysterically for gun control, yet the US was busy shipping weapons to so-called Syrian rebels. The obvious illogic: it is OK for Syrian dissidents to be armed but not the public of the US even-though it is supposed to be a Constitutional right.