It seems to me the issue of the temple is pretty well settled. I haven't heard any reasoned argument(s) to establish that incident as a basis for Christian violence.
The other topics that always get interjected into the discussion - government; armed services, self-defense, etc. - all go the point of "practicality".
Because we can't envision a non-violent way to achieve and preserve our way of life, we claim that the capability to discuss non-violence (or anything else) rests on the presupposition of a violent government and the security and safety it affords. Therefore, that mode of government and its fruits countermands any questioning of that form of government. Of course, this isn't true for any number of reasons. Not least of which is that this discussion has occurred and continues to occur in dictatorships and under oppressive regimes throughout all of human history.
This "non-falsifiable" position becomes the fall-back when we are confronted with the clear teaching and example of Jesus - which folks continue to avoid discussing because we don't understand it or don't believe it can work. It must be "impractical" fluff - not ready for the real world.
For the pro-violence position, I still think C. S. Lewis' arguments in "Why I Am Not A Pacifist" which I reference earlier are the most compelling I have read in support of war and violent national government, though he doesn't get into personal issues of self-defense, etc.