Is militancy necessary?

Dear Angela Davis,

When I visited the exhibit dedicated to your lifelong activism in the GLBT Historical Museum, I was in awe of your unwavering determination in fighting against oppression. From being a cultural icon of "Black, Beautiful and Red" to symbolizing liberation for all, you defy the trap of identity politics while also acting in solidarity of anti-oppression groups. Especially coming from an era where black women were seen as second-class twofold not only in societal normativity but also in activist groups, you are perhaps the first leading activist that never sold out to the pressures of liberal mainstream thought.
One thing that I especially was interested in hearing your opinion about now is your opinion on arms. With the rising movement and debate over gun control, where do you find yourself in agreement or disagreement of the various arguments regarding weaponry? You described yourself as militant in your activism as opposed to the more conventionally accepted practice of non-violent protest. Similarly, when we read Ida B. Wells' piece in Southern Horrors, she called for the need of arms in self-defense. I understand that the Black Panthers' ideology also aligned and likely took influence from her. With thinkers also like Franz Fanon who argued that the colonized as a reaction requires violent measures to fight against the colonizers rather than simple legislative reformation, what is your opinion on activism with armed militancy?