Or, not.
• Extensive research shows that non-violent civil disobedience is actually more effective at removing authoritarian regimes than violent movements. The violent movements often fail; require external assistance to get anywhere; seldom build broad support among its own populace; and are more likely to collapse back into authoritarianism and violence when the do work. (See
Why Civil Resistance Works for more evidence and details:
https://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156820)
• The ratifiers of the 2A had no expectation of using militias to defend individual homes, or remove local dictators with coups. The closest they came to that was assuming that standing armies could be abused by central authorities. Other politicians of the era, such as Washington and Hamilton and Adams, saw standing armies as necessary.
• The 2A says absolutely
nothing about individual self-defense. It says "Congress can regulate firearms, but when doing so it can't stop militias from being properly armed."
• 2/3 of Americans do not own firearms. Many of the safest states and cities have low rates of gun ownership and strict gun control laws. And of course, no country is going to invade the US not because 1/3 of its citizens are crazy about firearms, but because we have the most powerful standing army in the world. Your suggestion to require gun lessons in schools sounds... well, let's just describe it as
excessive and utterly unnecessary.
