It’s actually more like 450 million, when accounting for inheritance firearms made before the 2nd amendment was violated.

But that is not what monopoly on violence refers to. Monopoly on violence is the national perception of who is justified using violence to defend property or person. i.e. self defense. empire always tries to reduce this right for individuals and expand its own law enforcement agent’s authority creating dependency.

As for an armed population being a significant deterrent to government take over, it really isn’t.That is more of a deterrent for local law enforcement. For the 2nd amendment to mean what it originally meant, the population would need to be as well armed as any standing army. i.e “a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. it means “because we are going to need an army, make sure the people are armed too, so they can’t just be taken over by that army”.

we aren’t as well armed. so the battle which should be waged is in the parallel construction of information sharing, and currency/trade. Throw in Gene Sharp’s seminal work on subverting dictatorships through peaceful means, and you’re now a significant threat. The president of Lithuania once stated he would rather have Gene Sharps books than a nuclear weapon to fight the Russians.

Sounds like powerful stuff.