You're making two points here that I'd like to distinguish: 1) Difficulty, 2) Progression. The two points are connected, and I can see how your lived experience is relevant here.

As regards difficulty (#1), this has always been true for every conflict with the state, even for mere civil disobedience. No one wants to face dogs, or fire hoses, or firing squads, or artillery shells. Most people just want to take care of their family (myself included!). But the fact that resistance will not be easy does not make it any less necessary. The ruling class' quest for infinite profits, which started with imperialism (of land, labor, and resources) abroad, has been steadily coming for the workers at home. Every administration we see the powers of the president growing, every decade it is harder for workers to get by. Now the situation is so dire that the rulers are no longer attempting to hide their disdain for the Constitution and international law. (We are openly throwing brown people in the backs of vans and kidnapping foreign leaders.) If we do not resist, the rulers will consolidate their power under a fascist regime.

Progression (#2) brings up a practical question concerning time frame. And here I concede your point that the difficulty of resistance requires groundwork. (This is why veterans are so helpful to the groups that are now making preparations.) Note, however, that we do not have the luxury of time. The ruling class is watching how we react and is working against us. The people must be willing to escalate in favor of their demands and must do so quickly. If we are not willing to escalate, then peaceful protests will continue to be ignored (e.g., The Woman's March); If the people do not escalate quickly enough, then we will either lose steam (e.g., Roe v. Wade protests), be co-opted by the establishment (e.g., Occupy Wallstreet), or be violently suppressed (e.g., BLM).

There are historical examples showing how swift regime change is possible, but this comment is long enough as is.