No, not really. Quite a few successful coups have been essentially bloodless and relied on a combination of surprise and bluff. Napoleon's actual seizure of power was disorganized to put it mildly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_of_18_Brumaire
Also, there are charges pending against people who had a stash of firearms in a hotel in Virginia, just across the Potomac, and planned to bring them over at a later stage. Firearms are largely banned in DC so the idea was to take over the Congress first and then establish a defensive perimeter.
Is it remotely plausible to believe a group of unarmed protestors were seriously attempting to gain control over the most powerful superpower the world has ever seen with their barehands? This narrative strains credulity, counselor.
It's plausible that it's what some people were personally thinking (or a better word might be "LARPing"). But for the reasons you point out, it's not realistic to suggest that the loftiness of the goal implies the danger was historically-serious, or requiring some kind of revolutionary increase of law enforcement (beyond handling protests at the capital more wisely next time).
Also, there are charges pending against people who had a stash of firearms in a hotel in Virginia, just across the Potomac, and planned to bring them over at a later stage. Firearms are largely banned in DC so the idea was to take over the Congress first and then establish a defensive perimeter.
Now, I didn't say it was a good plan.