Someone else can chime in, about other countries. But both the effectiveness and originality of that militia system in the 13 Colonies has been greatly exaggerated, as well as its reputation as a guarantor of people's rights.. It was pretty much copied from the existing English militia system. There regiments of militia were raised, armed and equipped and led by the local lord or noble, with the local land-owners paying for arms, horses, etc and/or Parliament allocating funds. In England, this system showed its limitations during the English Civil War: the local taxpayers were unwilling to pay, in hard times; regiments did not want to operate outside of their areas; and their officers were often mediocre , gaining their positions by rank, not by ability. Faced with a real military challenge from Charles I in 1644 , the Parliamentary leaders, like Fairfax, Ireton and Cromwell, mostly abandoned the system to create the New Model Army, with professional officers and soldiers who would march to anywhere they were needed, and national funding.

Transplanted into the 13 Colonies, the militia system never went through the New Model Army reform. The scattered , varied militias functioned well enough to handle the limited military tasks of subduing/eliminating the Native Nations ( though Metacom's War would be quite a challenge ). It is true that , because most of the colonists were farming, many owned guns, and many of them were apparently very good at hunting with them, and so good shots. But the militias like their English counterparts operated locally, were often led by amateurs, were badly supplied, and unwilling or unable to stay in the field for long. Like their English counterparts, they were not up to a real military challenge. This was revealed in the French and Indian War, when George Washington and the efforts of some of the governors could do little more than keep an army in the field, until a real professional army was imported ( and, of course, the expense of importing and garrisoning that army was one of the colonial complaints that would lead to the next war).

Though some local militias would be a part of the initial 1775 revolt against oppressive British rule in Boston, there soon were units of Loyalists as well, like Butler's Rangers, who fought for that oppressive rule. And Washington would again find that , though some militia soldiers and officers had had experience in the French and Indian War, militia units that joined his army were still often poorly officered, barely trained, and indifferently equipped. Professional troops who opposed them discovered they would often be panicked by a bayonet charge. As happened in the Battle of Long Island, where many optimistic militia riflemen were overwhelmed and nailed to trees by Hessian bayonets. Washington tried hard to train his men, equip them properly....but he also lamented the quality of the militiamen and found his greatest success in mostly avoiding decisive, pitched battles.

And after the War, no militia would ever " overthrow or intimidate its own government when it became oppressive". Instead, in the two existing cases that could be called "government oppression", the militia were part of that- they were supposed to take orders from the governors, and did so . When the farmers of western Massachusetts rebelled at the oppressive demands by the Boston-controlled government that they pay their taxes in cash, they took up arms, in Shay's Rebellion. But the militia that was sent out to suppress the rebellion by the government did so- if unwillingly. Likewise, when there was a farmers revolt against a tax on whiskey, in Pennsylvania, Washington would call upon governors to send militia to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion; and the militia, obeying the governors, did so. And though Jefferson would make noises in favor of the occasional popular revolt, the Founding Fathers generally had a fear of "the mob" . They certainly didn't have one in mind when they wrote militias into the Constitution.

This is not r/politics, but obviously the authors are trying beat a path to the exalted " well-regulated militia" in the common conservative interpretation of the second amendment in the Constitution. Exalt they can for the present, if they like, but there's not much historical basis for their claim.

C.H. Firth : Cromwell's Army

Fred Anderson : Crucible of War

Brown, R. (1983). Shays's Rebellion and Its Aftermath: A View from Springfield, Massachusetts, 1787. The William and Mary Quarterly, 40(4), 598-615. doi:10.2307/1921810