We have modernized governments and supplied police, national guard and armed forces for all o of the kinds of things appropriate at the time the Bill of Rights was written. Possibly, in less established communities, that would be appropriate. Much like in any tribal society like Afghanistan.
In urban environments, police are available and given authority to do all the things the people you cite being trained and organized once did back in the century this was written. On a state level there is the national guard to keep public order. As a nation, we have the armed forces to protect us from attacks by foreigners, such as the British were seen at that time as Americans became attached to this soil and said it was not England's property.
Considering the far greater level of technology and organization available to the three groups above, the need for a civilian militia as you described it well in the historical sense, appears dubious. In worse case scenarios, or in apocalyptic fantasies, they would not be considered trustworthy, as they would operate as marauding armed gangs.
Armed militias acting as vigilantes have committed terrorist acts in the past. I refer you to the KKK, and the New KKK as posted here on DU in the V&MM forum. These are as some people envision militias to be, and I'd like to see if there is another version of this you think practical now.
The idea that we still need to protect that way of doing things is abused by several persons, mainly on the right, thus the suspicions here at DU. Some people envision a society that is unarmed and looked over by lawful authority. Those may hold stronger to the view that the day of legal militias and firearms has passed and should be relegated to a more brutish past.
We appear to have a mixture in our society now. I think that universal health care with mental health care not being stigmatized, with more of a social safety net and education would prevent the OP events from happening.
Right now, we are confronted with a conspiracy theory-induced paranoia and irrational hatred and people are arming themsleves to excess, Also, they have few outlets for handling things properly in their lives and communities. That's not an excuse, but I think if we don't get more civlized here, we are going to have more trouble as the OP suggests.
I support RK&BR within reason. As I said before in other threads, I now live in a peaceful area with police and services that are acceptable to the people here. I feel no need to be armed. When I lived in a rural area where neighbors were far away and law enforcement was about an hour away, I had dogs and a gun. Not so much to protect myself from two legged predators, but four legged ones, or no legged ones.
Usually a person arranges their life to not have to confront danger from man or beast. That is part of the argument against individual gun ownership. Those who insist on arming themselves when they seem to have no danger, can be seen as paranoid. Or as we have seen in recent years, potential assassins and wanting mayhem. They are against proper lawful authority and are thought criminal.
I do not support the concept of militias because of the abuse of the right and the lack of need for it. I don't trust strangers with guns drawn without just cause governed by lawful authority, democratically supervised. Well, that is an ideal situation.
I could make this more coherent, but I"m worn out this evening. Thanks for the interesting reply.
Somebody's right to own a gun DOES NOT SUPERSEDE THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT
= new reply since forum marked as read
