Neighbors guarding neighbors. I have no problem with that.
I’m not thrilled with the idea of armed ruffians prowling the streets in pickup trucks, but a “well-regulated” (i.e. officers, oversight, training, etc.) militia sounds fine, even if it is an “unorganized” militia. (The feds are quick to “nationalize” state National Guard units, which I think is just a reserve branch of the Regular Army.)
Towns are losing (union) police officers due to prohibitive costs, so somebody will have to pick up the slack. I trust my neighbors to do the right thing.
As for being over the age limit, I’m sure “volunteers” could help out in other ways, such as logistics, cooking, admin, etc.
“(The feds are quick to “nationalize” state National Guard units, which I think is just a reserve branch of the Regular Army.)”
You are correct and that is why the liberal argument that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the NG is false. This argument says the NG is the modern equivalent of the colonial militia. It’s part of that dynamic constitution thingy. Therefore, the 2nd amendment only guarantees the right of the states to form the NG and not an individual RKBA.
The reason this is false is that the FF wanted a militia independent of federal control. The second reason is that USSC ruled (Dukakis v SecDef) that the federal government exercises plenary powers over the NG, ie, the NG is just a branch of the reserves. Something cannot be independent from something that has plenary powers over it.