Once you get past the hyperbole, it seems you have an interesting, and pardon me for saying this, contradictory argument.
If I understand your argument properly, then you’re advocating for a second amendment solution. Community policing with arms, right? That’s how things used to be in the 1700s.
The whole point of the second amendment was to ensure that people would be able to govern themselves. Police forces were often used by authorities (specifically monarchies) to cow populations in to submission. The Framers of the Bill of Rights weren’t stupid. This was exactly what they were trying to avoid.
The reason we have police forces is because people were looking for some way to uniformly and fairly enforce the law. It is a consequence of government, which I understand you feel should work for all of us. Right wingers don’t trust government because it tends to corrupt itself. Left wingers tend to believe that government is the best tool to bring society together and level the playing field.
The contradiction is that on the one hand you’d advocate for many causes where government is necessary and on the other hand you’re advocating that we take away the ability of that government to enforce its laws even-handedly.
I don’t expect moonbeams and rainbows to keep our society civilized, so I guess I’m asking where you’re going with this argument.