Of course!
The US started as a frontier nation and continued so for more than a hundred years. On the frontier first came hunters, prospectors, and trappers, then merchants to serrve them, then farmers and ranchers. Only when those folks prospered did government move in to siphon off some of their profits.
In the meantime, they formed militias to fight off bandits and primitives. No minimum number required. A hunter was his own militia.
Today government is as ineffective at protecting us from criminals as the governments who were remote from the frontier settlers. We must protect ourselves as the founders envisioned.
There's a larger problem than the standing army and that is the police state. In the 18th century, there were no police forces like we have today. That's why one of the constitutional functions of the militia is to execute the laws of the union.
Now, the police would take a serious objection to the militia defending their neighborhoods; they'd call it vigilantism. What vigilantism is, is the taking back of power rightfully belonging to the people from those who do not want to give it up.
There's no reason why any community needs more than a small police force to manage the jails and deliver prisoners to and from courts and to and from prisons. Beyond that, if the people were properly armed and understood their own duties to their communities, we could actually have far fewer police.
But I am not an anti-police person or calling for replacement of the police with social workers. What I call for is arming of the people, the militias, and let a system of watchmen and constables, similar to the 18th century model, perhaps modernized closer to the modern neighborhood watch, but with arms, as the initial watch for crimes.