When we begin to discuss the relative merits of more (and maybe more and more) training, we bring up the specter (most any government bureaucrat will do for this) who will stand ready to define for us who should be allowed to exercise their rights.
Training is absolutely valuable and the more (good) training one can get, the better.
However, I don’t hear anyone arguing that training is necessary in order to defend oneself or others.
We absolutely must strive to be consistent: We have to learn to tolerate those people with less ability, knowledge, intelligence, and, yes, training, doing all kinds of things they should be free to do including; speak, practice their religion, go about the world armed, and the rest of the BOR as a bedrock start.
Of course it can be dangerous to allow stupid, ill-informed, and untrained people to freely carry arms or to speak out in public or to run for office or to vote in elections.
Well, that is the puzzle of a true republic.
There is no good argument these days about training to protect others.
My point about the watch, was that back then, there was an expectation of bad men (mostly outsiders) wanting to do people in your community harm. It was considered a shared responsibility to conduct the watch. The fact that women did not do it back then is not really relevant as the role of women has changed in US society that it is clearly distinguished as to be almost unrecognizable. Still, there is no procedure to draft women into military service of the state. I imagine that most communities of today if they had a watch might not have the expectation of women serving on one. It is a function of the expectation of the role models of society, not indicative of rights or capability.