That was a minimum that they were expected to arrive with. In no way would a poor farmer be expected to show up with cannon or battleship - that would be preposterous. The modern equivalent would be a militia act of 2005 specifically stating "Selective Service" draftees show up with an M4, 3 magazines, and 90 rounds of ammo; there would presumably be no prohibition against a citizen showing up for war duty with an M40A3, M82 Barrett, M1 Abrams or A10 Warthog suitably loaded.
The flip side is there is NOTHING in the 1792 act (or other writings) indicating a limit on what one could own. There may have been local gov't-run armories, but those were presumably provided precisely because few in town could afford the contents (NOT because the locals were prohibited from owning such).
There is not a scintilla of evidence that any arm greater than a individual arm was ever considered as an arm to be kept or provided by an individual militia member.
Certainly nothing REQUIRED one to own larger arms. There is not a scintilla of evidence that any arm greater than an individual arm was ever PROHIBITED from being kept or provided by an individual militia member.
If you doubt me, provide a reference to a specific founder or a court case where the issue comes out as you claim.
I present: The very cannons kept by George Washington upon his front lawn, and likewise by other Founding Fathers.
I present: The complete absence of any writings by any Founding Father indicating anything to the effect of "the people should not be permitted cannons, battleships, or other arms unsuitable for individual use".
I can provide the opposite.
Go for it. I'm waiting to see a single law or writing, penned by the Founding Fathers, which calls for, allows, or presumes the prevention of private citizens from owning cannons or battleships or anything larger than individual arms.
“The flip side is there is NOTHING in the 1792 act (or other writings) indicating a limit on what one could own. There may have been local gov't-run armories, but those were presumably provided precisely because few in town could afford the contents (NOT because the locals were prohibited from owning such).”
When one discussed Constitutional law, one does not discuss what “might” have been meant but instead discusses what was said, written, or enacted. There is a host of actual documents, discussions, and legislation drafted by the founders that does discuss exactly what the militia was, who it consisted of, and specifically what they were to be armed with. There was specific discussion and legislation on who paid for and where cannon were to be located. The two were not mixed. Read the enabling legislation from the states when they had to come up with a plan to make the Federal Militia Act work in their own states. Never and nowhere do they discuss a militia in which the individual members come complete with cannon.
Equally, they did not prohibit cannon. It was simply not an issue. Now go to what really determines what is what, the body of legal decisions. No where in any case is the right to own a cannon protected under the Constitution. The right to own Militia small arms IS protected in case after case.
“I present: The very cannons kept by George Washington upon his front lawn, and likewise by other Founding Fathers”
I have a TV set and VCR. Is that a protected right under the Constitution
Artillary was operated ONLY by those trained and given special commissions by the State. When Hamilton was a teenager he studied mathematics specifically to take the exam to become a militia artillary officer. These were the elite of the army of that day and to join them one had to study and practice.
Nostalgic mythology is not helpful in understanding the past.