Replies

The enrollment was automatic, based on simply being found of age & gender and within jurisdiction.

The notification was fair warning that the coming-of-age (or moving-in) youth was subject to such requirement.

It wasn’t that you were called up, it was notification that you, as a citizen, have an obligatory duty regardless of callup. All were generally expected to be armed; this notification made it clear a subset were _required_ to be armed to minimum standards.

And again (a point you keep resisting): there was NO punishment for one outside the defined militia membership being armed, nor for anyone having arms exceeding a minimum. The idea that those within a legal line could be punished for being inadequately armed, and those outside the line punished for being armed at all, is absurd.

"And again (a point you keep resisting): there was NO punishment for one outside the defined militia membership being armed"

I never said there was. All I said was that their RKBA was not protected by the second amendment.

You seem to think that implies it's somehow illegal to be armed. I don't know where you get that.

The plain point of the Militia Act of 1792 - if you follow its full wording - is to ensure the general population is armed, from which a subset thereof may be assembled into a unit.
The first principle of the 2nd Amendment is that ALL may be armed, from which subsets may be extracted/called for active service.
The notion that only those subject to active service be armed is plainly preposterous, limiting national defense for no justifiable (or even articulable) reason.

Todays socialists insist on trying to justify gun control on just that 'articulable' reason. -- Even here on FR they prattle on most every day with their specious 'reasons'.

-- it was notification that you, as a citizen, have an obligatory duty regardless of callup. All were generally expected to be armed; this notification made it clear a subset were _required_ to be armed to minimum standards.

Yep; -- yet todays socialists claim that only white men were protected by the second amendment, and that all other persons were subject to State 'law' on this issue.

Beware of the man [and amazingly there are quite a few on FR] who claim conservative credentials, while they argue that our US Constitution was not intended to protect our individual rights from fed, state, or local government infringements.

These men claim that 'We, -as a majority rules society', decide which rights we will protect.
--- For instance, if there's nothing in a state constitution about the right to keep and bear arms [and States can change their constitutions by super-majority decisions], - then --- States can ban all guns if they so chose.