Very insightful. The militia defined by the Act obligated into service a different (albeit overlapping) subset of the population than those allowed to vote. Strictly speaking from RP's view, a man aged 45 who did not own land was part of the militia but could not vote, but when he turned 46 and bought property he was not part of the militia but could vote ... something is very wrong with your reasoning, RP, when some rights are lost (to wit: unprotected) merely by aging, and others obtained by simple ownership of ground; such is anathema to the notion of "rights".
And what’s important to note and which robertpaulsen ignores is that the non-voting subset were by law required to have their own weapons and to bring them when called if necessary. So that lays to rest the theory that “the people” were property owners only since why only 1 year after the adoption of the 2nd Amendment would they write into law ALL able-bodied white males, property owners or not had to be armed for possible duty? They obviously believed the 2nd and by extension “the people” included more than just property owners.
There were probably some free blacks and foreign mercenaries in the militias, also. There’s always exceptions.