There's no obvious constitutional difference between a state forcing militia-age males to equip themselves with guns and a state forcing adults in today's world to equip themselves with health insurance.
-- and she got this from?
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Do you see a problem here?
Man she is sure pushing it. Also when states required that, there didn’t exist the complications of today’s incorporated Federal civil rights (so, for example, a state could also have a favored state church).
“Well regulated” in the old fashioned language of the 2nd amendment would translate to “well drilled” or “well practiced” today. It’s not what liberals would think of today when they want a thing to be “well regulated” meaning nannies can say no to it on a plethora of excuses.