such implicit arguments have frequently been cited by (mostly liberal?) debaters, and much of the clueless populace, lacking any sort of legal education, accepts them without apparent question.)
The Anti-Gun crowd generally avoids quoting, analyzing and debating law and its historical context and reasons. This is because it simply does not support their Anti-Gun position. And because sidestepping needing to voice or contend with such things makes their agenda easier. It's also relavant that most of them have never spent an afternoon or year learning the sport, defense, hunting, law, comparative statistics, etc. Let alone been exposed to or explored larger free thought subjects such as... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_secession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism
Now, a state might hypothetically have a LAW requiring a militia member to respond to a call. But that law would not necessarily be Constitutional
These sorts of "laws", including "mandatory service", taxes, etc are all immoral and against natural law... forcing somone to take an action, slavery, whatever you want others to do, them having done nothing to you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressment Took till 1995 for even the UN to begin to understand that conscription and impressment are wrong.