Militia, law, impressment, guns, history

[grarpamp]

> 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.