No it is not a major issue. You misunderstand me. I don't think you understand the 2nd Amendment but consider it to be of relatively minor importance.
Based on your statements in post 119, it is clear you don't understand what the 2nd Amendment means or why it was passed. That's explains why you don't think the ban is important:
"Militia's were under state control and not recognized as such unless officered by officers appointed by the state and trained under federal regulation...Read the amendment and you will see that it clearly states the militias' purpose "...being necessary to the security of a free STATE, ...." says nothing about protection FROM the state."
This is the core argument of the anti's, from MMM to VPC, and every anti Rat in Congress from Schumer to Feinstein. You've lost a lot of credibility with that statement. It is my hope some of your fellow NRA members will take the time to help with your understanding.
Of course, I can read the 2d amendment and understand exactly what it means. Since the militia was considered to be every able bodied man the amendment means that every one of them had the right to keep and bear arms. Illinois' constitution makes that explicit even while allowing their disarming.
It is false that the gun-grabbers believe the militia is "necessary to the security of a free state." That is NOT their argument. Rather their argument is that the militia is what has the right to keep and bear arms not individual citizens. That is NOTHING like what I said.
Even during the Revolutionary War the failures of militias were obvious (except against Indians.) Washington was driven to distraction by their unreliability, ineffectiveness and tendency to run like rabbits when the fighting started. That is why he created the Continental army. Today a militia would be even worse.