From the article: "Robert Gensburg, a St. Johnsbury lawyer who lives in East Burke, has a different interpretation of the Second Amendment, bringing into focus the ability of two honest men to disagree on what our Constitution means. "
My re-reading of the article reveals that the author presented the "collective rights" interpretation, as opposed to "individual right", as having such legitimacy than and honest man can hold to that interpretation.
To think that our Founders opposed the confiscation of arms by the nation's army at Lexington and Concord and would then concern themselves with whether the nation in future would be able to field such an army, is nonsense.
Those who hold to the "collective rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment are not honest and must lie about US v. Miller, for example, to state their case.
Three paragraphs mention Robert Gensburg, a St. Johnsbury lawyer, out of twenty one paragraphs by my count.
If you think three out of twenty one paragraphs balance the obvious sentiment in the remainder, what can I say?