Is there something wrong with using "member of a well regulated state militia" instead?
"Agent of the state" is vague and inflammatory and you know it. He's trolling, and you know that too.
Looks like he has a valid point to me. Under the conditions you’ve laid out for what qualifies as a “member of a well regulated militia” they can only operate as “agents of the state”. You have indeed made it a distinction without a difference, and I don’t see what’s imflammatory about pointing that out.
No, I'm being very precise with the conclusions reached by your arguments. If that makes you uncomfortable, then perhaps you should reconsider your arguments.