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.
The well regulated Militia referred to in the U.S. Constitution -- Article I, Section 8, and the second amendment -- had officers appointed by the state in which the members resided and reported to the Governor of each state. Yes, the members of the Militia are acting on behalf of the state in which they lived for the benefit of that state.
Why do you choose to use the descriptor "agents of the state"? To be inflammatory. You're as bad a troll as your cohort. Go away and come back when you have something real to debate, other than your stupid labeling.
If that's all you're capable of, then your posts don't interest me. They're childish.