Bull$hit! Stop your trolling. All you're doing is taking my term "member of a well regulated state militia" and renaming it "agent of the state" in an attempt to get a reaction from me. There's no "conclusion".
Get your act together or we are done on this thread. Comprende?
An accurate summation of your idiocy... Not surprising you run from it though...
You know... you keep "threatening" this, and yet you keep coming back. Can't you just go away and stay there?
And I'm asking you why the term "agent of the state" does not apply, particularly as nothing the person in question does is outside what the state deigns to allow - thus eliminating any semblance of a "right" existing, much less protected. A militiaman may bring his _own_ arms, which he has a _right_ to keep and bear _outside_ the direction & permission of a state; an "agent of the state" does nothing on behalf of himself, does not own his weapons, and does nothing with those weapons which the state has not approved, and if there is an "infringement" by the feds then it is the state which has grounds for complaint, not the individual.
I think the phrase is scaring you because it is absolutely applicable, and indicates the absurdity of your argument. Quit whining and explain otherwise.