You quoted a guy that voted against the Constitution. You quoted a guy that was a proponent of the bill of rights. He was a prominent figure of the time, but that doesn't make his word gospel, just as my quoted piece doesn't either. They debated this stuff back then just as we do now because it's not spelled out as succinctly as you believe.

And yet you refuse to accept your ignorance of the definition of a militia. You can attack me all you want but your argument hasn't changed.

And obviously it's an opinion. Did you not notice that everything both of us have said is an opinion? Please show me where, in the Constitution, it says that it's a rigid document not open to interpretation. You can't, because it's not there. The lack of language speaks volumes and allows us to debate all of this stuff. If you don't like debating it, then maybe you should find some other constitution to defend. (And for the record it's not a singular opinion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution.)