The reference argument - 2

I wonder about what mindset would look at the "being necessary to the security of a free State" and can easily conclude that an intention to reason with the reader instead of directly imposing it as a fact is not THE substantial probability here or at least a substantial one. In fact, even if the second amendment came in the form:

Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed

which I don't see it as always equivalent to the original because it omits the potential significance of using "being" , One still cant avoid seeing that as a probable intention if not the main probable intention. What if you tell a friend:

Because A has the best degree and experience in heart surgery, I advice you to choose him to perform the heart operation on you.

Is it your intention that your friend should take the first part as an always true absolute fact and let A do the operation on him even if real world outside clearly shows your friend that A don't even have a medical degree? So why would you assume less from those who made the second amendment?

It is not unusual if not the most usual for things like the beginning of the statement above to be intended to remain under the control of what reality outside proves to be the case. That probability is even increased more with the potential intention behind the word "being" to refer to current status of things at that time. Also why would those who made the amendment need to impose thing as a fact in this way when they can do that with the direct clear cut form they generally used in the constitution using the power writing a constitution gives? If they wanted to impose the "being necessary to the security of a free State" as an absolute fact that always remain true no matter what changes in the outside world and what the outside world shows indicating otherwise, why would they bother themselves to take that long path to reach the same end result? They could have directly stated only that "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed". So why take this longer path? Just to reason a rule they made using another thing that itself should be taken as always an absolute fact independent of reasoning related to the world outside? Even worse, imposing some notion to be taken as true regardless of reality outside is much less mentally digestible than a rule without any explanatory reasoning.

If there is a place in the constitution for something that is to be taken as always true regardless of what is in the outside world then certinely it should be of the kind of those listed on their own like much of what is in the other amendment rather than being part of the reasoning for other things. What prevented making the amendment in this form:

A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Or if they wanted to emphasis more the connection they could have also added something similar to this to the beginning of the second sentence

For a well regulated Militia,..

(clearly this just a simple example and those native speakers at that time are much more capable in expressing things than the one with English as a second language writing this) :

Couldn't they find a space for that in the already too short bill of rights?

One more thing, if everyone was agreeing on the right to keep and bare arms and that right was so widely accepted as the court pictured things in the District of Columbia v. Heller case then for whom it was thought that the reasoning in the first part of the amendment? Doesn't that suggest that future people were more the target audience in mind for that reasoning? If so, then wouldn't that reduce the probability of taking the risk to use the word "being" despite the possibility that it could be understood to refer to the status of things at that time unless it was intended?

Notice that there could also be a strong argument against taking that part as an absolute always true notion regardless of the intention behind it because of the dependence of those who made it on things that have gone through a path of huge changes to our time making them far beyond the reasonable capability to be predicted or accounted for at that time.