Defining my position more accurately

First, let me start by saying that my stating that "being necessary to the security of a free state" in the comma before "being" version as being stated from the authority of reality not that of making a constitution is not accurate. The accurate expression should have limited that claim to the necessity stated in that quoted part. Otherwise I am not claiming that stating that the requirement to follow the operative part if a militia is necessary in reality did not come from the authority of writing a constitution.

Also, instead of stating the claim above saying that it did not come from the authority of writing a constitution I probably can  

expresse that better in saying that the authority of writing a constitution referred us to the authority of reality.

Second, it does not negate my claim if what is referred to in "being" has additionally the constitutional writing authority in stating it. In fact that could make the signs and explanations I am trying to make here even stronger. My concern is about what was not referred to with that "being". Or,to state that differently, it is about what was referred to through the limitations of "being" outside that being. In fact , I probably shouldn't be required to make a case for my reality dependency argument here since it seems to be passively established on its own through the limitations of "being". In other words what I am doing here seems to be equivalent to an affirmative defense against the current interpretation which itself should have carried the burden of making a case for not taking into account the limitations of "being". From the first time I read the amendment I wondered about how unnaturally that "being" seems to be taken and understood away from its limitations. Who on earth would use "being" in that way to refer to continuity of something against the limitation resistance of that same "being"? I continue to find no justification for that understanding. 

One thing that is necessary to be looked at  is if the being referred to in the amendment has sufficiently changed to a different being making the militia unnecessary in current reality. If the answer is yes then the operative clause would stop being applicable. The answer to that, at least because of the insufficiency compared to modern weapons, has been yes for a very long time.  

[(Added 5/2/14) Saying that it does not negate my claim if what is referred to in "being" has additionally the constitutional writing authority in stating it was wrong or because it would stand against my argument through the lacking of the ability to make the two versions of the amendment ratify or even just fit each other]