What Was Ratified?

Understanding that "being necessary to the security of a free state" was intended to reason with us and came from the authority of reality instead of that of writing a constitution is not just simply supported by that it makes combining the two versions fits better but is required because one of them ratifies the other. To show that in more detailed way lets ask ourselves this question first:

What Was Ratified?

If the answer is that what was ratified is what is shared between these two versions then it is clear that the comma-less before "being" version does not state "being necessary to the security of a free state" as a fact. That means taking that part as a fact will not be part of the amendment and therefore we do not need to argue about its meaning.

If ,on the other hand, the answer is that what was ratified is the comma before "being" Congress version then the two versions need to be seen as completely equivalent to each other. It is not hard to see the comma before "being" version as stating the part "being necessary to the security of a free state" as both a fact and a condition. In fact, this was how I naturally understood it the first time I looked at it without much thinking. But how about the comma-less before "being" version which states the part "being necessary to the security of a free state" as only a condition and not a fact? The absence of that part as a fact can only leave it for  reality reasoning and indicates that it did not come from the authority of writing a constitution. In addition, taking into account that the fact in the comma version states the necessity of a militia and the condition in the comma-less version calls on following what is necessary, shows how suitable it is for that fact to be left to reasoning.

Notes how not ratifying that "being necessary to the security of a free state" as a fact means it is not part of the constitution as a fact expresses that it did not come from the authority of writing a constitution. Another way to look at that is in how something in the constitution that was stated from the authority of reality rather than that of writing a constitution is seen as part of the constitution but is not really a direct part of what a constitution serves in its purpose of being a do and don't guide and how that expressed in having that part as a fact in one version and not the other. It may be worthy of being mentioned again that although stating that part from the authority of writing a constitution may not makes it a direct part of what a constitution is intended to serve it is still makes it serves better the purpose of making a constitution through affecting the execution of the operative clause than the other alternative that makes it being stated from the authority of writing a constitution but affects the execution of the operative clause in no way and serves no execution purpose other than clarifying a purpose.