Why different versions of the second amendment were allowed?

AS you can see ,unlike the other alternative, understanding the "necessary to the security of a free state" as being reality dependent makes sense from both the version with and the one without comma before "being". It fits how each version served to concentrate on stating part of the purpose and shows how combining the two states  a needed whole. By doing that it also answers an important question it is not clear how it could be addressed using the other alternative understanding. That question is how is it possible to accept that those who put that much effort arguing and negotiating the details of expressing the amendment allows confusing people with two version that do not connect to or fit each other like that? I don't know if the change in other commas or capitalizations makes as much essential differences as the existence or absence of the comma before "being" but I know that  understanding the "necessary to the security of a free state" as being reality dependent provides a way, if not the only way, to at least solve that part of the puzzle. After all, remember that the change in the wording of developing the amendment from September 4 to 9 of same month in 1789 which I spoke about in a previous post shows clearly that attention was being paid to the existing commas and in the case of the one before "being" it is a very remote probability that with that attention the significance of its existence or removal was failed to be recognized.

Raising that point reminds me of a related similar one I thought about earlier. How much does it fit to think that those who even refused to allow the government to support the establishment of any religion would in the same bill establish a concept in the reasoning (or clarifying as some may like to call it) part of the second amendment with the intention for that reasoning or clarifying part to be taken as a fact that is always true to begin with? Where else in the entire constitution a concept was intended to be forced in the same way?As I said earlier, the purpose of a constitution is about do and don't not forcing concepts.