+155 (second amendment interpretation 113)

In support of what was said in post +151, notice how having, not just the text itself that is before the second comma, but also a container representing existence in which that text was said, is an integral part to stating that part of the Amendment as the reason for the part of the Amendment after that comma. That is because the text there only mention the militia being necessary to the security of a free State as the reason even though the reason, pointed at accurately, is the State where a militia is necessary to the security of a free State. But that reference to the State as a container was not supplied in the text. 
If we were not supposed to take the text said in the part before the second comma through a container representing existence originating that text, then that part of the Amendment would have needed to also point out that the militia belong to where it was described as "necessary". For starter, one may think of :
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of its free State,...
Or 
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State where it belongs,...    
It seems that the Amendment was taken as carrying this meaning even though it is not stated directly in the text. Why would the Amendment stop in its clarification on this point even though it went as far as saying, not just "necessary" or "necessary to a free State" or "necessary to the security", but all the way to "necessary to the security of a free State"? Actually, the more it is argued that no attention was paid while making the Amendment to the gap of having this left out, the more that will also suggest more depth for dependence on the existence originating that text.