+241 (second amendment interpretation 185: Precedence of "security" and "freedom" )

Both arguments for the words "security" and "free" to be applied at the external level only, which I made below, are dependents on taking the capitalization of the word "state" for the granularity level of those earlier words. For the purpose of arguing the latter, in addition to collecting points and increasing the probability, there seems to be also a direct path. That path is based simply on the precedence of the words "security" and "free". Within stating the purpose, we were directed toward the State after reaching the statuses of being secure and free. The corresponding part of the Amendment could have been written in a way making us reach the State first if the purpose includes internal freedom and security, Like:

being necessary to a State to have the security and freedom.  
Maybe I confused things by jumping directly to how things should be taken (granularity level). Technically what I am trying to prove here is that the word "free" in "a free State" describes a State not a state. In other words, to the extent the the word "free" here describes the state, that description comes through describing the State, not the other way around. This the standard of proof to which I am holding myself here.