+269 (second amendment interpretation 203: Adjustment(s) to The Preceding )

Seems like, in the bottom part of the preceding post,  following my style of touching my ear with the hand from other side, I unnecessarily applied "require" as equivalent to "applicable" when I could have limited the use to only the latter (and its negation) and avoided unnecessary confusion probability.
It is probably more important than the above to point out how my describing capitalized references as  references to the whole could be confusing and that it would have been better to look for better expressions or at least staying with the root here by describing them as internally inapplicable references. 

+268 (second amendment interpretation 202: How "well regulated" Tops Things Off - 2 )

Had the amendment referred to a "well regulated militia" instead, "well regulated" would have been applicable on the militia internally. This can lead to having the application of "well regulated" dissolved in the group part and changing from a status, if  we had it as a status to begin with, to a description only. But with the capitalization we have for the word "militia", "well regulated" will not be applicable on the inside parts and therefore remains not just a description but also a status. Being a status implies that the external environment outside requires the militia to be well regulated.   
There could be an objection here on the use of the word "status" arguing that it does not fit because being well regulated would persist even when the environment does not require that. The answer here is that that objection itself is the result of the dissolving action described above. Otherwise, when "well regulated" apply to the whole only and can not reach the internal parts as individual existences, we may have the thing with the statuses of being  well regulated or not well regulated, if the external environment of the thing requires it to be well regulated,  or, we would have the question about that status inapplicable, if the external environment of the thing does not require being well regulated to begin with.

+267 (second amendment interpretation 201: How "well regulated" Tops Things Off )

Although I am still working on improving my argument about capitalized references, I am going here to jump to the finish line then go back to work on the former later (Because I just checked and found what seems to be a Second Amendment related petition that is still undecided from October of last year).  

Someone could say: Okay, I see that the capitalization of the word "state" makes the amendment refers to only external security, and I also clearly see that in our time when I refer to the  external security I do not see not having a well regulated militia as in anyway a primary lacking thing, but how about secondary roles like for example supplying our military with people when needed?

Although this probably could be answered after considering how significant that secondary role to be worth making the militia necessary, it seems that the makers of the amendment prepared a direct technical answer even at this level. This answer comes through the combination of having the word "militia" capitalized and describing it as well regulated. Like the word "State", the capitalization of the word "militia" makes it refer to the whole thing only. That reference to the whole only, makes "well regulated Militia" refers to a specific value for the militia, which is that of being well regulated, and not to a range of values from where a well regulated militia happens also to be. In other words, what is necessary should be the militia with its being well regulated, not just a militia with being well regulated is required just as a description for it but not necessary.

For an external example, suppose that a company writes in its rules that while an employee is in need for a "doctor in medicine" he will have paid off days. Technically, that is open to the interpretation for a need for a medical doctor at any role, including those unrelated to the medical profession, like for example repairing the car of the employee. But if the word "doctor" was instead capitalized, then the reference would be to only the whole thing and for that being at the role of a medical doctor would be necessary.

Since for the purpose of supplying the military with people any militia would fit and not necessarily a militia at its capacity of being well regulated, such a purpose does not affect whether a well regulated Militia is necessary or not.