So reading isn't something you're good at, is it? I didn't mention a single state constitution; I mentioned what the states demanded as a condition of ratifying the United States Constitution and what they demanded be included in a bill of rights.
If you were capable of reading with an open mind, which clearly you are not, you would understand that the states explicitly named the militia clause as a completely separate requirement on the government. In fact, they specified the right to keep and bear arms first and the militia clause second.
That they ratified the amendments in what would become The Bill of Rights, proves that they believed that Madison's edits, edits only designed to bring the 4 variations into a common statement, did not change the meaning or intent. Had it done that, changed the meaning or intent, as understood by the entire Congress and the Legislatures of the 13 States, they would not have ratified the amendments that became the Bill of Rights.
Do you honestly believe that 4 states explicitly demanded in the very document in which they communicated their ratification of the Constitution of the United States, that there be a clause stating that the militia is critical to the defense of a free state, but then would let it be turned into nothing more than a reason for the right to keep and bear arms? Well of course you do because you have a close mind, not capable of thinking for yourself, but can only parrot the words others wrote for you.
So, you're right. What counts is in the Constitution, but to understand the Constitution you can't read it as though it was written in 2022. You have to read it as if it was written in 1789. I showed you exactly how to do that but you chose not to read the entire post and not to actually learn anything new.