Position of the operative clause

If the operative clause of the second amendment was intended to always apply why bring it second instead of first? Why this form?

In demands or orders that can be expressed with short sentences and those for the do and don'ts as what a constitution is for, isn't it stronger and more expressive to put the demand or order first in the sentence or paragraph if the demand or order is always valid? That what seems to be generally the preferred path of stating always valid orders and demands in order to bring to focus the main purpose of executing things by stating what needs to be done.Why would one waste that and instead confuse things by stating first an explanation that always leads to the same end result for a text intended mainly for executing things like a constitution? What kind of execution or action is expected from an explanation that leads to a fixed result like that? In a text intended for execution, what could be missed if an explanation that always leads to the same fixed end result is not stated before the executable part of that text that otherwise could serve the purpose better if stated first?

In addition, assuming interpretations limiting or restricting the operative clause based on what came before it , like what I  argue for, were not intended by those who made the second amendment, they are still not all far fetched for them to be seen as things the thought of which did not occur to those who made the amendment. Starting with the executable part at the beginning would have greatly helped in excluding those interpretation because it would much more strongly suggests that the execution is not dependent on a condition. In other words, if the intention was for the part before the operative clause not to limit or restrict the operative clause then that intention could have been conveyed much better and with much less confusion by starting with the generality of the operative clause (or whatever equivalent to it) first and that part (or whatever equivalent to it ) second.   

[(Added 2/19/2014)  One could also ask this question: 
What end result action reading the entire second amendment shows as required to be done (or not done) and for which the amendment was made? It is the action described in the operative clause. 

Now, if you believe that the part before the operative clause do not affect the execution of the action in the clause then the end result action shown by reading the whole amendment and that by reading just the operative clause would be the same. Also, since the part before the operative clause do not affect the action in the clause, it does not need to be stated before the clause and knowledge of what was stated in that part do not need to impede the strength of stating what is in the operative clause and can be postponed to after the clause. So why would one weaken the strength of stating what is required to be done by making it flow through the part before the clause to the end of the amendment if it can be stated with more strength by simply positioning it first?Another avoidance of worse situation and gain of better one that comes with positioning what was stated in the operative part first and what was stated before it second comes from better avoidance of limiting or restricting interpretations,like the one I argue for, through better support for the generality of what is stated in both clauses with this arrangement]   


Why wasn't the second amendment arranged like this?

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State. 

Or this?

    People shall always have the right to keep and bear Arms                 because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security
    of a free State. 

Or simply reversing the first and second part of the form cited by the court as equivalent to the amendment like this?

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State. 

 (It is not reasonable to understand in that the infringement is because the militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Also, if an opposing argument claim that was intentionally avoided then that level of avoiding misunderstanding could also be put for use against the opposing interpretation of the amendment)      

There are probably many other potential alternatives that can achieve the same purpose.

On the other hand,starting with the explanation,especially with its "being" form, then moving to the operative clause fits strongly with the intention of reasoning and giving the reader a measurement device to use. Seen through that understanding, the whole amendment from beginning to end shows an execution path to be followed starting from the reasoning path that should be followed to the application of the operative clause and that fits much better with the main purpose of a constitution in stating what needs to be executed and the do and don'ts of things. Arranging the second amendment the way it is allows selecting the path that would cause the executable part to come into effect.