+102 (second amendment interpretation 75)

Although, I started just seeking to improve the neutrality of "the right of the people", now I try to add it as additional support to my understanding of the preceding part of the Amendment. Related to post +100, because, unlike when the reason for the "right" in the Arms clause is the continued necessity of the militia, there is no reason to see that right existing before its recognition in the Amendment, when "being" is just about  the militia itself without continued necessity. That would imply the "right" in the Arms clause was created with the recognition of it in the preceding part. In addition to the absence of support for the creation of that right and having the use of "the" with the word "right" suggesting referring to an already existing right, the "of the people" adds support to the word "right" in countering taking "being" that way by suggesting more that right is already existing and not just created.

Not only the purpose for "of the people" mentioned above can coexist with that described in post +99, they both could have originated from the same intention and seeing them as separate here is just another consequence of standing too close? In other words, both intentions for the use of "of the people" to describe "the right" (as already existing, for one, and, belongs to the people, for the other) could have been included in the intention to identify the right and that was done by pointing to its origin using "of the people".