+132 (second amendment interpretation 96)

What is holding the court here? Shouldn't we understand the parts before and after the second comma (by default I always talk about the congress version) in a way that makes sense of why that connection was made to us? Taking things this way very clearly fit things in my direction. But could it be that there is a view here that a purpose of expressing the importance of the militia through the purpose stated for it in the first part prevents direct connection between those two parts around the second comma? Such understanding implies that the purpose of expressing the importance of the militia is the final purpose for the part speaking about its necessity. Does the level of focus on the intended purpose throughout the whole constitution give any indication that two purposes could be pushed confusingly like this into each other for us to see that this Amendment has two final purposes like that (the importance of the militia in addition to the right to keep and bear Arms)?

Lets go to the technicality of how the Amendment was written. 

Although it starts with "A well regulated militia", following that with the first comma immediately took the focus away from it. Then in the second part the focus was placed on "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" and stayed there to the end. So how could one see that separate purpose in stating the purpose of the militia when the focus was taken away from the militia like that?

Yes, earlier, I, with insufficient accuracy for the discussion here, spoke about the purpose of the first comma as being to focus on all militias equating that with the purpose of not focusing on specific militia and did not take into account the passive path in expressing the resulted generality.