+134 (second amendment interpretation 98)

In the preceding two posts, to say that having the first comma taking the focus away from the "well regulated militia" part, leads to that the purpose is the "security of a free State" which the militia was necessary to provide and not the militia itself, is one thing, but what I sought was more ambitious than that. I wanted to strengthen my position with showing how "necessary" was applied by taking advantage of how presenting the parts around the second comma, if the connection was intended to be direct, and I am very inclined to see it that way, imply counting on seeing the obvious thing that Arms were needed to satisfy the necessity of the militia with the comparative empowerment it brings. However it seems that by making the claim that having the focus taken away with the first comma prevents stating the importance of the militia as intermediate purpose, I made a general wrong statement that can be proven as such by so many examples. One person could for example say to another That restaurant, being so big, lets eat there expecting better service there and not because of any desire to make use of its additional space.   
I need to put more thinking to make sure if there is a possibility where the Amendment has stating the importance of the militia as intermediate purpose but the main purpose is the security not the militia itself or that I am just confusing the existence of such a third possibility. 
By the way, again, seriously discussing things here shouldn't be taken to mean that there are serious questions to discuss and I cannot avoid the thought that people behaving normally here would not feel any need for this.     

+133 (second amendment interpretation 97)

continuing from the preceding post

The first comma transferred the focus from the well regulated militia itself, through the status of its existence, to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". So what confusing thing the poor speakers here had done to make their intention more difficult to understand than in, for example, saying Jim, being a doctor, you should see him for your headache in that it is the headache (or the dealing with it) that is the focus not Jim himself?

I put the reference to the right of the people to keep and bear Arms in quotation marks above in order to denote speaking only at the parsing level to the sentence there and avoid the implication that right has independent existence from the necessity of the militia to the security of a free state.

+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.