+143 (second amendment interpretation 102)

It is both disappointing and exiting after spending time trying to understand something to find an error close to the thing enough to suggest not taking in that thing itself despite that you thought you did, and in case of a statement you find that you did not really listen to or read it despite that it appeared very obvious that you did. While there is no insufficiency of answers to the argument that the part of the Amendment before the second comma was for clarification only and was not intended to affect execution of the part after that comma, missing this one is a special indication for being contained instead of containing things from the outside . This additional simple answer goes like this:

If the intention was a mere clarification without affecting the execution then why did they connect the part after the second comma with the actual situation itself that was described in the part before that comma instead of at least adding support to such intention by connecting the part after the second comma to stating the reason described in the part before that comma using some of the reasoning words like "because" or "therefore"? In other words, why would they choose to connect the part after the second comma to the reason itself instead of connecting it to stating that reason? So why would I need to assume the addition of another layer that was already in front of the speakers there but they did not take it?
In addition to the issue of taking without proof "being" as "always" to support a theory that the connection of the part after the second comma is with the one before the first comma and that the in between part is just interrupting, such theory should not be allowed to build itself on ignoring that the part after the second comma connect to the part between the first and second commas not through stating it as the reason but directly as the reason. Instead that theory should be required to counter or offset the argument that the connection just mentioned should be taken as it appears. After all, perception of intention should be directed by the content, not the other way around.