+159 (second amendment interpretation 115)

It seems that while discussing whether the part before the second comma is for reasoning or stating a fact, one thing could become easily skipped unnoticed. That thing is about why  that part should be taken as being intended to refer to a real occurrence to begin with? Unlike the part after, the part before that comma by itself does not constitute a complete sentence for it to be taken as referring to the militia being necessary to the security of a free State as the actual status at that time. Neither was there a use for a word like "because" to combine that part with the one following it and thereby extend the actual occurrence of the latter to the whole. Instead the part before the second comma was kept clean and undissolved. Without proof of actual occurrence, this leaves only its being a condition (like in an "if" statement) as how the part before the second comma should be taken and that clearly imply reasoning.  

Looking at the part after the second comma as immediately applicable does not necessarily need to be based on directly following it from the part before that comma being intended to refer to actual occurrence. Instead the part after that comma can also follow from applying the part before that comma as a mere condition first. 

That was a cautious approach. But on a second thought, why do we even need to by default accept that the part after the second comma is an actual order? It came with another part without even being the first in that combination to start with its existence. So why cant the Amendment be just telling us that when the part before that comma exist then the part after it also exist (as an obligation)?   
What follows from that is that even the initial applicability of the Amendment is not built into it.