+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.

+158

For whatever reason, real or psychological, the final court is not taking Second Amendment cases, why in the mean time it does not tell the lower courts that opinions related to the matter, like that of the Heller case, should be taken as mere arguments and are not required to be followed until further notice?  The additional input from those courts could provide questions to somebody taking a position like mine here while this court can look at both that additional input and its counter arguments. The current situation of having the appellate courts make varying interpretations for how to follow the opinions of this court regarding the Second Amendment should not be confused as allowing those courts to interpret the Amendment according to what they believe from the root. If the court is paused on this matter (even if because of being possessed by some evil spirit) then why not take advantage from this pause throughout all the judicial process not just its last point? I was thinking today why don't I look for how appellate courts were ruling on Second Amendment cases before the Heller case but even that could be just following previous rulings by this court on the matter and far from being the result of original thinking of those courts (Although I realized that the current pause by this court on the matter is probably more of the result of their voting on cases than it is being itself a decision that was agreed upon).      
For us outside, it also needs to be noticed that it is not helping the cause when doing things like, for example, possessing a stun gun but then go to this court complaining of the consequences of a state law against that and make this court find no alternative to save the complaining party except by applying its previous opinions about the Second Amendment while it wants to pause from doing that. In other words, if you believe that the Second Amendment no longer guarantees a right to possession of Arms then that would go both ways, for and against you, even when your state make a decision as  ridiculous as forbidding stun guns but allowing real ones.