+162 (second amendment interpretation 118)

Upon reviewing what I wrote in the preceding post, I don't think I should have at this point argued for actively wanting the first comma to state "being necessary to the security of a free State" as a conditional status. That is because the more deserving reason for the first comma still seems to be the one related to prevent this quoted part from carrying a meaning of being about qualifying the kind of militia instead of being about the situation or the environment in general. However, this clearly does not include the argument about the default implication of that first comma for stating an if status. 

+161 (second amendment interpretation 117)

continuing from the preceding post

If we assume intending to avoid stating actuality in the part before the second comma, without the first comma, "being", which is needed to avoid continuity, seems to make that part less fit for the purpose. So we can say that we are doing the best we can. On the other hand, if you want to state an always true fact why would you choose to trap yourself in "being" to begin with?

Instead of taking the first comma as being intended to bring "being necessary to the security of a free State" as a fact, one can take the purpose as intending to bring that as a whole situation. Actually this is what follows directly from the role of the first comma here. It simply divided what otherwise would have been one situation into two changing the connection to a conditional one. The stating a fact view, on the other hand, adds the purpose of intending that separation to state a general fact to comeback and reestablish that connection.

+160 (second amendment interpretation 116)

continuing from the preceding post

Although the other side swims in unfitting things and signs against it, I find it hard to tolerate the appearance of even one. The first comma is more than tolerable to the position of the side demanding from the opposing one showing stating actual existence for the situation described in the part before the second comma. The view that the first comma is intended to state a fact is here countered with the view that it helps expressing the existence of the necessity to the security of a free State as the issue not the merits of that existence.