What's wrong with smart guns?

[mgh80]

There's nothing wrong with owning a smart gun....there's something wrong with mandating that all guns be smart guns.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” (DC v. Heller)

We kinda did this before but, court opinion notwithstanding, their comparison remains unworkable specious reasoning, in that the First Amendment guarantees speech (as well as religion and assembly), which are abstract actions. Regardless of the what newly developed technological method might be used to express said speech, the action itself -- i.e. the abstract thought --- does not change over time. Its purpose and its motivation are human and forever.

The Second Amendment, however, refers to a technological object ('arms', however we might define that). And being man-made devices, they are subject to revisions, modifications and improvements. Therefore the Court has established no basis for their apples/oranges comparison. As a false analogy it's a flawed argument.

As we also mentioned backthread, the Second Amendment is the only one to deal with a physical object rather than an abstract thought or action --- excepting the 18th (which prohibited alcohol, and which was repealed by the 21st anyway). Had the 18th not been repealed, we might have been facing the same definitional question on new alcohol technologies not known in the 18th Century such as powdered alcohol.

The Second Amendment also acknowledges a right to self-defense, likewise an abstract action; and there can be no freedom of the press absent a technological object, be it an 18th Century printing press or a 21st Century telecommunications satellite.

Indeed, it is not the firearm (object) that 'benefits' from the Second Amendment right, but the individual pursuant to his right to self-defense, just as the printing press (object) does not 'benefit' from the First Amendment right.

So the Amendment does deal with an abstract thought or action, the firearm – or other weapons comprehensively – facilitating the act of lawful self-defense.

Now, the pitfalls of comparing firearms to printing presses, or comparing the use of lethal force to defend oneself to writing a book or giving a speech might have merit in the context of philosophy or ethics, but in the context of the law the issues are nonetheless analogous, where the law must often deal with such base and unpleasant matters that trouble the human condition.

Last, Second Amendment jurisprudence does serve the purpose and need to recognize and codify when government has acted in an appropriate and responsible manner with regard to regulating firearms, and when it has not; and to afford the people the means by which they might seek relief in Federal court when they believe their right to self-defense – and the means to facilitate that right – have been adversely effected by force of law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

so your sitting home alone while your husband is working late. someone breaks into your house with the intent to rob you, sees a woman home alone and figures he will rape you too. you grab your husbands smart gun to repel the invaders. Enjoy the ride honey. your gun may be shooting blanks but the rapist won't be.

btw, read the federalist papers. the founders intended the citizens to be as well armed as the regular army. so if the army wants to continue to use muskets too, you may have a point. Oh and BTW, 10 years before the 2nd amendment was written these very same founders place an order with a Philadelphia gun maker for a rapid fire gun that used a high capacity magazine.

Do you have links to the gun making info. I get tired of the lefty gun grabbers talking about muskets and that would be a nice thing to throw at them. Thanks.

Machine gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Considering the Minié Ball wasn't even invented until the 19th century, I highly doubt there is one.

once again, a gun grabber totally ignorant of history. especially history that is related to what he is incorrectly arguing. look up joseph belton. his invention could fire 20 rounds in 5 seconds.

"Gun grabber"?

................... Link?



Nope. Guess not.

As for the claim a while back ---- It ain't my job to look up your points for you.
YOU brought it up, that means YOU supply the documentation.
Got that?

ain't my job to teach you.. remain uneducated, not my problem. doesn't matter either way. americans are not giving up their guns. in fact, we're starting to take back our rights. We grow stronger every day

This makes no sense whatsoever.

No one is advocating anyone 'give up' his guns, the notion is baseless idiocy, as is the notion of 'taking back' rights, whatever that's supposed to mean.

 

[Pogo]

so your sitting home alone while your husband is working late. someone breaks into your house with the intent to rob you, sees a woman home alone and figures he will rape you too. you grab your husbands smart gun to repel the invaders. Enjoy the ride honey. your gun may be shooting blanks but the rapist won't be.

btw, read the federalist papers. the founders intended the citizens to be as well armed as the regular army. so if the army wants to continue to use muskets too, you may have a point. Oh and BTW, 10 years before the 2nd amendment was written these very same founders place an order with a Philadelphia gun maker for a rapid fire gun that used a high capacity magazine.

Do you have links to the gun making info. I get tired of the lefty gun grabbers talking about muskets and that would be a nice thing to throw at them. Thanks.

Machine gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Considering the Minié Ball wasn't even invented until the 19th century, I highly doubt there is one.

once again, a gun grabber totally ignorant of history. especially history that is related to what he is incorrectly arguing. look up joseph belton. his invention could fire 20 rounds in 5 seconds.

"Gun grabber"?

................... Link?



Nope. Guess not.

As for the claim a while back ---- It ain't my job to look up your points for you.
YOU brought it up, that means YOU supply the documentation.
Got that?

ain't my job to teach you.. remain uneducated, not my problem. doesn't matter either way. americans are not giving up their guns. in fact, we're starting to take back our rights. We grow stronger every day

Well --- yes it IS your job, when you bring up an idea and are asked for a link. Who else's job would it be? Think about it.

And I see you couldn't find a link making me a "gun grabber". And there's a reason for that.
Think before posting next time.

 

[Pogo]

“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” (DC v. Heller)

We kinda did this before but, court opinion notwithstanding, their comparison remains unworkable specious reasoning, in that the First Amendment guarantees speech (as well as religion and assembly), which are abstract actions. Regardless of the what newly developed technological method might be used to express said speech, the action itself -- i.e. the abstract thought --- does not change over time. Its purpose and its motivation are human and forever.

The Second Amendment, however, refers to a technological object ('arms', however we might define that). And being man-made devices, they are subject to revisions, modifications and improvements. Therefore the Court has established no basis for their apples/oranges comparison. As a false analogy it's a flawed argument.

As we also mentioned backthread, the Second Amendment is the only one to deal with a physical object rather than an abstract thought or action --- excepting the 18th (which prohibited alcohol, and which was repealed by the 21st anyway). Had the 18th not been repealed, we might have been facing the same definitional question on new alcohol technologies not known in the 18th Century such as powdered alcohol.

The Second Amendment also acknowledges a right to self-defense, likewise an abstract action; and there can be no freedom of the press absent a technological object, be it an 18th Century printing press or a 21st Century telecommunications satellite.

Indeed, it is not the firearm (object) that 'benefits' from the Second Amendment right, but the individual pursuant to his right to self-defense, just as the printing press (object) does not 'benefit' from the First Amendment right.

So the Amendment does deal with an abstract thought or action, the firearm – or other weapons comprehensively – facilitating the act of lawful self-defense.

That would be in the verb "to bear". That's where the action is.

But the direct object of that action is still "Arms", a physical object. If "Arms" do not exist, neither does 2A. Therefore it is dependent upon the existence of an object, the fluidity of definition of which is what we pursue here.

There is no cognate physical object in for example the 1A. "Speech" (as well as religion, as well as assembly) may be manifested via myriad devices, or no device at all. We may use this internet, or we may use our own speaking voice. The 1A is thus not dependent on the existence of an object. Therefore it is neither necessary nor relevant to define what modes of transmission that speech may include or not include. If the internet, or even the printing press, does not exist, it has no effect on the 1A.

Or in grammatical terms, the Second Amendment is using a transitive verb, the 1A an intransitive.

That's the distinction I'm observing, and why the analogy is a false one.

 

[Pogo]

Do you have links to the gun making info. I get tired of the lefty gun grabbers talking about muskets and that would be a nice thing to throw at them. Thanks.

Machine gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Considering the Minié Ball wasn't even invented until the 19th century, I highly doubt there is one.

once again, a gun grabber totally ignorant of history. especially history that is related to what he is incorrectly arguing. look up joseph belton. his invention could fire 20 rounds in 5 seconds.

"Gun grabber"?

................... Link?



Nope. Guess not.

As for the claim a while back ---- It ain't my job to look up your points for you.
YOU brought it up, that means YOU supply the documentation.
Got that?

ain't my job to teach you.. remain uneducated, not my problem. doesn't matter either way. americans are not giving up their guns. in fact, we're starting to take back our rights. We grow stronger every day

This makes no sense whatsoever.

No one is advocating anyone 'give up' his guns, the notion is baseless idiocy, as is the notion of 'taking back' rights, whatever that's supposed to mean.

It's a strawman argument from emotion.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Do you have links to the gun making info. I get tired of the lefty gun grabbers talking about muskets and that would be a nice thing to throw at them. Thanks.

Machine gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Considering the Minié Ball wasn't even invented until the 19th century, I highly doubt there is one.

once again, a gun grabber totally ignorant of history. especially history that is related to what he is incorrectly arguing. look up joseph belton. his invention could fire 20 rounds in 5 seconds.

"Gun grabber"?

................... Link?



Nope. Guess not.

As for the claim a while back ---- It ain't my job to look up your points for you.
YOU brought it up, that means YOU supply the documentation.
Got that?

ain't my job to teach you.. remain uneducated, not my problem. doesn't matter either way. americans are not giving up their guns. in fact, we're starting to take back our rights. We grow stronger every day

This makes no sense whatsoever.

No one is advocating anyone 'give up' his guns, the notion is baseless idiocy, as is the notion of 'taking back' rights, whatever that's supposed to mean.

You have repeatedly been shown your claim that NO ONE is trying to take all guns is a bald faced lie. We have shown you prominent members of Congress that have advocated EXACTLY that as well as board members here.

 

[Pogo]

Machine gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Considering the Minié Ball wasn't even invented until the 19th century, I highly doubt there is one.

once again, a gun grabber totally ignorant of history. especially history that is related to what he is incorrectly arguing. look up joseph belton. his invention could fire 20 rounds in 5 seconds.

"Gun grabber"?

................... Link?



Nope. Guess not.

As for the claim a while back ---- It ain't my job to look up your points for you.
YOU brought it up, that means YOU supply the documentation.
Got that?

ain't my job to teach you.. remain uneducated, not my problem. doesn't matter either way. americans are not giving up their guns. in fact, we're starting to take back our rights. We grow stronger every day

This makes no sense whatsoever.

No one is advocating anyone 'give up' his guns, the notion is baseless idiocy, as is the notion of 'taking back' rights, whatever that's supposed to mean.

You have repeatedly been shown your claim that NO ONE is trying to take all guns is a bald faced lie. We have shown you prominent members of Congress that have advocated EXACTLY that as well as board members here.

Spoon was talking to me --- not to "prominent members of Congress" or "board members here" -- me.

And he's full of shit, as I demonstrated by calling for a link he can't provide.

 

[Missourian]

---- which is the least of the linguistic road hazards in 2A. I refer of course to that nasty brutish and short dependent clause at the head of it, the intent of which has never been discerned to this day, and in fact, cannot be.

Sure it can...never heard of the Militia Act of 1792?

Who is the Militia?

'...every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages 18-54)'

This continues to this day, as the Militia Act of 1903...

Who is the Militia?

This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.

 

[Missourian]

A fighting force made up of all able bodied citizens in proper working order being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[Pogo]

---- which is the least of the linguistic road hazards in 2A. I refer of course to that nasty brutish and short dependent clause at the head of it, the intent of which has never been discerned to this day, and in fact, cannot be.

Sure it can...never heard of the Militia Act of 1792?

Who is the Militia?

'...every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages 18-54)'

This continues to this day, as the Militia Act of 1903...

Who is the Militia?

This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.

That doesn't address the dilemma.

The definition of what a Militia is, is not the point here. The question is, what is the function of the conditional phrase?

Nobody knows. And no other Amendment has one, so there is no precedent.

 

[Abatis]

---- which is the least of the linguistic road hazards in 2A. I refer of course to that nasty brutish and short dependent clause at the head of it, the intent of which has never been discerned to this day, and in fact, cannot be.

Correct, "the intent of which has never been discerned" and never will be because all those "linguistic hazards" that anti-gunners invent, are relieved when one comports his thinking with that of 140 years of SCOTUS, affirming foundational constitutional principles for the right to arms.

The right to arms is a pre-existing right and is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus the right to arms is not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.

First , "not in any manner dependent" extinguishes any attempt to restrict the right by reading the "nasty brutish and short dependent clause at the head" of the 2nd Amendment, as conditioning the right to arms.

Second, "not in any manner dependent" means that the right to arms can not be argued to be qualified upon one's membership / attachment to an entity and structure that is itself, entirely dependent upon the Constitution for its existence (the organized militia).

Supreme Court, 1876: "bearing arms for a lawful purpose . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . ."

Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . "

Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . .”​

In that first case, the right of "bearing arms for lawful purpose" recognized by the Court, was the right possessed and exercised of being armed in public for the purpose of self defense (from the KKK / Night Riders) of two Freemen (former slaves, then US citizens, victims of the Colfax Massacre) in 1873 Louisiana.

An important point about that year, Louisiana was among some states which had no organized state militia at the time -- it having been disbanded by Congress. So SCOTUS could not be recognizing a right of bearing arms for militia members because 1), there was no state militia and 2), the people who had their rights violated were themselves barred from enrolling in the state militia.

The above quotes serve another purpose . . . To correct the commonly heard disinformation that DC v Heller in 2008 was "the first time the Supreme Court recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms" . . . That statement is shown to be the bullshit it is; Heller only demonstrated the boring consistency of SCOTUS explanations of the right to arms / 2nd Amendment.

 

[Abatis]

That doesn't address the dilemma.

The definition of what a Militia is, is not the point here. The question is, what is the function of the conditional phrase?

Nobody knows. And no other Amendment has one, so there is no precedent.

The ONLY thing one can take away from reading the 2nd Amendment is that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

All the 2nd Amendment "does" is redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted.

You and your designs for usurpation through misconstruction, are precisely what the Federalists warned us about and why they argued against adding a bill of rights to the Constitution.

Hamilton, Federalist 84:

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."​

 

[2aguy]

Get the NYPD, LAPD, FBI and Secret Service to adopt smart guns for a 2 year trial...then come back and see us.

No…require them to have them permanently. They work for us, we dictate what they carry, they don't dictate what we get to own and carry. Then we will see how "smart" smart guns are.

And the whole point here is choice. If someone wants a smart gun…good…..but that isn't enough for the left. They know smart guns are crap and that is the main reason they want to mandate them for everyone…..which is why they have actually created laws….that's right, laws that mandate that once the first smart gun is sold all guns sold will have to be smart guns.

 

[2aguy]

---- which is the least of the linguistic road hazards in 2A. I refer of course to that nasty brutish and short dependent clause at the head of it, the intent of which has never been discerned to this day, and in fact, cannot be.

Correct, "the intent of which has never been discerned" and never will be because all those "linguistic hazards" that anti-gunners invent, are relieved when one comports his thinking with that of 140 years of SCOTUS, affirming foundational constitutional principles for the right to arms.

The right to arms is a pre-existing right and is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus the right to arms is not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.

First , "not in any manner dependent" extinguishes any attempt to restrict the right by reading the "nasty brutish and short dependent clause at the head" of the 2nd Amendment, as conditioning the right to arms.

Second, "not in any manner dependent" means that the right to arms can not be argued to be qualified upon one's membership / attachment to an entity and structure that is itself, entirely dependent upon the Constitution for its existence (the organized militia).

Supreme Court, 1876: "bearing arms for a lawful purpose . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . ."

Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . "

Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . .”​

In that first case, the right of "bearing arms for lawful purpose" recognized by the Court, was the right possessed and exercised of being armed in public for the purpose of self defense (from the KKK / Night Riders) of two Freemen (former slaves, then US citizens) in 1873 Louisiana (victims of the Colfax Massacre). An important point about that year, Louisiana was among some states which had no organized state militia at the time -- it having been disbanded by Congress. So SCOTUS could not be recognizing a right of bearing arms for militia members because 1), there was no state militia and 2), the people who had their rights violated were themselves barred from enrolling in the state militia.

The above quotes serve another purpose . . . To correct the commonly heard disinformation that DC v Heller in 2008 was "the first time the Supreme Court recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms" . . . That statement is shown to be the bullshit it is; Heller only demonstrated the boring consistency of SCOTUS explanations of the right to arms / 2nd Amendment.

Thank you.

 

[dannyboys]

When the first Europeans landed on US shores there wasn't anyone standing there telling them they had to hand over any guns. Hence the concept of the "pre existing right".
There was no 'law of the land' forbidding people from bearing arms.
This sounds a bit obvious but it's the reason people to this day can own guns.

 

[Pogo]

You and your designs for usurpation through misconstruction

Link?




Didn't think so. Assssss-ume much?

 

[Pogo]

---- which is the least of the linguistic road hazards in 2A. I refer of course to that nasty brutish and short dependent clause at the head of it, the intent of which has never been discerned to this day, and in fact, cannot be.

Correct, "the intent of which has never been discerned" and never will be because all those "linguistic hazards" that anti-gunners invent, are relieved when one comports his thinking with that of 140 years of SCOTUS, affirming foundational constitutional principles for the right to arms.

The right to arms is a pre-existing right and is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus the right to arms is not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.

First , "not in any manner dependent" extinguishes any attempt to restrict the right by reading the "nasty brutish and short dependent clause at the head" of the 2nd Amendment, as conditioning the right to arms.

Second, "not in any manner dependent" means that the right to arms can not be argued to be qualified upon one's membership / attachment to an entity and structure that is itself, entirely dependent upon the Constitution for its existence (the organized militia).

Supreme Court, 1876: "bearing arms for a lawful purpose . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . ."

Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . "

Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . .”​

In that first case, the right of "bearing arms for lawful purpose" recognized by the Court, was the right possessed and exercised of being armed in public for the purpose of self defense (from the KKK / Night Riders) of two Freemen (former slaves, then US citizens, victims of the Colfax Massacre) in 1873 Louisiana.

An important point about that year, Louisiana was among some states which had no organized state militia at the time -- it having been disbanded by Congress. So SCOTUS could not be recognizing a right of bearing arms for militia members because 1), there was no state militia and 2), the people who had their rights violated were themselves barred from enrolling in the state militia.

The above quotes serve another purpose . . . To correct the commonly heard disinformation that DC v Heller in 2008 was "the first time the Supreme Court recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms" . . . That statement is shown to be the bullshit it is; Heller only demonstrated the boring consistency of SCOTUS explanations of the right to arms / 2nd Amendment.

All of which is still completely irrelevant to my point and does not address the question.

To wit, and to reiterate, and maybe it needs to be bolded to penetrate:
What is the function of the conditional clause?

Address that ---- if you can.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I

---- which is the least of the linguistic road hazards in 2A. I refer of course to that nasty brutish and short dependent clause at the head of it, the intent of which has never been discerned to this day, and in fact, cannot be.

Correct, "the intent of which has never been discerned" and never will be because all those "linguistic hazards" that anti-gunners invent, are relieved when one comports his thinking with that of 140 years of SCOTUS, affirming foundational constitutional principles for the right to arms.

The right to arms is a pre-existing right and is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus the right to arms is not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.

First , "not in any manner dependent" extinguishes any attempt to restrict the right by reading the "nasty brutish and short dependent clause at the head" of the 2nd Amendment, as conditioning the right to arms.

Second, "not in any manner dependent" means that the right to arms can not be argued to be qualified upon one's membership / attachment to an entity and structure that is itself, entirely dependent upon the Constitution for its existence (the organized militia).

Supreme Court, 1876: "bearing arms for a lawful purpose . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . ."

Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . "

Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . .”​

In that first case, the right of "bearing arms for lawful purpose" recognized by the Court, was the right possessed and exercised of being armed in public for the purpose of self defense (from the KKK / Night Riders) of two Freemen (former slaves, then US citizens, victims of the Colfax Massacre) in 1873 Louisiana.

An important point about that year, Louisiana was among some states which had no organized state militia at the time -- it having been disbanded by Congress. So SCOTUS could not be recognizing a right of bearing arms for militia members because 1), there was no state militia and 2), the people who had their rights violated were themselves barred from enrolling in the state militia.

The above quotes serve another purpose . . . To correct the commonly heard disinformation that DC v Heller in 2008 was "the first time the Supreme Court recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms" . . . That statement is shown to be the bullshit it is; Heller only demonstrated the boring consistency of SCOTUS explanations of the right to arms / 2nd Amendment.

All of which is still completely irrelevant to my point and does not address the question.

To wit, and to reiterate, and maybe it needs to be bolded to penetrate:
What is the function of the conditional clause?

Address that ---- if you can.

It does not matter what the purpose of the clause was, it is not a binding statement on WHY we have the right. It is simply one of many reasons we have the right. The binding part is the RIGHT of the people to be armed. Further even if we took the militia in as a reason according to US law EVERY Male IS the militia.

 

[Abatis]

You and your designs for usurpation through misconstruction

Link?

Didn't think so. Assssss-ume much?

Link?

I quoted you and then proved my claim with analysis and the Federalist quote.

The action of trying to discern conditions and qualifications on the right from a reading of the declaratory clause (what you erroneously call the "conditional clause") of the 2nd, and using those invented conditions to justify legislative / regulatory limitations and restrictions on the right to arms, is certainly a "design for usurpation". Such thinking and action runs counter to the foundational principles of the Constitution and multiple Supreme Court statements over the last 140 years recognizing, explaining and enforcing those principles.

Maybe if I bolded it it might penetrate:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . "​

Please explain how you take words -upon which the right in no matter depends- and read into them conditions and qualifications on the right to keep and bear arms. . . Making the right to arms in all manner, dependent upon the Constitution.

Please justify your dismissing and ignoring the Supreme Court's clear and unambiguous statement that what you are doing is constitutionally illegitimate.

All of which is still completely irrelevant to my point and does not address the question.
To wit, and to reiterate, and maybe it needs to be bolded to penetrate:
What is the function of the conditional clause?
Address that ---- if you can.

It has been addressed. Your question is moot and meaningless because it begins from a profoundly incorrect assumption; that the declaratory clause imparts conditions and qualifications on the right to arms.

I could explain to you what the purpose / meaning is of the declaratory clause, but I ask that you rephrase the question so it asks a real question.