I didn't argue that the conditional clause contradicts the right. I agree that it enhances it by providing the justification for it. All the other rights were self-justifying; and hence lack any need for an explanatory clause. The Founders clearly intended that what they wrote was meant to be read.

But of course only "libruls" bother quoting the full 2nd amendment.

THAT SAID, it is clear that their ideal of a well-regulated ( and disciplined ) militia was well-nigh unachievable.

Complaints abound during the Revolutionary War about desertions, laxity and unequipped troops.

And after the war, it got much much worse.

Of course these days it is politically incorrect for all but the fringe to acknowledge the notion that preparedness for governmental overthrow was a part of the plan.

Hence the ban on rocket-launchers and other tools that could actually give modern "militias" a fighting chance.

Unfortunately there is also a racist undercurrent to the far right when it either supports anti-gun laws or fails to stand-up for gun rights.

In many places open-carry was only banned in the 1960s and '70s when the Black Panther Party started showing up at state legislatures armed with rifles.

And presently we have seen that the same folks who want to push for open-carry and concealed-carry permits fail to rally when it is lawfully armed african-american folk who are being shot and killed for exercising their right to bear arms.

I can understand strategically why the convo about gun rights is never honest. But it seems to me that a right to overthrow the tyrant should not be reserved for the majority and denied to the disenfranchised.

And if it is going to be publicly disavowed, and actively discouraged where the underclasses are concerned then perhaps it ought to be scrapped and rethought.

Either way, it would appear that the text is a bit of junk-DNA supporting a then already unfeasible militia, and which is only kept by a conspiracy who agree not to publicly acknowledge why they support it or for whom.

Dante