[robertpaulsen]

"Since you admit that Congress already had the right of funding the militias and passing laws regarding their organization and training, then why pass the second amendment?"

That WAS the reason.

The U.S. Constitution gave Congress the power to arm the state Militias. The question arose, "What if Congres refuses?"

Since the power was concurrent, the states themselves could arm their Militia. The second amendment protected their ability to do so.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Lol, that is such bull!

Who rose the question of "What if Congress refuses?" Who?

This is laughable. Congress is not obligated to provide for a militia? They are required by Article I, Section 8:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The requirement phrase "To provide for" is used in reference to punishing counterfieters, to raise and maintain a Navy, and to call forth the militia to repel invasion. Were these issues also questioned "What if Congress refuses?"

What is Congress refuses to maintain a Navy? We need an amendment telling them they have to!

Stupidest argument on Freerepublic ever. Tell Murrymom she needs to hand her crown over.