Read the start of Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power to ..." It does not say, "The Congress is required to ..."
"Who rose the question of "What if Congress refuses?" Who?"
The question was raised by George Mason and discussed at the Virginia Ratifying Convention on June 14th, 1788.
"The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia. If they neglect to arm them, and prescribe proper discipline, they will be of no use."
At the same convention, Patrick Henry said, "But, says the honorable member, Congress will keep the militia armed; or, in other words, they will do their duty. Pardon me if I am too jealous and suspicious to confide in this remote possibility."
"When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed? You trust to chance; for sure I am that that nation which shall trust its liberties in other hands cannot long exist."
"Stupidest argument on Freerepublic ever."
In the future, I suggest you hold off on your conclusion until I respond. A couple of times now you've made an accusation, commented how ridiculous I was, then slinked away like a kicked dog when I totally demolished your statement.
If I can't support what I say, THEN call it stupid.
So your assertion is that Congress is not required to maintain a Navy? It uses the same words in regards to a militia
"Congress shall have power... To provide and maintain a Navy"
"Congress shall have power... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia"
Do we need a Constitutional amendment to force Congress to maintain a Navy? Because your assertion is that the second amendment is what forces Congress to provide for the militia.
Inconsistency once again. Again, stupidest argument on Freerepublic ever (and I'll go all the way back to Ash in that assertion.)