Where's the Evidence?

I found this while looking for the famous vote from about printing official documents in English from the Early Congressional record (which appears to be Annals of Congress 3:1228-29, not 4).  The image below is found here and comes from the records of Congress in 1795:
memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=004/llac004.db&recNum=612

Note that this relates to the language of US Constitution Article I, Section 8, clause 15, which states:

The Congress shall have Power To...provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

This relates back to the Constitution's purpose to "provide for the common defence".
Now, most of the references to the Militia from this time period relate to that purpose rather than what "Second Amendment Supporters" would like to purport, which is private arms.  Very little mention or thought is given to private arm in early congressional debates.
On the other hand, wouldn't there be some reference to how great it would be to have the highest deaths from firearms and the benefits of being able to shoot someone for no reason if the early Congress held a similar view to the Second Amendment (and Congress' purpose) as many who claim to support the Constitution, especially the Second Amendment, would claim?
Why are those statements only found from people who try to press the notion of "gun rights"?