"the people of America would never consent to be deprived of the privilege of carrying arms

"As far as the whole body the people are necessary to the general defence, they ought to be armed; but the law ought to require more than is necessary; for that be a just cause of complaint."--Mr. Fitzsimons, [Pg. 1852]

". . . Mr. Jackson said, that he was of opinion that the people of America would never consent to be deprived of the privilege of carrying arms. Though it may prove burthensome to some individuals to be obliged to arm themselves, yet it would not be so considered when the advantages were justly estimated."[Pg. 1852]

"In a Republic every man ought to be a soldier, and prepared to resist tyranny and usurpation, as well as invasion, and to prevent the greatest of all evils--a standing army. Mankind have been divided into three classes, Shepherds, Husbandmen, and Artificers--of which the last make the worst militia; but as the arts and sciences are the sources of great wealth to the community, which may excite the jealousy and avarice of neighbors, this class ought to be peculiarly qualified to defend themselves and repel invasions; and as this country is rising fast in manufactures, the arts and sciences, and from her fertile soil may expect great affluence, she ought to be able to protect that and her liberties from within herself . . ."--Mr. Jackson [Pg. 1853]

"There are so few freemen in the United States who are not able to provide themselves arms and accoutrements, that any provision on the part of the United States is unnecessary and improper. He had no doubt that the people, if left to themselves, would provide arms as are necessary, without inconvenience or complaint; but if they are furnished by the United States, the public arsenals would soon be exhausted--and experience shows, that public property of this kind, from the careless manner in which many persons use it, is soon lost."--Mr. Sherman, Dec. 16, 1790. [Pg. 1854]

"He asked by what means minors were to themselves with the requisite articles? Many of them are apprentices. If you put arms into their hands, they will make good soldiers; but how are they to procure them? It is said, if they are supplied by the United States the property will be lost; if this is provided against, every objection may be obviated. He then offered an addition to the motion, providing for the return of the arms to the commanding officer."--Mr. Vining [Pg. 1855]

"Mr. Wadsworth apologized for detaining the attention of the committee a moment, while he asked the gentlemen who favored the motion what was the extent of their wishes? The motion at first appeared to be in favor of poor men, who are unable to purchase a firelock; but now it seems minors and apprentices are to be provided for. Is there a man in this House who would wish to see so large a proportion of the community, perhaps one-third armed by the United States, and liable to be disarmed by them? Nothing would tend more to excite suspicion, and rouse a jealousy dangerous to the Union. With respect to apprentices, every man knew that they were liable to this tax, and they were taken under the idea of being provided for by their masters; as to minors, their parents or guardians would prefer furnishing them with arms themselves, to depending on the United States when they knew they were liable to having them reclaimed." [Pg. 1855-56]

"Mr. Madison moved to strike out that which related to members of Congress, their officers and servants, attending either House--and to insert "members of the Senate and House of Representatives whilst travelling to, attending at, or returning from the sessions of Congress." He saw no reason for a total exemption from militia service; exceptions in favor of the framers of laws ought not to be extended beyond what is evidently necessary. The members of Congress, during the recess, are at liberty to pursue their ordinary avocations, and may participate in the duties and exercises of their fellow citizens. They ought to bear a part in the burdens they lay on others, which may check an abuse of the powers which they are vested." [Pg. 1856]

[Annals of Congress. THE DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES; WITH AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING IMPORTANT STATE PAPERS AND PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, AND ALL THE LAWS OF A PUBLIC NATURE; WITH A COPIOUS INDEX. VOLUME II. COMPRISING (WITH VOLUME 1) THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 3 1789, TO MARCH 3, 1791, INCLUSIVE. COMPILED FROM AUTHENTIC MATERIALS, BY JOSEPH GALES, Senior. WASHINGTON: PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY GALES AND SEATON. 1834.]

   It is my contention, that Congress obviously does have authority to regulate and make laws for the militia. Indeed, as far as providing rules and regulations as to which citizens are subject to be enrolled, exercised, and regulated. However, when it comes to the people in their private capacity. All their powers of regulation end. And, since they are expressly denied the power, in that; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed". All 'gun control laws' are infringements of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" secured by the second amendment to the United States Constitution. They can of course provide punishments for abuse or misuse of the preexisting natural right. But are expressly forbidden from preventing the exercise of that right by any free citizen of the United States of America.