2nd Am history: Until 1959, every law review article concluded it didn't guarantee an individ right

[jimmy the one]

8. gun control hardly needed in 1790's

gejohnston: Second, they never wrote any gun control laws, and guns are far more regulated today than then.

They did have some rules & regulations, tacit & expressed; bayonets were generally not allowed to be attached to a musket when in town during peacetime. Concealed carry of weapons was either illicit or frowned upon.

Gun control in late 1700's would have been largely unnecessary; for one, gun ownership was limited to about 25% of the white male population (iirc, 1803 dearborn census) - because of this low ownership rate american white males were rather urged to purchase & own guns due to militia rules dictated by the militia act of 1792. One could leave his unloaded musket with buck ball & powder out all day long & the danger to his small kids would've been fingers caught in the barrel.
With single shot muskets & humidity prone ammo as the prevailing firearms there was little need to enact gun control laws as we know them today.
Your remark above that guns are far more regulated now than {1790's} is specious & straight out of 2nd amendment mythology; back then they didn't have sophisticated semi-automatic rifles, hermetically sealed ammo, magazines to hold 10, 20, 30 rounds or 100 round drums, bump stocks, silencers, compensators. I think a main safety concern would've been if you were to drop your 8 lb musket, on your toes.
Your remark is specious, since those sophisticated semi-automatics firearms of today are orders of magnitude more lethal & dangerous than the musket was then.
Gun control laws developed as a result of the evolution of modern day firearms; that you dismiss this flippantly as, presumably, to denigrate gun control efforts as some kind of tyrannical imposition to the 2nd amendment, is just another chapter from the 2nd amendment mythology bible.