"Regulated" means both disciplined AND under legal control. In fact, within a military setting, the two are synonymous.
The reason officers have the power to command, not request, is legal authority. They are not necessarily the best at the military art, but they have the power of the state to order, and to punish. When the unorganized militia is called up under military command, they are subject to orders, not invitations. They are subject to regulations, not requests. One does not opt out at will.
Firearms and military force always were regulated, in both senses of the word, in the colonies. Why do you think the British were marching on the MAGAZINES at Concord? There were central access points for arms and ammunition, in some cases, especially in the heavily settled and town-dwelling north that had neither an Indian problem or a slave insurrection problem to deal with.
However, as interesting as the historical environment of 1776 is, it is not fully applicable to today's environment, because in 1776 there were no weapons of mass destruction at all, and the greatest mass-casualty weapon was a cannon filled with grape-shot.
Today, there ARE WMD, and mass-casualty weapons, and the answer as to what the 2nd Amendment is interpreted to mean CANNOT BE that our neighbor can have an anthrax lab in his basement and make a fertilizer bomb in his U-Haul "so long as he doesn't bother anybody".
The 2nd Amendment has to mean GUNS, not mass casualty weapons. And then the question is merely one of how much safety regulation or registration one is going to require - or not require - concerning personal ownership of guns.
My opinion is that gun possession is clearly a federal right, spelled out in the Second Amendment. Like any other right, it is broad, but naturally limited. An unlimited right would mean that convicted felons could have guns. It would mean that the Secret Service couldn't infringe people's gun rights when the President was around. And it would mean that people could individually possess WMD. That's all nutty. The 2nd Amendment can't mean that. It won't be interpreted in that extreme a manner, because most people can see the immediately noxious effects that would have.
Do you always post 'strawman arguments?' Or would you like to post some actual citation to, say, an NRA printed document, that advocates personal ownership of nuclear weapons ("there were no weapons of mass destruction at all?" and "WMD?")?
"[M]ass casualty weapons?" You my ignorent friend, are just blowing smoke - and I won't say where...
Others have tons of anhydrous fertilizer and fuel oil.
Cars on the road have gasoline tanks.
The 1770's definition of "Regulated" meant in good working order. It nothing to do with legalities.
To imply that they were stored at Concord in a central location and out of the hands of the private citizen as a result an order by a non-existant government is far-fetched.
If true, why were not ALL of the arms, to include those in the hands of private citizens, stored there? Instead it was the arms being manufactured to use against the British.