It was the NRA in the 1920s that proposed that states require a permit to carry a concealed weapon, longer prison sentences if a gun is used in a crime, a waiting period on gun purchases, and the gun sale records be made available to the police. The NRA proposal was adopted by several states.

The NRA helped draft the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 Gun Control Act, which were the first federal gun control laws.

This sort of thing continue through the 1960s with the NRA supporting California's Mulford Act of 1967 which banned carrying loaded weapons in public.

They also supported the Gun Control Act of 1968, which added minimum age requirements, serial number requirements, banned guns for the mentally ill and for drug addicts, restricted shipping across state lines except to collectors and federally licensed dealers, and required showing ID to purchase some types of ammo. (It originally was going to also mandate a national registry of all guns and licensing for all guns, which the NRA objected to and were removed from the bill).

It wasn't until the early 1970s that the flipped from supporting quite a bit of gun control to opposing nearly all gun control.

> Same with free speech. Libel is speech; it's never been protected speech, despite the general wording of the First Amendment.

Though it's worth noting the allowed infringements on free speech by the government are incredibly narrow.

The nuclear arms strawman is a long way from the myriad of restrictions, registrations and required permission for personal weapons. Remember that during the revolution, citizens owned personal cannons and warships with cannons, not to mention bombs. If they didn’t see fit to restrict the most destructive weapons of their day, why should we do so now?

And why would you trust the citizens in your government with nuclear arms, but not the citizens your government serves?

On the other hand manpads and anti-tank missiles seem like a good fit considering the intention.

It's not that people skip over it, it's that it's interpreted differently depending upon who you're talking to and/or whose ax is being ground.

The article below goes over a large amount of the differing interpretations and historical contexts of that phrase:

https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-milit...

-A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

-The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed

People try to twist it up to mean that only well regulated Militias have the right to keep and bear arms, but it's pretty clear that the Founding Fathers did not mean that in any way. Private citizens owned cannons and freaking war ships back then.

At the time it was written ‘militia’ meant every able bodied adult male, and ‘well regulated’ meant something like ‘suitably prepared’.

There are debates about this, but a simple modern reading of some kind of rule based army is not likely to be what was meant.