"In 1774, British Brig. Gen. Lord Hugh Percy, stationed in Boston, commented, 'What makes an insurrection here always more formidable than in other places is that there is a law of this province which obligates every inhabitant to be furnished with a firelock, bayonet, and pretty considerable quantity of ammunition.' It would not be long before Lord Percy would realize how truly prophetic his words were.
"During the late night hours of April 18, 1775, British grenadier and light infantry companies under the command of Lt. Col. Francis Smith, numbering some 700 men, ferried across the Charles River from Boston to Cambridge to clandestinely march on the small town of Concord, Mass., a colonial supply depot for arms, cannon, powder, ball and other military supplies." American Rifleman, July 2010, page 49
If that's not forced de facto gun control, I don't know what is. This also lays to rest the myth that if governments really want to use their armies to repress the populace, they'll do it regardless of whether the citizenry is armed or not. If secret police or repressive armies know that most houses will oppose their raids and arrests with gunfire, they're going to be damned reluctant to carry out those actions, as well-witnessed by General Percy's quote, above.
I'm tired of the endless debate about the term "militia." At that time, there was no standing, regular army, and thus it follows, no National Guard, which gun control advocates liken to "militia." In point of fact, every citizen and Minute Man comprised "militia," albeit that some were more well-trained than others. Keep in mind that Baron von Steuben had not yet arrived and been put in charge of training and drill by Washington at the time Concord and Lexington were happening. The term "militia" referred to average citizens and Minute Men at the time the Second Amendment was drafted and ratified, just as it did before the formation of the Continental Army. It's thus disingenuous of gun control advocates to allege that "milita" was not a citizen-based term, but, rather, alluded to some pre-existence version of the National Guard. That's just not the truth. The Founders were all highly literate men; they agonized over the precision of language used in the Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. if they hadn't intended "militia" to mean "armed citizenry," in the Second Amendment, they would have drafted extremely precise language to connote any linkage to an adjunct of the Army, such as the National Guard.