A post elsewhere discussed discussed gun laws "loved" by the Founders

The subject OP points to this page: https://theconversation.com/five-types-of-gun-laws-the-founding-fathers-loved-85364

1) Registration
The target article discusses the militias ["white men between the ages of 16-60"] stating that "The colonies and then the newly independent states kept track of these privately owned weapons."

After examining the embedded link I find nothing to support that notion. It is well known that records were kept of militia members. I would further observe that being shot with a registered firearm does not prevent it from seriously injuring or killing.

2) Public carry
In suggesting that the Founders favored making public carry illegal an article summarizing English law noting that the only exceptions be the king's appointed officials and attendants.

I assert, that since this article clearly predates the Constitution, its intent giving the authority of public carry only to government agents and specifically those of the English King, the thinking of the established authorities and Founders had changed.

3) Stand-your-ground laws
Once again a strong reliance on English Common Law is noted as support for a duty to retreat from assault except within one's home. [Part of Castle doctrine]

Ten years after adopting the Articles of Confederation in 1777 delegates to what has become known as the Constitutional Convention debated for almost 4 months what should be contained in the Constitution we have now. Many people were adamant that the Constitution contain a Bill of Rights as a condition of adoption. From the magnitude of the work involved to draft it and the subsequent ratification efforts, it's clear that the Founders did not wholesale adopt English Law Common or otherwise.
Taken together, stand-your-ground laws only make sense when considered along with public carry. Consider these together: Stand-your-ground laws don't apply within your home; Stand-your-ground only applies in public away from home; Self-defense of any type involves the use of a weapon (either an offensive weapon or a defensive one.)
I also observe that the page linked above mentions an exception to public carry in English Common Law: "Members of the upper classes also had a limited exception to travel with arms." Reconsidering my prior statement, I guess we have retained that exception in those places where only folks such as rich people, celebrities, retired law enforcement and politicians can get a permit to carry in public.

4) Safe storage laws
These paragraphs appear to justifying laws requiring that guns be stored unloaded. The linked article mentions both the danger of loaded guns during a fire and the corrosive nature of the 18th century powder propellant.

Today, safe storage generally refers to a fire proof locking gun safe. Something many gun owners would have to aid in security and organization. I'm not sure how 18th century laws from Boston have lots of relevance today but the concept of safe storage and the reasons for it have clearly evolved.

5) Loyalty oaths
During the Revolution Patriots were know to disarm suspected Loyalists who refused to swear a loyalty oath.

Should there again be present on US soil a state of war or similar conflict I would logically suspect both sides in the conflict would disarm the opposing parties. In fact I would suspect both sides would be acting to make either captors or casualties of those on the other side. Suggesting that wartime conduct somehow justifies analogous actions against regular citizens during peacetime is a bit putinesque.

My thanks to the OP who highlighted this enlightening article.