I agree with your inciteful view.
Initially, the British began tying to prohibit the colonials (future Americans) from owning guns so that it would be more difficult for the colonials to resisit British control.
This is the 2nd amendment, Bill of Rights:
"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"
This amendment was implemented because it was fresh in the Founding Fathers minds the attempt of the British to control the colonials.
Although some will argue the word "militia" in the amendment is directed at state created bodies (National Guard, local and state LEO etc) and not the common citizen.
I disagree with this assumption because colonial "militias" back then were nothing more than an "all call" to able bodied men who grabbed their rifles and just showed up.
As was the 4rth amendment (along with Am.2, one of the most important amendments ever crafted, IMHO):
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The 4rth Am. in my mind not only restricts police powers, but also augments it. It allows for citizens that are the victim of an overly aggressive police "presence" (believe it or not, THIS DOES HAPPEN!
to seek an (hopefully) impartial decision or clarification by the judicial branch, but also gives the police or any LEO guidelines in which to perform their duties.
I think "gun control" is a good thing. I don't think criminals should be allowed to own them, I do think otherwise responsible, law abiding citizens should.