My understanding is that the participants in the Whiskey Rebellion were pardoned, which would seem an indication that their actions can't have been seen as particularly heinous by those in power.
Almost nobody particularly likes having to take up arms, but the Founding Fathers clearly expected citizens to both (1) take up arms against criminals, when the government was legitimately acting against them, and (2) take up arms against rogue government agents, as necessary, when they exceeded their authority.
Don't tell that to then President Washington. He sent the army in to rout them out and put down their rebellion. He wasn't amused, nor did he look to the 2d Amendment smiling.
Almost nobody particularly likes having to take up arms, but the Founding Fathers clearly expected citizens to both (1) take up arms against criminals, when the government was legitimately acting against them, and (2) take up arms against rogue government agents, as necessary, when they exceeded their authority.
The Founding Fathers didn't agree on almost any part of the Constitution. Have you ever read the Anti-Federalist Papers? That should give you some idea of the confusion, the concerns and the differences of opinion that prevailed at the time. As for taking up arms against rogue government officials, Mr. Madison characterized it as the duty of the state authorized militia, not a bunch of partly organized gangs. At the time, that was both the filler for our military and the state's national guard.