Our Founders broke the occupation of Boston by the regular army of their own government by taking the cannon at Fort Ticonderoga which at the time was controlled by their own government.
And yet you believe that these same rebels, who were under threat of hanging for treason, would once again form a government with the power to monopolize the most effective arms?
Do you remember the SALT talks with the Russians? SALT stood for "Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty". When did this limited use of the word "arms" that you claim start and end?
Nope. Never said that. What these rebels did, was to codify that every man has the God given right to keep and bear arms. They never once thought our government would be run by an undeducated, ungodly breed that sought to inject into the Constitution the right to abomination. But that is what we have. The debates that the Continental Congress had over enacting a Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation involved many things. The philosophy took two stances, one was to pre-suppose that all rights already exist and that they must limit the government. The second was that unless it is spelled out, the right does not exist. This debate carried into the Bill of Rights and the need for the Federalist Papers.
When did this limited use of the word "arms" that you claim start and end?
The distinction already existed, it is the context that matters. Arms can refer to many things, from the appendages attached to your shoulders, to man-portable firearms, to weapons in general (i.e. Nuclear Arms or the Arms Race). But in the context of the 2A, it specifically relates to firearms bearable by able-bodied men.