Consideriing that the people were the "militia" of their state, and that Madison and Hamilton both argued in the Federalist Papers that the militia (people) could be used against the national army, it obviously stood to reason that they advocated equal armament capabilities.
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American ... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."I don't think that limiting the weapons used was what they had in mind. They wanted a well-armed people to be a barrier to tyrants.
Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, 20 Feb 1788."[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights."
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 29, "Concerning the Militia", 10 Jan 1788."Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. ... To these would be opposed a militia ... officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."
James Madison, Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 46, "The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared", 29 Jan 1788.
Disease was used as a weapon in 1767. I don't think they had the keeping and bearing of smallpox in mind, either.
They wanted a well-armed people to be a barrier to tyrants.
Armed with discriminating weapon, yes, I would agree.
Let us face it, many of the indiscriminate weapons I have mentioned would be a deadly risk to even possess. If you had VX nerve gas, could you transport it, transfer it among containers, and so on without killing yourself and all your neighbors? If you had smallpox, could you culture it and have it ready to employ without infecting yourself?
The risk of possession of these indiscriminate weapons well outwieghs their utility in use versus a criminal or a tyrannical government.
As far as a tyrannical government is concerned, I have long suspected that should this occur many army and airforce personnel will abandon their posts with very indiscriminate weaponry, and at that time a state of general war (civil war) would occur -- and at that time the Second Amendment would cease to have meaning, and instead reality would be the only limiting factor.