Today, I have been trying to explain that the term ARMS can and will include anything from bacteria to atomic weapons, if the citizens of the United States decide to fight.
I'm not, and didn't, dispute that. FYI, the Constitution also has a clause in Article 1, Section 8 (powers of Congress) that gives the Congress power to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal. These are a license to be a pirate, a privateer, against the naval forces of a nation hostile to us. Actions like this happened frequently during the Revolution (which the drafters and ratifiers of the 2nd Amendment knew about, and likely participated in). Such Letters were issued in the War of 1812.
OK, so you're a patriotic ship owner in 1812, and you want to help your country. What are you going to do, ram the HMS ARROGANT LIMEY? No, not quite - you're going to use cannon against it. Cannon that YOU OWN.
End of story. Arms are, as you've stated, far more than just firearms.
Actually, for the last year, I have been studying naval history.
That is exactly why I am rather upset when the SCOTUS is trying to define the term ARMS in a way that could prohibit handguns, while ignoring the historical fact that American citizens could and did outfit ship of war.