I probably expressed that pretty poorly but you may not agree with the following anymore.
While private individuals may have owned heavy arms, such ownership absolutely was not unrestricted.
The very "Letters of Marque and Repisal" you show are perfect example of the fact of that.
However, these letters were about behaviour and not ownership nor possession of any weapon. They COULD go up against enemey vessels with anything they wanted or otherwise had legally (even to the out and out use of SPITBALLS, though such an escalation might have seemed extreme). They allowed private individuals to perform acts of "Reprisal" against merchant ships flying the designated country's flags.
American merchant ships to this day carry some pretty heavy weapons. But beyond the personal arms, the heavy arms are licensed and "permitted". As it has always been (formally or informally.)
It has not always been that way. Itt is a right which wasn't vioated until the later half of the 20th century.
Trust me, dcwusmc believes that every man is his own island, that we should be allowed to do whatever we want, whenever we want, and never ever think about paying taxes.
...and getting back on topic, behaviors, not things, should be our concern here. One may behave in whatever bizarre manner they please, or own whatever unpleasant property they choose so long as others aren't harmed.
Generally speaking, you are allowed (read: should be allowed, were it not for gun banning busy bodies; but I digress...), under the Constitution, to own and use any weapon that may be accurately fired. A cannon can be directed at a specific target, but a nuke cannot. You may fire a weapon, such as a rifle or pistol, so long as uninvolved third parties are not harmed. The thing involved is not what matters; it's the use of that thing in relation to the rights of others that's important.
Porn, featuring performers who voluntarily participate, viewed by someone in a hotel room, who purchases it of their own free will, does not harm any disinterested third party. If it were forced upon hotel guests without their consent, then that would be another matter. That would be like firing a weapon indiscriminately.
Owning a weapon is a right, but that right does not give its owner the power to violate the rights of others. Viewing, owning, or making pornography is a right; but, not if others are forced to participate in some way. What's being discussed here is involves adults who consent to be involved. No third party is having their rights violated. If you view porn in your hotel room and I don't have to see it or hear it, then my rights aren't being violated. If I turn on The Sound Of Music in the next room and turn the volume up to 11, then your rights are being violated; even though the material in question in not generally regarded as offensive. It's all a matter of who consents to be involved.