I'm sure they were allowed. It's also quite possible that their right to own them was protected by their state constitution.
But we're discussing who the second amendment protects, and it protects "the people". "The people" did not include women and children.
As an example, Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution reads that "the people" elect House representatives -- women and children didn't vote back then.
All that's different today, of course. "The people" now include women and non-whites, and the military/militia is not the same.
Because of that, it's easier to examine the relationship between those who comprised "the people" in 1792 and those who comprised the Militia in 1792. Turns out they were the same individuals.
What changed the military/militia?
But they could have as far as the federal constitution was concerned. The Art. I, Section 2, just says that the electors in Congressional elections shall have the same qualifications, set by individual states, as those required of electors in elections for the most populous branch of the State Legislature.
Of course the first amendment also protects a "right of the people", so you are saying women, and children, were not allowed to assemble? Or that women had no right to be secure in the persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and siezures? Or that they had no "retained rights" or "reserved powers" as the people have per the 9th and 10th amendments respectively?
I understand your argument, and if the court chose to be very inflexible, it might agree.
However, the phrase “the people” appears 5 times in the Bill of Rights, and no one argues that in the 4 instances it’s used apart from the second amendment that it means anything other than ‘everyone’. The fourth amendment states:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. “
No one would argue that the use of “the people” in this amendment was only intended to apply to ‘adult white males’. It’s difficult to see why they would not extend that same meaning to the 2nd amendment.
...
Because of that, it's easier to examine the relationship between those who comprised "the people" in 1792 and those who comprised the Militia in 1792. Turns out they were the same individuals.
The Militia Act of 1792 defines the militia as "... each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia..."
So, unless you are asserting that any white male over the age of 45 can no longer participate in electing House representatives, those two groups are NOT the same. One is a subset of the other.
The Militia is a subset of "the People."