The second amendment provides for the right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of raising/maintaining a militia, and it's often argued in debates over gun control now, that the sorts of arms it referred to were very different from those we see now.

But Britain had relied on privateers in the past, so presumably the notion of privately owned warships wouldn't have been completely alien to the founding fathers. What's more, merchant vessels were commonly outfitted with cannon, so presumably it wouldn't be inconceivable for a sufficiently wealthy individual to own cannon for other purposes. Could it be that the arms referred to in the second amendment were perhaps more extensive than the muskets and long rifles we usually think of when we talk about the second amendment? What exactly did they envision these militia's looking like? How did they expect the second amendment to work in practice?

Quick edit just in case: I get that this is still a contentious subject, so if people could try to keep their answers as apolitical as possible that'd be great. I'd imagine most others will get deleted anyhow.