Naw, you're still getting it wrong: the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to put down rebellion, certainly not to enable rebellion.
Anyway, it's a good question. I already stated somewhere that it makes no difference. I doubt they were thinking of weapons so much anyway. They were in very short supply during the revolution, which suggests that the colonists many not have been as well armed as we like to think they were. The colonies themselves had supplies of arms specifically for the purpose of arming the militia. Apparently expecting individuals to arm and equip themselves, even though it was put in the law, was a little too much for some of them.
Using the word patriot is seizing the moral high ground, isn't it? Not everyone wanted to separate themselves from the mother country and after the revolution, people like that, called by the quaint term loyalists, were in for a hard time in some places. That's usually the way it is when there's an armed revolution or civil war.
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.