That's not correct.

http://www.potowmack.org/emerappa.html

In the context of the times, bear arms means military service. It was always used in that manner.

"Explicit Military Definitions of "Bear Arms" Contained in Militia Acts. "Bear arms" in militia statutes and official reports represents a very broad context of military obligation and compulsory military service. On the other hand, the term was rarely used in acts for raising voluntary provincial forces and then only to describe the manpower pool from which to draw. Therefore, "bear arms" represented the broadest conception of military (mostly militia) service. Some of the militia acts and other documents contained explanatory language defining at least in part what they meant by "bear arms." All refer to some aspect of military service. For example:

• 1665: "to bear Armes or wage war by sea or Land."(111)

• 1669: "to bear arms, and serve as soldiers."(112)

• 1676: "to beare armes in martiall or millitary manner."(113)

• 1730: "to bear Arms, or learn or exercise himself in the Art of War."(114)

• 1731: "bearing arms or attending musters and training."(115)

• 1755: "the bearing of arms or Military Service."(116)

• 1775: "bear Arms, nor be concerned in warlike Preparations."(117)

• 1775: "bearing arms in the militia."(118)

• 1780: "Bairing Arms or Doing Duty" in the militia.(119)

• 1787: "principled against fighting or bearing arms."(120)

Sometimes the definition was more explicit. For example, in August 1744 Rhode Island exempted Quakers from all requirements for military duty, going into considerable detail that also clearly and unambiguously displays the military meaning of "bear arms."

"That any Person inhabiting in said Colony, and of a sober Life and Conversation, who can and shall Frankly and Freely, upon his solemn Affirmation … declare … that his Opinion and Religious Sentiments are, that in Matters relating to War, he ought to be Passive; and that the Practice of War, or the Art thereof, and the Use of Arms, and the Exercise thereof in War, are inconsistent with his Belief as a Christian, and that he declineth the Customary Use of Arms in War, and would be excused from the Law relating to Military Discipline for Conscience-Sake and out of Principle, and for no other End or Purpose whatever: In this Case such Person shall be exempted from bearing Arms as a Soldier, and from the Law of said Colony relating [to] Military Discipline or Equipment."(121)

Three other pieces of evidence are significant. As quoted above in the section on the right to bear arms,(122) the requirement for military service as a prerequisite for voting ("every man that bore arms in defense of his country had a right to vote") and the theoretical reverse (if men "were allowed no vote they had no right to bear arms") clearly demonstrate that "bear arms" represented military service. Similarly, during debate in the House of Representatives on the Bill of Rights in mid August 1789, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts argued against a constitutional exemption for pacifists from militia duty because this "would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the Constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms."(123) Clearly, Gerry was using "bear arms" to refer to military service, not to hunting or self-defense. Also, during debate over the first national militia bill in December 1790, Roger Sherman of Connecticut "asked, if gentlemen imagined, that the state governments had given out of their hands the command of the militia, or the right of declaring who should bear arms."(124) Consistently, such references are to militia duty, not to private use of weapons."