no it wasn't.
the amendment itself says what it says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
if they wanted this right to be broadly construed outside the context of a "well regulated militia" they would have eliminated the first clause of the sentence.
the only one of the federalist papers that discussed the right to bear arms contained lots of references to defending the frontier and cities against foreign armies and indian tribes.
not so much this extreme example advocated by the NRA that you should be able to carry whatever type of firearm you want, wherever you go, and shoot unarmed people if you perceive them to be threatening to your person.
if you want to defend your closet gun nut views, you're better off looking to that recent Supreme Court case striking down the DC handgun ban. there's not much from the Founding Father era that supports your position.