The founders would appear to have thought so if we look at US Constitution Article IV, Section 4, which says:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
The point I am trying to make is that people cannot read the US Constitution through modern eyes. The originalists have a point there because we would have a drastically different outcome if we read this using the modern definition of "domestic violence".
Would the constitution require regulation of firearms since firearms can be used in cases of "domestic violence"?
On the other hand, what we have here is yet of another example of why the argument that the Second Amendment guarantees firearms to fight the government is wrong. The "domestic violence" the founders were intending was not spousal abuse, but cases of domestic unrest, such as riots and insurrections.
Saying that there is a right to own firearms because one should be able to fight the government is just plain off WRONG Constitutionally.
Likewise, this passage demonstrates why it is wrong to try and interpret the US Constitution through a modern perspective.