Why is 2A only ever discussed in reference to guns?
I’m not a gun owner so I need some help.
We consider someone legally “armed” if they’re holding a knife, a bat, pepper spray, grenade, bow and arrow, etc. Why are guns the only thing people cry about?
If a new regulation is introduced concerning guns (e.g. last 4-5 years) why isn’t there much conversation around “if you’re truly concerned about your safety, or hunting, and this regulation affects you, here’s all these other non-gun weapons you can own.”
Additionally, the second amendment does not specify weapon, it just says “Arms.” It also does say “regulated.” (I assume the context of those phrases, especially since they’re capitalized, is the underlying scholarly legal debate. )
“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.”
Article from r/Libertarian: For a Free Society