“To be honest where gun laws are today doesn’t bother me in a philosophical sense. At least not nearly as much as the ridiculous prohibitions on “lesser arms” like knives and knuckle dusters. Gun rights are almost in the “refining” stage compared to draconian laws around other legitimate arms (though let’s un-restrict the suppressors, barrel lengths, capacity and stock and grip configurations already, jeez!) . . .
I confess it makes me quite angry at our own community that “the right to bear arms” is often exclusively interpreted to be “the right to guns” without a second thought. Heck, I agree with the people who say that the 2nd amendment isn’t “specifically” about guns. It is about guaranteeing the accessibility to the means for self-defense which I think is the set of all personal arms, guns inclusive. It’s about an equality we would like to instill in civilized society, that we shall not restrict a person’s use of technology to make up for natural born differences in strength, size, and physical ability.
Everyone get’s their shorts twisted over gun restrictions while totally absurd knife restrictions and prohibitions exist everywhere. Daggers, blackjacks, switch knives, billy clubs, knuckle dusters, etc. are all legitimate defensive weapons too. A lot of these items were outlawed during the various European emigrations to the US, it is hypothesized, to criminalize “undesirable” elements of society (Irish, Italians, Asians) who for cultural and economic reasons all possessed these kinds of weapons for self-defense. The excuse was “crime”… these were “gangster weapons”, etc. Same bad arguments we hear today about certain firearms.
For a certain person in a certain set of circumstances these “lesser arms” could be more applicable or manageable. I feel that the fact that these “lesser arms” often don’t even make the debate kind of weakens the “pro-defense” argument by lack of completeness.