# Which "arms" should be protected by the Second Amendment? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 21, 2016, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795 "2016-03-21T20:42:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/161 "2016-03-27T00:36:31Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > So I’ll ask you the same thing I asked **Measure for Measure** that he didn’t respond to - Do you believe that Caetano should be a convicted felon, that stun guns should be outside the scope of the 2nd amendment, and that Caetano who is nearly a foot shorter and close to 100 pounds lighter than her abuser should not have used a weapon to defend herself? In other words, to the thread topic, do you think stun guns and some non-firearm arms should be covered under the 2nd? My opinion, and I haven’t followed it really closely, is that it is completely \*asinine \*for a State to ban private ownership of a stun gun for self protection. I’d be fine if there is a licensing requirement, and maybe even a class, but why would a State ban a stun gun? Sheesh, a non lethal weapon used at close quarters…what’s not to like (or more importantly to ban)? Does Mass also ban capsicum spray as well (do you know)? Wanna ban a jack knife or box cutter while you’re at it. I trust you’re not looking for gotchas here. I’m not sure how a stun gun lines up with the 2nd, but I do feel strongly that from a common sense perspective, a stun gun for self protection (subject to a reasonable licensing/training should a State deem that necessary) should not be illegal and frankly should be encouraged. My advice to Caetano would be next time just zap his ass instead of threatening to zap him in self defense. Again, I’m not sure if the 2nd applies or is needed to apply to other weapons such as a knife. To me it is just an inalienable right so is the 2nd actually needed? Switchblades IIRC are still illegal, but I think that is also asinine but West Side Story and Rebel Without a Cause made those “scary” weapons. I think nunchaku are also illegal in some jurisdictions, but they aren’t all that efficient to carry around for self defense. Dunno, I haven’t considered this very much before. I’d have a real problem with a basic lock blade knife being illegal (I am okay if there is a ban on blade length over 2 or 3 or 4"). ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/162 "2016-03-27T02:50:16Z")
> [@ziper1221](#): > > Oh yes, most certainly. In fact, I think people should only be allowed to use hand operated printing presses. The right of a free press is obviously limited to what the founders had access to! Nobody NEEDS the amount of text production afforded by the penny press, those should be limited to only those groups approved by the government! And linotype machines? Absolutely wanton! > > We need another Amendment to allow civilian ownership of the internet, since that obviously falls outside the scope of the First. There were two parts to my argument, the above addresses the first. Care to address the second? Given the Second Amendment, by what right does the government restrict private ownership of FIM-92 Stinger missiles? If you give me a legal reason it is not allowed do you agree with that decision and why? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/163 "2016-03-27T03:51:01Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > Given the Second Amendment, by what right does the government restrict private ownership of FIM-92 Stinger missiles? > > If you give me a legal reason it is not allowed do you agree with that decision and why? In practice, Stingers are illegal because they were invented long after restricting access to military ordinance became accepted _de facto_, and challenging that ban hasn’t been a high priority for anyone. If I’m not mistaken, companies that manufacture high-tech weapons for the Defense Department are under stringent contracts forbidding them to allow anyone but the government access to them. As for Stingers and the Second Amendment, I confess I’m conflicted. The best I have to suggest is maybe something like this: That somewhere along the scale of destructiveness from pellet guns to nukes, beyond some point it would have to be held that certain weapons systems infringe on the US Federal government’s constitutional monopoly on waging war with foreign powers. To my mind, Stingers cross a line that, say, bazookas do not. To privately own Stingers, one would probably have to have something analogous to a letter of marque: government-issued certification that you are not a pirate, brigand or terrorist. Security requirements that would mean you’d be obliged to store your Stinger in something like a vault. **Mandatory** enrollment as a reservist with a specialist rating. And the most draconian of penalties for misusing them, something like a five-minute drumhead trial and summary execution. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/164 "2016-03-27T04:20:39Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > There were two parts to my argument, the above addresses the first. Care to address the second? Given the Second Amendment, by what right does the government restrict private ownership of FIM-92 Stinger missiles? > > If you give me a legal reason it is not allowed do you agree with that decision and why? Stingers aren’t arms in the context of the 2nd amendment. Therefore the restriction on stingers does not run afoul of the 2nd. I agree with this distinction because the core of the right that the 2nd protects is self defense and stingers are not effective self defense weapons. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/165 "2016-03-27T06:35:37Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > My opinion, and I haven’t followed it really closely, is that it is completely \*asinine \*for a State to ban private ownership of a stun gun for self protection. I’d be fine if there is a licensing requirement, and maybe even a class, but why would a State ban a stun gun? Sheesh, a non lethal weapon used at close quarters…what’s not to like (or more importantly to ban)? Does Mass also ban capsicum spray as well (do you know)? Wanna ban a jack knife or box cutter while you’re at it. No gotchas. Though in general stun guns and pepper sprays are inferior tools for self defense compared to a firearm. They each have their optimal application. I am not super familiar with Mass. firearm laws, but my understanding was that prior to 2014 pepper spray was treated like firearms and that a person needed to possess a class B license in the state. This granted permission to purchase and possess, but not carry. The Class B license was generally easy to obtain as long as you were not a prohibited person, paid a fee, and submitted an application. The Class A license was what allowed carry, and was rarely if ever granted. After 2014 the law was changed and allowed the purchase of pepper spray without the license, though the seller must still be licensed and with in the state (no mail order) I believe. I think the current Mass. law prohibits possession by prohibited persons but I could be wrong on that. > [@](#): > > Again, I’m not sure if the 2nd applies or is needed to apply to other weapons such as a knife. To me it is just an inalienable right so is the 2nd actually needed? Switchblades IIRC are still illegal, but I think that is also asinine but West Side Story and Rebel Without a Cause made those “scary” weapons. I think nunchaku are also illegal in some jurisdictions, but they aren’t all that efficient to carry around for self defense. Dunno, I haven’t considered this very much before. I’d have a real problem with a basic lock blade knife being illegal (I am okay if there is a ban on blade length over 2 or 3 or 4"). Knife laws are particularly difficult to follow since most state preemption laws focus on firearms. Without preemption, knife laws are made at the local level and you can have something legal in one city and illegal in another city. A risky proposition to be sure. I would say that for consistency, anything less lethal than a firearm should not have greater restrictions than exist for firearms. I personally would carry a pocket knife as a utility tool, however since I go on campus for K-12 schools this is prohibited. Other than a firearm, what I would really like to carry is an [ASP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASP,_Inc.). These are illegal in CA. Even if you are one of the folks that has a CCW in CA, these are still illegal. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/166 "2016-03-27T16:02:28Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Stingers aren’t arms in the context of the 2nd amendment. Why not? They’re military weapons. Does the amendment actually not cover what it says it covers, while it does cover something it doesn’t mention? ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/167 "2016-03-27T16:26:47Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Stingers aren’t arms in the context of the 2nd amendment. …stingers are not effective self defense weapons. Tell it to the mujahideen. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/168 "2016-03-27T16:29:21Z")
However, Stingers are considered crew-served, so I’d count them out on that basis. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/169 "2016-03-27T17:40:32Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > Again, I’m not sure if the 2nd applies or is needed to apply to other weapons such as a knife. To me it is just an inalienable right so is the 2nd actually needed? The articles of the Bill of Rights are reminders to the government not to infringe on inalienable rights. And yes, governments will accumulate all the power they can, so Amendments 1-10 are needed, Hamilton’s assertion to the contrary not withstanding. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/170 "2016-03-27T19:25:42Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Stingers aren’t arms in the context of the 2nd amendment. Therefore the restriction on stingers does not run afoul of the 2nd. I agree with this distinction because the core of the right that the 2nd protects is self defense and stingers are not effective self defense weapons. Bone, you’re obviously up on this stuff. What is generally accepted position of gun enthusiasts for what arms are in the context of the 2nd amendment? Is there a decent rule of thumb? I have been corrected on these boards that weapons like a flamethrower are not considered 2nd amendment arms. Would full automatics be considered even though under current interpretation is these re not? ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/171 "2016-03-27T20:26:16Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > I have been corrected on these boards that weapons like a flamethrower are not considered 2nd amendment arms. Although [regulation of flamethrowers is apparently surprisingly lax](http://www.cracked.com/article_17016_7-items-you-wont-believe-are-actually-legal.html). (NOTE: Link is to [Cracked.com](http://Cracked.com), and even they note that a minority of states do have flamethrower control\*, so you might want to double-check your local laws before you do anything rash.) \*They’ll take my flamethrower when they pry it from my still-smoking charred dead hand! ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2016, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/172 "2016-03-28T01:31:07Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > A supermajority would be able to call a constitutional convention, like the Constitution itself provides for … That’s it exactly. Plus the next election. If the vast majority of people don’t like the government, it gets voted out. What could be simpler? ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2016, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/173 "2016-03-28T02:11:54Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > Bone, you’re obviously up on this stuff. What is generally accepted position of gun enthusiasts for what arms are in the context of the 2nd amendment? Is there a decent rule of thumb? I have been corrected on these boards that weapons like a flamethrower are not considered 2nd amendment arms. Would full automatics be considered even though under current interpretation is these re not? Lots of people want to repeal the 1934 NFA/1986 GCA. The latter is a bigger possibility as it has the arbitrariness of certain other laws which have recently been repealed, but I think the chances of anything happening with Class III at the federal level is still very, very low. IMHO the biggest danger of automatic weapons is if someone is using them responsibly but loses control, as we’ve seen in at least a couple incidents at ranges where a minor lost control of a FA weapon. But as far as intentional misuse it’s much like switchblades and nunchaku - they look scary in movies, where someone can shoot continuously for an entire minute and mow down people. But in reality, an assault rifle is out of ammo in less than 4 seconds with the trigger depressed, and untrained users would probably be less effective than if they used a semiauto (or even trained ones considering the US military’s preference for burst). The intended use of machine guns in combat is usually for suppressive fire to keep the enemies’ heads down while backing up people shooting 1-3 rounds. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2016, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/174 "2016-03-28T02:32:11Z")
Nitpick: a “flamethrower” in the military sense is a device that _sprays burning liquid_ like jellied gasoline. The things people use to clear weeds are basically long-nozzled propane or butane burners. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2016, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/175 "2016-03-28T02:33:42Z")
> [@Siam\_Sam](#): > > That’s it exactly. Plus the next election. If the vast majority of people don’t like the government, it gets voted out. What could be simpler? Provided tanks aren’t surrounding the Capitol building… ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2016, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/176 "2016-03-28T02:35:00Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Provided tanks aren’t surrounding the Capitol building… Right, because that’s happened so often. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2016, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/177 "2016-03-28T02:40:09Z")
Friends and fellow posters, this is a fairly decent example of the learned helplessness commonly presented in NRA publications: > [@Bone](#): > > That’s all well and good, but let’s look at the fact pattern that spawned this thread. > > So Caetano was assaulted, hospitalized, and homeless. She had restraining orders against her abuser to no avail. He was waiting for her and threatening her when she displayed a stun gun. That alone was sufficient to avoid further confrontation. > > So do you, **Measure for Measure** , believe that Caetano should be a convicted felon, that stun guns should be outside the scope of the 2nd amendment, and that Caetano who is nearly a foot shorter and close to 100 pounds lighter than her abuser should not have used a weapon to defend herself and instead relied on… a layered defense approach including deescalation, voice, stance and flight? > [@octopus](#): > > Wait you mean a piece of paper did nothing to ensure her security but a physical weapon did? The posters in question took as _obvious_ that a woman of smaller stature would be helpless if left unarmed against a larger attacker. It’s hard to know where to begin. Note the credulousness of the presentation of a tendentious argument presented by a portion of the court. Ponder what would have happened if woman was holding a handgun, Magnum or rifle: surely it would have been argued that stun guns or brass knuckles would have been wholly insufficient. That’s how the NRA frames things. Heck my take is that the NRA would feel sorry for the guy. After all, they protect his access to high calibre weaponry: otherwise they wouldn’t let confirmed domestic abusers take advantage of the gun show loophole. At any rate, I think it’s dangerous and harmful to imply that women are helpless if they lack a handgun or stun gun. The only information I worked with was the snippet in Bone’s post. But that’s sufficient for now. It appears that she was in a public area, outside of her place of work. Her ex boyfriend initiated the altercation using voice, not fists. If unarmed, the thing to do at that point would be to get help. She could retreat back into her place of work. It’s a public area: she could accost passers by. (Yelling “Help” to a crowd isn’t especially effective. Much better is to make eye contact with individuals and pair them with requests like, "Excuse me, could you call 911? I’m feeling threatened.) Assume a ready stance with your hands up. Request that the attacker keep his distance. If he doesn’t, there are a number of techniques a small woman can use _if she is willing to flee_. This isn’t a cage match. She doesn’t have to knock the crap out of the guy. She does have to keep him from dragging her into a car. But that’s an easier self defense challenge. Remember. The woman who had the stun gun was in a public area. The male made no attempt to physically attack her before she pulled out her weapon. And it appears that the weapon was used to stop verbal abuse anyway: “I’m not gonna take this anymore,” she said. Not, “Don’t touch me,” or even, “Back away”. Instead she wanted the yelling to end. Which is something that a small person can address when surrounded by witnesses in a public area. A great many self defense challenges are like that. Very few involve cage matches. Male instinctively think of duels of one kind or another when they conceive of violence. But females are more likely to have a different perspective: flight and evasion can constitute victory. Again. I want to emphasize this: the unarmed are not helpless, even if they are slight of build. Ignore the _motivated_ NRA propaganda: if they cared about self defense they would set weaponry in the context of a more general set of strategies. They do not. Because self defense is a fig leaf for them, as opposed to a topic of benefiting from prudence, research, and investigation. When an NRA member jaw-jaws about self defense, just laugh. That said, I believe women’s shelters should be able to provide licenses for various sorts of weaponry, probably including stun guns. Unlike the NRA, they care about their client’s safety. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2016, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/178 "2016-03-28T02:49:59Z")
Those interested in self defense might start at this wiki site. There is also other information available on the internet. [Model Mugging - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Mugging) ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2016, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/179 "2016-03-28T04:23:29Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Friends and fellow posters, this is a fairly decent example of the learned helplessness commonly presented in NRA publications: The posters in question took as _obvious_ that a woman of smaller stature would be helpless if left unarmed against a larger attacker. It’s hard to know where to begin. Note the credulousness of the presentation of a tendentious argument presented by a portion of the court. Ponder what would have happened if woman was holding a handgun, Magnum or rifle: surely it would have been argued that stun guns or brass knuckles would have been wholly insufficient. That’s how the NRA frames things. > > Heck my take is that the NRA would feel sorry for the guy. After all, they protect his access to high calibre weaponry: otherwise they wouldn’t let confirmed domestic abusers take advantage of the gun show loophole. > > At any rate, I think it’s dangerous and harmful to imply that women are helpless if they lack a handgun or stun gun. The only information I worked with was the snippet in Bone’s post. But that’s sufficient for now. > > It appears that she was in a public area, outside of her place of work. Her ex boyfriend initiated the altercation using voice, not fists. If unarmed, the thing to do at that point would be to get help. She could retreat back into her place of work. It’s a public area: she could accost passers by. (Yelling “Help” to a crowd isn’t especially effective. Much better is to make eye contact with individuals and pair them with requests like, "Excuse me, could you call 911? I’m feeling threatened.) Assume a ready stance with your hands up. Request that the attacker keep his distance. If he doesn’t, there are a number of techniques a small woman can use _if she is willing to flee_. > > This isn’t a cage match. She doesn’t have to knock the crap out of the guy. She does have to keep him from dragging her into a car. But that’s an easier self defense challenge. > > Remember. The woman who had the stun gun was in a public area. The male made no attempt to physically attack her before she pulled out her weapon. And it appears that the weapon was used to stop verbal abuse anyway: “I’m not gonna take this anymore,” she said. Not, “Don’t touch me,” or even, “Back away”. Instead she wanted the yelling to end. Which is something that a small person can address when surrounded by witnesses in a public area. > A great many self defense challenges are like that. Very few involve cage matches. Male instinctively think of duels of one kind or another when they conceive of violence. But females are more likely to have a different perspective: flight and evasion can constitute victory. > > Again. I want to emphasize this: the unarmed are not helpless, even if they are slight of build. Ignore the _motivated_ NRA propaganda: if they cared about self defense they would set weaponry in the context of a more general set of strategies. They do not. Because self defense is a fig leaf for them, as opposed to a topic of benefiting from prudence, research, and investigation. > > When an NRA member jaw-jaws about self defense, just laugh. > That said, I believe women’s shelters should be able to provide licenses for various sorts of weaponry, probably including stun guns. Unlike the NRA, they care about their client’s safety. Nothing is preventing you from not carrying a weapon. Furthermore, who stated that the only method for defense is a firearm? I believe it was stated that the firearm is a hedge against violence directed towards oneself. No one in this thread is stating that a useful tool in certain situations is a panacea, regardless of your attempt through ridiculing others of asserting otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2016, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795/180 "2016-03-28T04:48:17Z")
… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-arms-should-be-protected-by-the-second-amendment/749795.md?page=10)