I thought the Second Amendment covered weapons customarily used by the military.
Wasn’t that the argument used back in 1939 to justify lawas against sawed off shot-guns and silencers?
Don’t get me wrong - I love knives - and swords also.
The “Miller” case explicitly said that arms in common use by the military were protected.
The “Heller” decision expanded that, and said arms commonly available and useful for self defense were included.
The “McDonald” decision said that the protections of the Second Amendment applied to both the federal and state governments.
The Texas court system ruled in the 1870s that only blades as such that are used by the military would be protected by the Second Amendment. Bayonets and sabers were permissible, daggers, sword-canes, and so on were not. Of course, that’s only a state ruling, not federal, and predates any modern rulings.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/primary/rkbadecisions/English1872.pdf