How about the Second Amendment to start. Then read the many writings of the founders, drafters and State ratifiers. Throughout their writings they refer to "arms". "Arms" are those objects that can be used to defend, be they rocks, clubs, sabres, knives, etc. As I mentioned before, take any anti-2A legislation and insert "arms" each and every time the word "firearms & weapons" is used and it becomes obviously clear that when "arms" is used it immediately causes the legislation to be an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. It's for this reason politicians don't use the word "arms" in any legislation. By them using "firearms, weapons, knives, etc", they decide on what is an offensive tool. Not the people. Thus, an "assault weapon" in their mind is not an "arm"... and thus subject to banning as technically "firearms and weapons" are not mentioned in the Second Amendment. This is how these people think. It's clear if you listen to them on video that they dance around the word arms if pressed. You can keep you "hunting rifle, or your sporting guns"...
It may be a matter of semantics to most here, but the legal field demands succinct use of language (I'm married to someone who is in the field of law). Common, everyday language is much different than that used in legal text. When I presented this concept to my state legislator to be used in anti-2A legislation at the state level (nullification), he said he had never viewed the issue from that perspective and agreed with the premise I put forth.
I've discussed this personally with my friends and many acquaintances and after giving it some thought they see the merit of using "arms" in the debate. Even the least knowledgeable American knows that the 2A uses the term "arms". They may not be on our side of the debate but I don't believe they would agree to support legislation that directly infringes upon the Bill of Rights. If you haven't noticed, politicians use deception to advance their agenda. The greatest tool of deception is words. Lies.
Anyways, I have been in the habit of using "arms" for a couple of months now. It takes some work to train yourself to use it. But it becomes habit after a while. I like to think of it as a way to keep the ideals of the Revolutionists alive. The final tool of freedom always comes down to "arms". Because in the future there will be advances in technology that renders "firearms" obsolete. And if we allow the politicians to dictate the language, they'll ban that future technology from the people but ensure that they have it. But by insisting that new "arms" technology is termed "arms", they to will be available to us.