[Blood of Tyrants]

They aren’t a bearable arm. They are merely an accessory and should be treated as such. As in, “Would you like a suppressor with your new firearm today? All I have to do is add it to the ticket.”

[marktwain]

Accessories which improve the effectiveness of the arm are protected.

Otherwise, the government could just keep whittling away at improvements. Here is a sort of slippery slope example:

Red dot sight? You do not "need" that accessory. Telescopic sight? the same. Pistol grip? the same. Magazine of more than one round? the same. Better trigger? the same. Rifled barrel? the same.

Accessories must be protected. They should include shoulder stocks for pistols, as well.

[castlebrew]

Suppressors facilitate the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights. They are covered by the 2nd Amendment.

[uranium penguin]

“They aren’t a bearable arm. They are merely an accessory and should be treated as such. As in, “Would you like a suppressor with your new firearm today? All I have to do is add it to the ticket.””

They are NOT “an ARM” at all..
Any more than a muffler is a CAR.

[CodeToad]

“They aren’t a bearable arm. They are merely an accessory and should be treated as such”

I hear what you are saying but the logic could also be since they are not a firearm then they can be prohibited.

In that vain, so could pistol grips. They are not firearms, just an accessory. So are scopes, and slings. Just accessories.

Arms, IMHO, include all accessories and ammunition. Yes, the above items are accessories but they are comprised under the word “arms”.