Does the second ammendment apply to non-gun defenses?

We could say someone was armed with a knife, or armed with a bat, or even armed with a frying pan.... Therefore, these are all arms!

mace could also be considered "arms"

At the time the Bill of Rights was written, arms would have included muskets, swords, and archery equipment. Don't forget that the frontier was a dangerous place. People needed there guns not only to defend themselves against other people, but to provide food and fend off dangerous animals. But, as I understand it, the primary purpose of the Second Amendment was so that the people would be able to defend themselves against tyranny. The British were taxing the colonists up the yin-yang and then told them they couldn't have weapons because they feared a revolt. Didn't work.

So, I think a stun gun should be protected under the Second Amendment. Personally, I won't own weapons. They scare the crap out of me and I know that a lot of the guns used in crimes are stolen from people who got them for self-defense.