Hacker News Reader

Comment by Covzire | Hacker News Reader

The gravity of the second amendment isn't arms per se, it's the right to retain enough personal power to repel a dictator from taking over the government and just as importantly, making it so that even if a dictator succeeds, the country will be ungovernable for them.

View on HN

So we should substitute 'strong cryptography' for 'arms' and see what happens.

It is funny you mention that actually - as a personal anecdote, I can say that many of my friends who happen to be advocates for free distro of crypto tech - or more commonly, cryptocurrencies - also tend to be fairly strong 2A advocates.

TL;DR; - IMO there is some significant crossover between crypto* people, and 2A people.

Cryptography is useful to protect privacy, which is very closely related to liberty.

I have noticed this correlation as well (I am an example of it in fact). I think there is a common thread of decentralization and bringing power closer to the people that resonates with the two groups.

I think the correlation is termed "libertarian."

I have not noticed this correlation, so it may be anecdotal.

At first thought, it seems 100% absurd that an ad-hoc underpowered group of people with small arms counts for anything in the modern age.

But history shows otherwise: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq.

Empirically, every totalitarian state bans citizen firearms (Nazi Germany, USSR, Cuba, N. Korea). For "good" reason.

While of course different, crypto has many of the same pros and cons as firearms, and it should be supported for the same reasons.

https://xkcd.com/504/

Don't forget the Revolutionary war, when we were the Guerrilla force.

with lots of help from France...

That's the classic example, though folks will often argue it doesn't apply because there were only muskets and cannon, not machine guns (though that's technically not true).

Every example of yours had plenty of external help without which I am doubtful they would have as much success.

No idea what your definition of totalitarian state is, but there certainly was not a complete ban on firearms neither in Nazi Germany nor in many of post WW2 socialist countries (e.g. hunters).

> there certainly was not a complete ban on firearms neither in Nazi Germany

It actually started post-WWI (due to Treaty of Versailles).

> In 1919 the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership...anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks. [1]

Laws were later relaxed from a total ban, though ownership was low, as all guns and ammo had been confiscated earlier. And Jews and companies with at least some Jewish ownership were forbidden to own any firearms or participate in their manufacture.

When oppressing a group, either selectively or indiscriminately, guns + speech for that group must go.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany#Reg...

Germany in 1919 was definitely not a totalitarian state. The laws were relaxed in 1928 which was BEFORE nazis came to power.

The VC, Taliban and everything that followed also heavily leveraged explosives against an underarmored opponent in their fights-- it wasn't just a matter of small arms. It should be telling that you can currently keep your toy guns, but god help you if you try to buy fertilizer and blasting caps in America without a damn good reason.

Waco and Ruby Ridge had an endless arsenal of small arms. It didn't help them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com