Hacker News Reader

Comment by dx87 | Hacker News Reader

It'd be nice is encryption fell under the 2nd amendment. It's been classified as a munition before, and with the creation of USCYBERCOM, the govt has a vested interest in ensuring that it's citizens have experience using encryption software.

View on HN

That's an interesting argument, but only the most extreme interpretation of the 2nd Amendment argues that it covers _all_ munitions. And I'm having trouble finding a contemporary example of someone making this claim.

On top of that, we now have years of SCOTUS jurisprudence that "arms" are absolutely subject to _some_ regulations, with the debate focusing on what "some" actually means.

>And I'm having trouble finding a contemporary example of someone making this claim.

Maybe you were looking for someone notable, but I'll make it for you right now.

You're certainly more notable than homonculus2!

Just out of curiosity, does that extend to things like chemical or biological weapons?

I suppose such an interpretation would have the side effect of making literally any hazardous substance legal to possess.

The definition of "arms" can reasonably be limited to conventional arms, i.e. the weapon is controlled by a human and its damage can be targeted. Weapons of mass destruction and contagion are not compatible with the purposes of self-defense, defense of the nation, and protecting society against tyranny.

Randall Munroe was onto this years ago: https://xkcd.com/504/ I think the case is strong that encryption is equally protected by the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com