Whether I agree with you or not here's the difference. Stricter enforcement of who gets a firearm is not the same thing as putting a vulnerability into every firearm that allows police officers to cause the weapon to backfire into the legally purchased firearm owner's face. Breaking crypto literally makes it dangerous to the people who use it. I'd be opposed to remote police controls on firearms that caused them to fail as well. It's an unnecessary danger that circumvents the purpose of the device.

I want to make sure that I understand your analogy.

- The right to secure encryption is like the right to bear arms

- Government mandated weakened encryption are like gun control

- The victims of weak encryption (stolen data for example) are similar to innocents harmed by gun control? (I'm not sure on this one, please correct me if I'm wrong).

- Saying weak encryption is bad is like saying gun control is bad

I'm not trying to straw man you, if that's not what you mean, please correct me.

Also, I completely disagree.

Not even close to the same thing.

Because a gun is a physical object, whereas a vulnerability is information.

This is why the 2nd amendment is still there, and will remain there.