Hacker News Reader

Since this is usually said about guns, it reminds me of https://xkcd.com/504/

The supreme court's definition of "arms" is not something that can be changed by passing a law. Just like you couldn't hack the second amendment by defining arms to be muskets.

I don't understand what you're saying. Did you miss the entire reference that XKCD strip was about? You do know that we had to fight to remove encryption as being classified as a weapon and instead protected as free speech, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States

We shouldn't have had to argue that. If it's either speech or an arm (and it's both), it's inalienable.

Only works in the US of A.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com