[chrischen]

Encryptions is munitions. It is the modern day "arms" that that the spirit of the 2nd amendment to the US constitution was trying to protect as a fail-safe to an overreaching corrupted government.

We don't need to bear arms anymore because we don't walk around dueling people at high noon anymore, but being an information based economy and information based society, encryption is the new gun in the wild world web.

[aftbit]

We continue to need to bear arms of all sorts, equal to those that the military uses. As you pointed out, the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to avoid tyranny in a powerful central government. As long as the (federally funded & led) military uses firearms, responsible civilians _must_ also keep & bear them.

[Ntrails]

When everyone has guns, the police have to have guns. Not only that, they're scared. All The Time. Traffic stop? Might have a gun. Stop and search? Might have a gun.

One fuck up and you've got death, permanent pain, or some other outcome that's pretty fucking unpalatable. (I assume that at least cops in the US have gold plated health insurance...?)

Here is my question. How much of the problem endemic to US police is on account of a culture of fear. Citizens should not fear the police, but that works both ways.

I'm just spitballing here.

[Pharaoh2]

If that is so, then we have already lost. No firearm held by the citizens can compete with the firepower of the military of today.

The spirit of the amendment may have been in the right place and surely worked when the constitution was written but we live in a very different world now and if you still think the an armed citizenry will avoid tyranny, you need to go to youtube and see what the military can now do.

[woah]

Are you sure about that? Look at Iraq. Also, while soldiers in the military might be fine oppressing a compliant populace, how many will jump ship if they are forced to wage actual war on their countrypersons?

[rail2rail]

All fine and well until the drone army comes online.

Only half kidding.

[threatofrain]

I believe the right to bear arms has been interpreted not only to mean the individual right to own and operate firearms, but also the right to form militias, or paramilitary organizations.

It is unlikely for a paramilitary organization to compete with the armed forces, but in a state where the country is stressed and divided, I don't think the armed forces would stand as a fully united organization. However, while I do concede that my argument is weak, I also assert that it is not nil.

[chrischen]

If you really wanted to oppose the government you'd encrypt your communications. Clearly that's s greater threat since government so vehemently wants to deny that (it's in their self interest to increase their power).

[jemfinch]

What citizens lack in firepower they make up in numbers. Just the 12.5 million registered hunters in the United States exceed the number of active duty military by an order of magnitude.

There is no possible way that the military of today, with all its tanks and bombs and drones and planes, could even attempt to hold any large portion of America under martial law.

[ascagnel_]

The purpose of the second amendment was to avoid tyranny in a powerful central government _over the individual states_. The current (2008) Supreme Court interpretation of the second amendment is controversial because it largely ignores the "well regulated militia" text.[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...

[jemfinch]

Interpreting the "well regulated militia" text as limiting the right to state militias is an anachronistic, twentieth century attempt to read modern sensibilities into the text. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries it wasn't even a debate: the right of individuals to bear arms was understood simply to be the manifestation of their natural right to self defense. Consider texts contemporaneous with the constitution and written in similar places:

Pennsylvania State Constitution, 1776: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

New Hampshire State Constitution, 1783: "All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state."

And, of course, the second amendment itself: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[NamTaf]

Most other first-world nations would disagree with you.

[Spooky23]

This classification might by a blessing in disguise.

The supreme court disagrees with you (see District of Columbia vs. Heller) re your need to bear firearms. But if encryption is the new firearm, that might be an important ruling for crypto.

[jemfinch]

> The supreme court disagrees with you (see District of Columbia vs. Heller) re your need to bear firearms.

He's talking about his need to bear firearms. SCOTUS in Heller was talking about his right to bear firearms. There's no disagreement here at all.

[Spooky23]

I read it as the following:

- I don't need firearms.

- I need encryption, as it is the equivalent of a weapon in the information age.

- I have a right to bear arms

- The Feds consider encryption to be a munition.

If these assumptions are true, I think you can make an argument that wielding strong encryption is conceptually equivalent to having a rifle.

[skykooler]

Same idea as in http://xkcd.com/504