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