Encryption is no longer generally classified as munitions in the US.

Here's a link to start with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...

yes well... that was a consequence of the last failed attempt to create backdoors with clipper thankfully.. but you could argue encryption is a munition in practice if not by current statute. For instance one could argue without encryption the revolutionary war would have had a different outcome as it enabled Washington’s network of spies to tip the balance in favor of the revolutionaries. But more importantly the point I was tongue in cheek trying to make is twofold: 1) for a right to encryption to exist, an individual must be sovereign. For an individual to be sovereign they must have a right to bear arms. And 2) while there are numerous rights to privacy enumerated in the bill of rights there is not one that I know of that gives an explicit right to encrypt. But if one were to argue encryption as munition... then you’d have the 2nd amendment to support the right.. which as I stated is kind of provocative and that’s all I was trying to be.

Should gun rights advocates promote relating privacy rights to gun rights, I suppose that could spoil the perception of privacy rights among large numbers of US voters.

Maybe, in that scenario, gun-rights voters end up carrying privacy-rights US policy influence, but then we might also have a lot of other US people thinking privacy is not for them, in their own day-to-day lives.

Politics and perceptions are way outside my expertise, but things like this sometimes come to mind when working on technical stuff with privacy&security implications.

I hope y'all realize I can remember a discussion just like this happening 25 years ago on the cypherpunks mailing list. I just wanted to note that before I closed the tab.

As munitions? Okay, the ban-gun argument would simple be "fine, have all the ammunition you want. Just no gubs." :)