The US until 1992 classified cryptography as a munition, so they are not completely dissimilar. But many things are munitions as well.<p>Your argument is that cypto and guns should be viewed as equivalent because they are &#x27;technology that, in the hands of a law-abiding person, can be used for legitimate purposes, including protecting oneself from aggression&#x27;.<p>That&#x27;s a very broad category, isn&#x27;t it? It would include anything which was ever used as an improvised weapon against aggressors. For example, the Provisional IRA &quot;were widely perceived within the nationalist community as being defenders of Irish nationalist and Roman Catholic people against aggression.&quot; (Quoting <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Provisional_Irish_Republican_A...</a> ).<p>The IRA used ANFO bombs extensively across two decades. ANFO of course also has many legitimate purposes<p>Under your definition, ANFO possession and use should be as unrestricted as gun or crypto possession and use, yes?<p>If not, why not?<p>If so, what other currently restricted items fall in this category?