Hmmmm. Maybe it's time...
... to fight dirty (blush).
While I neither confirm nor deny my support or opposition to the matter, it's proven a little difficult for those in power to address anything relating to the Second Amendment. And, as I recall, the Second Amendment doesn't _directly_ refer to firearms - rather, to the right to' keep and bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a well organised militia'. Which is interesting, because it might not be too big a stretch to say:
1: Secure (from the 'enemy') communications logistics have long been recognised as an essential element of sustaining any such force (a view even supported by the assertion expressed by various speakers from time to time that the use of encryption is critical to 'opposition' forces)
2: Encryption has, more than once, been qualified as a 'munition' in the past.
So maybe:
"Encryption doesn't kill people/ do bad things to children! _People_ kill people/ do bad things to children!
Or
"I'll give you my GPGP when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!"
or
"They'll try to smear you as the enemy. They will slander you as cyypto-philic, horn-rimmed spectacle wearing, tech-obsessed maniacs who stand in the way of a safer America. Will you remain silent? I will not remain silent. If we are going to stop this, then it is vital to every law-abiding encryption user to register to vote and show up at the polls on Election Day!"
Quite what they'll do when they _do_ show up, and can't find anyone sane to vote for is another problem entirely... sigh.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
