Whether I agree with you or not here's the difference. Stricter enforcement of who gets a firearm is not the same thing as putting a vulnerability into every firearm that allows police officers to cause the weapon to backfire into the legally purchased firearm owner's face. Breaking crypto literally makes it dangerous to the people who use it. I'd be opposed to remote police controls on firearms that caused them to fail as well. It's an unnecessary danger that circumvents the purpose of the device.

I want to make sure that I understand your analogy.

- The right to secure encryption is like the right to bear arms

- Government mandated weakened encryption are like gun control

- The victims of weak encryption (stolen data for example) are similar to innocents harmed by gun control? (I'm not sure on this one, please correct me if I'm wrong).

- Saying weak encryption is bad is like saying gun control is bad

I'm not trying to straw man you, if that's not what you mean, please correct me.

Also, I completely disagree.

Not even close to the same thing.

It's pretty close. For a while crypto was classified as munition and placed under very strict export control in the United States.

When did that change ?

Because a gun is a physical object, whereas a vulnerability is information.

Why would that difference matter to coolspot's argument?

Because of the economics of distribution. Information gets distributed by duplication, whereas physical objects get distributed by transfer. That makes control of distribution of physical objects more plausible, because the number of instances you need control over is limited by physical constraints.

Note: more plausible. You can easily point to examples where physical object distribution control has failed, and where information distribution control has succeeded (Prohibition and video DRM are the examples which most obviously spring to mind), but those cases are the extremes.

This is why the 2nd amendment is still there, and will remain there.