> If we lose crypto, we must already have guns laid by.
How likely do you think it is that when you use rhetoric like this, it
is *not* then used to discredit you in the top-secret briefings the
Senate gets from the anti-crypto lobbyists? You must know that having
guns laid by is just going to get you dead. It's going to have no
effect at all on the government.
By saying something like this, you are inviting them to group you
together with the likes of Timothy McVeigh and David Koresh. Senators
and Congresspeople do not like people like Timothy McVeigh, and would
tend not to listen to them in the unlikely event that they were called
to testify before Congress.
There really is a constituency for restrictions on crypto. This
constituency actually has a good reason for wanting them. Their hope
of controlling strong crypto in the long run is probably unfounded,
but still, they're fighting the good fight against you for what are
arguably good reasons, and talking about guns just makes you look like
a jerk and them look like The Good Guys.
If you want to win this battle, convince the American public that
you're right. If the NRA can do it, with much less lofty goals, you
can do it too. Just don't go around telling the American people to
stockpile guns to take down the crypto-oligopoly. Most Americans
don't think much of that kind of rhetoric, so you won't develop a
broad base of support. The NRA uses the Constitution, deer hunting,
Mom and Apple pie, not talk of emulating David Koresh. Much as I
dislike them, I think we would do well to follow their example.
_MelloN_
