Your #2 is not specifically a pro-gun argument. Compromise on the death penalty, from an anti-death penalty advocate, means there will still be a death penalty. Compromise on prohibition, from a prohibitionist, means there will still be alcohol for sale. Compromise on allowing abortions, from someone thinks that abortion is murder, means there will still be murders. Compromise on slavery, from an abolitionist, means there will still be slaves. Compromise on the Taft-Hartley law, by Communist union officers forced to take an oath that they were not Communists and anti-Communist politicians, means that one of them can't get what they want.
In all cases, someone who compromised will view the compromise as a defeat.
Therefore, you can't really say it's a pro-gun argument per se, but that both are examples of a wide class of arguments.
I feel that holds for the rest of your points - they hold for nearly every argument, and aren't specifically pro-gun or pro-encryption.
For an example of #3, the US Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade says abortions are legal due to a right of privacy. Those who want to restrict or eliminate abortions view it as a right to life of the unborn, and believe the Court was incorrect in making their decision. Both sides base their arguments in civil rights.
Also, I think the comparison of cryptography to guns is not a good one.
If you want to think of cryptography as a munition, then it's much more like armor than it is to a gun. Bulletproof vests are sometimes used when committing a crime. There are also some laws against them.
And in the US, bulletproof vests are not, I believe, covered under the Second Amendment.
In all cases, someone who compromised will view the compromise as a defeat.
Therefore, you can't really say it's a pro-gun argument per se, but that both are examples of a wide class of arguments.
I feel that holds for the rest of your points - they hold for nearly every argument, and aren't specifically pro-gun or pro-encryption.
For an example of #3, the US Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade says abortions are legal due to a right of privacy. Those who want to restrict or eliminate abortions view it as a right to life of the unborn, and believe the Court was incorrect in making their decision. Both sides base their arguments in civil rights.
Also, I think the comparison of cryptography to guns is not a good one.
If you want to think of cryptography as a munition, then it's much more like armor than it is to a gun. Bulletproof vests are sometimes used when committing a crime. There are also some laws against them.
And in the US, bulletproof vests are not, I believe, covered under the Second Amendment.