This particular argument? Not as phrased, no. The main point often raised around the right to bear arms is that, as currently interpreted in the US, it comes

This particular argument? Not as phrased, no. The main point often raised around the right to bear arms is that, as currently interpreted in the US, it comes at a steep cost in homicides and suicides. Encryption doesn't really have comparable collateral damage in society. There's the whole "but terrorists and pedophiles will hide behind encryption" argument, but even if you granted that and could measure the impact, there's little chance it would be anywhere near equivalent to 30 000 deaths annually. So: a more nuanced version of this argument would point out that there's little to no harm from allowing widespread strong encryption, whereas there's widespread demonstrable harm from allowing widespread firearms. To compound this, the reverse harms - lack of privacy / security on one hand, strict monopoly of force on the other - are hard to compare. Both have the potential harm of leading to unchecked tyranny, along with the potential benefit of maintaining national security and civil order; depending on which side of the debate you're on, the tendency is to downplay either the harm or the benefit and exaggerate the other. Any reasoned comparison here ought to take into account that the tradeoffs are clearly different.