Sorry this ended up being a bit long, but I'm going to be blunt and say that you misunderstand what professionals consider to be a weapon: A weapon, in the technical sense, is any instrument that can produce watts, used for the purpose of settling a dispute over who has control over what. The technical definition of violence is the use of weapons for that goal. For example, self defense is using your body itself as a weapon to defend your control of your body. The military uses weapons to control the various thoroughfares of a nation and to enforce the will of it's governing body. Cells use their lipid walls as a weapon to control what is inside and what is outside itself. Speech is also a weapon, but used in purely abstract reality to control belief systems. Encryption is a weapon that produces data that is physically impossible to decipher by adversaries, thereby controlling who can access it. And Bitcoin is a weapon to control who owns which UTXOs with the goal of making them inconfiscatable. This is how you have to think when you're dealing with enemies who don't know or even care what you believe, and just want to control you and what you have. Who won't sit and argue with you before deciding to shoot you. Who won't consider your right to free speech and privacy before deciding to eliminate them. And the reason why Lowery always just told people to read the thesis is because this is all explained in detail for anyone to understand. But most bitcoiners didn't really want to understand, which is just as frustrating to me as it is for a bitcoiner trying to explain things to a nocoiner.