When I was a kid, I was very much in favor of gun control, but in my junior year of high school, I read Machiavelli's The Prince, and he changed my mind. Machiavelli advised new princes on taking over a new territory to not try to take people's guns away because it showed that you didn't trust them. So I saw gun control in a new light, not in a crime control light, but in a "the people v. government" light. When the government trusts the people, it lets them keep their guns. When the government fears the people, it wants to take them away. And let's face it, taking people's guns away makes taking other freedoms away a whole hell of a lot easier. Imagine how much harder it would have been to round up the Jews in Germany and Poland if they'd all been armed to the teeth. Do I like gun crime? No, I don't. Do I like people shooting up dozens or hundreds of people at a time? No, I don't. But I believe an armed citizenry is a free citizenry. Thanks to Machiavelli.
Well, you're in a for a shock. Machiavelli's The Prince was a piece of sarcasm. The primary reason that the book is mistakenly taught as a political ideological lesson of "the ends justify the means" is because it is short and simple to follow. But the author was a tremendous advocate of governance by the willing, of egalitarian ideals. Nearly every one of his other works reflect this - albeit in much longer and much more dense verbage. Machiavelli was part of, or at least friendly with the ruling class at the time, and then, a new family came into power and they, quite literally, tortured Machiavelli by breaking his legs. It was after this event that Machiavelli wrote, "The Prince" mostly as a way to appease the new ruling class.
Indeed. Freedom is dangerous, but nothing is more dangerous than government. Governments are responsible for far more death than all wars combined, many times over.
LOL. I'm not really sure that matters. The Prince was the first book on what is now called realpolitik, to describe how politics really works rather than how they should work.
That idea was proposed simply because it was written before The Discourses on Livy, which offers a different viewpoint in support of a republican form of government. Nonetheless, the arguments presented show an intimate understanding of the alternatives presented in The Prince. It does not invalidate the OP's point.
I want to start by saying I don't have any interest in banning guns. I just am not one for believing that the US citizenry would be capable of taking on the gov. in any reliable or effective way. Let's say a in a hypothetical future the US government decides to eliminate your right to vote and your right to free speech. How does an armed populace react in a way to prevent this or end it? Do you think American Citizens would commit acts of terror against Police? US Armed Forces? Government Buildings? How exactly would an armed uprising take place against the most powerful military and wealthiest government in the world?
For one they are massively outnumbered. Second you assume they would be in agreement with the authoritarian move.
That is true. It is also true, that a gun was a expensive piece of high technology, by Rennaisance standards. Only the rich and powerful had them. You couldn't go down to the Wal Mart in Florence and hand over your drivers licence, fill out the background check form and come back and get a gun over the counter.
How do numbers matter? Exactly what would citizens do? Let's assume the mililtary and police and local governments are in agreement, because if they aren't the argument is moot. Citizens wouldn't need guns in that case. The military/police/local gov. would just tell the federal gov. to shove it.
