DVR - 20/20 Gun Control

Without preamble, my promised analysis of 20/20's Gun Control episode cannot be informed by Television. The DVR that displayed a "splash," screen when I awoke around 0545 hrs is (to borrow German,) "kaput." If it had even shown a commercial since, I could invest in a theory that the Russians were targeting me for starting rumors that the Russian Mafia poisons agreements with the Triad!

Instead I must profess that a technician is promised for a Sunday afternoon... a likely story, I'll admit, but there's no charge.

Since my article cannot be informed by the 20/20 News Magazine, I pose q's upon which I had intended to take notes, and leave the well roundness of my article to hazard its own risk, as the Television Producer surely must have done when he began his own pioneering documentation.

I CAN inform the compilation from facts: please proclaim the victor of the well roundedness competition fairly, and may the best investigator win.

I reconstruct lost notes from memory.

Machiavelli was a Hawk. His stated motive for his treatise was that the Prince should wage war on Lomabardy and Tuscany. While this may not comprise the totality of his motive, it was certainly more than pretext... he intended advantage to the Principality where he resided (Chapter 26.) As such, he should be regarded as incentivized to represent arms to their best advantage in turn.

The Prince did not take his advice. As I recall, his name can still be established, but Machiavelli lives on in greater infamous notoriety.

Memory doesn't serve to cite a place wherein Machiavelli addressed resolve, or its necessity as a deterrent to Conquistadors. In my experience, most people determine the import and weight that should be given to a point, by the time a speaker spends on it, and the number of repetitions he allots it. My rhetoric isn't up to it, go figure. Resolve.

Chapter 6 of The Prince addresses "New Principalities acquired by one's own arms." Chapter 7 addresses "New Principalities acquired by the arms of others (or by good fortune.)" Independently noted is the comment,

"We have seen above how necessary it is for a prince to have his foundations well laid, otherwise it follows of necessity he will go to ruin. The chief foundations of all states, new as well as old or composite, are good laws and good arms; and as there cannot be good laws where the state is not well armed, it follows that where they are well armed they have good laws. I shall leave the laws out of the discussion and shall speak of the arms."

In another place he asserts opinion that should offer insight to the Machiavellian Hawk:

"Therefore, as I have said, a new prince in a new principality has always distributed arms. Histories are full of examples. But when a prince acquires a new state, which he adds as a province to his old one, then it is necessary to disarm the men of that state, except those who have been his adherents in acquiring it; and these again, with time and opportunity, should be rendered soft and effeminate; and matters should be managed in such a way that all the armed men in the state shall be your own soldiers who in your old state were living near you."

I'm not restricting myself solely to "Big M," but he said much of substance. He closes his book with the observation that,

"With us there is great justice, because that war is just which is necessary, and arms are hallowed when there is no other hope but in them."

...arms are only hallowed when taken up for the cause of Justice, albeit allowing for a certain moral flexibility in determining the _reason_ the war in question is "Just." Instead of calling the historic author an imbecile, I affirm he was correct about the consecrating power of Justice. In history, was Rome's conquest Just? What of the Crusades? Contrast this with USA's shared motive with India, for repulsing the British. Can Al Quaida appeal to Justice? What about Bush 41 in Kuwait?

Hmmm... I perceive I am rationalizing War, not discussing Gun Control. He was a _persuasive_ Hawk, how did he ever fail? [If stopping War is the motive and reason of the Gun Control argument, please amend the Constitution to omit "...to provide for the common defense," NOT the 2nd Article of the Bill of Rights.]

The murder rate in the US of A is higher than anywhere else. I don't know what "per capita" numbers actually mean - they are ALWAYS fractional, but ours are higher than anywhere else. [I will attempt to end with an argument that appeals to logical expedient, and aver BOTH human interest/emotional appeal AND Exigencies of State.] Launching ALL firearms available Globally to Jupiter WILL not STOP MURDER. Given the extreme emotional disturbance that makes me forget the difference between right and wrong, I can murder with my bare hands, I don't need a sidearm.

Syllogistically:

IF murder is the reason we are doing [x],

THEN doing [x] should be sufficient to end all murder,

...or the whole syllogism fails the test of tautology. I think we can agree that sending ALL arms to Jupiter cannot be done (for whatever expedient reason.)

Clearly an open mind needs the conversation to say more... I have suggested War and Murder rate as two motives for Gun control. Did 20/20 suggest others?

Law Enforcement is a reason for Gun ownership that supersedes even 2nd Amendment discussions.

Historically, England never armed the populace. English Bobbies carried the legendary Bobby stick, and without fear for their lives, hailed the fleeing criminal, "Stop, in the name of the LAW!" This differs from the traditional Continental "Stop, or I'll SHOOT!" by the following contrast. Who says "Stop, or I'll... say STOP again!"

Harking back to M., the comment to the effect "new regimes arm the populace while old regimes _dis_arm them suggests a syllogism compiled from the statement:

If the regime disarms me, it must be old, whereas if it arms me it must be new.

The actual contra-positive should go like this:

Old Regimes disarm, and I am being disarmed, therefore the regime cannot be new. To the logician, reality must allow: President Obama is "New" regime... he cannot qualify as an old one. Therefore he is not the actual source of my disarmament.

IF I _am_ being disarmed, no NEW regime can be at fault. Rather, of all available possibilities, I must regard extant OLD regimes as valid candidates. The rest of the discussion turns upon the definition of a "regime." I fail to define the territory of debate, but definition of terms reliably portends the victor of its annexation. I move on with this parting observation: Schools of thought can have regimes.

Machiavelli's language may not be sufficiently rigorous for the whole exercise, it might suggest that "If I am being disarmed, the Principality is a province being added to an older one," instead. Please simply learn what may be learned.

An example of a Country that was armed and then disarmed is Maoist China. The revolution was violent, sudden and over. The Maoist revolt of 1990 Nepal proved that firearms do not monopolize violence. It was a machete rebellion.

Reiterating, England never armed the populace. A frontier country that disarmed is Australia. We could profitably check with them how the pilot program is going... are the Kangaroos and Hyena's cooperating? How about the 5ts, and organized crime? Canada had a frontier tradition that is no longer evident... maybe they can shed light on disarmament; I've always heard it said that they looked to the South for National Security. Trite or not, how true is it?

I'll put the heart and soul of my standpoint here, just before my concluding comments. This is the environment into which the 20/20 presentation would have been poured. IF we make Gun Ownership ILLEGAL, we merely reserve the RIGHT to carry to those not otherwise bound by law. Predicating law on a jaundiced view of the alternative, is to fall to the failing addressed by the Latin Proverb:

"Abusus non tollit usum."

Translation: "Abuse is no argument against proper use", legal phrase meaning that just because something can be abused there is no reason for putting an end to its legitimate use.

If the days of Imperial Conquest are over and gone, the days of leveling such accusations against Superpowers are not. An available overcompensation is to disarm everyone (in violation of the Bill of Rights.) I am not prepared to say that Hegemonic motives are reserved to those whose grasp might reasonably attain it.

Meanwhile, I feel like I've launched out (in the above commentary,) and answered suggestions that were never made. Anybody care to share a copy of the 20/20 episode in question?