Machiavellian policies

Now, almost everyone knows the name Machiavelli (or term Machiavellian) and usually it goes along with a negative connotation. People generally assume that he was some cut throat politician.

Wrong. He was a colossal kiss-ass and oppritunist. The whole "ends justify the means" thing comes from whether or not a prince should go to war or not. It has nothing to do with racial cleansing, backroom politics, or any other vile dealings that are For The Greater Good. (see:Hot Fuzz. perfect example of what people think Machiavelli means BUT IS NOT IT.)

Speaking of Machiavelli's principles on war, he lived in a turbulent time period in a particularly turbulent country and knew a thing or three about war.

But his best and often over looked statement has to do with the pacification of a conquered state.

"Some princes have disarmed their subjects so as to hold their states securely...but when you disarm them, you begin to offend them; you show that you distrust them either for cowardice or for lack of faith, both of which opinion generate hatred against you."

Attention Politicians: We are on to you, and have been for 500 years. Keep your pacification attempts off mah guns, its pissing us off. You are either afraid that we're going to come and get you for doing a shitty job at whatever we elected you to, or you don't trust us. Again, probably because you are the suck at whatever you are supposed to be doing. Thomas Jefferson had it right when he let us keep our guns in the first place. Its our civic duty to keep all the sneaky bastards in Washington in check (not to mention the random uppity citizen).

Another interesting point old Niccolo brought up:

"There has never been a new prince who has disarmed his subjects;"
Wait for it...
"on the contrary, he found them unarmed".

The conquerer has never had to disarm his "new" subjects. He found them that way, which allowed him to actually be a conquerer and not a footnote in history. But it gets better:

"He has always armed them. For when they are armed, those arms become yours. The difference in treatment makes them obliged to him."

Proud Americans might find this notion repulsive, but if a conquerer does take over the States because we didn't have the means to defend ourselves and then he gives it back to us, I'm not going to complain. Once we're armed again and the new leader tries to pull some shenanigans, we'll do what we should've done to the people he replaced. Kill him. If one does restore our right to bear arms, he is not a dictator. The Politicians who dis-armed the citizenry in the first place are the true dictators.