Machiavelli's The Prince

  I found it pleasantly surprising that Niccolo Machiavelli addressed the point of gun control, even though he published his book in the early 1500s. ;) The following passage (with a few of my own additions in brackets) is taken from Chapter XX:

  Now, no new prince [or other kind of ruler, such as a president] has ever at any time disarmed his subjects; rather, when he has found them unarmed he has always given them arms. This is because by arming your subjects you arm yourself; those who were suspect become loyal, and those who were loyal not only remain so but are changed from being merely your subjects to being your partisans [or supporters] ... But as soon as you disarm your subjects you start to offend them [if they have any intelligence whatsoever], showing whether through cowardice or suspicion that you mistrust them; and on either score hatred is aroused against you.
  Then, since you [the prince] cannot stay unarmed, you are forced to have recourse to mercenary troops... And even if these mercenaries were reliable, they could not be sufficiently so to protect you against powerful enemies and against subjects you distrust.
  ... So, all things considered... I censure anyone who, putting his trust in fortresses [or military], does not mind if he is hated by the people.

  In other words, any and all rulers and countries are more powerful and have longer terms of success, if they build trust with their subjects, and give them arms. If a country full of armed loyal subjects, is attacked, the subjects will defend it to the end. However, when a country is full of citizens who rely on the government to protect them and are helpless to defend themselves, they will do everything to protect and save themselves, including siding with the enemy.
  Psychology will agree that when someone is attacked, their body enters a state of "Fight or Flight". Those are the two main options, and if the government deprives the country (full of people) of their ability to defend themselves, then flight becomes the only option. And what enemy would turn down an opportunity to attack a kingdom full of peasants, whom he knows will do nothing but run if he invades?
  Thus, a ruler who disarms his subjects, or makes it unconstitutionally difficult to attain/use them, neither trusts his people, nor has the best in mind for the country. What kind of people would elect a man who they know would willingly disarm them? History is full of examples of people that once disarmed and placed under the "protection" of their government and its hired mercenaries failed. Machiavelli even names a number of these incidents. The founders of the US Constitution knew this. Any historian will also tell you that history repeats itself. Even if Machiavelli wasn't actually talking about gun-control, I see no difference in the rules. Anyone who attempts to disarm his own subjects does not have his country's best interests in mind, and is destined to be overcome by another enemy.

Chinua Achebe on 'Heart of Darkness'

   At first sight these instances might be mistaken for unexpected acts of generosity from Conrad. In reality they constitute some of his best assaults. In the case of the cannibals the incomprehensible grunts that had thus far served them for speech suddenly proved inadequate for Conrad's purpose of letting the European glimpse the unspeakable craving in their hearts. Weighing the necessity for consistency in the portrayal of the dumb brutes against the sensational advantages of securing their conviction by clear, unambiguous evidence issuing out of their own mouth Conrad chose the latter. As for the announcement of Mr Kurtz's death by the "insolent black head in the doorway" what better or more appropriate finis could be written to the horror story of that wayward child of civilization who willingly had given his soul to the powers of darkness... than the proclamation of his physical death by the forces he had joined?

   This passage was taken from Chinua Achebe's essay "An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness'". I found this paragraph especially intriguing. If it had not been obvious before this point, it was made apparent in this passage that Achebe is quite offended with Conrad's description of the African natives, and thus uses some very strong language here especially. He purposely exaggerates Conrad's descriptions to get his point across that Conrad was as racist as he was brilliant. Achebe imitates some of Conrad's style throughout his essay, putting a large emphasis on the 'dark' and 'gloomy' wordage and ideas.
   At times it seems Achebe is looking a little too deeply into Conrad's writing, as here, and yet by revealing Conrad's incredible bias, he almost does Conrad a service, but inadvertently highlighting Conrad's exquisite skill and genius in writing. It's almost ironic, since Achebe's goal is to expose Conrad's work as racist enough to be censored, but at the same time showing that it is worthy of ranking "among the half dozen greatest short novels in the English language". The whole essay is masterfully crafted, an elegant evisceration of the ridiculous racism and literary brilliance and success of Joseph Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness'.

The USA Patriot Act

The fundamental question facing Americans today is not the false tradeoff between security and liberty, but rather how we can use security to protect liberty. Any debate over security and liberty must start with the recognition that the primary threat to American freedom comes from al-Qaeda and other groups that seek to kill Americans, not from the men and women of law enforcement agencies who protect them from that danger. That the American homeland has not suffered another terrorist attack since September 11, 2001, is a testament to the remarkable efforts of law enforcement, intelligence, and homeland security personnel... Their hard work, dedication, and increased coordination have been greatly aided by the tools, resources, and guidance that Congress provided in the Patriot Act.

  This passage is taken from Viet D. Dinh's How the USA Patriot Act Defends Democracy. I believe Dinh makes several faulty claims in his essay. He seems to think that the US government is unable to make a mistake and seeks ONLY for the destruction of all terrorists and in no way wants to control their own citizens with laws such as the USA Patriot Act. He claims that "the primary threat... comes from al-Qaeda". Though this may possibly have been true in 2004 when this essay was originally published, the US government has always had other goals in mind. Most governments want more power than they already have and to think that they will always want what is best for its citizens is illogical.
  In addition, he seems to think that this Act has stopped all terrorist attacks on the American homeland. This seems improbable, since we took the war to them and have taken down a number of their leaders, including Osama bin Laden in 2011. The belief that the only reasons that no more attacks have landed in domestic America is because of homeland security seems oversimplified.
  Dinh also claims later that parts of the Patriot Act were announced in 2003 to not even be in use, but the possibility that the FBI would not use such tools later on is foolish. I don't believe we need to be terrified that the government is reading over our shoulders 24/7, but I also believe that its unwise to believe that the government only has its citizens' own good in mind, regardless of what they claim.