Mark Tunick’s ‘John Locke and the right to bear arms’ from the History of Political Thought will be the focus of this article review. The central argument that the article argues against is the frequently recurring view that according to Locke, “individuals have a right to bear arms for self-defence.” Tunick’s main response opposing this view is that the preservation of the society is the priority once the state of nature has been left and the focus is relocated on the collective. Although he concedes that there are instances in which it may seem that Locke allows the right to bear arms, such as where Locke clearly states that man may kill an aggressor when there is a lack of time to resort to the law, like in the state of war. He considers
…show more content…
He mentions that the preservation of the society and all individuals that make it up is required by the natural law, so long as it is consistent with the public good. This is proved by when quoting Locke saying that a sergeant can justly command a soldier to ‘march up the mouth of a cannon … where he is almost sure to perish’, in order to preserve the whole commonwealth. Conversely, Tunick stresses that the preservation of the society being the priority does not mean the dismissal of individual rights as rights to property amongst others continue …show more content…
The right to self defence in society validates the use of force but not a particular defence mechanism. Besides, Tunick highlights that Locke makes killing a thief permissible if there is no time to go to the courts, although this begs the question that “we have the right to kill the thief but not the arms that might be necessary to do so?.” Tunick expresses Locke’s view here that if the lack of possessing arms in society helps preserve it in the long term, it is rationalized. Ultimately, Tunick highlights that Locke does not give us his preference on the right to bear arm, instead he sums up Locke’s viewpoint on the fact that the right to bear arms is decided by the legislation, comparable to that of the “English Declaration of Rights of 1689: people may possess arms so far as is allowed by the
He mentions that the preservation of the society and all individuals that make it up is required by the natural law, so long as it is consistent with the public good. This is proved by when quoting Locke saying that a sergeant can justly command a soldier to ‘march up the mouth of a cannon … where he is almost sure to perish’, in order to preserve the whole commonwealth. Conversely, Tunick stresses that the preservation of the society being the priority does not mean the dismissal of individual rights as rights to property amongst others continue …show more content…
The right to self defence in society validates the use of force but not a particular defence mechanism. Besides, Tunick highlights that Locke makes killing a thief permissible if there is no time to go to the courts, although this begs the question that “we have the right to kill the thief but not the arms that might be necessary to do so?.” Tunick expresses Locke’s view here that if the lack of possessing arms in society helps preserve it in the long term, it is rationalized. Ultimately, Tunick highlights that Locke does not give us his preference on the right to bear arm, instead he sums up Locke’s viewpoint on the fact that the right to bear arms is decided by the legislation, comparable to that of the “English Declaration of Rights of 1689: people may possess arms so far as is allowed by the