Liberty can be defined the position of being free in a society and from the control
which burdens an individual’s life by an authority figure. Authority, on the other hand,
can be defined as the ability to have control and enforce decisions. In this paper I will
look at the philosophers John Locke and Jean- Jacques Rousseau and hypothesize, from
their writings where they would stand on gun control. There are some similarities
between Locke and Rousseau. Both Philosophers believed in the social contract theory.
In the social contract theory, individuals give up some of their natural rights in exchange
for political rights. This is to better protect them in self-preservation and services only the
state is capable of providing. The social contract theory also states that they cannot
authorize taking away a citizen’s right to self-defense if deemed appropriate. According
to John Locke, all individuals are entitled to enforce the law by punishing the individuals
who cause harm to others. Locke also believes that the use of force can be used in
situations where citizens have to defend themselves because there are no other options.
Locke, however, believes that if everyone has a gun, it is not good for a society. Locke
concludes that since man’s natural state is a state of war, we have the right to take the life
of an individual who started the initial war. One of Locke’s main theories is self-
preservation.
Self-preservation can be defined as the protection of an individual from violence
or destruction. Locke thinks that weapons can be used for self-preservation, but when too
many people have access to weapons it creates an increase in violence throughout a
society. Locke thinks that if too many weapons are integrated into society a tyranny will
occur, and individuals will have absolute power and abuse their authority.
“Where–ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another’s harm; and
whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the
force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows
not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority, may be opposed, as
any other man, who by force invades the right of another. This is acknowledged in
subordinate magistrates. He that hath authority to seize my person in the street may be
opposed as a thief and a robber if he endeavors to break into my house to execute a writ,
notwithstanding that I know he has such a warrant, and such a legal authority, as will
impower him to arrest me abroad. And why this should not hold in the highest, as well as
in the most inferior magistrate, I would gladly be informed.” (John Locke Second
