John Taylor Mill holds a very restricting and narrow view on the laws of gun control in the United States. The atrocities across our country are absolutely terrible but the government’s role is not to be taking away our basic liberties. Mill argues on a utilitarian or “greatest happiness” principle. My biggest concern with this rhetoric is this way of decision making has a tendency to target individual’s rights outlined in my Second Treatise. The rights to life, liberty and property are essential to maintaining a free and rational society. This Op-Ed specifically deals with the rights to property.
The reason the American people rebelled against the British crown was to join a free society. In a free and rational society, each individual is entitled to life, liberty, and property and the right to protect those rights. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This text, straight from the constitution, defends the argument. The example I use in the Second Treatise comes with the situation regarding a mugger. The mugger forces the muggee to make a decision “your money or your life.” In this case, choose both. The mugger applies “force without right upon a [your] person makes a state of war both where there is, and is not, a common judge.”
The right to protect your own property is a natural right and guns achieve this purpose. The government seizing the citizen’s guns would be punishing the masses for the inability of few to follow the laws of the land. I believe it can be compared to taking away one’s right to drive because car accidents have hurt people and been used as weapons. The ultimate goal of a safe society is achieved at the heavy cost of freedom. Mill argues that since seventy eight percent of the US population doesn’t own a firearm, society would be achieving a greater happiness by taking away the rights of the twenty two percent that do. Mill is arguing to strip natural rights of eighty one million people in America because a small percentage cannot seem to follow the laws.
I agree with certain gun control regulation. For example, extensive background checks and mental illness checks should be required. If the government cannot trust you to abide by the laws set in place by the civil society, you should not receive the same rights as every other citizen. The boundary and decision on gun control should be shaped around whether it is a public or private issue I believe it is not made public until the public cannot trust you with the responsibility of a weapon i.e. background checks and health checks. Until then, the issue remains private. “Must men alone be debarred the common privilege of opposing force with force, which nature allows so freely to all other creatures for their preservation from injury? I answer: self defense is a part of the law of nature, nor can it be denied the community, even against the king himself…”
I understand the point Mill is trying to make and the solution believed to come from it, but our government is here to protect our rights not seize them. As soon as our right to protect one’s property is seized, where does the authority stop in taking all of our freedoms? The “greatest happiness” is not worth the cost of liberty to eighty one million Americans. This utilitarian view point would soon start to attack more of our three primary freedoms using the same argument of the “greatest happiness.” The precedent is dangerous to the people of the United States.