Gun ownership is a absolute right and should not be regulated

"I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense," he said. "But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home. " -Ronald Reagan. Is ownership of any kind of gun an absolute right? Even an AK-47? Great men like Ronald Reagan even agreed that such weapons are of no need in our cities and communities. I will be arguing the negative case for this resolution. Value: National Security. National Security, as defined by the Value Debate Handbook, refers to the protection of a state from aggression. Aggression against the nation threatens our safety and security as much as does a crime, catastrophic illness, or natural disaster. Nation security is important because it preserves fundamental American values, such as safety. Those values, such as freedom guaranteed by the constitution, are jeopardized when national security is endangered. According to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, safety is established as a basic human value. So when we use unneeded weapons that are originally designed for war, we are endangering our basic human value of safety and our national security all together. Definitions: (as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary) Aggression: Angry or violent behavior or feelings Safety: Freedom from harm or danger Threaten: To say that you will harm someone or do something unpleasant or unwanted especially in order to make someone do what you want As a little road map for my speech, I will present three contentions that support my case. Contention 1: Not needed. Contention 2: Responsibility. Contention 3: Safety. Contention 1: Not needed. Assault rifles, missile launchers, and tanks are of no use or need in our communities. These weapons are meant for war and national protection, not for any man that can afford it. There is no use for guns like this in any place that isn't a war zone. You literally can't hunt with a missile launcher (imagine that). Ammo is expensive, so you have to be filthy rich in order to even operate these weapons. When our founding fathers put together The Bill of Rights and the second amendment, their intention was to have a "well regulated militia". Not a maxed out military superpower for every household to enjoy. Regulated, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, to set or adjust the amount, degree, or rate of (something). We have to set the amount of guns that we are able to have ownership of. We don't need guns that aren't under our regulation. Contention 2: Responsibility. Responsibility, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, is to be able to be trusted to do what is right or to do the things that are expected or required. In the past 20 years, our nation has shown to be very irresponsible when it comes to gun ownership. The U. S own 35-50% of the worlds guns. Because of our irresponsibility with half the worlds weapons, we have had over 51 mass shooting since 1997. The U. S is estimated at having 401 firearm homicides per 10,000 people. More than 30,000 people are killed by firearms each year in this country. More than 30 people are shot and murdered each day. 1/2 of them are between the ages of 18 and 35. 1/3 of them are under the age of 20. But all together, there have been 540,000 firearm deaths in the U. S since 1997. We are the leading nation in firearm deaths and mass shootings. So, due to this statistics, you can see how irresponsible our nation is with guns. Just imagine how the death rates in our nation would rise if gun ownership wasn't regulated. There wouldn't be school shootings; there would be school bombings. If the United States can't be responsible enough to handle our guns today, what makes you think that we will still be trusted with weapons of war? Contention 3: Safety. As I said in my Contention 2, our nation is not responsible enough to own weapons of war. This would ultimately result in the destruction of our safety. It is the purpose of our government to protect our basic human value of safety. So in order to not have a irresponsible nation handle weapons of war, the government has to regulate weapons to protect its citizens. In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Maslow says that human's basic needs, which includes safety, must be satisfied before other higher needs such as freedom, self actualization, and progress can be met. Since safety is a basic human need, it is a prerequisite to other higher values. Therefore, unless we are safe and secure, we cannot enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So you shouldn't be angry with the government when they won't allow you to own a missile launcher. The government is protecting yours and others basic human value and need of safety.