I negate resolved, in the United States, the possession of hand guns ought not be an individual right.

Ought is defined as moral obligation.Morality requires respect for the status of others as ends in themselves. First, from our own rationality flows an absolute constraint to respect the rational wills of others. Thomas Hill, Jr. writes, There is, contrary to Hume, on (butonly one) substantive value or end that can be attributed to every rational being, independently of the particular desires that he, as an individual may have. This is humanity, or rational nature,
itself, that is, one's existence as a being with reason, the capacity to set ends, and the ability to make choices with at least a degree of independence from impulse

By virtue of being a rational agent, a person necessarily values rationality in himself. The impartiality implicit in the moral point of view requires him to acknowledge in principle the same values in others. The practical effect of valuing rational agency is implicit commitment to preserving it, developing it, making use of it, and honoring it symbolically.
and given, nonrational desire.

The rationality of people is granted because: 1. 2. 3. People have the freewill to produce actions without external guidance. Peoples actions are only constrained by inclinations to act in various manners. Even without reasoning, people can make choices based on prior, acquired knowledge.

Second, rational agents must be ends in themselves for anything else to have value, since all other value is derivative. Hill 2 value is derivative from the fact that they serve our interests and desires. Even pleasure, which we value for its own sake,hasonly derivative value, that is, value dependent on the contingent fact that human beings want it.Now if valuers confer derivative value on things by their preferences and choices, thosevaluers must themselves have value. In fact, they must have value independent of, and superior to, the derivative values which they create. The guiding analogy is how we treat
The second argument is roughly this:Most valuable things['] have value only because valued [sic] by human beings. Their ends. We value certain means because they serve intermediate ends, which in turn we value because they contribute to our ultimate ends, that is, what we value for its own sake. The value of the means and the intermediate means is derivative from the value of the ultimate ends; unless we value the ultimate end, the means and intermediate ends would be worthless to us. So, it seems, the source of derivative value must be valuable for its own sake.Since the ultimate source of the value of our contingent ends, such as health, wealth, and even pleasure, is their being valued by human beings, human beings, as valuers, must be valued for their own sakes.

The rights states protect have inherent worth in themselves because they are derivative of moral maxims that establish the inviolability of rational agents. Thus the standard is respecting the inviolability of rights. Disrespect to our status as ends is such a great harm that a system of utility will necessarily include deontological constraints on action. Applebaum writes,
Because a violation-minimizing violation uses one as a means for the ends of others and so fails to treat persons as ends in themselves.If persons are to matter in the highest possible way, then morality must value not only the absence of violations of persons, but the treatment of persons as beings who have the status of being inviolable-whose violation is not permissible."What
actually happens to us is not the only thing we care about: What may be done to us is also important, quite apart from whether or not it is done to us-and the same is

Since having the status of inviolability is of great value, if morality permits violations so as to maximize the good of not being violated, all persons cease to have a high degree of inviolability, which is a great bad. We all may be better off in a world in which morality always treated us as ends, and so where it is always morally impermissible to violate us, even though we are thereby more likely to suffer violation at the hands of immoral actors.1The state has the obligation to uphold the individual rights of citizens insofar as they function as rational agents who demand to be seen as ends in themselves. If not rational, moral
true of what we may do as opposed to what we actually do." 7

1 Are Violations of Rights Ever Right? Author(s): Arthur IsakApplbaum Source: Ethics, Vol. 108, No. 2 (Jan., 1998), pp. 340-366 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2382196 Accessed: 18/09/2008 00:20

maxims have no applicable meaning, since irrational agents inherently fail to acknowledge the inviolability of others. Thus, the sole contention is: constitutionality. The individual right to bear arms is derived from Amendment 2 of the constitution and has been maintained a paramount right.
Associated

Press, Supreme Court Extends Handgun Rights Nationwide DECISION COULD UNDERMINE CHICAGO'S BAN, NEWSER,Jun 28, 2010,

http://www.newser.com/story/94005/supreme-court-extends-handgun-rights-nationwide.html

The Supreme Court says the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" applies nationwide as a restraint on the ability of government to limit its application.The justices' decision today casts doubt on a Chicago-area handgun ban, but their 5-4 vote also signaled that less severe restrictions could survive legal challenges. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, said the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states.The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and the four liberals opposed. Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home. That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia. At the same time, the court was careful not to
cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.

Hence, the state is constrained on violating the clearly delineated citizens right to hand guns. Violation of this permits the perpetuation of rights violations which would otherwise enable self-defense through deterrence against arbitrary state actions. Jeremiah Project, Assault On the Second Amendment,Copyright 1999-2011, http://www.jeremiahproject.com/trashingamerica/2ndamendment.html, Totalitarian governments such as Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany during World War II, as well as some Communist states such as the People's Republic of China are examples of totalitarian regimes that passed gun control legislation, which was later followed by confiscation. Bolshevik Russia and the Soviet Union did not abolish personal gun ownership during the initial period from 1918 to 1929; the introduction of gun control in 1929 coincided with the beginning of the repressive Stalinist regime. Insofar as the government can justify denying one right, all others become susceptible to harm as well.