The Curmudgeon

It is with no small amount of sad amusement that the Curmudgeon notes that the SCOTUS decision concerning second amendment rights has the bloomers of left blogsylvania in a serious bunch. The biggest twist, around which the larger knot no doubt forms, is that in another topical issue- the fourth amendment- the wad spins the other way.

On the drool-and-crayon side of the spectrum, they're holding a goddamn parade about the former issue and eerily quiet on the latter.

One could probably expect as much, from both sides.

The Curmudgeon sees a larger, underlying question with these issues- namely, the extent to which the federal government may modify or limit our inherent rights as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights- and notices the inconsistent, and to some degree disingenuous, responses across the spectrum. A preliminary answer to that larger question would be to guarantee and rigorously defend those rights from the government.

That means that it should be damn difficult for the government to surveil, search, or seize individual citizens, and in any case, that process must be done in an open and fully accountable manner. None of this "but 9-11 changed everything" pissy pants, cowardly hand-wringing, none of the "but I ain't got shit to hide" bullshit: giving an institution even a small crack in power over the people on this front guarantees that power will be abused. The whole "security vs liberty" argument is a massive canard, and this Curmudgeon is not afraid to call it such. Sacrificing everyone's liberty for an illusory security is not some sort of grand compromise, it rather ensures a society in which there will be little liberty and the same old fear driving insecurity. You want security? Check yourself into a prison.

A rigorous defense of our inherent rights also means that the citizenry should be able to defend itself on a par with entities which would bear malice against it. That would include not only a foreign enemy, but also a government which has become tyrannous, as well as corporate, private mercenary groups.

In particular, the Curmudgeon draws attention to a particularly disingenuous line of bullshit trotted out by MNObserver at The Cucking Stool; namely, that the right to bear arms was limited by the founders to the sort of firearms available at the time of its framing. It is shameful rhetoric, just as disgusting as a parallel sort of argument ("Should the poor really have the right to vote? It's not like they own land...") from the fascist contingent.

The Curmudgeon would have MNObserver note that the time it was written, the second amendment put the citizenry on a roughly equal footing as an army would have. Over the decades, that equilibrium of power has become seriously, seriously imbalanced. Now, the government and its agents have a vast array of lethal and quasi-lethal weaponry at its disposal which are abjectly denied the people, and the people, well, the big argument here and now is about whether we as individual citizens are just too damn incompetent to be trusted with freaking handguns.

Here's the thing about rights: any one individual may prize one right more than another right, and that varies from individual to individual. One person may prize their right to be secure in their person and papers far more than the right to bear arms; that person is not under any compulsory obligation to bear arms. Another person may prize their firearms, and is less concerned about having their conversations with their doctor surveilled; that person is under no compulsory obligation to keep such things private.

At the end of the day, it is just as important to secure the rights for the one as for the other. And damn us all if it is not high time for both the left and the right to recognize that fact.