People have rights.

In many nations, those rights are trampled on with great celebration by the majority, but those rights don't simply cease to exist because a certain percentage of the population doesn't want to recognize them.

Here in the United States, those rights are protected more than elsewhere. Not all of them are--and they weren't actually meant to be, simply because some would argue that any right not listed isn't a right at all--but some key rights are, in fact, protected.

Unfortunately, a lot of people have a poor understanding of rights.

I didn't need a reminder of that, but I got one anyway in the form of an op-ed looking at what the Supreme Court has on tap going forward.

The entire screed drips with bias, which is fine in an op-ed, but then the author gets to this bit:

Other pending cases before the court could further undermine Americans’ health, safety and rights. For example, one case challenges the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms’ rule barring the sale and distribution of “ghost guns” without a background check. Such guns are assembled at home and don't have serial numbers.

No, they don't have serial numbers. So what? Serial numbers aren't exactly catching criminals left and right. After all, they're not buying guns at the local gun store. We know from the ATF itself that most guns that end up in criminal hands are stolen from lawful gun owners. That right there means that serial numbers are more or less useless in catching most bad guys.

But what stuck with me is how he claims that overturning the "ghost gun" rule--which is probably going to be overturned on similar grounds to the bump stock ban--somehow undermines Americans' rights.

The current law infringes on my right to keep and bear arms. Not horribly so since I can still get all the parts, build a gun, and not have to tell a bloody soul about it because I live in a free state, but it's still an infringement.

So I'm left wondering just what kind of rights this guy thinks the restriction protects.

My guess is that the argument is that it somehow undermines their right to life, but I fail to see how. The existence of so-called ghost guns doesn't do that. The lawful use of these unserialized firearms doesn't, either.

It's through the criminal use that we start to see an issue, but here's the thing: It's criminal use or, perhaps more accurately, misuse. In other words, it's a violation of someone's rights to kill them except in self-defense. That is the thing that undermines their health, safety, and rights. It's people that do that.

You cannot protect one right by undermining another. Especially as gun control makes it harder for me and mine to protect ourselves.

One's right to life is sacrosanct, but inhibiting my right to protect my own isn't going to do anything except tell me that my right to life isn't. 

This isn't difficult. In fact, it seems pretty obvious to me, but it seems the author has no interest in learning.