Second Amendment supporters are often painted as extremists for believing that the natural right to life should not be infringed. The regulators argue that “reasonable” regulations can and should exist in a “civil society.” Why then, is the right to vote considered to be “unalienable” by those very same regulators? Are those who believe the right to vote should not be infringed as “extreme” as those who believe the right to bear arms is absolute?
I proffer these few questions for the regulators among us:
- If it is reasonable to require a photo identification for a weapons or ammunition purchase, is it as reasonable to require the same when a person casts a ballot?
- If it is reasonable to tax a weapon or ammunition purchase, is it as reasonable to charge a fee (or tax) when one casts a ballot?
- If it is reasonable to require that a weapons owner passes a basic proficiency test, is it as reasonable to require the same proficiency test of a voter?
- If it is reasonable to require a background check before a person can purchase a weapon, is it as reasonable to require the same for a voter?
Abolitionist Frederick Douglass advanced this idea in his autobiography, The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass, Written By Himself. when he wrote, “the liberties of the American people were dependent upon the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box; that without these no class of people could live and flourish in this country.”
Douglass understood (as do I ) that rights also come with responsibilities. While citizens have the right to vote, judge their peers and defend themselves against criminals, foreign invaders and domestic tyrants, they have a civic responsibility to do likewise. To deny any person those rights or to suggest that he or she abdicate those responsibilities, was unthinkable to Douglass.
Can we regulate guns? Sure, but let’s calibrate voting restrictions to equal the restrictions placed upon those who choose to bear arms.
What could be more “reasonable” than that?
Comments 13
Brian,
I will proffer three questions for you:
1. If voting is a free right, shouldn’t gun ownership be the same? Shouldn’t gun manufacturers and dealers be required to give their product away for free?
2. If it is unconstitutional to require a registry of gun owners, shouldn’t it also be unconstitutional to require a registry of voters?
3. If gun ownership is an absolute right and anyone can legally possess as many guns as he/she wants, then shouldn’t anyone be allowed to vote as often as he/she wants?
Constitution says nothing about guns, it states “Arms!” Anything could be classified as arms, therefore you have the right to bear them!!
Hope you didn’t just give the Dems the idea to outlaw voting!!! LOL..
Good post Brian…..
RD,
No worries. It isn’t the Democrats that have been trying to make it more difficult to vote.
Hypocrisy,
“Shouldn’t gun manufacturers and dealers be required to give their product away for free?”
Government protects your rights. It doesn’t provide them to you. You have the right to free speech so should government give you a radio station? You have the right to refuse quarter to troops so should the government give a house with no troops in it?
No, but in a country of the self-governed that is an a constitutional representative republic rather than a Democracy, it is appropriate for government to protect your right to buy a gun from a manufacturer. I recognize this is a fundamental difference between the purpose of the formation of this country and what you, unions, and Democrats are trying to change it into, but there’s your answer.
Your second and third comments are silly. They don’t apply or compare to what Brian is saying so I won’t comment. You know that, but you are trying to confuse and cloud the issue, of course.
“It isn’t the Democrats that have been trying to make it more difficult to vote.”
You don’t count their platform and candidates? In any case, Democrats have a rich and full history of preventing people from voting all across the south. Especially if their skin was dark. Republicans put a stop to their racism. Now Republicans want to make sure Democrats don’t cheat again and do as you suggest: “shouldn’t anyone be allowed to vote as often as he/she wants”.
Hypocrisy.
You’re comparing apples to oranges. The right to bear arms was seen as a natural right (one which pre-existed government ) Voting however was originally seen as a matter which should be determined by the States. Of course, various amendments to the constitution (notably the 14th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, and 26th) reflect how this document addresses the needs of an evolving society.
Not one amendment has been passed to abridge the natural right to bear arms. This tells me that, as evolved as society becomes, it still deems that right and responsibility to be absolute.
I see both rights as absolute (self defense and self determination). Would that we safeguarded those rights and responsibilities, with equal application, we might be more free and (thereby) prosperous.
Brian,
“You’re comparing apples to oranges.” That was exactly my point and exactly what you did in your original post. Maybe my sarcasm was lost on you; it certainly was on Michael, but then again, it usually is.
Brian,
One more question. Do you really see gun ownership as an absolute right? Should a convicted murderer or rapist have the right to own a gun after serving his sentence? Heck, if the right is absolute, then the murderer should have a right to own a gun while still in prison – certainly there is no place on earth where he would need self defense more than while in prison.
As Brian said: “right to bear arms was seen as a natural right (one which pre-existed government )”
I tend to think the Founders assumed it was common sense that individuals have the right to protect themselves and with that right the individual is responsible for having the means to protect themselves. This is not some decision that can be made by officials miles away.
On that note how can an individual have the freedom of speech (expression) if they can’t protect themselves in order to express it?
As a history guy I’ll also make this note: When Washington squashed the Whiskey Rebellion no one said “we should take their guns away so this doesn’t happen again.” The constitution was new and facing a rebellion against its authority. This wasn’t like today’s tea party members demonstrating against taxes, they were literally attacking and shooting at the tax man. The ink of the 2nd amendment was barely dry and armed uprising occurred – something worse than the lone gunman threat we face today – and no one said “hey, that 2nd amendment was a bad idea.” People today have lost context.
Author
“Do you really see gun ownership as an absolute right?”
I should have stuck with “natural” right.
“Should a convicted murderer or rapist have the right to own a gun after serving his sentence?”
Can people be deprived of their natural rights by government? Of course but not without the due process of law.
Elliot is correct that the Founders viewed self-defense as just common sense. They knew that centralizing force was not only dangerous but impractical. More importantly, they understood that citizens would answer the call to national defense (militia) and local protection (posse) when invoked. This is why I stated that rights come with responsibilities too.
The Founders recognized that voting, when not tempered by a recognition of natural rights, could be used as a weapon as well (which is why some states were pretty careful about whom had that right and responsibility).
I think it makes good sense to insure that all three boxes of freedom (ballot, jury, and cartridge) be limited to citizens of good character and adequate training. All three carry the explicit or implicit use of force against others.
Brian,
I am starting to agree with you more but your last paragraph scares the heck out of me:
“I think it makes good sense to insure that all three boxes of freedom (ballot, jury, and cartridge) be limited to citizens of good character and adequate training.”
The fear comes from deciding who gets to define “good character and adequate training.” The words “low-information voter” have been used quite a bit on this website. I wouldn’t want anyone else telling me what “information” I need to be aware of before I am eligible to vote.
Author
“The fear comes from deciding who gets to define “good character and adequate training.”
That’s the point of most everything I write here.
Brian,
And that’s why I said I am starting to agree with you more.
Author
🙂