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?