A Case Of Rights.

       Americans are allowed to own and carry firearms. It's the law, it's a basic part of our freedom. It cannot be infringed. Voting is a basic part of our freedom. It is a right. So why is it that so many conservative legislators are opposed to any type of gun legislation, what-so-ever, but at the same time these same legislators demand that everyone acquire a photo voter ID in order to vote?
       It seems to me that if you won't allow for any restriction on gun rights, it doesn't make sense that you think it's okay to put restrictions on voting. Both are rights protected in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or in one of the Amendments to the constitution. Now we do restrict somewhat the right to vote. We restrict it based on age. We restrict it based on your address and you must register to vote.
       So why is it unreasonable to restrict gun ownership based on a criminal background check? Or on gun trafficking or type of gun or magazine capacity? I think even the type of ammunition should be regulated.
In the second amendment, it states that gun ownership may not be infringed. But before that, it states that we must have a well regulated militia, as the reason for allowing gun ownership.
       The thing is, when it comes to voting, almost nobody is ever in danger of being attacked simply from the act of voting. But when it comes to unfettered gun ownership, there is a much greater potential for violence. And that violence carries far more potential for killing. Because without restrictions, unstable citizens might be carrying a gun and using it.
       If we must have photo voter ID, then we have the responsibility to make sure it carries no costs to acquiring that ID and that it be as convenient as possible to obtain. At the same time, we need to do everything possible to keep guns out of the wrong hands. And if it is absolutely imperative that citizens be allowed to carry guns, then there must also be a free and convenient way to provide proof of competency.