Anti-Gunners’ Only Consistency Is Their Inconsistency

For me, the guiding principle I hold to politically is liberty for the American people. I want to see liberty throughout the world, of course, but I can’t really do anything about what happens outside of our borders beyond just griping about stuff.

What that means is that sometimes, I have to take positions that I might not be thrilled with because it benefits something I find distasteful, but is what a free people would be permitted to do.

This is political consistency. I don’t always nail it, but I try.

On the other side of the gun debate, though, they don’t put in the effort to be consistent in the least.

Look at the difference in how they view gun rights and voting rights, for example.

Does America’s future really depend upon background checks, draconian controls on buying guns and a national firearm registry?

Democrats seem to think so. Gun control, including measures that violate the constitutional right of Americans to keep and bear arms, is a central feature of their platform. In fact, Democrat-controlled jurisdictions, most recently Colorado, have imposed the harshest gun control measures in the nation.

However, one can argue that, unless voting is limited to identifiable, properly registered citizens in good standing, interests inimical to the American Republic can influence, even determine, federal and local election outcomes. Without secure elections, the future of the Republic is, indeed, at risk.

But, even though Democrats favor photo ID, background checks and waiting periods to purchase constitutionally-protected firearms, they reject the same and similar methods to ensure election integrity as “voter suppression.”

In early April, the U.S. House of Representatives finally passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. The SAVE Act would amend the 1993 National Voter Registration Act – also called the “motor voter” law – to make states require documentation of a person’s U.S. citizenship before registering them to vote in federal elections and to ensure that states remove non-citizens from their voter rolls.

Since every vote cast illegally offsets – disenfranchises – one actual citizen, there is no conceivable reason to oppose the SAVE Act other than to deliberately undermine the integrity of American elections and make it easier to cheat.

I might not go quite that far–I know some arguments against the SAVE Act that include the fact that marriage licenses or legal name change documents aren’t accepted for voter registration, for example–the truth is that the typical anti-gun Democrat has long opposed requiring a photo ID for voting, all while wanting more and more requirements before someone can buy a gun.

There’s most definitely a double standard there, to say the least.

Now, let’s understand that while voting rights are important, it’s not exactly something that just anyone gets to do just because they want to. The law of the land says only citizens can vote, and then citizens can only vote in a specific location where their ballot will reflect the elections they’re entitled to have a say in.

As a resident of Georgia, for example, I don’t get a say in Florida’s elections. I shouldn’t get one, either. Having an ID requirement makes sense because I’m not entitled to vote anywhere else.

But these same people want me to have to show an ID, go through a background check, be restricted from buying certain guns, maybe have to go through a training class before buying one, maybe get psychological evaluation before getting one, open up my social media to the government, and any other hurdle they can come up with, and never once blink.

There’s a profound paradox at work here to the point that the only consistency I can see is their inconsistency.

They don’t want proof of citizenship for voting, but they want me to have to prove just about anything and everything before exercising a right that has no relevant reason for any of that.

And, honestly, I’m sick of playing nice about it.