Voting rights came initially to whites only and did not include women. Black slaves weren't even counted as full human beings for the purposes of the U.S. Census and were considered to be property.
Later, those injustices were rectified; slavery was abolished by constitutional amendment following a deadly, destructive civil war (the next one will be fought over the issue of open borders and mass illegal immigration -- you read it here first). And women were granted the right to vote also by constitutional amendment.
But gun ownership was a founding, fundamental right. And the Second Amendment makes clear that government at all levels have no authority to 'infringe' on that right.
Why the civics lesson? To preempt the usual critics who support forcing Americans to prove who they are when it comes to exercising their Second Amendment rights, but not when they exercise their right to vote.
Because they are tyrants by nature and hate the Bill of Rights (except the parts they can use to enhance and exploit their own power), Democrats are always the first to try and limit Americans' Second Amendment using often silly, but occasionally unconstitutional, roadblocks.
Democrats in Pennsylvania, for instance, are reviving a previous [bad] idea -- to require that anyone who wants to buy firearms ammunition must first show a valid ID, even as they roundly oppose any form of ID requirement to vote.
You have to prove who you are in order to exercise a right to keep and bear arms but not to choose elected leaders and decide local issues, in other words.
The Epoch Times notes further:
Current law prohibits ammunition from being sold to anyone the seller has reasonable cause to believe is younger than 18 or 21 depending on the type of ammunition. However, sellers are not required to verify the buyer’s age by asking to see an ID.
The legislation would require all ammunition buyers in Pennsylvania to provide an official form of photographic identification with every purchase of ammunition. It would reinforce current law, ensuring ammunition is not sold to children, without infringing on any individual’s Second Amendment rights, Kirkland said.
“This is very safe legislation," he told the outlet. “I don’t think this is making it harder for anyone to get a gun. You get carded to buy alcohol or tobacco. There is no accountability for the person selling ammunition.”
Fine; but ask him about voter ID, and we'd bet real money he'd say he was against it.
“With the gun violence in my neighborhood (Chester, Pa.) and Philadelphia and Pittsburgh— you just see every time you turn the TV on, it’s a 15-, 16-, 17-year old being shot or doing the shooting,” Kirkland continued. “They are going to have illegal guns or ghost guns on the streets. They need ammunition to use them.”
“This seems like something we should have in place. If we can agree to make laws on alcohol and tobacco age limits, this should be something we can all agree on. We are not taking anyone’s guns away," he continued.
Actually, what's needed in Philadelphia is for voters there to stop electing left-wing district attorneys like Larry Krasner who prefer anarchy to prosecuting criminals for crimes including gun violence, regardless of the perpetrator's skin color.
But that's not going to happen, because Democrats who dominate that city are idiots who think doubling, tripling and quadrupling down on the same failed policies will someday result in success.
In any event, this idea has been floated on the national level too by congressional Democrats, but it's just as unconstitutional and invasive. It's not an issue of 'safety,' it's an issue of constitutionality and legality.
The Second Amendment "shall not be infringed"; voting laws that require IDs are constitutional. This isn't difficult unless you're a Democrat.