Putting it into historical perspective, Kurt notes:
Voting, unlike the Constitutionally enumerated right to keep and bear arms, depends for its very legitimacy on the voter being who he or she claims to be. Some would doubtless argue that abuse of the right to keep and bear arms is far more dangerous than abuse of the right to vote. To make that argument, though, they have to forget that Hitler positioned himself to become Chancellor through the vote. The power of Chancellor, combined with Article 48 (which was the work of Max Weber, so admiringly cited by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence for his advocacy of a "government monopoly on force"), made seizure of dictatorial powers a fairly simple matter.Interesting, isn't it?
With governments historically being by far the most prolific mass-murderers in the world, (and with the victims often chosen along ethnic lines), how can protection of the legitimacy of the process by which the government is chosen be considered "racist," while far more onerous requirements for possessing the tools to resist such murderous tyranny is not?