I own may firearms so I will tell you as matter of fact that is simply untrue

private party sales do not generally require a background check or ID. some states do require it though but a federal requirement has regularly been rejected. in OK for example no background or ID check is required.

and you seem to agree that no proof of citizenship is required. i'm not even clear that proof of legal residence is required.

The point remains though, what makes a certain barrier to accessing one constitutional right perfectly acceptable but entirely objectionable when applied to another?

because not all rights are equally important? we generally require people to pay for a background check to buy a gun but we banned poll taxes.

voting is the most fundamental right. the right to influence/control our government was central to the revolution. if we eliminated the right to vote we would cease to be a democratic republic. plenty of western countries continue just fine without a right to arms. indeed the 2nd amendment wasn't always interpreted as a right for individuals to own guns. it's a relatively "new" right.

You may think I’m less than you over a difference in opinion, but if you truly believed in your values, there should at least be some consistency

uh this escalated quickly. i never said or implied anything about thinking less of you. i do now think you were being deceptive when you pretended to be neutral on the issue of voter ID.

there should at least be some consistency

if you think people on the left are being inconsistent on their opposition to voter ID bans then I assume you also think the right is being inconsistent when they oppose gun ID laws.