AP Photo/Elaine Thompson, File

Democrats like to position themselves as the party of the poor and minorities. They lash out at Republicans at every opportunity, claiming that the GOP cares nothing for the downtrodden and instead want to make the wealthy wealthier. Democrats, on the other hand, say they want to help the poor and the oppressed unless it comes to guns.

The poor and minorities of this nation are more likely to be the victims of a violent crime. For many, that means they want to have a gun so they can defend themselves.

However, the Democrats running for president are advocating for policies that would hurt those poor and minority voters the most.

Name a gun control regulation, and you’ll find Democratic presidential candidates who enthusiastically support it.

Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., promised Wednesday that if she becomes president she will use executive orders to mandate background checks on the private transfers of guns, revoke the licenses of gun makers and dealers whose guns are used in crimes, and ban the importation of many semi-automatic guns.

Her proposals follow Sen. Cory Booker’s push for licensing gun owners and an even longer list of gun regulations. Like Harris, Booker, D-N.J., is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

The regulations Harris and Booker are proposing would hit low-income Americans – many of whom live in high-crime neighborhoods – particularly hard, because the regulations would effectively prevent them from owning guns for protection by making gun ownership more expensive. Black Americans would be disproportionately affected because of their disproportionately high poverty rate.

The truth is that every time we see a gun control proposal pop up, it’s always claimed to be about stopping criminals, but all it does is stop law-abiding citizens. At most.

Many of these proposals seek to add additional expenses to the purchase of a firearm.

For a middle-class gun purchaser, an additional $100 expense for a license is annoying and burdensome, but probably doable. It’ll delay them purchasing their gun, and that delay may prove fatal, but realistically, it’ll put off the purchase for a little while.

When someone is very poor, that $100 may be a barrier that might as well be insurmountable.

A poor gun owner isn’t buying an H&K or similarly priced gun. They’re going for the Hi-Point. These are $100 to $150 guns. Requirements like this being proposed by people like Booker would add cost to these inexpensive firearms, placing them out of reach for certain individuals.

As noted above, this will have a disproportionate impact on the black community.

And this doesn’t even figure in some of the other expenses Democrats want to lump into the mix.

Democrats argue that requiring voters to shows free IDs discriminates against minorities. But the universal background checks that Harris and Booker want for gun purchases don’t come cheap. In Washington and New York City, checks on private transfers of guns start at $125.

That’s an excellent point, and one I don’t expect either Harris or Booker to address any time soon.

However, let’s be realistic. The moment a poor person or a minority decides they want a gun, they no longer count so far as anti-gun candidates are concerned. They’ve taken a step to leave the plantation, and these candidates are notoriously down on anyone who doesn’t stick to their place in the grand scheme of things.

They don’t care that poor people won’t be able to get guns for self-defense. They don’t view self-defense as a thing. They’re so isolated and protected by professional bodyguards that they forget how most of us can’t afford to outsource our protection. If a poor person is too poor to do so, that’s their problem.

For the rest of us, we should remember this when they begin their rhetoric about helping the poor and downtrodden. When Democrats start that, ask them why they want to make it more difficult for the poor to have guns for personal defense.

Somehow, I don’t think you’ll be welcome in their presence after that.