Americans have conflicted opinions about privacy, security, civil liberties. I, for one, opposed Real ID until I grokked the counterintuitive notion that encrypting demographic data at rest (PII) is only feasible by issuing and using GUIDs. That subtle realization only happened after working on privacy issues for years, and sadly is still difficult to explain to non geeks.
"Often in US discussions, the term poll tax is used to mean a tax that must be paid in order to vote, rather than a capitation tax simply. The Twenty-fourth Amendment, ratified in 1964, prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote on payment of a poll tax or any other type of tax."
Yes, "poll tax" here refers to the narrow US meaning, same as OP.
Why do you consider my point to be trolling? Yes, it's an argument often brought up in discussions of gun rights and reasonable gun regulation (long before this one guy you referenced mentioned it). That's because there's an obvious analogy here. Both are constitutional rights. In both cases, governments effectively do not allow to exercise those rights without paying. And in both cases, the payment isn't connected to any rational objective by the state - if it did, all the fees would be strictly what's necessary to cover the administrative costs to issue them. You don't need to be a Republican politician, or even right wing, to reach the conclusion that both are wrong in the same fundamental manner.
In fact, it's a much stronger argument from the left perspective, because it discriminates on economic class, turning 2A a privilege for the rich. And it might surprise you, but there are actually quite a few pro-gun people on the left who genuinely care about such things. You just don't hear about it much, because the media spotlight is always on NRA and co, which oblige by providing plenty of extreme right-wing red meat for the headlines. If you go by those headlines, it's not surprising to feel like the right owns the topic entirely - but this ignores groups like NAAGA, Black Women's Defense League, Liberal Gun Club, Pink Pistols, SRA, Redneck Revolt etc.
I also have to note that, while the 24th Amendment did ban poll taxes for federal elections, it didn't apply to state elections. It was a separate SCOTUS ruling that banned them there as well, and they reached that conclusion from the 14th Amendment alone, without referencing 24A at all. On the other hand, there's Murdock v. Pennsylvania, which specifically said that "a state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution" - the case itself was about freedom of religion under 1A, but the principle is obviously more broad than that.
But supposing that such protections do require an explicit amendment to implement - if you agree that 24A was a necessary amendment with a good rationale behind it, why would the same rationale not apply to other protected rights in principle, regardless of the current inconsistent state of affairs in practice?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_ID_Act
Translucent Databases 2nd Edition http://www.wayner.org/node/39
--
"...permitting schemes on gun ownership and carry?"
Ha. I almost fell for your trolling. Nice try.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=licensing+fees+poll+tax
https://www.michiganadvance.com/2019/02/19/gop-lawmaker-appe...
FWIW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax#Poll_tax
"Often in US discussions, the term poll tax is used to mean a tax that must be paid in order to vote, rather than a capitation tax simply. The Twenty-fourth Amendment, ratified in 1964, prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote on payment of a poll tax or any other type of tax."