Of course my first analogy was ridiculous, that's part of my point. Some here are arguing in absolute terms about the vote of a majority of people in a state being the final and unarguable end point of an issue. My POINT, is that I think that idea is patently wrong, and our laws and constitution back up my point, in my opinion.
People use the Constitution as a tool for arguments whenever it fits their argument, and dismiss it when it doesn't. Or they say the Constitution is absolute and should never be looked at or strayed from in deciding issues, no matter what they are, when they come up, etc. We would never have had Constitutional amendments if that were the case, and I think you are personally very attached to at least one of those amendments, right?
As for the firearm issue being a ridiculous issue, there are plenty of people in this country that would not agree with you. But, I understand why you think it's ridiculous, considering how you look at our country and government. It's interesting to me, and I think it proves my point, when you respond to my post saying my illustrations are ridiculous, and then you point out two other laws that people and lawmakers have voted on or proposed that you think are ridiculous. Shouldn't these rulings and votes be up for debate and argument, and possibly be changed or overturned, if they do not follow the constitution (for instance), or be a minute difference in the vote at one period of time, such as say, um, 51% to 49%?
