If every decision is based on what the majoritys desires, practically anything someone prohibits could be justified. Would it be justified to wipe out religion if the majority desired it? Would outlawing drinking be justified if the majority desired it? On individual rights, the majority has no say. The majority rule being imposed on individual rights is totalitarian, in fact. Period.

The constitution is meaningless these days. An objective set of standards and rights should be put in place and it should be left at that. There should be no legal authority to amend the constitution to take away peoples rights or to add certain rights people don't have. Whats the point in claiming our freedom and trying to follow the constitution if we're just going to amend it or interpret it in ways to match our own desires to strip peoples freedoms? That is just absurd. Set up an objective set of standard and leave it at that.

Individuals seem to be taking majority rule to the extreme. Practically anything the majority wants they feel they deserve. The majority is not entitled to oppress others. Majority rule, if its going to exist, must stay within limits and we need to draw a line. It's a damn mob rule. If everyone was only officially entitled to own guns, speak and follow a religion then is it fair to say we really have much freedom at all? Certainly not. Individuals must first be free to exercise their abilities to sustain themselves in this world. Without freedom, an individual would be nothing, a shell of a person.

You are indeed oppressed. Majority rule has been abused and your freedoms depend on what the majority wants you to do. I, for one, am an individual and I will enjoy my life regardless of what the majority says. The majority has a say on privleges, NOT individual rights.

Some may try to argue "rights don't exist" which is something I'm indeed open to. However, if rights don't exist, doesn't that also apply to people claiming a "right" to authority over other peoples freedoms? Obviously it does.