That was a crowd. Scored some stuff. More convinced than ever that not only do we not need "universal background checks" but we don't need any background checks whatsoever. Most people were told there was a delay and they would get a call in a couple of hours. Rights delayed are rights denied.

Respectfully disagree. I don't think anybody should be able to get a gun. It sounds more like the background system the state police runs needs improving.

Agree...I really don't need my pissed off meth head brother thinking he needs a gun...I took what he had 15 years ago.

Again... respectfully... do you really think the state background check system is effective at deterring those who can't legally purchase a gun, from obtaining one anyway, through some other means?

Why should we spend our tax dollars and increase the size of a state bureaucracy to "improve" a system of dubious utility in the first place?

So should I assume both of you would be in favor of a universal background check law in Oregon, a-la what just passed in Washington?

I am not in favor.....my brother is fucked up and has a  criminal record including domestic violence. It's it my responsibility to keep him away from guns?  I'm all in favor of retroactive abortions...and I don't have a satisfactory solution...

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

So you would be ok with a felon using the private sale route to buy a gun? I don't think we need a measure like I-594, but a method that allows private individuals to call in a backgoround check without having to disclose the weapon being sold would at least allow you to transfer a firearm with a clean consciense - just a thought.

Can a motivated criminal get a gun if they really wanted, perhaps, but let's not make it so easy that they can walk into walmart, with a wad of cash they received from stealing YOUR shit and pawning it. I think the way it is now is fine, law wise, can we improve the system utilized, absolutely, do we need universal background checks for EVERY sale, including private party, no. What we have now is pretty much the best of both worlds, BG checks with minimal intrusion on second amendment rights.

The main reason I don't like any kind of 'universal background check' is that the only way to assure it works (enforcement wise) is to have a gun registry. If .gov knows who owns what, then they can determine if a FTF sale was done with a background check. If I own a gun that was originally made and sold prior to the law, how does .gov know I went through a background check to get it? I guess I don't understand the Brady laws, because I was under the impression that the data on a 4473 is not supposed to be kept, but it is. Anything that includes a registry is just bad. Yes, I'd like to wave my magic wand and assure that everyone that owns a gun is legally entitled, and I would take guns away from those that are insane, criminals, etc..... but I live in reality. Universal background checks sound just peachy: Yay, only good people get guns. The reality is that enforcing it is problematic, costly, inconvenient and ineffective at best.

I think that felons should be in prison for their crimes. A condition of their parole or probation can be that they can't possess firearms post prison. Other than that I do believe that free men should be able to own firearms if they aren't under state supervision. I realize that sounds controversial but I would suggest that it is because we don't have true sentencing more than anything else. When someone convicted of a Class A Felony which can carry up to 20 years in prison gets 20 days in jail that's a problem, not the people at NW Armory on Black Friday trying to buy a S&W Shield at a kickass price.

If we want to avoid the "universal background check" laws then we need to be "extreme" on the other end of the spectrum, not just accept the current prohibitive laws that regularly delay/deny law abiding citizens their God-given and constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

So u complain about the cost to run state ran BG checks??  I'll tell you, your proposal to hold criminals in prison longer would bankrupt our state with out seriously high tax hikes!! The reality is there is no PERFECT solution, but what we have right now is pretty good, for both sides.  If we wanna win, we gotta think of compromises that make the libs feel warm and fuzzy and don't fuck us too hard. You gotta give a little to get a little.

[/list]

Your responsibility... no, I suppose not... so it's the state's instead?  Otherwise law-abiding citizens should have their rights delayed, or worse, because you're cool with the state dealing with your brother?

A felon cannot, by law, purchase a gun through a private sale.  Obviously, many felons obtain guns anyway.  So how is an apparently "optional" "private sale background check system" supposed to stop that from happening?  

As far as clearing your conscience... what's preventing you from running every private, in-state transaction through an FFL right now?  It's perfectly legal to do so.  You have every right, as the buyer or seller, to request that a F2F transaction occur at an FFL's with a background check.  And what's with the "without having to disclose the weapon" bit?  As long as you, the seller, are going to make me go through (another) background check... why can't I ask to have you run the s/n through, just so my conscience is clear that it isn't stolen?

And if it's the state recording the serial number that has you worried... taking the "private" out of "private sale"... they're not supposed to do that now, anyway.  Do you really believe they don't?  

Compromise?  Compromise?  The people we're up against don't understand compromise, don't believe in compromise, and don't intend to compromise, ever, until private firearm ownership in this country is dead, gone, history.  Tell me, when, since 1934, have we gotten a God-damn thing out of compromising with these people?  How long do you intend to keep compromising to keep the "warm and fuzzies" going and expect to NOT eventually get fucked?

Well if we can keep fucktards from getting guns, or citizens parading around in urban areas with their AR's trying to make a point, all we are doing is scaring the soccer moms who may or may not have given much thought into gun laws, but now sure as shit does when some nut is parading his "machine gun" around town. I don't like it any better than you brother, but if we can't control our own, they will. And we live in Oregon, not Texas, we are surrounded by liberals, luckily we have a lot of pro gunners around here, but if we arent careful, they will squash us, no matter how hard we fight. I like your positive attitude, but I'll remain realistic.  Im not advocating universal BG checks, but I think what we have currently isn't bad.

I don't think it would be cool for my brother or another uneducated dirt bag going into a store and buying a gun. And I wish it were not the states responsibility. I took care of taking my brothers guns once and I would do it again. But I can't keep track of him all the time as I don't associate with "those types". I prepare for them.

I have an extreme "want" to become a libertarian. I despise governmental intrusion/growth beyond basic needs, what that is is surely debatable. Yet, I do believe I need some level of .gub so as we don't end up like some third world shit hole...and I like roads. I don't have the solution.

You pick the absolute worst day to purchase a gun (in regards to the processing time) and then complain about it?

By Friday afternoon, that figure had reached three checks per second, CNN reported, putting 2014 on track to blow past the prior Black Friday record of 144,758 FBI-processed gun transactions in a single day.

Noting that the FBI typically brings in 100 extra employees to help handle the Black Friday load, Fischer said, ”The challenge is to have staff keep up with this volume. We do that by limiting personal leave, asking employees to work extra shifts and reutilizing former…employees to serve in NICS during this busy period.”

Fischer said FBI employees would work through the weekend to process the backlog generated by booming sales in the more than 48,000 U.S. gun retailers.

View Quote

Worst day to purchase a gun because it is inconvenient for our government masters to regulate my right to keep and bear arms? Should I send my apology letter to the OSP, to Kitzhaber or to Obama himself? Where do I find out which days the government recommends that I make my purchase? I can only imagine a news agency complaining that when a major event happens and the government stops the reporting while explaining that everyone is trying to report the same story. Stay calm and let the government do it's business.

My whole point with this is that if we don't take our freedom to it's logical conclusion then the leftists with take the the current restrictions the their logical conclusion. Be prepared to welcome registration and background checks to loan a gun to your best friend. We need to keep guns out of the hands of extremists after all.

BINGO!

Wrong attitude.  We shouldn't have to suffer because of these idiots.  Yes, they are fucktards and I think their approach is wrong, but are they any different than the fucktards downtown protesting The Ferguson decision? Free speech.... We have freedom or we don't. This is really the only thing that makes our country different than others.

"Uneducated dirt bags" walk into gun stores and pass background checks, every day.  We live in Oregon, look around you.  This state is full of educated, unwashed, sketch-as-fuck people.  A bunch of 'em own guns, quite legally.  I'd be willing to bet a fistful of dollars a bunch of them are meth-heads, too... the state just hasn't caught up to them yet.  So shall we start whiz-quizzing and IQ-testing right along with the bullshit form, the phone call and the fingerprints?

As far as your brother... here's a compromise for you.  You get to offload him onto the state, and I get abolition of the background check system.  I'll sleep just fine with that... since I've already come to accept that a) thousands of meth-head brothers have already been unloaded onto the state, and b) the background check system is basically a parlor trick anyway, when it comes to "keeping guns out of the hands of X, Y and Z."

Where the heck does being a libertarian and liking roads fit into this?  First, don't presume to know my politics... if you want to be a libertarian so badly, go right ahead.  Second, last time I checked, you and I didn't have a constitutionally-guaranteed right to nice roads... though we do pay dearly for them.  And for someone who despises government intrusion and growth... you seem to be advocating quite a lot of it.  

I agree, but let's also be realistic, not idealistic!! EVERYONE has the right to free speech, until it endangers the public...try yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre, or how bout "I have a bomb" at the airport.  The reality is everyone has a mouth, but not everyone is a gun owner. The 1st will always be more protected than the 2nd!  Should it be, no, they should be equal, but again, realist, not idealist!  If we can't understand that we can be our own worst enemies, then we will lose. And this ain't 1776, people talk a big game, but in the end, we aren't going to lay down our lives for gun rights.  

And just outta curiosity, how much traction do u think the Fergusson protectors are gaining? What about the occupy movement?  They are the same level of unintelligent radicals that get nothing accomplished in their favor, much like our own morons parading around open carrying or with slung AR's!  How many new city ordinances have been passed to address this? Or business policies? Our own turned Starbucks against us, used to be no big deal to open carry in one, until they packed the place with pistol packing numb nuts, which to a multi-million dollar company, means scared customers who wont come back. But alas, we are certainly "fighting" for our rights huh?

I'll save my energy for the fights against our rights worth having...not minor inconveniences that I can't buy my gun on black Friday and cry foul about it. Maybe if gun owners were the majority you'd have a decent chance, but face it, we are a minority. We had better pick the battles worth fighting and get used to some compromises, or get fucked in the process. Remember, this is a democracy, majority rules and all that.  Again, we are in liberal Oregon, better to compromise on what we can live with, rather than dig in our heels and let them take what they want anyways. Most liberals want laws that make them "feel" safe, rather than actually make them safe. If we can give them that feeling, while making compromises we can live with, then everyone wins.  Just my opinion.

Then you need to admit that you don't support the second amendment as a right.  You support the second amendment as a privileged.  

A right is not something you have to get approval for, a privileged is.

Privilege? Are you kidding? Last time I bought a gun at a dealer, I had to submit to a background check to exercise my 2nd Amendment right. As it stands, If I had a feloneous record making me ineligible for gun ownership, it's possible for me to buy privately. That's how we stand with our current system. The problem we have is, to the non gun owning layperson, that's a big loophole - one that with the current makeup of the legislature is going to get closed. As an idea, perhaps we need a system where the buyer can run the background check on himself. Get some kind of document showing he's approved, present that to a private seller so the exchange can be made. This keeps the actual transaction off book which I believe is the main concern for a lot of the posters on this thread.

SMPrider112,
I totally agree with you on the numb nuts, but on the rest I must respectfully disagree. If you choose to pick your battles then you choose where to draw the line in the sand. Give them an inch and they take a mile and all that. Compromise on gun rights has always equaled a demise in gun rights.  And let's be honest here, we're talking about so much more than gun rights. I understand that you feel like we need to compromise, but the fact is liberals will never "feel" safe because they are so unprepared to deal with the realities of this world, so compromise won't help.  There is a great quote that goes "ideals are peaceful, history is violent". You say that you are a realist? The facts are that they're is evil in this world and I won't be told how to deal with it by someone who is afraid to do it(not speaking about you).

You are categorically wrong in your understanding of what is or isn't a right.  Submitting to a background check to exercise an inalienable right isn't really a right is it?  It becomes a privileged at that point.  Carrying a piece of paper saying you are not a prohibited person from the government makes that right become a privileged as well.

You need to admit to yourself that you do not support the second amendment as a right.  Again a right is not something you have to pass a background check to practice or need permission from any government entity to exercise.  What you are failing to comprehend by either being intentionally obtuse or uneducated on the concept of inalienable rights is; that government cannot abridge inalienable rights by placing that burden on the citizenry....at least according to the constitution and it's supporting documents.

Perhaps private gun sales will become illegal in OR but then again I was told there would be another assault weapons ban after Sand Hook.  When gun owners dug in and threw lots of money at the problem we won...for the most part.  If OR gun owner don't want the second amendment to become more of a privileged than it all ready is they will meet any future infringement upon the second amendment with that same vigor.

No rights given to us under the contstitution are unlimited. We can see that with the 1st Amemndment, and the 2nd. Call me obtuse if you wish, but I'm a pragmatist at heart. Why don't you educate me in how we can have a system that allows us to exercise our 2nd Amendment right when purchasing a firearm, that also denies those not eligible, either by a criminal record or mental incompetence. Because the way I'm hearing it from you and others, you're quite happy to have ineligible people have access to guns as long as your 2nd amendment rights are not infringed.

As far as the constitution is concerned, it is not set in stone, and can be altered by the amendment process. The 18th Amendment banned booze, and it was repealed by the 21st Amendment - who's to say such a process can't be used to ban the 2nd?

That is the burden of government not the people.  Sometimes there will be burdens that the government can't overcome.  The key point is those burdens cannot be placed on the citizenry.  

As for the no rights are unlimited part.  Lets make sure we have an apples to apples comparison before going down that road.  The limits on the first amendment are placed on threats and vernacular that cause panic.  There is no ban on words, no permit to practice the 1st amendment, no background check...   So if we apply that same standard to the second amendment what do we get?  No background checks to exercise that right, no bans on possession, etc...  What would be banned if we used the same logic flow is unlawfully threatening, assaulting, or causing panic.

While I'm not happy that prohibited people will get guns; I will never support an inalienable right being abridged because the government can't overcome a burden.

Let's ditch the philosophical debate for a moment and look at it from reality.  Let's say OR does pass a feel good background check law.  The only people affected would be law abiding citizens.  Laws can't prevent anything, they can only punish.  There is a little thing called the war on drugs.  We have all sorts of controlled substances and pretty large LE/CJS budget to combat the illegal import and distribution of those controlled substances...yet the price has gone down and quantity/quality gone up on illegal controlled substances since the war on drugs commenced.  The same thing happens with guns if a universal background check is legislated.  

I'm glad you touched on amending the constitution.  If society truly believes guns should be a privileged and not a right, it needs to go about that the correct way.  That being amending the constitution.

I was with you until the last paragrapah. I was speaking for myself and no others on this board. Reread it if you must but I'm not going to give you cliff notes...

You sir have hit the nail on the head.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe Justice Scalia in the Heller ruling stated the 2nd amendment is not an unlimited right and is subject to reasonable regulation. As for the government overcoming a burden, they don't concern me, it's the element of the citizenry that doesn't see it your way who will, if possible, empower the government to curtail our rights - look at I-594 that passed in Washington!

Gun legislation is coming to our state next session, and if the gun grabbers don't get their way, the intiative process will be the way they will be going. While we see things differently in how our 2nd amendment rights should be exercised, our sights should be set on the next legislative session. As Keving Starrett said, "It's going to be a wild ride." I so hope I'm wrong.

Careful bringing SCOTUS into this discussion, it's the same entity that has also at one time said slavery is legal, Japanese internment is legal, and Obungo care is legal.  SCOTUS may be the law of the land but it's not a good judge of inalienable rights and you will quickly become a hypocrite picking and choosing which rulings you want to bring into this discussion.

"it's the element of the citezenry that doesn't see it your way who will, if possible, empower the government to curtail our rights - look at I-594 that passed in Washington!"

That is why we are not a democracy, rather a representative republic with inalienable rights that are not derived from government but exist naturally.  Benjamin Franklin said it best.  "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Say what you will about unalienable rights, but there are people who should not be allowed to own, purchase, or possess firearms. I deal a lot with the mentally ill in my line of work. I have ran into several people who if ever granted the right to own guns would no doubt cause havoc. I honestly think background checks are a reasonable measure of safety. I do agree though, it is a slippery slope. Don't agree, go down to Portland and find a random transient who is carrying on a conversation with the wall and hand him a gun...even better, do it with your family standing beside you.  If you won't do that much, then step off the high horse and join reality. Let's find realistic solutions to the problems some gun owners have caused us. The more nuts we can keep from owning guns, the less Sandy Hooks we have to stir the media and rile up the liberals!  Unfortunately we are a few more mass shootings to them really F'ing us!

SMPrider112,
Most of what needs to be said has been, but I will point out a few things, and mabey repeat one or two.



You speak of remaining realistic. What we need to do is maintain our ideals and further our goals, being realistic weighs in only on how we should go about trying to achieve them. You fight for ideals and deal with realities.

You speak of the open carry idiots in Texas and compare them to the Ferguson and Occupy idiots. Its close enough to a fair comparison. Being realistic is figuring out what will and wont help your cause, not giving up on a fight because the odds are not in your favor. This a fight with an uncertain outcome, but it sounds like your unwilling to fight for anything but a sure bet.

This is not a democracy, where majority rules. This is a constitutionally limited Republic. There is a big, big difference.

Your logic of compromise is completely flawed. You really think they will be satisfied with this latest comprimise? Really? I think ABM41 said it best, "Tell me, when, since 1934, have we gotten a God-damn thing out of compromising with these people? How long do you intend to keep compromising to keep the "warm and fuzzies" going and expect to NOT eventually get fucked?". Enough is enough. not one more inch.

You're right, no one is going to lay down their lives for gun rights, but there are a great many in this country, and this state, that have drawn a line in the sand at gun rights, and will lay them down for liberty. I am one of them.

No chest puffing, bullshit testosterone talk. I am one of them.

Go hand him a butcher knife, those are still legal for him to buy. That argument is heavily flawed.

No one is handing him a gun. No honorable person or legitimate business is selling him a gun if it was legal. Explain to me how our current or proposed background check system will stop the undocumented mentally ill from buying guns and prevent shootings like Sandy Hook and Tucson. Be realistic - You cannot guarantee the safety of society. Those that mean to do harm, will find a way. Sure, more restrictions will result in some amount of reduction, but how much Restriction does it take to justify the encroachment on rights? There's that slippery slope again.

Exactly how will laws prevent him from obtaining a firearm?  It's illegal to assault someone with a gun as is killing someone with a gun.  So how exactly will a law prevent a person from doing anything?

Furthermore perhaps you should look at the war on drugs to see just how little effect laws have on curtailing prohibited items from being distributed.

I'm a nurse, so I've seen more than my fair share of crazies.  You are another person who needs to admit they don't support the second amendment as a right.

Again, BF said it best "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Well that representative republic in Salem enjoys solid democratic majorities. Ginny Burdick will be licking her chops with her laundry list of proposed gun bills - looks like you're going to see that representative republic in action come February.

Never said there were not enemies of the republic and there are more moving parts to just with what is going on at the state level.

This is something gun owners would not have to worry about if they gave up buying one gun every year and donated that money to an effective lobby.

I wish I could afford to buy one gun a year.

Please please please use your political tax credit ($50 individual, $100 couple) to give to the OFF PAC. You get the money back with your taxes. It's a no lose option. Give more if you can.

Our current system is ok,  though I wish that the state wouldn't act as a man-in-the-middle dealer for NICS.  All that they do is contact the feds on your behalf, in which there are already great systems in place for that.  I'm not sure if it still stands, but back when I was still in MI,  if you had a valid CPL,  no fee was issued for NICS either.  

As for the first part,  about four years ago I certainly had the network of neighbors that could have gotten me some firearms on the black market.  I had to pause when I was offered a Glock 21 for $250.  It was probably hot and/or used in a crime so I turned the offer down...  One guy that knew I was good with guns asked me if I could look at his "heater".  Turned out to be a civil war era revolver.  I wasn't sure if I was getting trolled or not.  

Point being,  you are correct... Scumbags that know scumbags can find sketchy guns no matter what the laws are.  

Sent OFF $100 today. I've given in the past and will continue.

A few comments:

1.  I'm not sure why we need to be careful bringing the SCOTUS into the conversation.  It is expressly authorized by Article III of the Constitution with "...judicial power [that] shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States...".  Whether we agree with the SCOTUS or not is irrelevant, since as you mention their decisions become the law of the land.  As such, anything they've adjudicated re: the Second Amendment cannot be so easily dismissed simply because we don't like it or find it inconvenient to our arguments.

2.  You've mentioned a few times that the Constitution describes inalienable rights that are not derived from government but exist naturally.  You previously said, "What you are failing to comprehend by either being intentionally obtuse or uneducated on the concept of inalienable rights is; that government cannot abridge inalienable rights by placing that burden on the citizenry....at least according to the constitution and it's supporting documents."

Your view presents a common misunderstanding of both the American legal system and the full intent and actions of the Founding Fathers.  That’s because you cite inalienable rights in the Constitution as the end-all-be-all of American jurisprudence.  In reality, it’s a little (or perhaps a lot) more complicated than that.

The Constitution was indeed primarily written on the basis of natural law, or the belief that we are given certain rights by the Creator, and those rights cannot be abridged by man.  However, the reality of American jurisprudence is that the Constitution’s natural law provisions co-existed with positive law, or the view that judges, elected lawmakers, the citizenry and other bodies have a right to make and interpret law.  In fact, many words in the Constitution are directly borrowed from common (positive) law.  And actually, if you want to get technical about it, the colonies adopted positive law in the form of reception statutes before the Constitution was ever written.  Thus it makes sense that after America declared its independence, one of the first legislative acts of the Continental Congress was to adopt a reception statute that gave legal effect to the existing body of English common law, which as mentioned is an expression of positive law.  Needless to say, 41 (80%) of the same framers of the natural law Constitution were the very same people who adopted English common law (positive law).

Why did the Founding Fathers do something so seemingly contradictory?  Simple: They understood the common law would allow for interpretation of Constitutional precepts for a future society the Founding Fathers knew they couldn’t predict.  In other words, the American legal system has always been characterized by elements of both natural law and positive law.  And this was by purposeful design.  It isn’t a simple matter of natural law or positive law as your argument implies, and it never has been.

And sure enough, since the founding of this country we’ve had processes to amend both the Constitution and to interpret it via common law.  Again, the Founding Father’s made certain of this.  And it begs the question: if rights are inalienable and can only be granted or otherwise messed with by the Creator, why did the Founding Fathers feel they needed Article V of the Constitution, allowing it to be amended?  And why did they grant the Supreme Court, under Article III, the power to interpret and prosecute the Constitution?  Why is Article III of the Constitution even needed if every word of the Constitution is self-evident and divine in its origin?

Don’t get me wrong…I don’t agree with all interpretations of the Constitution just as you don’t.  But your argument is philosophically flawed in that it simply ignores much of the above context.

3.  "That is why we are not a democracy, rather a representative republic."

I wish this rhetorical fetish would die, or at least be informed by basic civics.

Let’s say I have an apple in my hand.  I approach you and say, “Would you like this piece of fruit?”  Alarmed, you look at me and say, “That’s not a piece of fruit!  It’s an apple!”

Well, OK…you’re correct, it is an apple.  But that doesn’t mean I’m incorrect in calling it a piece of fruit.  Because what is an apple?  It’s a type of fruit.

Likewise, saying America is a “representative republic” (which is a tautology BTW, since the word republic explicitly implies representation) or a constitutional republic and not a democracy strikes me as bizarre, and denotes a lack of understanding of basic civics principles.  

There are two types of democracies: direct democracies (typically where every citizen votes on everything), and republican or representative democracies (where representatives are elected to vote on behalf of the citizenry).  The key takeaway here?  BOTH are democracies.  Yes they are different types of democracies, but nonetheless still democracies.  Thus it is not incorrect to say “America is a democracy.”  You can be more precise if you wish by calling it a republic, but you’re simply wrong if you then conclude that because America is a republic, it’s not a democracy.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a delicious, warm caffeinated Central American beverage to enjoy.  But don’t you dare call it coffee!  Doing so offends my political sensibilities.                

Typical lawyer.  Lots of fluff to get to anything of substance.

So you agree with Slavery and Japanese internment as being constitutional or at very least those rulings should have been respected as law of the land?

I've conceded the point that natural rights can be changed in a previous post but there is a specific way to change those natural rights.  Which our government has failed to do.  If the second amendment is no longer an absolute right that right needs to be amended.  Not gutted by legislation.

I'm thinking you are the one needing a lesson in civics if you don't understand the important differences in a representative republic and a democracy. But that is a different thread...start one and I'll be happy to debate the important differences with you.

Seems to me ANY law regarding a restriction on keeping and bearing arms (guns) is an infringement.  As such, that particular RIGHT isn't a right anymore... it's a privilege.  " ...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be Infringed" seems really clear to me

If you're going to call anything I wrote fluff, then explain why.  What you call "fluff" was context that informed the point.  I thought that was sorta obvious, but I dunno.  Sometimes it's very easy to just call things "fluff".  A little too easy, huh?

Your second sentence is what's known as a straw man argument, since as you already know I said nothing about slavery or internment.  To the point I think you're trying to make, I did say "I don’t agree with all interpretations of the Constitution just as you don’t."  I also understand SCOTUS decisions are made within the context of the era in which they occur.  E.g., while the original Korematsu decision strikes most of us nowadays as being horribly misguided, it wasn't widely viewed as such in its day.  And you'll note I used the word "original".  That's because Korematsu's original conviction was overturned years later by...wait for it...the Supreme Court.  I'm glad you pointed all this out however, as it helps make my point that the law is ever-evolving.  Just like the Founding Fathers envisioned.

I mostly agree with your third sentence.  Much of what has been passed (or attempted to be passed) re: gun control should have been done in the form on an Amendment, if it was going to be done at all.  It wasn't done that way mostly because the backers of such laws knew that wouldn't fly.  If your argument is that legislation can be an improper tool for certain ends, I'd agree wholeheartedly.  And this is why we have courts.  The resolutions within the courts aren't always to our liking, but that is to be expected.  No one ever said democracy is always pretty or fair.

And finally, I'm fairly certain I have a pretty good grasp on basic civics.  But please be careful, because you are again playing fast-and-loose with attempting to put words in my mouth.  I did not say or in any way imply that there are no differences or important distinctions between a "representative republic"* and a democracy.  Just like I didn't say there are no differences between an apple and a piece of fruit.  I thought what I did say was actually pretty clear, and it is in fact a basic and accepted tenet of civics.  If you wish to refute what I actually said instead of setting up another straw man to knock down, I'd be happy to have that discussion.

* BTW, is a "representative republic" sort of like a democratic democracy?  You are aware that by definition a republic has representatives, no?  So why use a tautology?  Ya know, I'm thinking if I need a lesson in civics as you claim, you might not be the best person to deliver that lesson.

Not a strawman argument in the least.  It's a fair point when making the point that there are inconsistencies and failures when it comes to civil liberties and SCOTUS in an argument.   SCOTUS failure(s) came in bowing to public opinion of the day...not actually interpreting constitutional law.  Just as it has failed in today's society.  Picking and choosing which SCOTUS arguments benefit a position leaves a person open to hypocrisy.  It's a broken system that departed from law and dwells in the realm of politics.

Our courts are beyond broken.  We don't live in era where justice is blind.  We live in an era where justice is bought.

The only thing that is being played fast and loose here, is your definition of strawman's.  Not every comparison or analogy is a strawman...in fact comparisons and analogies are a useful tool in pointing out hypocritical positions.  We can work out a variable logic flow if you wish?