All is forgiven...about what? Just what is it about trollls and accusations of hurt feelings anyway? Only those with low self esteem who strive for that sense of accomplishment boast aboat having the ability to hurt someones feelings. Let me be clear on this since you have a hard time accepting, not understanding true interpretations. I have to actually care about someone before they can hurt my feelings and as of this moment that is not the case so you can save that course of action for your next debate. I believe you put way to much faith in your abilities.Next, you are the one that "interpreted" my comment was stating that you were "ridiculing me". What I said was, "it wan an attempt to ridicule the point that I was trying to get across" with the emphasis being on "attempt" and "point". And another question, why are you so concerned about me wanting to hurt your feelings now? You dont have to keep fretting over that because I am not one that has to go out and hurt feelings in order to feel like I accomplished something. Now that we got that out of the way, lets proceed shall we? Why wont you accept the fact what the courts have ruled as the true interpretations for 200 years? Why cant you accept the fact that the courts today should continue to enforce the strict reading and application of the Constitution the way it has been interpreted for the first 200 years? As for you stating that " my interpretation of the First and Second Amendment, it is just that, my interpretIation". Im sorry to inform you that you are dead wrong on that account, that was the courts interpretations for the first 200 years anyway, I like most just happen to agree with them. Tell me, are you one of those who think the Constitution is outdated? The way you rambled on about changing the Constitution so that it would apply to the situations of today made me think that you do. Do you know why the first Ten Amendments are called the Bill of Rights? Do you actually know how many rights we have lost in the last twenty years alone? Why are you so insistent that our God given inalienable rights are now open to interpretation? Or are you now going to argue that the authors of the Constitution couldnt have predicted or even imagined that we wouldnt still have the need to have our rights protected today? Sounds silly, doesnt it? But then again, so do you when you ramble on about my statement about the the strict reading and application of the Constitution. Do you realize, or even care that our children today are being taught that the government gives us our rights? Why do you suppose that is? Well lets see, logic tells us that if the goverment gives you your rights then they can also take them away. About my analogy of the robbery, just what in the world were you thinking when you stated that here would be nothing that would need to be "Interpreted" because there would be video evidence? Video evidence, are you serious, just how would video evidence show the inner thoughts of a man that robbed the bank? The robber was stating how he interpreted his actions not how others did but then again, you knew that, but as usual just refused to accept it One would think that you could of come up with something better than video evidence in an attempt to make my analogy sound silly. And before you go off and say my feelings are hurt again by trying to accuse me of saying you called me silly, let me be absolutely clear this time, Im saying that you attempted to call my analagy silly, not me. And finally, your statement "A person walks into a Bank with a gun(and presumably a mask) and demands cash..... There is nothing to "interpret" ..The "intent" to commit Robbery would be overwhelmingly obvious". I see that you werent completely oblivious to the point that I was trying to make in my analogy. But guess what, the government starts restricting the peoples speech and gun ownership, there is also nothing to "interpret" in "Freedom of Speech" and the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" either. The "intent" to strip the people of their God given rights would be overwhelmingly obvious too. But you fail to either recognize or accept this, why?