It's one thing to oppose a particular interpretation of an amendment on principle.

Its another thing redefine important terms in the consitution to justify an newer, different interpretation. ( like militia -> National Gaurd, Free Press -> PBS )

It's another thing to say, if you won't support the ones I like the way I want them supported, I won't support yours because I want to hit back at you.

Its not that the left (or a majority of the left) failed to support my right, but rather that they proactively worked to reduce it. . . and still are for that matter.

Just understand my feelings on this one Mary Anne. Its not that I am hitting back, but rather fail to see a reason why I should move my possition from indifference to giving a crap, or even why should I try to see things thier way with regards to defending thier interpretation?