This makes me think of Fermat and his Last Theorem. He essentially wrote: "This rule for higher order quadratic equations is true, and I have a really nifty and simple proof of it written somewhere else." Now, in his case, it did prove to be true, but it took many mathematicians hundreds of years to actually prove it...
In other words, give us some details and maybe you'll actually convince the people arguing against you?
Ah yes, because insulting the intelligence of the people you wish to convince works wonders for any argument. So, please, prove your intellectual superiority over us weak-minded Americans by, I dunno, actually refuting any of our arguments. Telling us that you are almost overqualified for this topic, and thus we must take your opinion (and it IS an opinion) at face value, just doesn't cut the mustard.

That's about as worthwhile as my English Lit. degree.
I did, however, go to law school.

One can infer that your views on the Constitution are based on how the document affects reality, and not what it states, objectively.

A) What would these effects be? What is your legal experience in America where guns are a Constitutional Right?
B) Dead interpretation? Are you referring to Originalism? It is an interpretive philosophy, not a standard, and not everyone uses it in the justice system.
----
edit- haha! I just read that article above - Hilarious! Seriously though, it does pay to have a little glass punch/seatbelt cutter on your keychain for emergencies.

Showoff!