The problem that conservatives have is that they want to use the arguement that, if it isn't specifically there then it must be ok to simply violate the constitution.. The constitution is a living document and is written in such a way that implication is very important.. At the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment.. Single shot muskets rifles were the weapon of the day.. So there is no arguement by your terms to make the claim that pistols, assult rifles or anything that isn't a single shot musket are included in the constitution.. Conservatives will use that logic in attempt to limit the power of the government.. See the Obama health plan.. Then deny that very arguement when applied to the 2nd amendment..
There really isn't a difference of interpretation.. Just a difference on how you want to twist what it says for your own cause..
Gay marriage is legal nationwide.. The 1st amendment denies the religous their right to force their views onto others.. The 14th amendment applies all laws equally to everyone.. Which includes marriage laws.. There is no arguement.. There is no debate.. As it is all written, that is all fact.. Now convince the religous that their views don't matter?? Like I said.. Twist it as much as they can for their own cause or purpose..
Gun rights.. Same thing.. While the constitution doesn't say what kind of arms a civilian may keep.. There is no logical way to make the assumption that assult rifiles or any other automatic or semiautomatic weapon is included.. Despite what the NRA says, they don't have any constitutional basis for their claims.. The single shot musket was the weapon of the day.. There is the weapon you have right to bare.. I am sure many will argue with that logic..
Is that the same logic to say that the mandate is illegal because the constitution doesn't say the government has that power?? So which is it?? If the constitution doesn't say something it is legal when it comes to guns and illegal when it comes to the mandate?? Talk about hypocritical..