And how did the "legal scholars or judges of merit" interpret the 2nd amendment in 1800?
The same way as today?
The constitution seems to have become a lot more flexible today than people should be comfortable with.
No English sentence is without ambiguity in its meaning. If a controversy over meaning arises on a matter as important as law, we cannot function as a nation on the basis of, "Aw, everyone knows what they meant...".
Whether the courts are currently too flexible is a matter of opinion, and unless you get nominated personally to the SCOTUS, an inconsequential one.
I guess that's fine when it comes to the 2nd, but not as fun when your opponents tries the same for the 14th?