That's the funniest thing I've read all day.
There is a LOT of room for interpretation in the constitution. It's vague at times and flat out ambiguous at others. The 2nd amendment itself has extremely ambiguous wording that was only recently (last couple of years) clarified by SCOTUS. It was clarified not by a careful reading, but by searching the history books and texts from that time to figure out the intent of the framers of the constitution. The "plain english" was and is a mess.
SCOTUS has to rule on constitutional issues because there are so many law making bodies in the country (federal congress, federal agencies, state legislatures, cities and counties, etc) that not all of them follow the constitution all the time. Is shouting "fire" in a crowded theater protected under the 1st amendment? Not anymore. Is it ok to own a human being as property? It was for a hundred and fifty years because some humans were not considered "people."
So by searching the history books and text from that time frame still yields its original intent, does it not? It seems that you're saying that the Constitution is a living document that can be changed and adjusted or evolved as we go.
The second amendment can't be more clearer now than when it was written the first time. "Shall not be infringed". Now I agree that liberals and ignorant people have come along and made laws and completely gone against our founding document but it's still in black and white and does still say what it says.