Faithful, you are absolutely wrong on this. Read the case law starting with Griswold v. Connecticut to see how the right to privacy evolved as a common law outgrowth of the rights granted by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the constitution. The word "privacy" is not contained in the constitution, but this does not mean there is no constitutional right to privacy. Also, when you say things like "many legal scholars" or whatever it is, sounds like Donald Trump when he says "people tell me." Name the scholars you cite, and by that I do not mean Scalia who is a Justice, and I do not mean Thomas who is also a justice but no scholar.

Your analysis, taken to its logical conclusion, would restrict the Second amnendment to muskets and whatever else they had in 1783 which were considered "arms."

The fact that the plaintiff in Roe had a late life change of heart has absolutely nothing to do with a constitutional analysis of Roe.