Sure. But they can also be wrong. Scalia made up history, rules of grammar and legal theories out of whole cloth in order to support his preferred outcome in Heller. He was perfectly qualified to do the third, but really bad at the first two. It really put the lie to his claims of being guided by principle, which is a shame.
The 2nd Amendment was written to limit the federal government’s power over the states, not to establish (or preserve) an individual right.
Every so often someone mentiosn this “argument” which is about as specious as “drive on the parkways and park on the driveways”. In other words, it’s a funny meme, not a real legal argument.
(post shortened)
The U.S. Bill of Rights, of which the 2nd Amendment is only one part, was written, and ratified, to limit the federal government’s power/authority over individuals. Someone choosing to take any of the words of the 2nd Amendment out of context doesn’t change that simple fact.
The U.S. Bill of Rights did not establish nine rights for individuals, and one right for a state or federal government group/agency/militia. All 10 of the amendments listed in the U.S. Bill of Rights are rights of individuals.
(underline added)
Assuming you’ve read the linked articles in post #11, it’s obvious that the assumption, the incorrect assumption, that they only had single shot muskets in 1789, is, in fact, incorrect. Which would indicate that the group you mentioned in the OP who chose to protest the 2nd Amendment based on any claim that that they only had single shot muskets available at the time the BOR was drafted were basing their argument on poorly researched, or willfully ignorant, information.
Since multiple, and repeating, arms were available at the time of the BOR drafting, I wonder if the people “in the camp (you) described” would be totally cool with concealed/open carry of 20 round air pistols?
Luckily I never had to find out.
In general it is incredibly suboptimal these days. But again, a 5 to 7ish inch barreled 16 to 10ish gauge shotgun loaded with a mixture of buck and swan makes it something nice to have (pardon the expression) up your sleeve sometimes. 
I think the Second Amendment should be repealed, because the world has changed so much since then that its original goal no longer makes sense. In fact I think its original goal was to keep state of the art arms distributed around the population and not just in the hands of the federal government, so today it should allow private citizens to have nuclear powered aircraft carriers and ICBMs and submarines lurking beneath the Arctic ice cap, which clearly does not make sense.
But, until it is repealed (and I can always dream), attempts to limit carrying firearms do seem difficult. The world changing doesn’t necessarily mean we can ignore parts of the Constitution that are already there.
The militia at the time was all adult men, who were expected to keep the peace, defend women and children, and apprehend criminals in a world before professional police forces. And police today really don’t protect anyone, still. They collect evidence at crime scenes, arrest suspects, and help the DA build cases against them. It’s still your job to protect yourself, and everyone’s job to protect each other, as best we can. You might not feel firearms are well suited to the task, and in your particular case, due to ideology or lack of training, you might be right – but security professionals know better. Firearms are the tool for the job.
You might translate the 2nd as “Since people require a lot of familiarity and practice with firearms in order to effectively defend themselves and their communities, their right to own and carry these weapons shall not be infringed”.
I would be far more comfortable with Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk owning nukes and aircraft carriers than people like Kim Jong Un, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. YMMV.