Is - by plain reading - silent on an issue (i.e. abortion), the court may look to history to see if something is customarily accepted as a matter of common law. What I’ve been saying all along is that to look at the 1970s to 2020s - a period which was created by the court itself - and using that as evidence of cultural acceptance is circular logic and bad precedent. It would allow the court to enshrine effectively anything unilaterally beyond a court or legislature’s future ability to touch it with - apparently - as short a period as ~50 years having elapsed.

In your other example, the constitution is not silent on gun ownership. We can disagree on the interpretation of the first clause in the sentence, but I assume we both agree that firearms are - at a minimum - directly addressed.