I saw Scalia on Fox News Sunday. While I wasn't entirely "blown away" by his 2A positions I wasn't overly alarmed, either.
Like it or not no constitutional right is absolute. Your first amendment right does not entitle you to incite a riot, issue "fighting words," or to slander or libel people with impunity.
The 2A can be "regulated." The question is when does "regulation" become "infringement."
Do you have the right to own a nuclear bomb? According to Scalia, no because you are not able to carry one on your person, like you can a pistol or a rifle. As Scalia said "...to keep and bear" means you have the right to own a weapon you can carry and use in that respect.
I have always believed this was a reasonable limitation on this right and I guess I am not alone.
All rights are limited by the existential purposes they're intended to protect.
Scalia did say that there have been laws dating back to the founders that prevent one from carrying a weapon around to cause fright. Scalia used as an example, a "head axe," meaning I suppose an axe designed specifically to behead human beings. Carrying such around would incite fear in people since such a purposeful weapon would imply an intention to use it for said purpose.
This could pose a problem. What if legislatures decided to use it to restrict AR-15s, since James Holmes used one in his Aurora Colorado massacre?
So it's a mixed bag really, to an extent.
But the protection of our 2A rights, just like our other Constitional rights, depends not really on Congress, or SCOTUS, or any other instition for protection; only "we, the people" can protect our rights, in the end.
And this has been true since the Constition and the Bill of Rights were adopted.