The second amendment was about the right of the states of have part-time conscripted armies to, hypothetically, protect against federal overreach. It wasn't about an individual's right to gun-ownership, particularly when private gun-ownership for things like self-defense were extremely impractical at the time. Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, and Washington never used the term "bear arms" in any of their writings to ever refer to anything other than a military.
This is how it was understood all the way until the 1970s, when a more extreme faction of the NRA took power and did everything they could seed judiciaries with their people, change public opinion, and then change everything in 2008 with the aforementioned Supreme Court case DC v. Heller. This was all legal, of course, but it doesn't make it morally right or even constitutionally accurate.
Scalia's entire argument seemed to be predicated on the fact that a state's militia consisted of some "who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty," which is a pretty silly argument. The second amendment was about the right of the state to have the militia, not the right of individuals to have guns to bring to a militia. It's not even how most militias ran themselves.