An interesting article here (scalia-and-lure-of-natural-law1) from First Things on the recent 2nd Amendment decision. It suggests that – gasp – Scalia made the most reasonable interpretation by appealing to something like the ‘natural law’.
[Full disclosure: While not being ‘anti-gun’, I am hardly ‘pro-gun’. I do not own a gun, and will confess that I see little reason for why anyone would need one for self-defense or why anyone would need a handgun or an automatic weapon (since hunting appears to me to be the only good use for guns). Guns seem to me to bring more danger than safety to situations. But I think Scalia was right to avoid utilitarian social engineering and stick to the principles at hand.]