Obviously the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand carried. It's "to keep and bear" so it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are hand held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be decided.... My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that society had at the time.The segment can be watched here, on YouTube. With the use of the word "limitations," and the phrase "it doesn't apply to cannons," Mr. Scalia appears to suggest that gun control is legitimate public policy. However, suggesting that "hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes will have to be decided" seems to me to absurd bordering on Kafkaesque. It would be one thing if Mr. Scalia was a commedian like Rush Limbaugh. But he is a Justice of the US Supreme Court.
It should also be noted that while the Second Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights were written in 1789, 223 years ago, and the US Constitution, ratified in 1787, was written 225 years ago; they were written to be relevant to the United States of America at that time and in the future. With all due respect to Mr. Scalia, we need to place limitations on the weapons that are available today, not only limitations of the world of 1787.
Would Jefferson and other authors and signatories of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, if you put them in a time machine, and brought them here, asked them to review the Bill of Rights, say "We must regulate cannons, but not assault rifles with 100-round clips or hand-held rocket launchers capable of bringing down airplanes?"