Justice Scalia's Circuitous Reasoning

It's pretty sound otherwise. 

He writes that the right to bear arms is an individual right. He writes that its connection to militias had to do with people taking the weapons they possessed for personal protection with them when entering upon military service. 

Then he says that because the weapons in question (handguns) are the "quintessential self-defense weapon" and "the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home", that "a complete prohibition of their use is invalid". 

So, because modern handguns are "popular" they must be construed as lawful?

Well, I'm not so sure. You see, he refers approvingly to another case that speaks of the protections afforded under the Second Amendment as applying to those weapons which were "'in common use at the time'". Here is the passage:

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." (55) 

Does anyone with a fucking brain think that the weapons in use during the late 18th century were anywhere near as powerful or accurate, let alone as "dangerous", as modern handguns? Were they nearly as convenient to use? Obviously if speed is a factor in making your personal weapon of choice more effective, the advancements in firearm technology in general and handgun design in particular make the modern personal weapon of choice much more dangerous.

"Until the mid-1800s, projectiles and propellants (black powder) were generally separate components used in a muzzle-loading firearm such as a rifle, pistol, or cannon."

The guy's not making any sense. 

UPDATE: Ilya Somin (from The Volokh Conspiracy) quoting a Second Amendment scholar, agrees:

"Some of the examples are problematic...

Did short-barreled shotguns, which are very useful for self-defense and in many cases superior to handguns, become "dangerous and unusual" just because Congress decided to restrict them in 1934?"