No it did not specifically mention that, but to be clear, I have never read where Scalia stated that the 2A could be regulated. I have read that the act of carrying of unusual and dangerous weapons could be restricted (I.e. lil Mohamad can't strap a pressure cooker bomb to his back and go walking around in public). I don't think anyone extreme right to extreme left would disagree, that people shouldn't be allowed to walk around with bombs strapped to their bodies.
But to be clear, I personally do not believe any government has the proper athourity to say what I can use or carry for self-defense.
I'd much rather crack a dude with a set of knuckles than use a knife or pistol (less likely to kill someone, be sued, deal with LE, etc). Yet in my state, knuckles are illegal, yet I can openly carry a knife or pistol. To someone like me, that makes absolutely no sense, I'm forced to use deadly force on someone who probably just needs a couple lumps, because I am restricted by law on what I can and cannot carry/use for self-defense. What ends up happening, I break the law, or carry a improvised or modified version of knuckles. The law itself, is meaningless, something that was engineered to be a added consequence for the common thug, became a restriction for the general public, resulting in less assholes with headaches and more holes in assholes... <~~~~see what I did there.
