I think what he was trying to say was that in some cases it can be legal to restrict access to certain weapons. For instance you are not allowed to go out and buy (or build) a tank. That could be bad for everyone involved. I don't believe he was talking about gutting the 2nd amendment like
Scalia said exceptions to gun rights were recognized when the Second Amendment was written, including a tort that prohibited people from carrying a “really horrible weapon just to scare people like a head ax or something.”
I realize there are people out there that believe that AK-47's and AR-15's and such rifles should be left in the hands of soldiers, but to gun collectors like myself they have a great place in history and you have no right to tell me I can't own it.
I live in England were they don't allow anything with the exception of air rifles and crack barrel shot guns. Don't get excited you are still not allowed to use either of them if someone tries to break into your house. You have to get away and hope that the police, who are unarmed as well, can get there in time to stop the person from killing you with whatever weapon they decided to bring with them.
You are not allowed to bring knives into the country, same for expandable Asps, or batons, basically you have to right to protect yourself here.
Take it one step further though, the government here never has to fear its populace, it has emaciated them and made sure they have no way to defend themselves and throw off the shackles of tyranny. The United States still has that ability, however unlikely to happen, (I am not calling for a violent over throw of the government) the threat of it is still there.
Personally I don't even like the idea of having to register my guns or having anyone know which or how many guns I own. It is none of their damn business, if it ever came to a point that they started trying to confiscate guns I want it to be a surprise when they get to me.
With all of that said I still don't believe he would ever be willing to let gun control extremists have their way. After all he was part of the majority that decided Heller. The track record for us to be able to trust him is there, however it was there with Roberts as well.
That being said he did take a pretty public dig at Roberts at the end of this interview over the Obamacare ruling. I'm pretty sure he's still in our corner.
"You don't interpret a penalty to be a pig,” he said. “It can't be a pig. … There is no way to regard this penalty as a tax."