He shows quite clearly that there were at least two known pre-existing statutes in state Constitutions that expressly mentioned an individual's right to the use of guns for self-defense and/or hunting. It was obvious that at least some of the Framers involved in the drafting of the 2nd amendment would have been quite aware of those formulations.

Yet as the 2nd amendment was drafted, none of that language made it into the amendment.

In the first instance, he did not work out how much scrutiny the regulations would get.  At one point, he deems the Second Amendment right an enumerated right, thus one protected by a higher degree of scrutiny.  I suppose he figured he was being a bit of a snarker when he dropped in a cite to Footnote 4 from Carolene Products at that point, feeding the audience who like to (try to) ram stuff into the faces of Democrats and New Dealers ("See!  We can turn your precedents and prejudices against your policy preferences!")
But, after declaring the Second Amendment right "fundamental" and "enumerated", he went on to tell about all the sorts of regulations which might survive constitutional attack.  It's not much of a right if it's so riddled with exceptions that it's meaningless.

As to the Ninth Amendment, I think Scalia's fundamental problem (along with his clerks') is that to them, any reference to the Ninth Amendment automatically drags in all the reproductive rights cases - Palko, Griswold, Roe, you name it - and the sexual conduct cases - Lawrence v. Texas (inter alia)- all of which are anethema to Scalia's religiosity.  If you think Scalia's Republican orthodoxy is on display in the last two weeks' opinions, think about how his religious orthodoxy would display itself were the opinion he wanted to write one that required him to hold his nose and cite Griswold (or Roe) favorably.

If one wants to go down the road where gun rights are protected by the Ninth Amendment, one winds up running into this quote (thank you, Wikipedia) from Griswold v. Connecticut:

[T]he Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights.... I do not mean to imply that the .... Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government....While the Ninth Amendment - and indeed the entire Bill of Rights - originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties. And, the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement.

The problem, vis-a-vis Ninth Amendment jurisprudence, is that people have tried it too often in the past (as compared to Second Amendment jurisprudence) and been smacked down by the Establishment.  The smackdowns have taken the form of decisions relegating the Ninth Amendment to being a rule of construction, rather than an affirmative rule which says "if you can think of a(n unenumerated) right, the Ninth Amendment protects it".  This history has resulted in a welter of precedent which will as a practical matter make establishing any protectible rights under the Ninth Amendment likely a wasted effort and failure.  I mean, if Douglas said "no Ninth Amendment rights" in Doe v. Bolton, as he did and as Ginsburg (who was one of the attorneys in the mix there) surely knows, who are you going to get to say otherwise.

That said, sure, obviously, there's a natural instinct in every organism to survive, and that instict surely includes fighting to the death if one's life or safety is directly threatened.  That has nothing to do with any law, except the law of nature.  It is an instinct, not an evolved concept of conduct.  Raw, unfiltered instinct.  And if you're going to use this instinct (that everyone from humans to microorganisms possess) as the basis for allowing everyone to own a gun for protetction, then you have a very hard time allowing for any regulation at all regarding the carrying of firearms in public.  Carjackings and muggings and workplace shootings, etc., are real and one cannot logically argue that a gun can be in the home for protection but not out in the world, where you come into contact with many more people likely to harm you, where you will be on a dark street late at night returning to your car after a date, or whatever sketchy situation we all find ourselves in.

When freedom is the argument then the left can be joined by libertarians and conservatives in the William Buckley sense who believe government has no reason to keep adults from getting themselves high or low.

I also believe that is the main argument in gay marriage as well - it's about freedom and not about marriage. But then again, I don't believe the government should be in the marriage business as well.

A subsequent study conducted in three U.S. cities found that guns kept in the home were 12 times more likely to be involved in the death or injury of a member of the household than in the killing or wounding of a bad guy in self-defense.

WaPo