I'm far too lazy to read the entire thing, but from just the first paragraph I would have to say I agree with Scalia.
You know, you really should read all of an article when it's making some kind of extended argument.
OK, having come back and read it, I certainly agree with the article's logic (guns don't make you more free), but I'm still unsure of what point it's trying to make -- OK, handguns won't stop the US military. Should we force everybody to buy surface-to-air missiles? Or should we ban handguns? As the article itself notes, even if American civilians did have shoulder-mounted surface-to-air missiles, they would be rather expensive and a full-scale revolt would be unlikely (which is why, again, I support it, because of my belief in a wide-scale 'right to privacy'). The article has no defined conclusion.
