Want me to refute his argument...why not bring up these things...
1. bring up actual "in context" comments.
2. bring up Justice Scalia understanding of the constitution - that it is dead, what it means when it was written, that's what it means today. Our founding fathers could not comprehend assault rifles that shoot 100 rounds per minute as "arms". So if the constitution is like what Justice Scalia says, then we should only allow guns that shoot 1 round every 5 minutes.
3. How about a right to bear arms does not equate to a right to own weapons of mass murder and destruction