A good counter-argument with supporting documentation might do the trick.
You know as well as I that the second amendment has never applied to the states. Why do I have to tell your buddy that? Why aren't you telling him that? Seriously. Why do you let that stand without rebuttal?
You want to get rid of me? Fine. Then take over. Make me unnecessary.
The 1846 Supreme Court of Georgia did not think it did not apply to the states. (Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846))
The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and State governments--nor is there anything in its terms which restricts its meaning.
...
"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right,
Neither did William Rawle, who in 1791 was appointed as a United States Attorney for Pennsylvania by President George Washington, a post he held for more than eight years. His 1829 book, "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" (1829), was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions. Of course he was personally acquainted with the men who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Here's what he had to say on the subject:
In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, in the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulation as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest."
"The corollary, from the first position, is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."