When I debate anti's, I usually just start quoting court cases, quoting the founders, and giving as many facts as possible.
For example, I recently debated an anti about assault weapons. He said that he didn't want to ban guns, despite what conservatives are saying. Then, of course, his friend contradicted his statement by suggesting that assault weapons be banned. This was my reply:
"I understand the point. The problem is that gun bans are often included in the proposals. Perhaps not for simple guns; but certainly for many standard capacity magazines and sporting rifles that those of us in the gun community enjoy.
And, in case you're wondering, no, I don't think high capacity magazines or “assault” rifles should be banned. Why? Because doing so would detract from the true meaning of the second amendment.
Many believe that the second amendment is for hunting or sporting. The problem is that such is not the case. Back when the second amendment was written, hunting was a given and a survival necessity. The true meaning of the second amendment can be found in the Declaration of Independence: “…Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
What I am about to say is not very popular, whether among Democrats or Republicans. But, many of our founders believed that Americans should keep arms to be able to, as a last resort, resist governmental tyranny. Thomas Jefferson: “The strongest reason for the people to maintain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to resist tyranny in government.” Taking “assault” weapons away would prevent the American people from being able to do so effectively. Patrick Henry: “Guard with jealous attention the Public Liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that Jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.” When Americans give up the right to bear arms, even fractionally, they lose their ability to exercise the true meaning of the second amendment.
Now, the argument can be made that perhaps this “meaning” should no longer be part of public policy. If so, then I would suggest proposing a constitutional amendment and getting 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree. Until then, this is the true meaning of the second amendment. And, banning “assault” weapons or high capacity magazines would take away from it.
By the way, I'm not advocating anything. I'm just presenting some historical facts."
Then, of course, one of his friends chimed in and gave the argument that the 2nd amendment applies only to the militia and not me and my "buddies from the gun show". I countered that (1) according to Federal law (U.S.C. Title 10, Section 311), as an able-bodied male age 17-45, I am in the militia, and (2) the militia clause is only an explanatory clause and does not affect the operative clause "shall not be infringed.