Total Posts:128|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

2nd Amendment Under Attack NOW: Must Watch

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 5:02:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Watch this video immediately, Alex Jones breaks down what theyre doing now and where theyre headed. VERY INFORMATIVE.

If you can refute this, PLEASE DO. Because I'd rather this not be the case.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 5:04:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's Alex Jones......his whole job and livelihood is based off of making every little thing anyone does an attack on everything. Even if they are the second coming of Jesus, he has to do that.

So....no.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 5:15:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 5:04:03 PM, OberHerr wrote:
It's Alex Jones......his whole job and livelihood is based off of making every little thing anyone does an attack on everything. Even if they are the second coming of Jesus, he has to do that.

So....no.

Or he could just be a regular political commentator. He makes LESS money because of what he covers. He could get Bill O'Reilly money on mainstream networks if he wanted. Being a NWO conspiracy theorist is a financial loss on his part, he's not in it for the money. Being in it for the money is accepting a Fox deal and follow the government script.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 5:22:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 5:04:56 PM, drafterman wrote:
Why is attacking an amendment a bad thing?

Attacking the 2nd Amendment means demonizing the right to own firearms and trying to strip away everyone's property and safety.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 5:24:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 5:15:29 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/18/2012 5:04:03 PM, OberHerr wrote:
It's Alex Jones......his whole job and livelihood is based off of making every little thing anyone does an attack on everything. Even if they are the second coming of Jesus, he has to do that.

So....no.

Or he could just be a regular political commentator. He makes LESS money because of what he covers. He could get Bill O'Reilly money on mainstream networks if he wanted. Being a NWO conspiracy theorist is a financial loss on his part, he's not in it for the money. Being in it for the money is accepting a Fox deal and follow the government script.

Not really, he's not that good at what he does. He's in his niche, because he can cover that. Other than that, he's just a really annoying sounding guy that yells a lot.

He's really just Rush Limbaugh with an added belief in Aliens and the Illuminati causing all problems as opposed to the government.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 5:32:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 5:24:22 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Not really, he's not that good at what he does. He's in his niche, because he can cover that. Other than that, he's just a really annoying sounding guy that yells a lot.

False. He's turned down so many offers and deals, it's a fact that he could have made it big. He has people offering him reality shows and movie deals that he turns down. He is entertaining and good at delivering points and that's a fact.

He's really just Rush Limbaugh with an added belief in Aliens and the Illuminati causing all problems as opposed to the government.

He never brings up alien or uses the term Illuminati unless he has a guest who brings it up which is rare. Alex Jones says the culprit is international bankers and globalists. Thats HIS claim so don't make up bullsh!t about him, you don't know what youre taking about.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 5:33:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 5:32:19 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/18/2012 5:24:22 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Not really, he's not that good at what he does. He's in his niche, because he can cover that. Other than that, he's just a really annoying sounding guy that yells a lot.

False. He's turned down so many offers and deals, it's a fact that he could have made it big. He has people offering him reality shows and movie deals that he turns down. He is entertaining and good at delivering points and that's a fact.


Sorta. He's really just in your face the whole time. Plus, he doesn't look good on camera.

He's really just Rush Limbaugh with an added belief in Aliens and the Illuminati causing all problems as opposed to the government.

He never brings up alien or uses the term Illuminati unless he has a guest who brings it up which is rare. Alex Jones says the culprit is international bankers and globalists. Thats HIS claim so don't make up bullsh!t about him, you don't know what youre taking about.

Oh, I'm sorry, the NWO.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 5:45:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 5:02:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Watch this video immediately, Alex Jones breaks down what theyre doing now and where theyre headed. VERY INFORMATIVE.

If you can refute this, PLEASE DO. Because I'd rather this not be the case.



His entire case is built on news articles depicting how Dick's, Walmart, Discovery Channel, and other organizations are changing the way they do business in response to the recent shootings. Only in the world of Alex Jones does public opinion shifting towards tighter gun control = Obama coming for your guns.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 5:46:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 5:45:06 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/18/2012 5:02:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Watch this video immediately, Alex Jones breaks down what theyre doing now and where theyre headed. VERY INFORMATIVE.

If you can refute this, PLEASE DO. Because I'd rather this not be the case.



His entire case is built on news articles depicting how Dick's, Walmart, Discovery Channel, and other organizations are changing the way they do business in response to the recent shootings. Only in the world of Alex Jones does public opinion shifting towards tighter gun control = Obama coming for your guns.

100$ says Target paid him to say that.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 5:57:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 5:45:06 PM, Double_R wrote:
His entire case is built on news articles depicting how Dick's, Walmart, Discovery Channel, and other organizations are changing the way they do business in response to the recent shootings. Only in the world of Alex Jones does public opinion shifting towards tighter gun control = Obama coming for your guns.

False. Feinstein introduced an assault weapons ban. Bloomberg says Obama needs to take immediate action to ban guns, Obama said he will take executive action to move towards gun control. As a state Senator, Obama said he wants to ban all guns. The U.N. has been having meetings to move towards disarmorment.

The Obama administration is brainwashing everyone through his televised speeches which has caused people including gun owners to have a nationwide guilt for having and allowing guns. People are turning their guns in voluntarily, stores ceasing to sell semi-autimatics. this is insane. Again, Eric Holder, Obama's Attorney General literally said that we need to "brainwash" people to become anti-gun. Now he's done it.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 6:04:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 5:57:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/18/2012 5:45:06 PM, Double_R wrote:
His entire case is built on news articles depicting how Dick's, Walmart, Discovery Channel, and other organizations are changing the way they do business in response to the recent shootings. Only in the world of Alex Jones does public opinion shifting towards tighter gun control = Obama coming for your guns.

False. Feinstein introduced an assault weapons ban. Bloomberg says Obama needs to take immediate action to ban guns, Obama said he will take executive action to move towards gun control. As a state Senator, Obama said he wants to ban all guns. The U.N. has been having meetings to move towards disarmorment.

The Obama administration is brainwashing everyone through his televised speeches which has caused people including gun owners to have a nationwide guilt for having and allowing guns. People are turning their guns in voluntarily, stores ceasing to sell semi-autimatics. this is insane. Again, Eric Holder, Obama's Attorney General literally said that we need to "brainwash" people to become anti-gun. Now he's done it.

Do you ever consider the idea that when a person reaches a conclusion about something, it might just be what the person believes as opposed to the result of blind government brainwashing? Or are conspiracy theorists the only people on earth who actually think for themselves?
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 7:07:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I support the second Amendment to the Constitution, but I do not see why people need assault weapons. Why do you need a weapon (weapons) as powerful as AK47 or M16 (I think that is the name) in your place?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 7:20:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Don't get yer panties in a bunch.

District of Columbia v. Heller is over. The debate over the constitutionality of an individual protecting his house with an immediately accessible handgun is no longer in dispute.

What's at risk currently is whether someone can get their hands on machine capable of wiping out small civilian populations.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 7:22:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There is no reasonable scenario under which a civilian can justify owning a 30 round automatic machine gun because a 12 round semi-automatic handgun/12 gauge shotgun is insufficient for security needs.
iamnotwhoiam
Posts: 171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 8:39:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A militia of ordinary Joes with shotguns and handguns would be completely ineffective. I don't see the relevance of your 2nd amendment. We had a bye law in England that we could shoot Welshman with a crossbow if they were seen in a border town after dark, that was only recently (last hundred years) repealed. The 2nd amendment seems like that to me.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 9:10:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 7:22:42 PM, Wnope wrote:
There is no reasonable scenario under which a civilian can justify owning a 30 round automatic machine gun because a 12 round semi-automatic handgun/12 gauge shotgun is insufficient for security needs.

Depends on defining "justifiable". Just because you don't share the same value-assumptions as some random hillbilly in Alabama doesn't constitute justification of prohibiting them from acting on those values. I don't get why people buy guns and can't imagine every even holding one, much less using it. But preferences and values are subjective. Not understanding the utility of holding X value just shows how varied we are.

tl;dr: the normative judgement: "differences in value/preference justifies use of coercion" is dumb.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 9:12:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 8:39:55 PM, iamnotwhoiam wrote:
A militia of ordinary Joes with shotguns and handguns would be completely ineffective. I don't see the relevance of your 2nd amendment. We had a bye law in England that we could shoot Welshman with a crossbow if they were seen in a border town after dark, that was only recently (last hundred years) repealed. The 2nd amendment seems like that to me.

2nd amendment isn't limited to militias/small armies.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
iamnotwhoiam
Posts: 171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 9:17:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 9:12:53 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/18/2012 8:39:55 PM, iamnotwhoiam wrote:
A militia of ordinary Joes with shotguns and handguns would be completely ineffective. I don't see the relevance of your 2nd amendment. We had a bye law in England that we could shoot Welshman with a crossbow if they were seen in a border town after dark, that was only recently (last hundred years) repealed. The 2nd amendment seems like that to me.

2nd amendment isn't limited to militias/small armies.

It's the entire rationale of the amendment.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 9:21:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 9:17:48 PM, iamnotwhoiam wrote:
At 12/18/2012 9:12:53 PM, socialpinko wrote:

2nd amendment isn't limited to militias/small armies.

It's the entire rationale of the amendment.

People having the right to defend themselves, the government not having the right to take one's shlt, etc. etc. doesn't factor? K.

Lol look at me trying to defend the 2nd amendment. Even if it were meant for protecting mushrooms from hobgoblins I'd still be against gun banning, regulation, etc. People need to stop projecting their beliefs on to a piece of paper.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
VictorPopulus
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 9:24:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 5:22:16 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/18/2012 5:04:56 PM, drafterman wrote:
Why is attacking an amendment a bad thing?

Attacking the 2nd Amendment means demonizing the right to own firearms and trying to strip away everyone's property and safety.

I already posted this on a few "Opinions" pages but I would like more of a discussion.

I believe that the 2nd Amendment has become irrelevant over the last few decades. It was initially put in place because the United States was not yet as unified and cohesive or powerful as it is today. Any foreign attacks against the US can be quite easily responded to by our military. Any attacks from within the government are almost completely impossible because of our republican governmental structure. Attacks from within the government would have to be controlled the the Commander in Chief, aka the President, who can only hold power for a maximum of 8 years (assuming he or she is elected both times). The President cannot declare martial law unless "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it" (Article 1, Section 9). Therefore, defense against our government can only be relevant in the case of Rebellion, in which the government MUST suppress the use of guns by citizens, or during Invasion, in which it would likely be unnecessary or even futile. It is extremely unlikely that citizens could stand a chance against the advanced weaponry of any formal military either way, foreign or domestic. ALSO, any home invasion or other situation in which a standard revolver pistol with 5 or 6 shots won't work is rare. Not often do people need several magazines of bullets to protect themselves from anyone that wishes them harm. The restriction of guns to revolvers would also drastically reduce the amount of deaths in mass shootings involving legally-purchased weapons, mainly because the time and effort needed to reload such weapons gives victims much more time to either flee from or attack the shooter.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 9:26:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 9:24:51 PM, VictorPopulus wrote:
At 12/18/2012 5:22:16 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/18/2012 5:04:56 PM, drafterman wrote:
Why is attacking an amendment a bad thing?

Attacking the 2nd Amendment means demonizing the right to own firearms and trying to strip away everyone's property and safety.

I already posted this on a few "Opinions" pages but I would like more of a discussion.

.........The restriction of guns to revolvers would also drastically reduce the amount of deaths in mass shootings involving legally-purchased weapons...

http://www.myfacewhen.com...
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 9:29:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 7:07:28 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
I support the second Amendment to the Constitution, but I do not see why people need assault weapons. Why do you need a weapon (weapons) as powerful as AK47 or M16 (I think that is the name) in your place?

Why do people need to eat at McDonald's everyday? They don't, but it's not your call to stop them.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
iamnotwhoiam
Posts: 171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 9:33:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 9:21:16 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/18/2012 9:17:48 PM, iamnotwhoiam wrote:
At 12/18/2012 9:12:53 PM, socialpinko wrote:

2nd amendment isn't limited to militias/small armies.

It's the entire rationale of the amendment.

People having the right to defend themselves, the government not having the right to take one's shlt, etc. etc. doesn't factor? K.


Why would it factor? The amendment is as clear as can be.

The government could take anyone's possessions by force. A gun wouldn't help you.

As for self-defence, people are certainly in need of defence from people with guns.

That's neither here nor there though. It's very clear that the 2nd amendment has been co-opted for other than its original purpose, which was to enable a militia.
VictorPopulus
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 9:34:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 9:26:52 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/18/2012 9:24:51 PM, VictorPopulus wrote:
At 12/18/2012 5:22:16 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/18/2012 5:04:56 PM, drafterman wrote:
Why is attacking an amendment a bad thing?

Attacking the 2nd Amendment means demonizing the right to own firearms and trying to strip away everyone's property and safety.

I already posted this on a few "Opinions" pages but I would like more of a discussion.

.........The restriction of guns to revolvers would also drastically reduce the amount of deaths in mass shootings involving legally-purchased weapons...

http://www.myfacewhen.com...

Nice to see we're debating with logic and knowledge instead of sarcasm. Do you have anything pertinent to say to my reply?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 9:35:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 9:34:18 PM, VictorPopulus wrote:
At 12/18/2012 9:26:52 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/18/2012 9:24:51 PM, VictorPopulus wrote:
At 12/18/2012 5:22:16 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/18/2012 5:04:56 PM, drafterman wrote:
Why is attacking an amendment a bad thing?

Attacking the 2nd Amendment means demonizing the right to own firearms and trying to strip away everyone's property and safety.

I already posted this on a few "Opinions" pages but I would like more of a discussion.

.........The restriction of guns to revolvers would also drastically reduce the amount of deaths in mass shootings involving legally-purchased weapons...

http://www.myfacewhen.com...

Nice to see we're debating with logic and knowledge instead of sarcasm. Do you have anything pertinent to say to my reply?

Nothing that hasn't been said before.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 9:38:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 9:33:33 PM, iamnotwhoiam wrote:
At 12/18/2012 9:21:16 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/18/2012 9:17:48 PM, iamnotwhoiam wrote:
At 12/18/2012 9:12:53 PM, socialpinko wrote:

2nd amendment isn't limited to militias/small armies.

It's the entire rationale of the amendment.

People having the right to defend themselves, the government not having the right to take one's shlt, etc. etc. doesn't factor? K.


Why would it factor? The amendment is as clear as can be.

Wording is different from intention, effect, etc.

The government could take anyone's possessions by force. A gun wouldn't help you.

The point I was making is that the idea that the government shouldn't be able to take your junk (i.e., guns) is a common grounding of gun rights.

As for self-defence, people are certainly in need of defence from people with guns.

Just not with guns amirite?

That's neither here nor there though. It's very clear that the 2nd amendment has been co-opted for other than its original purpose, which was to enable a militia.

Who cares? Like I said, holding to a piece of paper like it's the Bible is dumb. How about let's look at gun rights qua gun rights irrespective of historical contingencies.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 9:51:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 9:10:28 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/18/2012 7:22:42 PM, Wnope wrote:
There is no reasonable scenario under which a civilian can justify owning a 30 round automatic machine gun because a 12 round semi-automatic handgun/12 gauge shotgun is insufficient for security needs.

Depends on defining "justifiable". Just because you don't share the same value-assumptions as some random hillbilly in Alabama doesn't constitute justification of prohibiting them from acting on those values. I don't get why people buy guns and can't imagine every even holding one, much less using it. But preferences and values are subjective. Not understanding the utility of holding X value just shows how varied we are.

tl;dr: the normative judgement: "differences in value/preference justifies use of coercion" is dumb.

I'm going by the criteria the supreme court uses. Unjustifiable burdens was why Heller lead to overturning gun-lock laws.