ok watched with an opened mind. They had two contrasting members who were very respectful and spoke to their research very well.
What I didn't agree with the anti-heller guy was that he was ok with using intermediate scrutiny on the second but strict on the first because of overall "history" behind gun ownership and used public safety as a reason behind most of his arguments and "common sense".
OK. While he did identify in his closing argument that the common sense he was referring to had to be back by facts and not summarily disarming people just to disarm the people. I think he fails to take into consideration the "public safety" use in intermediate scrutiny was, in fact, used to summarily disarm the people in various states without any justification or fact based approach to show an increase in public safety based on certain bans.