In a local paper they had an article about how at a high school graduation one of the ladies graduating handed the superintendent a book that was on the “banned list”. I was glad to see so many in the comments point out that if she was able to get the book then it isn’t banned.
Pointing this out to people is as useless as trying to debunk the police shooting narrative to a true believer. I had a cousin that got mad at me because he was talking about Florida banning books and I simply pointed out all the books listed were available to order on Amazon. Why people don’t understand that a public library or public school not carrying a book is banning it. By all means, start your own bookstore or public library
It's not that simple. You can buy fully automatic weapons, but their limited supply makes them prohibitive for most to own. Ammunition is highly regulated so training with them is also prohibitive. There are many weasely ways to ban things without hard limits. Leftists will turn around and say these restrictions aren't anti constitutional because it's not a hard ban, but call vote id illegal because, despite not being a hard ban, it does present a barrier.
That's an injustice because the Second Amendment says "keep and bear". You can't bear a weapon you aren't allowed to buy ammo for.
There is no Amendment that deals with giving porn to minors, and the Founders would shoot you themselves if you suggested it falls under free expression.
That's not the point. I was trying to explain how it can be obtainable while still being rightfully called "banned".
No you were trying to compare apples and oranges. No one is increasing the cost of the groomer books artificially. There aren't hoops to jump through to go get one. And you don't end up on a federal list for owning it, although you certainly should.
Child grooming not being subsidized by taxpayer money isn't some kind of poll tax. There is no right to taxpayer funding.
There is a right to own both firearms and ammunition. Restrictions against those are unconstitutional on their face.
You have a valid semantic point: things can be de facto banned without being explicitly banned.
However, curating what's shelved in a publicly-funded children's school when it's readily available everywhere else is nowhere near that line. Which makes this point a tangent at best.