@niels0827
Did you know it's legal to own a gun in Mexico?
Except, there's one gun store in Mexico, in Mexico City.
And they're booked solid.
(Not a US example, but a valid example of circumventing a law via other laws, anyway.)
Did you know it's legal to carry a concealed gun in New York City?
Except, you have to go through a bunch of expensive hoops to ask, and the local government can deny you for no reason.
Did you know you can own a "silencer" in the US?
Except, you have to buy an expensive permit, for THAT suppressor which you want to buy, (which is specific to a given caliber, by the way, no using a .223 silencer on a .30-30, you'd just tear it up,) you have to renew it periodically, at a significant cost, and it doesn't give you the legal means of transporting it to another state...even if you move states.
Did you know that laws have been written to whittle away at what is in the second amendment, all without, technically, touching the letter of the second amendment, and all it takes to undo the current interpretation is to have enough Supreme Court justices agree with you that this positive right wasn't actually intended for the citizenry?
46
@niels0827
Did you know it's legal to own a gun in Mexico?
Except, there's one gun store in Mexico, in Mexico City.
And they're booked solid.
(Not a US example, but a valid example of circumventing a law via other laws, anyway.)
Did you know it's legal to carry a concealed gun in New York City?
Except, you have to go through a bunch of expensive hoops to ask, and the local government can deny you for no reason.
Did you know you can own a "silencer" in the US?
Except, you have to buy an expensive permit, for THAT suppressor which you want to buy, (which is specific to a given caliber, by the way, no using a .223 silencer on a .30-30, you'd just tear it up,) you have to renew it periodically, at a significant cost, and it doesn't give you the legal means of transporting it to another state...even if you move states.
Did you know that laws have been written to whittle away at what is in the second amendment, all without, technically, touching the letter of the second amendment, and all it takes to undo the current interpretation is to have enough Supreme Court justices agree with you that this positive right wasn't actually intended for the citizenry?