From iGeek
(Redirected from Category:Bans)
Jump to: navigation, search

Banning something is the tool of a weak (and authoritarian) mind. It's also the go-to-solution for every problem for the DNC. Ignoring that Prohibition only works when the VAST majority of people already want to ban something, for real -- and not just what they say for cameras or newsmen, it shows that someone is too lazy to try to convince people to do the right thing. They either know their arguments are weak, they don't trust their follow men to do the right thing, or they're just lazy anti-libertarians and want to control others. This is a list of some of the things the left wants to ban.


Prohibition increases scarcity (and the allure of doing something naughty). Scarcity increases value. Value creates black-market (crime). Crime creates more tolerance for authoritarianism. Which all result in less freedom, and more value in whatever is prohibited. Whether alcohol prohibition, the war on drugs, or gun control -- all the illegal items were available (often more so), and once outlawed there were LESS controls on who could buy and under what conditions. more...

Just ban it

7 items

Travel Bans - 🙄 Californians try to bully places and show they're the biggest hypocrites with travel ban. So while oral sex is still outlawed in many cities in California (like SF), they issue laws like [AB 1887] (or a travel ban) to states that have lesser laws against LGBTQ or religious liberty that they don't like. In the mean time, they don't have travel bans to countries that have torture or capital punishment for LGBTQ's, or the religion that fosters those laws (Islam). I'd ask them if Texas should ban travel to California because of their unconstitutional persecution of gun owners, their racist position on affirmative action in college admittance, or their violation of federal immigration laws (Sanctuary State)? But the preachy hypocrites just get apoplectic if anyone reflects their moral righteousness back at them.

Straw Bans - Few things demonstrate ignorance based virtue signaling, with counter-productive consequences like Straw Bans. So naturally places like California are leading the charge (SF is even banning cocktail sticks): this is Anti-Science. Remember the basics: 10 rivers (8 in Asia, the other 2 in Africa) are responsible for 95% of the plastic pollution in the Oceans. 5% is split between the continents of Europe, North America, South America, and Australia. Brazil is the worst country among the rest (the U.S. is 20th). Straws in the U.S., with high estimates is something like 0.002% of the problem. So if straws were 100 times bigger problem in the U.S. than they actually are, it would still round to 0 and statistically irrelevant. So virtue signaling is not only distracting from bigger problems, it teaches contempt for the law.

Smoking -
Persecuting smoking and smokers is a modern witch hunt among the left, as proven by the intolerance of progressive areas (California, Oregon, Washington, NY, Mass., etc). Of course that's anti-Science. While smoking isn't healthy it's not as unhealthy as a bad genes, not exercising, bad diet, or bad attitude (stress) -- if you can regulate smoking based on public health claims then the state could regulate all those others (and some are trying. Many of the studies were fraudulent to get the laws, doubly so for the second hand smoke scares, or the false (unsupported) claims that it increases healthcare costs (they die quicker so it saves money). It was all flim-flam to allow the anti-liberty fascists to tell us what to do with our bodies, in our property, "for our own good".

Redacted High School - In San Francisco's George Washington High School, the board voted to remove the mural of their namesake, painted in 1936 by artist Victor Arnautoff (Trotskyite), because it was visually offensive. The 80 year old mural has survived great earthquakes, riots, vagrants, and all the other natural disasters, but it can't stand up to the California Taliban which finds the historical image of George Washington at Mt. Vernon (with slaves), too historically accurate for them to bare. And because it is SF, it is going to cost upwards of $825,000 to put paint to roller... after getting the required environmental impact studies. In California, spending money on teaching kids takes a back seat to political correctness and revising history.

Plastic Bag Bans - Plastic Bag Bans are Anti-Science so the left loves them. Here's what we know: paper bags are worse, many people just buy their own plastic bags (which are thicker and worse), and if you replace plastic bags with cloth bags, then you increase diseases/illness (it is shown that food born illnesses went up after bag bans). It takes between 131 - 20,000 uses of cloth bags before you hit environemntal break-even on a single cloth bag (double that if you recycle them). But to reduce disease, you're supposed to wash them after every use: which means that they use more energy than plastic, and die after ≈50 washes so can never hit environmental break-even. So going to reusable bags is bad for the environment, it's bad for people (sickness), and it's bad for liberty: which is why the left loves it so. It teaches conformity over common sense.

Just Ban Assault Rifles - Anyone that says any variant of "Just ban assault rifles", "no one should own military grade weapons", or "it's not all guns, just these killing machines" shows they are completely ignorant about assault rifles, or bans. This article breaks down why you can't ban "Assault Rifles", and why it would be moronic to try.

2019.04.16 New Jersey Magazine Ban - New Jersey passed a law outlawing standard capacity magazines starting in 2018. There are estimated to be one million-gun owners with 10 million standard capacity magazines out there (10+). To see how effective the ban was, Ammoland asked how many had been turned in for destruction and compliance with the law, and after a lot of dodging and requiring an FOIA request (Freedom of Information Act) with both state and local law enforcement, and they were able to find exactly 0 that were turned in for compliance with the law. But to be fair, the State has never arrested anyone for breaking the law, nor does it even have guidelines of how to. So the law achieved no compliance, no enforcement, but turned 1 million otherwise law abiding citizens into theoretical criminals. Is that what a "reasonable" gun law looks like?