A Quote by Rush Limbaugh

Liberals talk about how evil it is, and they talk about how deadly it is. They won't ban it. If it's so bad, if it's so deadly, if it's so dangerous, if it's so harmful, if it's so mean, why don't they ban it? Just ban the product.
If you have to ban something, ban products which are actually harmful for us, like cigarettes. Smoking also affects the health of people standing around you. But we won't ban such things. We're told don't eat fish, don't eat meat, don't wear miniskirts and other such things.
I'm a complete libertarian. I think it's very, very dangerous. I really mean that. I think the smoking ban is a tip of an iceberg of society - the leaders of society telling us how to be. I think it's not their business. It's an attitude where the governors think, 'We know what's best for people, and they're so stupid that they would only not do it if we ban it.'
I'm vociferously against any ban in the society. You have to educate people instead. When you ban something, you invoke in them the curiosity to find more about that.
The so-called assault weapons ban is a hoax. It is a political appeal to the ignorant. The guns it supposedly banned have been illegal for 78 years. Did the ban make them 'more' illegal? The ban addresses only the appearance of weapons, not their operation.
Let's talk about real fake news. If this were about a religion or if this were about a Muslim ban, then how come the largest Muslim nation on the planet...Indonesia, exactly, isn't listed?
I don't think that 60-70 percent of working-class white voters would have supported a Muslim ban before Donald Trump said something about a Muslim ban.
Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson says he believes that same ruling that stopped the first version of the ban should still apply to the second version of the ban because it is basically the same ban. It is basically the same policy.
When did banning anything, ever work? I mean, we banned liquor once in this country, oh, that worked like a charm, didn't it, folks? You couldn't find a drink in the roaring 20's, could ya? See that's the problem with the banning thing! I say why stop there, let's not ban guns, I know, let's ban crime!
Until we can ban all of them [firearms], then we might as well ban none.
A ban on a class of arms is not an 'incidental' regulation. It is equivalent to a ban on a category of speech.
One would understand a ban on surrogate advertising, but to completely ban [smoking] is ridiculous, a joke taken too far.
I don't need arms, and neither does anyone else... At the very least, a ban would prevent fights from turning deadly.
The reality is that if you - let's say you just pulled encryption. Let's ban it. Let's you and I ban it tomorrow. And so we sit in Congress and we say, thou shalt not have encryption. What happens then? Well, I would argue that the bad guys will use encryption from non-American companies, because they're pretty smart.
I think a four-year ban would effectively rule out one Olympic games - a life ban is too harsh. I think everyone deserves a second chance. If you come back from missing one Olympic games and serving a four-year ban, you are a pretty determined and reformed character.
Let me tell you about the travel ban. We had a very smooth rollout of the travel ban. But we had a bad court. Got a bad decision. We had a court that's been overturned. Again, may be wrong, but I think it's 80 percent of the time, a lot. We're going to keep going with that decision. We're going to put in a new executive order.
We stand for free speech. This means we are not going to ban distasteful subreddits. We will not ban legal content even if we find it odious or if we personally condemn it.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!