A Quote by Alok Nath

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. — © Alok Nath
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.
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 don't support any gun-control legislation - the effort for a new assault-weapons ban, with a ban on semiautomatic weapons, is something I would oppose.
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.
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.'
Until we can ban all of them [firearms], then we might as well ban none.
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.
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.
The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which in 1996 set out to ban nuclear tests, is an important step, but we need to do more - and we can.
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.
Overly simplistic suggestions that we ban people from entering this country, based on religion, or ban people from an entire region of the world is counterproductive. It will not work. We need to build bridges to communities, to American-Muslim communities right now, to encourage them to help us in our homeland security efforts.
A ban on a class of arms is not an 'incidental' regulation. It is equivalent to a ban on a category of speech.
We are against ignorance. We feel that you have to educate yourself, no matter what the situation is. People who refuse to educate themselves - people who refuse to find out what something is about, that they're frightened of - find comfort in being ignorant.
One would understand a ban on surrogate advertising, but to completely ban [smoking] is ridiculous, a joke taken too far.
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 them be reassured, it has never been one of our intentions to ban religion in society, but solely to protect the national education system from any conspicuous display of religious affiliation.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!