You Want to Ban Something? This is What You Ban....

POLITICAL PARTIES.

Specifically the Democrats and Republicans. Way back in 1796, President George Washington, in his farewell address, warned of the "baneful effects of the spirit of party."

You ban all political parties for 3 years, then allow parties to reform under different names in 2028. Literally anyone could still run for office until then, there'd just be no party affiliation. The Democrats and Republicans are 2 giant corporations worried about getting their candidates elected, as opposed to positioning themselves in the arena of ideas. You'd be surprised at how many "major" parties would emerge from the wreckage. Very few countries in Europe govern by a 2-party system.

You dismantle the corporations and rebuild from the bottom up, instead of the top down. I could clearly see 6 parties emerge from the ashes:

Conservative Party: Christian-based

America Party: Capitalist-based

Libertarian Party: Freedom-based

Liberal Party: Global Left-based

Green Party: Environmentally-based

Rainbow Party: LGBT-based

You would have to govern by forming coalitions

The 2 party system in America is currently geared toward Winning, not Governing.

And when your goal is winning, inversely, someone has to lose.

Secondarily, fringe movements are moved back toward the fringe. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the perfect Green Party candidate. Can you imagine the absurdity of AOC leading the party of Kennedy Democrats? Before my Uncle died, he lamented how the Democrats moved away from the working man.

Since Charlie Kirk's Assassination, I have seen calls for a number of things to be banned.

THIS IS WHAT YOU DON"T BAN

GUNS: If you are really, really stupid, and think fascism is here today, why would you ban the guns? You only want the fascists to have the guns? You are an idiot. I am not a gun fan, but the Constitution protects your right to arm yourself.

You cannot ban the gun without re-writing the Constitution. You want to re-write the Constitution under today's social mores? Good luck with that.

SPEECH: At our core, we are a free-speech website. We continue to exist mostly under the radar, but are constantly amazed at how both sides of the political spectrum want their speech to win and want the other side's speech to be banned. No one respects differences any more and that's the real problem. Charlie Kirk was "dangerous" because he created a dialogue, he wanted to debate his opponents in the arena of ideas.

SOCIAL MEDIA: Uh, good luck putting that Genie back in its Lamp.

PORNOGRAPHY: There should be restrictions for minors in relation to pornography. But any adult that is vociferous about banning pornography for other adults should have THEIR actions monitored. That would shut them up real quick. Most people who want to ban pornography are using Projection as a defense mechanism.

TRANSGENDER GUN OWNERSHIP: You obviously cannot ban gun ownership by race, color, creed, or sexual orientation

With that being said, this meme is has caught fire on the Libertarian pages I follow:

That still doesn't dismiss that fact that 99% of shootings are by biological males. Females only make in-roads in this argument when you add in the "identifies as a woman" category.

The question that should be asked is "why are young males angry enough to shoot strangers?"

Instead of banning things, we should be worried about a generation that has a loss of hope.

Do YOU think America's best days are ahead of it?

If you’re a true news junkie, Whatfinger News is your fix—more news, more sources, and zero Big Tech censorship.