Favourite Obama quotes

  • 112 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

Here is mine

"But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right" - Barrack Obama.

Actually Obama that is exactly what having an individual right means.

#2 Posted by LiquidAjax (2032 posts) -
"i'm from kenya and i used Chicago politics to steal elections and ruin this country"
#3 Posted by sexyweapons (5302 posts) -

"If I don't shrink the deficit by half by the end of my first term I will be a one term President"

or something like that.

#4 Posted by BuryMe (22017 posts) -

Here is mine

"But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right" - Barrack Obama.

Actually Obama that is exactly what having an individual right means.

Laihendi

He's right...

There are limits of free speech (hate speech laws, for example.)

There are limits on the second ammendment (you can't own absolutely any gun.)

There are limits on your social liberty (the government can put you in jail if you commit a crime)\

Freedoms ARE limited.

#5 Posted by LiquidAjax (2032 posts) -
"that business you made, you didn't build it"
#6 Posted by LiquidAjax (2032 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

Here is mine

"But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right" - Barrack Obama.

Actually Obama that is exactly what having an individual right means.

BuryMe

He's right...

There are limits of free speech (hate speech laws, for example.)

There are limits on the second ammendment (you can't own absolutely any gun.)

There are limits on your social liberty (the government can put you in jail if you commit a crime)\

Freedoms ARE limited.

I didn't read everything you wrote, but I know that what you said is socialist.
#7 Posted by BossPerson (9469 posts) -

Seizing on the popularity of Occupy Wall Street, a broad coalition of liberal-left groups and organizations created the 99 Percent Spring, a movement aiming to recruit and train 100,000 Americans to learn the ways of non-violent direct action. The initiative includes support from MoveOn.org, AFL-CIO, Greenpeace, the Working Families Party, 350.org, Campaign for America's Future, United Students Against Sweatshops, CodePink, Global Exchange and Color of Change, among other groups.

The plan has been heavily promoted by celebrities such as Edward Norton, Elijah Wood, Marisa Tomei and Jason Alexander and political heavyweights like Van Jones, founder of Rebuild the Dream.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/167253/occupy-wall-street-activists-respond-99-spring#

#8 Posted by pie-junior (2836 posts) -
Actually Obama that is exactly what having an individual right means.Laihendi
it's obvious obama went to law school and you didn't.
#9 Posted by seahorse123 (1228 posts) -
If youre walking down the right path and youre willing to keep walking, eventually youll make progress.
#10 Posted by BossPerson (9469 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Actually Obama that is exactly what having an individual right means.pie-junior
it's obvious obama went to law school and you didn't.

don't use that as a defence. Obama is actually horrible when it comes to individual rights. For someone who was a constitutional law professor to appoint an attorney general who justifies assassinating citizens by saying "Due process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security" is pretty strange. And I doubt hes just stupid, he knows what he's doing. And I know you have a shaky view of human right, but c'mon
#11 Posted by SirWander (5176 posts) -

"I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class."

#12 Posted by cslayer211 (833 posts) -
"I won."
#13 Posted by pie-junior (2836 posts) -
[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]Actually Obama that is exactly what having an individual right means.BossPerson
it's obvious obama went to law school and you didn't.

don't use that as a defence. Obama is actually horrible when it comes to individual rights. For someone who was a constitutional law professor to appoint an attorney general who justifies assassinating citizens by saying "Due process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security" is pretty strange. And I doubt hes just stupid, he knows what he's doing. And I know you have a shaky view of human right, but c'mon

Idk if he's 'horrible' with individual rights. A right is a relative concept. It requires a balance with public interests and other individual rights. The focal point of a balance is a subject worth discussing (from different POVs eg-the econmic approach relative to social utility; deontological approaches relative to human dignity or quality of human life; w/e)- but he was ridiculing Obama's use of the word. That sentence might be a bit too americanized, for me, but it's certainly a deal more accurate than the liberitarians school of f@ggotry laihendi seems to get his stuff from. Is shaky code for 'thought out'?
#14 Posted by FuggaJ (279 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

Here is mine

"But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right" - Barrack Obama.

Actually Obama that is exactly what having an individual right means.

BuryMe

He's right...

There are limits of free speech (hate speech laws, for example.)

There are limits on the second ammendment (you can't own absolutely any gun.)

There are limits on your social liberty (the government can put you in jail if you commit a crime)\

Freedoms ARE limited.

If someone has the ability to take yer freedom, then it is not really freedom.
#15 Posted by BossPerson (9469 posts) -
[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="pie-junior"] it's obvious obama went to law school and you didn't.

don't use that as a defence. Obama is actually horrible when it comes to individual rights. For someone who was a constitutional law professor to appoint an attorney general who justifies assassinating citizens by saying "Due process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security" is pretty strange. And I doubt hes just stupid, he knows what he's doing. And I know you have a shaky view of human right, but c'mon

Idk if he's 'horrible' with individual rights. A right is a relative concept. It requires a balance with public interests and other individual rights. The focal point of a balance is a subject worth discussing (from different POVs eg-the econmic approach relative to social utility; deontological approaches relative to human dignity or quality of human life; w/e)- but he was ridiculing Obama's use of the word. That sentence might be a bit too americanized, for me, but it's certainly a deal more accurate than the liberitarians school of f@ggotry laihendi seems to get his stuff from. Is shaky code for 'thought out'?

lol in this case, yes. Rights aren't real. But as Ive said before, we're best off thinking they are.
#16 Posted by Aljosa23 (24972 posts) -

"The election's over"

#17 Posted by DroidPhysX (17089 posts) -
No warrantless wiretap if you elect me.
#18 Posted by BuryMe (22017 posts) -

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

Here is mine

"But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right" - Barrack Obama.

Actually Obama that is exactly what having an individual right means.

FuggaJ

He's right...

There are limits of free speech (hate speech laws, for example.)

There are limits on the second ammendment (you can't own absolutely any gun.)

There are limits on your social liberty (the government can put you in jail if you commit a crime)\

Freedoms ARE limited.

If someone has the ability to take yer freedom, then it is not really freedom.

And yet, the government can...

#19 Posted by FuggaJ (279 posts) -

[QUOTE="FuggaJ"][QUOTE="BuryMe"]He's right...

There are limits of free speech (hate speech laws, for example.)

There are limits on the second ammendment (you can't own absolutely any gun.)

There are limits on your social liberty (the government can put you in jail if you commit a crime)\

Freedoms ARE limited.

BuryMe

If someone has the ability to take yer freedom, then it is not really freedom.

And yet, the government can...

Did I say they couldn't? My point was we're not really free. Ah dur.
#20 Posted by pie-junior (2836 posts) -
[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

[QUOTE="FuggaJ"] If someone has the ability to take yer freedom, then it is not really freedom.FuggaJ

And yet, the government can...

Did I say they couldn't? My point was we're not really free. Ah dur.

was anyone ever free ever, or is freedom an unattainable ideal?
#21 Posted by FuggaJ (279 posts) -
[QUOTE="FuggaJ"][QUOTE="BuryMe"]And yet, the government can...pie-junior
Did I say they couldn't? My point was we're not really free. Ah dur.

was anyone ever free ever, or is freedom an unattainable ideal?

Just because it hasn't happened yet that makes it unattainable? We have no cures for AIDs yet and haven't before, is that unattainable? There are people starving in the world and we haven't fed them yet so is that unattainable? Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean we should give up on the idea. An ideal, for sure. Unattainable, not quite. People deserve the right to govern their own lives, my friend.
#22 Posted by BuryMe (22017 posts) -

[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="FuggaJ"]Did I say they couldn't? My point was we're not really free. Ah dur.FuggaJ
was anyone ever free ever, or is freedom an unattainable ideal?

Just because it hasn't happened yet that makes it unattainable? We have no cures for AIDs yet and haven't before, is that unattainable? There are people starving in the world and we haven't fed them yet so is that unattainable? Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean we should give up on the idea. An ideal, for sure. Unattainable, not quite. People deserve the right to govern their own lives, my friend.

The only way for that to hapen is through no central form of government.

In short, you support anarchy.

#23 Posted by pie-junior (2836 posts) -
[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="FuggaJ"]Did I say they couldn't? My point was we're not really free. Ah dur.FuggaJ
was anyone ever free ever, or is freedom an unattainable ideal?

Just because it hasn't happened yet that makes it unattainable? We have no cures for AIDs yet and haven't before, is that unattainable? There are people starving in the world and we haven't fed them yet so is that unattainable? Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean we should give up on the idea. An ideal, for sure. Unattainable, not quite. People deserve the right to govern their own lives, my friend.

describe a situation in which someone is completely free.
#24 Posted by FuggaJ (279 posts) -

[QUOTE="FuggaJ"][QUOTE="pie-junior"] was anyone ever free ever, or is freedom an unattainable ideal?BuryMe

Just because it hasn't happened yet that makes it unattainable? We have no cures for AIDs yet and haven't before, is that unattainable? There are people starving in the world and we haven't fed them yet so is that unattainable? Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean we should give up on the idea. An ideal, for sure. Unattainable, not quite. People deserve the right to govern their own lives, my friend.

The only way for that to hapen is through no central form of government.

In short, you support anarchy.

Yeah bud I see no reason for anyone to be subservient to another. But to get back the the topic here's a quote. "My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington." If only he truly felt that way.
#25 Posted by pie-junior (2836 posts) -

[QUOTE="FuggaJ"][QUOTE="pie-junior"] was anyone ever free ever, or is freedom an unattainable ideal?BuryMe

Just because it hasn't happened yet that makes it unattainable? We have no cures for AIDs yet and haven't before, is that unattainable? There are people starving in the world and we haven't fed them yet so is that unattainable? Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean we should give up on the idea. An ideal, for sure. Unattainable, not quite. People deserve the right to govern their own lives, my friend.

The only way for that to hapen is through no central form of government.

In short, you support anarchy.

In an anarchy, you are far more susceptibe to people taking your 'freedom' (life, posessions) than as part of an organized society. Thomas Hobbs wrote an entire book about it.
#26 Posted by MrPraline (21321 posts) -
"Change has come to America." "I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that. I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture. And I'm gonna make sure that we don't torture. Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world."
#27 Posted by FuggaJ (279 posts) -
[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="FuggaJ"][QUOTE="pie-junior"] was anyone ever free ever, or is freedom an unattainable ideal?

Just because it hasn't happened yet that makes it unattainable? We have no cures for AIDs yet and haven't before, is that unattainable? There are people starving in the world and we haven't fed them yet so is that unattainable? Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean we should give up on the idea. An ideal, for sure. Unattainable, not quite. People deserve the right to govern their own lives, my friend.

describe a situation in which someone is completely free.

You don't know what being free means? Any situation where you can do whatever you want. There will be reactions to the choices you make good or bad, but thats up to you. To be able to deal with the repercussion of those choices in the real life and not being subservient to anybodies 'authority'.
#28 Posted by pie-junior (2836 posts) -
[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="FuggaJ"] Just because it hasn't happened yet that makes it unattainable? We have no cures for AIDs yet and haven't before, is that unattainable? There are people starving in the world and we haven't fed them yet so is that unattainable? Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean we should give up on the idea. An ideal, for sure. Unattainable, not quite. People deserve the right to govern their own lives, my friend.FuggaJ
describe a situation in which someone is completely free.

You don't know what being free means? Any situation where you can do whatever you want. There will be reactions to the choices you make good or bad, but thats up to you. To be able to deal with the repercussion of those choices in the real life and not being subservient to anybodies 'authority'.

Then everybody is free always. This is a pendulum of a thread.
#29 Posted by FuggaJ (279 posts) -
[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

[QUOTE="FuggaJ"] Just because it hasn't happened yet that makes it unattainable? We have no cures for AIDs yet and haven't before, is that unattainable? There are people starving in the world and we haven't fed them yet so is that unattainable? Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean we should give up on the idea. An ideal, for sure. Unattainable, not quite. People deserve the right to govern their own lives, my friend.pie-junior

The only way for that to hapen is through no central form of government.

In short, you support anarchy.

In an anarchy, you are far more susceptibe to people taking your 'freedom' (life, posessions) than as part of an organized society. Thomas Hobbs wrote an entire book about it.

What's the book? I'm interested in reading it. To an extent I agree, right now with the way people think an anarchic society would almost positively fall apart. We need a mental revolution, a spiritual enlightenment if you will. As soon as we lose our sense of 'me' we can begin to worry about 'us' as a whole. Maybe I just have too much faith in humanity.
#30 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="pie-junior"]
it's obvious obama went to law school and you didn't.pie-junior
don't use that as a defence. Obama is actually horrible when it comes to individual rights. For someone who was a constitutional law professor to appoint an attorney general who justifies assassinating citizens by saying "Due process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security" is pretty strange. And I doubt hes just stupid, he knows what he's doing.

And I know you have a shaky view of human right, but c'mon


Idk if he's 'horrible' with individual rights. A right is a relative concept. It requires a balance with public interests and other individual rights. The focal point of a balance is a subject worth discussing (from different POVs eg-the econmic approach relative to social utility; deontological approaches relative to human dignity or quality of human life; w/e)- but he was ridiculing Obama's use of the word. That sentence might be a bit too americanized, for me, but it's certainly a deal more accurate than the liberitarians school of f@ggotry laihendi seems to get his stuff from.

Is shaky code for 'thought out'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

There is no such entity as the public, since the public is merely a number of individuals. The idea that the public interest supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others.

You don't seem to have thought this out much.

#31 Posted by pie-junior (2836 posts) -
[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="BuryMe"]The only way for that to hapen is through no central form of government.

In short, you support anarchy.

FuggaJ
In an anarchy, you are far more susceptibe to people taking your 'freedom' (life, posessions) than as part of an organized society. Thomas Hobbs wrote an entire book about it.

What's the book? I'm interested in reading it. To an extent I agree, right now with the way people think an anarchic society would almost positively fall apart. We need a mental revolution, a spiritual enlightenment if you will. As soon as we lose our sense of 'me' we can begin to worry about 'us' as a whole. Maybe I just have too much faith in humanity.

That book is 400 years old (Leviathan). would suggest reading something more current, like a synopsis of the different approaches to the 'social contract' (the name to that general subject) theory.
#32 Posted by FuggaJ (279 posts) -
[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="FuggaJ"][QUOTE="pie-junior"] In an anarchy, you are far more susceptibe to people taking your 'freedom' (life, posessions) than as part of an organized society. Thomas Hobbs wrote an entire book about it.

What's the book? I'm interested in reading it. To an extent I agree, right now with the way people think an anarchic society would almost positively fall apart. We need a mental revolution, a spiritual enlightenment if you will. As soon as we lose our sense of 'me' we can begin to worry about 'us' as a whole. Maybe I just have too much faith in humanity.

That book is 400 years old (Leviathan). would suggest reading something more current, like a synopsis of the different approaches to the 'social contract' (the name to that general subject) theory.

Thanks I will. Well, we certainly derailed this topic :P
#33 Posted by pie-junior (2836 posts) -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

There is no such entity as the public, since the public is merely a number of individuals. The idea that the public interest supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others.

You don't seem to have thought this out much.

Laihendi

Oh man,

When I imprison a murderer- whose rights and/or interests am I protecting?

#34 Posted by MrPraline (21321 posts) -
Well, we certainly derailed this topic :PFuggaJ
Yeah. Arguing about freedom and liberty in a thread about Obama, I would call that quite the derailment. ;]
#35 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

"I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that. I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture. And I'm gonna make sure that we don't torture. Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world."MrPraline

To be fair he did attempt to close Guantanamo until Republicans threw a NIMBY sh*tfit.

#36 Posted by jimkabrhel (15419 posts) -

Laihendi idolizes Elijah Wood. Elijah Wood is a liberal. Laihendi is a internet liberatarian who posts a lot of anti-liberal crap.

Does not compute.

#37 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]don't use that as a defence. Obama is actually horrible when it comes to individual rights. For someone who was a constitutional law professor to appoint an attorney general who justifies assassinating citizens by saying "Due process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security" is pretty strange. And I doubt hes just stupid, he knows what he's doing.

And I know you have a shaky view of human right, but c'monLaihendi


Idk if he's 'horrible' with individual rights. A right is a relative concept. It requires a balance with public interests and other individual rights. The focal point of a balance is a subject worth discussing (from different POVs eg-the econmic approach relative to social utility; deontological approaches relative to human dignity or quality of human life; w/e)- but he was ridiculing Obama's use of the word. That sentence might be a bit too americanized, for me, but it's certainly a deal more accurate than the liberitarians school of f@ggotry laihendi seems to get his stuff from.

Is shaky code for 'thought out'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

There is no such entity as the public, since the public is merely a number of individuals. The idea that the public interest supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others.

You don't seem to have thought this out much.

So does my right to pump raw sewage into the river that supplies the town's water superceed the community's right to not have to drink or bathe in sewage?

#38 Posted by pie-junior (2836 posts) -

[QUOTE="MrPraline"] "I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that. I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture. And I'm gonna make sure that we don't torture. Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world."worlock77

To be fair he did attempt to close Guantanamo until Republicans threw a NIMBY sh*tfit.

Did not know that. you do not know how much you helped me right now.
#39 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

There is no such entity as the public, since the public is merely a number of individuals. The idea that the public interest supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others.

You don't seem to have thought this out much.

pie-junior

Oh man,

When I imprison a murderer- whose rights and/or interests am I protecting?

Those individuals who have rights. The only individuals with rights are those capable of conceiving/respecting the concept of individual rights. A murderer's actions prove himself to be an animal who is incapable of that, due to his blatant disregard for individual rights.
#40 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="pie-junior"]
Idk if he's 'horrible' with individual rights. A right is a relative concept. It requires a balance with public interests and other individual rights. The focal point of a balance is a subject worth discussing (from different POVs eg-the econmic approach relative to social utility; deontological approaches relative to human dignity or quality of human life; w/e)- but he was ridiculing Obama's use of the word. That sentence might be a bit too americanized, for me, but it's certainly a deal more accurate than the liberitarians school of f@ggotry laihendi seems to get his stuff from.

Is shaky code for 'thought out'?worlock77

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

There is no such entity as the public, since the public is merely a number of individuals. The idea that the public interest supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others.

You don't seem to have thought this out much.

So does my right to pump raw sewage into the river that supplies the town's water superceed the community's right to not have to drink or bathe in sewage?

Pumping sewage into someone's water supply is clearly a violation of that person's property rights.

#41 Posted by pie-junior (2836 posts) -

Those individuals who have rights.Laihendi

How am I protecting them?

*disregarding the rest as fluff

#42 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

There is no such entity as the public, since the public is merely a number of individuals. The idea that the public interest supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others.

You don't seem to have thought this out much.

Laihendi

So does my right to pump raw sewage into the river that supplies the town's water superceed the community's right to not have to drink or bathe in sewage?

Pumping sewage into someone's water supply is clearly a violation of that person's property rights.

Ok, so who's property is the river?

#44 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Those individuals who have rights.pie-junior

How am I protecting them?

*disregarding the rest as fluff

Yes, disregard my answer to your question so that you may repeat your question and act as if you are making a point. Okay.
#45 Posted by Aljosa23 (24972 posts) -

Why do people still bother replying to Laihendi? He thinks babies don't have rights and are simply property because they can't comprehend rights.

dude is just an elaborate joke character that isnt as good as kraychik (RIP)

#46 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

Why do people still bother replying to Laihendi?

Aljosa23

Boredom.

#47 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

So does my right to pump raw sewage into the river that supplies the town's water superceed the community's right to not have to drink or bathe in sewage?

worlock77

Pumping sewage into someone's water supply is clearly a violation of that person's property rights.

Ok, so who's property is the river?

I've never heard of anyone owning uncontained bodies of water. That's like asking who owns the sky, or a cloud. It's a meaningless question.

#48 Posted by pie-junior (2836 posts) -
[QUOTE="pie-junior"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Those individuals who have rights.Laihendi

How am I protecting them?

*disregarding the rest as fluff

Yes, disregard my answer to your question so that you may repeat your question and act as if you are making a point. Okay.

It was fluff. The fact that you think a person who disrespects others rights is an 'animal', has no bearing on what i'm asking you. now- how am I protecting right-holding persons by imprisoning a murderer?
#49 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Pumping sewage into someone's water supply is clearly a violation of that person's property rights.

Laihendi

Ok, so who's property is the river?

I've never heard of anyone owning bodies of water. That's like asking who owns the sky, or a cloud. It's a meaningless question.

You claim that by pumping my sewage into the river I'm violating property rights, so then who's property is the river? If it is no one's property then I am violating nobody's property rights.

#50 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="pie-junior"]

How am I protecting them?

*disregarding the rest as fluff

pie-junior
Yes, disregard my answer to your question so that you may repeat your question and act as if you are making a point. Okay.

It was fluff. The fact that you think a person who disrespects others rights is an 'animal', has no bearing on what i'm asking you. now- how am I protecting right-holding persons by imprisoning a murderer?

By preventing him from murdering more of them. This is not difficult to understand.