Nationwide Ban On Criminals

Nationwide Ban On Criminals

Posted in the Joliet Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Professor

United States

#1 Dec 21, 2012
Here is my solution using the lefts ideology. They believe if we ban guns, problem is solved. I say we cut right to the chase and ban all criminals! PROBLEM SOLVED!
Unincorporated

New Lenox, IL

#2 Dec 21, 2012
There goes the Senate, Congress, the Courts, and the Executive branch! Like you said, "Problem solved!"
secret id

New Lenox, IL

#3 Dec 22, 2012
Professor wrote:
Here is my solution using the lefts ideology. They believe if we ban guns, problem is solved. I say we cut right to the chase and ban all criminals! PROBLEM SOLVED!
Agreed!
Constitutionalis t

United States

#4 Dec 23, 2012
Excellent solution ............it won't fly though...........it makes sense........
lol

New Lenox, IL

#5 Dec 25, 2012
you make some great points profess
Concerned Citizen

Aurora, IL

#6 Dec 25, 2012
Professor wrote:
Here is my solution using the lefts ideology. They believe if we ban guns, problem is solved. I say we cut right to the chase and ban all criminals! PROBLEM SOLVED!
Let me be upfront: I'm against gun control (at least done by the state). But I think your argument is bad.

Your reasoning it predicated upon bans that cannot be strictly enforced being wrong. This, however, inevitably leads to the legalization of murder. By your reasoning, since murder still happens despite its illegality, we should make it legal.

A reduction to absurdity has been achieved, I believe.
Scrooge

United States

#8 Dec 25, 2012
Concerned Citizen wrote:
<quoted text>Let me be upfront: I'm against gun control (at least done by the state). But I think your argument is bad.

Your reasoning it predicated upon bans that cannot be strictly enforced being wrong. This, however, inevitably leads to the legalization of murder. By your reasoning, since murder still happens despite its illegality, we should make it legal.

A reduction to absurdity has been achieved, I believe.
That's what we talk about on our CB radios.
Professor

United States

#9 Dec 25, 2012
Concerned Citizen wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me be upfront: I'm against gun control (at least done by the state). But I think your argument is bad.
Your reasoning it predicated upon bans that cannot be strictly enforced being wrong. This, however, inevitably leads to the legalization of murder. By your reasoning, since murder still happens despite its illegality, we should make it legal.
A reduction to absurdity has been achieved, I believe.
.
Your against gun control at the state level but not by the federal level? If you ban criminals all problems are solved, since liberals believe gun bans will be effective, let's take their ideology a step further and ban crime. Get it? Yes? No?
Four More Years

United States

#10 Dec 26, 2012
Professor wrote:
Here is my solution using the lefts ideology. They believe if we ban guns, problem is solved. I say we cut right to the chase and ban all criminals! PROBLEM SOLVED!
I believe criminals are banned already. I believe they are apprehended,go to trial and if found guilty go to jail.
Professor

United States

#11 Dec 26, 2012
Four More Years wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe criminals are banned already. I believe they are apprehended,go to trial and if found guilty go to jail.
So the ban on criminals is not stopping them?
Concerned Citizen

Elmhurst, IL

#12 Dec 26, 2012
Professor wrote:
Your against gun control at the state level but not by the federal level? If you ban criminals all problems are solved, since liberals believe gun bans will be effective, let's take their ideology a step further and ban crime. Get it? Yes? No?
By "state", I meant basically government ran gun-control. Gun control by the state (not the geographic state, but the sovereign state).

I get it. My analysis showed that I got it. Your argument hinges on the belief that bans that cannot be strictly enforced are wrong: since a ban on guns wouldn't stop people from getting guns, we shouldn't ban them. However, this argument leads to a legalization of murder because it happens regardless of laws against it.

A ban, realistically, doesn't mean that the action will never happen. Rather, it means if you do this action you should be punished in some way. Liberals believe that some types of gun-ownership should be illegal and thus punished if said laws are violated. While I disagree with management of such a program by the government, your argument against it isn't very good and doesn't address the real issue.
Four More Years

United States

#13 Dec 26, 2012
Concerned Citizen wrote:
<quoted text>By "state", I meant basically government ran gun-control. Gun control by the state (not the geographic state, but the sovereign state).

I get it. My analysis showed that I got it. Your argument hinges on the belief that bans that cannot be strictly enforced are wrong: since a ban on guns wouldn't stop people from getting guns, we shouldn't ban them. However, this argument leads to a legalization of murder because it happens regardless of laws against it.

A ban, realistically, doesn't mean that the action will never happen. Rather, it means if you do this action you should be punished in some way. Liberals believe that some types of gun-ownership should be illegal and thus punished if said laws are violated. While I disagree with management of such a program by the government, your argument against it isn't very good and doesn't address the real issue.
Very well stated. The murder analogy was right on.
Concerned Citizen

Saint Charles, IL

#14 Dec 26, 2012
Four More Years wrote:
<quoted text>
Very well stated. The murder analogy was right on.
I'll begin my response with a clarification before I get into the meat of the issue: I'm against state-ran weapons control. Not only is it inefficient, but also hypocritical, especially in the case of the United States, as the world's largest military power determines that weaponry is a threat that needs to be restricted among the general population. What I suggest is that individual communities are inclined to enforce some sort of weapons control by means preferential to the community for the sake of safety and well-being.

In the case of arms, there are multiple factors involved - personal freedom to own a weapon and the public's general safety. We have to ask what degree of weapon possession is reasonable, and the answer to that will probably vary from community to community. Let's start with some extremes: it's reasonable to assume that most communities will be accepting of its members possessing knives while not so of the possession of weapons of mass destruction. The gray areas in-between are to be reconciled by individual communities according to their own interests and needs.
Professor

New Lenox, IL

#15 Dec 27, 2012
Concerned Citizen wrote:
<quoted text>
By "state", I meant basically government ran gun-control. Gun control by the state (not the geographic state, but the sovereign state).
I get it. My analysis showed that I got it. Your argument hinges on the belief that bans that cannot be strictly enforced are wrong: since a ban on guns wouldn't stop people from getting guns, we shouldn't ban them. However, this argument leads to a legalization of murder because it happens regardless of laws against it.
A ban, realistically, doesn't mean that the action will never happen. Rather, it means if you do this action you should be punished in some way. Liberals believe that some types of gun-ownership should be illegal and thus punished if said laws are violated. While I disagree with management of such a program by the government, your argument against it isn't very good and doesn't address the real issue.
That's my point. The liberals attempt to ban items they don't want or believe in is a waste of tax payers dollars, They don't address the problem at hand. They massage it with propaganda for more control over the citizens. An all out ban on criminals by the government would be the same as their cry to ban guns, or 20 ounce pops, or cigarettes, it is foolish to believe it suits any purpose besides government control of its citizens. That's the point I'm making, just acting cynical to get there. Bans on anything citizens want or crave is communism. An attack on freedom. That's what this liberal agenda is geared towards. COMMUNISM!
Concerned Citizen

West Chicago, IL

#16 Dec 27, 2012
Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
That's my point. The liberals attempt to ban items they don't want or believe in is a waste of tax payers dollars, They don't address the problem at hand. They massage it with propaganda for more control over the citizens. An all out ban on criminals by the government would be the same as their cry to ban guns, or 20 ounce pops, or cigarettes, it is foolish to believe it suits any purpose besides government control of its citizens. That's the point I'm making, just acting cynical to get there. Bans on anything citizens want or crave is communism. An attack on freedom. That's what this liberal agenda is geared towards. COMMUNISM!
That wasn't what you said before. You were claiming that guns shouldn't be ban because the ban would be ineffective (as criminal behavior is illegal yet still happens). This is just silly, though, because your argument leads to the conclusion that criminal behavior should all be legalized.

Also, you're using a propagandized definition of "communism". I recommend you read some communist literature and not take American red-scare politics at face-value.
Professor

United States

#17 Dec 28, 2012
Concerned Citizen wrote:
<quoted text>
That wasn't what you said before. You were claiming that guns shouldn't be ban because the ban would be ineffective (as criminal behavior is illegal yet still happens). This is just silly, though, because your argument leads to the conclusion that criminal behavior should all be legalized.
Also, you're using a propagandized definition of "communism". I recommend you read some communist literature and not take American red-scare politics at face-value.
I understand what communism is. Your insinuation that is not bad is rather alarming. I understand why government officials have an agenda of socialism and communism. Every country that is under that dictatorship government, the citizens reject it. Yet in America we have a large population that can't wait to be under government control? I say you's don't have a clear understanding of what you are wishing for.
Concerned Citizen

Wheaton, IL

#18 Dec 28, 2012
Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand what communism is. Your insinuation that is not bad is rather alarming. I understand why government officials have an agenda of socialism and communism. Every country that is under that dictatorship government, the citizens reject it. Yet in America we have a large population that can't wait to be under government control? I say you's don't have a clear understanding of what you are wishing for.
You make your lack of understanding clear by suggesting that communism implies government. Look up "libertarian communism". Furthermore, the end goal of Marxism is a stateless society.

I'll quote communist Bukharin to illustrate my point: "In a communist society there will be no classes. But if there will be no classes, this implies that in communist society there will likewise be no State."

Also, co-author of the Communist Manifesto, Engels, wrote "The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master free."

You really don't understand what communism is. You're so entrenched in American Red Scare propaganda designed to make us not notice that we were disallowing the South Vietnamese from choosing the leader that they desired: Ho Chi Minh. We supported the fraudulent Diem in Vietnam who was, quite literally, an un-elected leader who faked elections and silenced opposition. Yet we supported him. Doesn't that sound more like what you're against than the democratically supported Ho Chi Minh?
Hugo Chavez

United States

#19 Dec 28, 2012
Concerned Citizen wrote:
<quoted text>You make your lack of understanding clear by suggesting that communism implies government. Look up "libertarian communism". Furthermore, the end goal of Marxism is a stateless society.

I'll quote communist Bukharin to illustrate my point: "In a communist society there will be no classes. But if there will be no classes, this implies that in communist society there will likewise be no State."

Also, co-author of the Communist Manifesto, Engels, wrote "The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master — free."

You really don't understand what communism is. You're so entrenched in American Red Scare propaganda designed to make us not notice that we were disallowing the South Vietnamese from choosing the leader that they desired: Ho Chi Minh. We supported the fraudulent Diem in Vietnam who was, quite literally, an un-elected leader who faked elections and silenced opposition. Yet we supported him. Doesn't that sound more like what you're against than the democratically supported Ho Chi Minh?
What about Chavez in Venezuela? He is elected democratically.
Concerned Citizen

Wheaton, IL

#20 Dec 28, 2012
Hugo Chavez wrote:
<quoted text>
What about Chavez in Venezuela? He is elected democratically.
And? I don't understand the point that you're making.
Professor

United States

#21 Dec 28, 2012
Hugo Chavez wrote:
<quoted text>
What about Chavez in Venezuela? He is elected democratically.
Chavez & Putin are opening an assault weapons facility in South America. Can't wait to see the product!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Joliet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
TRUMP in number one spot... 37 min Millstadt69 14
A question for the Mayor? 1 hr No 2 golf carts 329
Trump Tops GOP 1 hr Appalled 8
Why Won't Turner Disclose His Campaign Stash? 1 hr Lockport 14
News Drunken Man Runs Over 3 in Briggs Street Rodeo ... 1 hr Astronaut Yellowh... 21
Baby Part Trafficing 2 hr Appalled 47
Only a Corporate Republican would do this! 2 hr Astronaut Yellowh... 20
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Joliet Mortgages