It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Challenge: Name a Single Law That Has Solved A Problem

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Any law, from any period of time, in any country, for any particular problem.

For example, state the following:

"Law ______ has solved the problem of _______ ; therefore, that problem no longer exists."

Laws that repeal old laws don't count.

Laws that are redundant don't count.

For example, it is redundant to have a law that grants the carry of weapons if there are no laws that prohibit it in the first place. It's not solving any problems other than stopping the government from creating problems by creating needless legislation.

Problems must be the underlying problem the law was designed to address. For example, seat belt laws are designed to solve the problem of people dying or being injured in car crashes. Gun laws are designed to solve incidents of murder and robbery. Put another way, if violent crime did not exist, gun laws would be pointless and therefore fall under the redundant rule.




edit on 12-8-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
District of Columbia vs. Heller

The District of Columbia said people could not own firearms and the case went to the Supreme Court who said that actually people could own firearms.

This law solved the problem of not allowing firearms which is guaranteed under the second amendment.

Any other questions?



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Any law, from any period of time, in any country, for any particular problem.

For example, state the following:

"Law ______ has solved the problem of _______ ; therefore, that problem no longer exists."

Laws that repeal old laws don't count.



oi oi oi!



i was just about to get some sleep, untill i clicked this thread.

went a little something like this:

must....not..... *click*

AAAH.

i don't like challenges where i can't find an answer to, now you're depriving me of my sleep


i'll take your challenge and start digging


SnF



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Law of gravity has solved the problem of people flying; therefore, that problem no longer exists.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
District of Columbia vs. Heller

The District of Columbia said people could not own firearms and the case went to the Supreme Court who said that actually people could own firearms.

This law solved the problem of not allowing firearms which is guaranteed under the second amendment.

Any other questions?


yeah 1.

so you're assuming that everyone see 'not having the right to own a firearm' as a problem?

nice generalisation


challenge still stands imo



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by kn0wh0w
 


How the hell can your challenge still stand when I answered it with a correct law. Just because I blew up your thread in the first five minutes is no reason to change the rules.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
Law of gravity has solved the problem of people flying; therefore, that problem no longer exists.


there where a lot more obstacles to overcome to achieve flight than mastering the laws of gravity.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by kn0wh0w
 


How the hell can your challenge still stand when I answered it with a correct law. Just because I blew up your thread in the first five minutes is no reason to change the rules.


hahahaha that is great.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
District of Columbia vs. Heller

The District of Columbia said people could not own firearms and the case went to the Supreme Court who said that actually people could own firearms.

This law solved the problem of not allowing firearms which is guaranteed under the second amendment.

Any other questions?


Laws that repeal existing laws don't count.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Well, in Texas, they passed a law that puts a maximum limit to how much can be awarded on non-economic damages. That seemed to help reduce frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits.

The law to allow for the concealed carry of handguns in Texas seems to have reduced the number of crimes involving firearms.

Also, in Texas, the death penalty, when performed seems to correlate with a temporary drop in capital crimes.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Any law, from any period of time, in any country, for any particular problem.

For example, state the following:

"Law ______ has solved the problem of _______ ; therefore, that problem no longer exists."

Laws that repeal old laws don't count.



Law of having to stop at traffic lights has solved the problem of the slower four-way stop sign; therefore, that problem no longer exists.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Laws were not meant to 'solve' a problem, they were produced to protect a people form those who would do others harm.

But I will name one.

The death penalty solves a problem. If we have a recidivist killer, he dies... end of problem.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by davidchin
Well, in Texas, they passed a law that puts a maximum limit to how much can be awarded on non-economic damages. That seemed to help reduce frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits.

The law to allow for the concealed carry of handguns in Texas seems to have reduced the number of crimes involving firearms.

Also, in Texas, the death penalty, when performed seems to correlate with a temporary drop in capital crimes.


granting concealed carry is repealing laws that prohibited it in the first place.

Tort reform though, hmm.... that's a tough one.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by kn0wh0w

Originally posted by kro32
District of Columbia vs. Heller

The District of Columbia said people could not own firearms and the case went to the Supreme Court who said that actually people could own firearms.

This law solved the problem of not allowing firearms which is guaranteed under the second amendment.

Any other questions?


yeah 1.

so you're assuming that everyone see 'not having the right to own a firearm' as a problem?

nice generalisation


challenge still stands imo


Challenge does not stand....The problem was that our second amendment right was being violated.... This law,fixed that problem.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


It didn't repeal any laws in fact it set the precedent. The second amendment was the last amendment that had not been applied to States yet and this case did that.

This issue had never come before the Supreme Court and as such they had to establish the law.

you lose

Specific law, specific problem solved



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by kn0wh0w
 


How the hell can your challenge still stand when I answered it with a correct law. Just because I blew up your thread in the first five minutes is no reason to change the rules.


it's not even my thread...

seriously whatsup with your attitude?

i believe you never responded in a normal manner.

and in fact it didn't change anything because the right to a firearm is garantueed by the constitution in the first place, right?



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by daggyz
Laws were not meant to 'solve' a problem, they were produced to protect a people form those who would do others harm.

But I will name one.

The death penalty solves a problem. If we have a recidivist killer, he dies... end of problem.


Murder is the problem, but the death penalty does not solve that problem.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
School buses used to often get hit by trains when crossing tracks. They made a law requiring school buses to stop at tracks and ensure there is no approaching train. Since then many fewer train vs bus accidents have occurred.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


It didn't repeal any laws in fact it set the precedent. The second amendment was the last amendment that had not been applied to States yet and this case did that.

This issue had never come before the Supreme Court and as such they had to establish the law.

you lose

Specific law, specific problem solved


If there were no laws prohibiting the carrying or owning of weapons in the first place, laws that grant the carry or owning of weapons would not be necessary.

Thus, any law that grants the carrying of weapons is over-riding existing laws that prohibited it in the first place.

This is "repealing" an existing law.

I suppose I should add "redundant" to my list of qualifications.

For example, it is redundant to have a law that grants the carry of weapons if there are no laws that prohibit it in the first place. It's not solving any problems.


edit on 12-8-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by kn0wh0w

Originally posted by kro32
District of Columbia vs. Heller

The District of Columbia said people could not own firearms and the case went to the Supreme Court who said that actually people could own firearms.

This law solved the problem of not allowing firearms which is guaranteed under the second amendment.

Any other questions?


yeah 1.

so you're assuming that everyone see 'not having the right to own a firearm' as a problem?

nice generalisation


challenge still stands imo


Challenge does not stand....The problem was that our second amendment right was being violated.... This law,fixed that problem.


i stand corrected


at least you don't have to be a total douche about it.

have a nice one mate




top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join