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.
Originally posted by kro32
The legitimate problem was the States outright banning firearms in all forms.
This law fixed that problem and no State can do that anymore.
Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by mnemeth1
I know of no State where guns are banned and the second amendment says nothing about restricting or regulating them. Only that you may own them.
That's another debate however but regardless I met your criteria for a very loaded question.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Minarets and tall buildings are a problem?
To me it looks like those laws are creating problems, not solving them.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Minarets and tall buildings are a problem?
To me it looks like those laws are creating problems, not solving them.
Well, that rather depends on who you ask !
You never stipulated that you had to personally agree with the problem in your challenge. To me, it seems like you're just moving the goalposts which turns your challenge into a completely loaded question.
Oh yeah, tall buildings can be very dangerous, especially in 13th-century Italy. Just look at the 180-foot Leaning Tower of Pisa.
edit on 12-8-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by mnemeth1
I'm not moving the goal post, I'm trying to get at the underlying problems those laws were designed to address.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
The problem in Florence wasn't tall buildings, it was shoddy/dangerous architecture.
Did that law solve the problem of shoddy/dangerous buildings?
Of course not.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Un-swiss looking buildings isn't a "problem".
It is racism, bigotry, nationalism, etc.. etc.. rearing its ugly head.
I don't think it takes a brain surgeon to see this.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
For example, it could be argued that slavery solved the problem of getting cotton picked.
Clearly this is not a valid way of solving a "problem" faced by humanity.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
But I do concede that my question is subjective, so I suppose my challenge can't really be proved or disproved.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
I updated my rules to clarify situations like this.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
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.
There have reportedly been at least thirteen fires on the Cuyahoga River, the first occurring in 1868.[12] The largest river fire in 1952 caused over $1 million in damage to boats and a riverfront office building.[13] Fires erupted on the river several more times before June 22, 1969, when a river fire captured the attention of Time magazine, which described the Cuyahoga as the river that "oozes rather than flows" and in which a person "does not drown but decays."[14]
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.
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
Originally posted by Aggie Man
Laws are not meant to solve problems, only to curb them. Their purpose is to denote unacceptable actions and provide a legal basis for punishing those that break them.
On a side note...i'll play along....Roe v. Wade has literally solved millions of "problems".edit on 12-8-2011 by Aggie Man because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by kro32
There was no existing law. Beforehand it was assumed individuals had the right to own firearms. Not a Law however as the Supreme Court had not ruled on the second amendment's relevance to the State yet.
When the District of Columbia passed a law outlawing firearms the law did not go into effect but went into the court system until the Supreme Court decided on it.
This law now instead of prohibiting firearms is instead the case that says States do not have the power to forbid people from owning firearms.
So there was no existing law that this case overruled.