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: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
The legitimate problem was the States outright banning firearms in all forms.

This law fixed that problem and no State can do that anymore.




posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


no all firearms laws have not solved any problem they were supposedly design to stop.the only thing they do is declare government is the master and you are the servant



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   

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.


Yeah, that's not a legitimate problem.

That's a problem created because of the State.

But I'd like to add that the Second Amendment was ultimately unsuccessful at preventing the States from banning or restricting guns.


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



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 


LOL.


In response to the OP, every Law has solved a problem by creating a another one. In the end, Law is just like any other business where it only cares about cases which will make the most profit regardless of who has broken the law or not.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

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.


Sure it does.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In all states it is illegal to own a fully automatic weapon without a class 3 dealer license. This is a direct violation of the second amendment.

The second amendment doesn't say "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except for machine guns, guided missiles, tanks and all other military hardware."


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



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Laws are not expected to eradicate a particular type of crime, since no law can negate free will.

Laws are intended to deter crime and advise punishment for offenders.

The biggest problem so many existing laws have created is the huge potential for the misuse of law.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   

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)



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Laws don't solve problems. The problems that laws solve are for different numbers of people, not people as a whole.

Laws are put in place when politicians are not willing to come up with alternative ways to prevent the crimes/reasons their laws restrict/punish.

Every problem has a solution. Laws are just placeholders until that problem is solved.
edit on 12-8-2011 by LeTan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

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)


I'm not moving the goal post, I'm trying to get at the underlying problems those laws were designed to address.

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.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   

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.


The minaret ban in Switzerland addressed the majority of the public's problem with ''un-Swiss'' architectural additions to the skyline.

While I don't agree with the Swiss stance on minarets, the legislation has solved the ''problem'' of new minarets being built in the country.

For a conservative European country with a strong national identity, any measure which prohibits a potential dilution of their historical national bond, which has held strong for centuries, could be construed as a problem-solver.

Again, I'm not personally arguing the point of view above, but I'm merely looking at it from a different angle, which shows the subjective nature of what is deemed a ''problem'' and how that ''problem'' is deemed to be solved.

That is why I was earlier seeking clarification on your challenge, but, due to the subjectivity of problems and solutions, I am afraid that your challenge just enters a grey area of personal opinion, rather than an argument which could be solved by objectivity and rationality.


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.


The problem in Florence, I presume, was indeed tall buildings collapsing due to shoddy workmanship. Despite preceding Newtonian laws by over 400 years, it's just a physical reality that the taller the building which was built on unsolid foundations, the more likely it was to collapse.

The problem wasn't poor structural or architectural design per se, it was the consequential safety problems which occurred from the poor structural design of some of these tall buildings. ''Tall'' was obviously defined as the equivalent of 85-foot, so this law did solve the problem of shoddily designed 85-foot+ buildings collapsing, as the law required all buildings to be reduced to this new level.


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



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


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.

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.

But I do concede that my question is subjective, so I suppose my challenge can't really be proved or disproved.



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



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   

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.


I personally agree with you, but who are you or I to say what is a ''problem'' for the self-determining Swiss people ?

If I remember correctly, from some of your previous threads, you are an anarchist. Surely an outsider defining what is a problem and what isn't a problem, to an otherwise self-determining group of people, is the complete antithesis of anarchism in its purest form ?


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.


Again, who says that this isn't a solution to a problem ? As morally repugnant as slavery is, it's an idea which is based upon complete ( if inhumane ) common sense. A community uses ''second-class citizens'' or outsiders who are treated as lesser humans to do the essential production work for the community, which solves the community's problem of lack of productivity and 16-hour working days.


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.


That's fair enough.


One of the reasons why I also think that your challenge is a bit loaded, is because you haven't defined the criteria which constitutes a problem being ''solved''.

For example, Iceland have very strict gun-controls, including the legal prohibition of handguns. From what I have gleaned from researching online, Iceland ( who have a negligible annual murder rate anyway ) haven't had someone murdered with a handgun for at least 5 years. Does this mean that Iceland's problem of firearms murders has been solved by this legislation ?

Similarly, many other European countries with gun-control laws specifically outlaw the ownership of rocket-launches, mortars and other heavy weapons. Most of these countries haven't had any citizens possessing these weapons since their legislations passed. Does that indicate that the laws banning heavy weapons in these countries have solved the issue of the ownership and usage of these weapons ?

In the end, it looks like your challenge is going to require someone to do the impossible - prove a negative - to provide a successful answer.

But, I get it; I understand that was the entire premise of your thread.



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



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The law that says people should drive on the right side of the road.
Stops us from crashing into each other. I used to live in the USVI and everyone there drives on the left. It is helpful to have a law requiring everyone drive on either the one side or the other, since I think it saves lives in traffic.



edit on 13-8-2011 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I updated my rules to clarify situations like this.

Updating rules is not gonna solve any problem, that this thread is as funny as hell.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   

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.


Actually you shouldn't even have to think about Tort reform!
The frivoulous lawsuit is a business marketing campaign.
There are already some mechanisms in place, to prevent "frivoulous lawsuits"
They are called "Judge", "Court" and "Jury"

But for your challenge:
Burning rivers - Clean Water Act
en.wikipedia.org...


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]



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 

hey Kro, is your comprehension slipping tonight?
Redundant laws DON'T count ... see OPs quote ...

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.


In other words, IF DC had not created an improper / restrictive law, the subsequent Supreme case wouldn't exist and the Constitutionality of Article II remains fully intact and unchallenged.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 06:31 AM
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

But, you haven't indicated what problem was solved.
carrying guns isn't / wasn't the problem.
even you agree the State not recognizing the Constitutionality of said practice was the problem ... still unsolved today or CCWs wouldn't be required.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   

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)

People curb (recognize & address) problems, not laws.

And if you believe your second sentence, why are soooooo many ppl (politicians & the wealthy) exempt from same laws?

Roe vs Wade was nothing more than a path for the "" to get paid for activities that have existed for centuries.
Did the law eliminate "the problem" ... of course not. A doctor may have but the law didn't.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 06:44 AM
link   

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.

that's not true either ... there are plenty of citizens who are deemed "ineligible" to own a gun ... your straw is broken.

The Constitution did not create laws, man did.
The Constitution does not support laws, man does.
The Constitution protects and guarantees freedoms, no law does that.
and finally, the Constitution never needed "interpreted" ... man did.
Natures Law or Mans Law ??? I'll take my chances with nature every time.



new topics




 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join