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: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Theorytripper
 

but, but .. what ever happened to the best 'code' of all ???
Do unto others ... blah, blah, blah ??
something tells me that laws were created to abolish common sense.




posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The amendments freed the slaves and women.

That's all I can think of.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


But what defines common sence. If there is no legal frame work of what we agree upon as a group, common sence can mean any number of things to each individual. That's the problem in overcomes, it gives everyone the frame work, the rules of the game.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   
no one born in Africa can be elected president...oh,wait...never mind



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Sphota
 

i'm guessing you don't watch much historical battles via movies, television or theatre
swords have been used for centuries for Multiple killing sprees ... one sword, many deaths.


Yes, I suppose if two men are standing one behind the other and a third lunges in with a very long sword, he could pierce two to the heart, knocking them dead. What I mean by one person at a time is literally one person at a time. In the instant I kill one person with a sword, I cannot be killing another. In the instant one bullet is fired at a target, I cannot be firing at another.

On the contrary, 1 bomb can kill hundreds of people - make it a nuke and you're talking at least several thousand. One machine gun can cut down dozens of people in a few seconds. Arguably, yes, bullet by bullet is still the norm even for a machine gun, but not exactly the "point, click, your dead" of so-called conventional guns.


and, your entire argument (pointless as it is) is based on the Second Amemdment being interpreted as a stand alone law in need of interpretation and that is not the case, not at all.


I really don't see how it's pointless, if you would like to spell that out, I would be happy to address your concerns.

How so, not "in need of interpretation"? Everything is in need of interpretation. If I say to you, "It's hot in here", would you know interpret something - namely a suggestion to open a window or turn on the a/c? If someone told you that "The store closes at 8pm", do you not need to interpret what store and why it is relevant to you?

When someone says freedom of the press, are you not supposed to interpret what that means...namely, The print media - and now electronic and tech media - need to be unhindered (as opposed to say, the "printing press itself is free", or "pressing oil out of olives should be free" or some other such ridiculous interpretation)? What about freedom itself, freedom to or freedom from? How you interpret that is very important for setting a precedent to interpreting freedom in every context. The list goes on and on, but I challenge you to find anything in life that doesn't require interpretation, especially in governance and law.



btw, the commas are NOT included in the original Ratified amendment ...their origin is unknown.


I'm pretty sure that I said that the ratified amendment did not have those two commas. In fact, I know I said at least twice that the Ratification by the states did not contain them. I said the version from Congress did.



i would suggest a more factual resource such as this one ... source

3. In the Congressional Statutes at Large, Vol. 1, Page 97, at memory.loc.gov.../llsl001.db&recNum=220, the first and third commas are omitted, so that it reads:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

The question remains open of where those additional, and grammatically spurious, commas came from, but they do not change the legal meaning of the provision, and it would not be erroneous to omit them.

all that is left is for the people to read and understand the original ... rather the re-writes.
edit on 13-8-2011 by Honor93 because: add txt

edit on 13-8-2011 by Honor93 because: (no reason given)


The foot note says it becomes a question as to where the "grammatically spurious" commas came from. It doesn't matter. They were put there and as I said, commas serve a function in text that is interpreted. With a comma something sounds one way, without the comma it sounds another. For them to simply brush off the commas in the unratified version is a bit confusing. I mean, they (the person who wrote the foot notes) can brush them off as nothing important and a curiosity, but when you put a comma in a phrase, there is use and meaning to it.

You can call what I say mindless or meaningless or pointless, but I feel that the absence of the two commas creates a different understanding of the passage than the presence of them.

The regulation of guns is not implied or omitted - simply not addressed - in the multi-comma version. In the single comma version, the implication is that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". In the multi-comma version it is clearly "the well regulated militia" that "shall not be infringed." You can at least agree with me that the presence of the commas, purposeful or accidental, does change the reading of the sentence.

This is a major difference. Again, the person who wrote the footnote seems to think it's nothing important. Who am I to disagree? They're probably a constitutional scholar, which I am not. But that doesn't make them a linguist, who is also qualified to give his opinion on a matter involving language usage.

I admit I got stuck on the 2nd amendment because of the people who brought it up. We can go after case law, instead if someone wants to suggest one.

EDIT: I have to make one thing very clear. I'm neither for nor against a conservative interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I simply want to explain that there is another way to understand it. Even in the single comma version, the implication is that well regulated militias are involved in the keeping and bearing of arms - with the understanding that a person with a firearm would be involved in a militia. And to add, wasn't there a law on the books back before the war of 1812 that mandated every able bodied man carry a musket, a certain amount of powder and bullets. I mean, that is a law affecting a person's right to bear arms, in that that person does not have the right to not bear arms.
edit on 13-8-2011 by Sphota because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
birth registration law

we must register our children and therefore are owned by the state and subject to its laws.

look up the word registration, it means giving ownership. The state can take your (im mean) their property.

problem solved we are all slaves to the state.
edit on 13-8-2011 by Scott495 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Originally posted by Sphota
reply to post by Sphota
 


Yes, I suppose if two men are standing one behind the other and a third lunges in with a very long sword, he could pierce two to the heart, knocking them dead. What I mean by one person at a time is literally one person at a time. In the instant I kill one person with a sword, I cannot be killing another. In the instant one bullet is fired at a target, I cannot be firing at another.

On the contrary, 1 bomb can kill hundreds of people - make it a nuke and you're talking at least several thousand. One machine gun can cut down dozens of people in a few seconds. Arguably, yes, bullet by bullet is still the norm even for a machine gun, but not exactly the "point, click, your dead" of so-called conventional guns.
ok, i get it ... you don't like guns but truthfully, who does ?? (ok, maybe some diehard hunters but there are other effective ways).
I don't like guns either and i used to be decidedly against them in every way but then reality kicked in and they have become a necessity rather option.
But, this discussion is about the right to exercise that option in whatever manner i deem appropriate and that is the 'guarantee' provided in the Second Amendment, regardless of where the commas are located.


I really don't see how it's pointless, if you would like to spell that out, I would be happy to address your concerns.
Pointless because you are dissecting a none existent point. The original does not have the excess commas. Time, history, historians, pick somebody as for who and how it was changed, it really is irrelevant as the declaration and it's intention is quite clear and direct.


How so, not "in need of interpretation"? Everything is in need of interpretation. If I say to you, "It's hot in here", would you know interpret something - namely a suggestion to open a window or turn on the a/c? If someone told you that "The store closes at 8pm", do you not need to interpret what store and why it is relevant to you?
now you're trying to confuse the issue. what you describe is a) a declaration and b) an implied request which do not go hand in hand.
While your declaration may prompt a response inclusive of a suggestion (to open window, a/c), the declaration needs no further interpretation.

In this, we'll have to agree to disagree. Perhaps english isn't your first language but it is mine and there is -0- ambivalence in the declaration provided in the Second Amendment.


When someone says freedom of the press, are you not supposed to interpret what that means...namely, The print media - and now electronic and tech media - need to be unhindered (as opposed to say, the "printing press itself is free", or "pressing oil out of olives should be free" or some other such ridiculous interpretation)? What about freedom itself, freedom to or freedom from? How you interpret that is very important for setting a precedent to interpreting freedom in every context. The list goes on and on, but I challenge you to find anything in life that doesn't require interpretation, especially in governance and law.
one cannot deem perception the same or equal to interpretation. Freedom Of the press means what it says, nothing else. No other interpretation applies.

Thanks but i deny your challenge as it is ambivalent.
I am not the person you wish to discuss freedoms with as mine have been trampled upon for many, many years, and is ongoing. The best example i can give you is this ... freedom for ALL is my desire but Your freedom ends at my nose, period. The rest is regulated by nature and common sense. Minus the money ... skill, talent, creativity, production, imagination and growth are a natural process merely needing nurtured not regulated.

Freedom is much more than a concept. It is more valuable than one's own breath. It shall be the joining force (so to speak) if there is any at all.

I'm pretty sure that I said that the ratified amendment did not have those two commas. In fact, I know I said at least twice that the Ratification by the states did not contain them. I said the version from Congress did.
ok, no one is arguing that but i linked the version on Congressional record so i don't see your point in discussing non-existent punctuation which does nothing to alter the context of the statement.

The foot note says it becomes a question as to where the "grammatically spurious" commas came from. It doesn't matter. They were put there and as I said, commas serve a function in text that is interpreted. With a comma something sounds one way, without the comma it sounds another. For them to simply brush off the commas in the unratified version is a bit confusing. I mean, they (the person who wrote the foot notes) can brush them off as nothing important and a curiosity, but when you put a comma in a phrase, there is use and meaning to it.
Regardless, what was ratified is what stands and there is no separation between State rights and rights belonging to the citizenry of the State. And why would you argue points of an UNratified document anyway?


You can call what I say mindless or meaningless or pointless, but I feel that the absence of the two commas creates a different understanding of the passage than the presence of them.
your feelings about it are irrelevant. It is what it is and it says what it says. why muddy the waters?


The regulation of guns is not implied or omitted
ummmm, then how do you define "unabridged" ?? and do you find regulations to be an abridgement of the guaranteed right contained therein ?


In the multi-comma version it is clearly "the well regulated militia" that "shall not be infringed." You can at least agree with me that the presence of the commas, purposeful or accidental, does change the reading of the sentence.
actually, i can't because even with the commas, it clearly implies the militia is the citizenry which infers they are one in the same. and the right of the militia IS equally the right of the ppl (who are the militia) comprende?



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Theorytripper
reply to post by Honor93
 


But what defines common sence. If there is no legal frame work of what we agree upon as a group, common sence can mean any number of things to each individual. That's the problem in overcomes, it gives everyone the frame work, the rules of the game.
only a fools attempt to define 'common sense' ... hence, government ... nuf said.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Jaywalking?



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Sphota
 


And to add, wasn't there a law on the books back before the war of 1812 that mandated every able bodied man carry a musket, a certain amount of powder and bullets. I mean, that is a law affecting a person's right to bear arms, in that that person does not have the right to not bear arms.
i wouldn't call it a 'law' (i'd have to check that) but it was listed as "duties of the citizenry" in documents prior to the Constitution. (Articles of Confederation, i think)

And, given that declaration to all the citizenry prior, why would they restrict it anytime later ... especially when contemplating the freedoms guaranteed to the INDIVIDUAL. Remember, the Constitution restricts government of the people, not the other way around.

edit on 14-8-2011 by Honor93 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   
-ponders child labor laws-

-stops pondering and moves on-



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Florida: A special law prohibits unmarried women from parachuting on Sunday or
she shall risk arrest, fine, and/or jailing.

This law helped keep women from parachuting on the Lord's day, while showing off their undercarriage to observers below. There was a previous Sunday upskirt parachuting pervert problem that has been eradicated.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Scopeless
 


lol i wouldnt call this a problem
actually why make a new law when all you have to do is make it requirment for woment to wear trousers when doing this? surely it doesnt include trousers?

jailing women for things men are guilty of is an absolute disgrace if you ask me!

and why is it ok for them to be married and do this oppose to being unmarried? whats the thinking?
edit on 14-8-2011 by Scott495 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   
The Malleus Maleficarum outlawed witches. Don't see any witches around. In all seriousness though, I believe my signature sums up the problem with laws.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   
The OP has asked a question that can never be resolved conclusively and I suspect he has a beef with a particular rule or law that has placed some restriction on him/her hence the question.

Laws are never going to stop people from doing the wrong thing but they will guide us towards a suitable punishment for the offender that commits a crime or offence.

There will always be someone who drinks and drives no matter what law you invoke.
There will always be someone who commits murder or theft or rape etc...

If we didn't have rules, regulations and laws imagine what anarchy you'd be living with?!!



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Theorytripper
 

but, but .. what ever happened to the best 'code' of all ???
Do unto others ... blah, blah, blah ??
something tells me that laws were created to abolish common sense.


Well, more likely to reinforce common sense.
Jails are full of scum that lack common sense...



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 01:27 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)

Court decisions do not create laws. They interpret laws, and they repeal unconstitutional laws. Judges do not have legislative power.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



There never has existed, and it is entirely safe to say that there never will exist, on this planet any organization of human society, any tribe or nation however rude, any aggregation of men however savage, that has not been more or less controlled by some recognized form of law. .


www.historyoflaw.info...

I see what you mean. It is difficult to find what you are asking for. I need to thank you for leading me to so much interesting information. Many things pertaining to law begin with the Code of Hammurabi. Some of those first laws were very strange. en.wikipedia.org...




One nearly complete example of the Code survives today, on a diorite stele in the shape of a huge index finger, (2.25 m or 7.4 ft tall) The Code is inscribed in the Akkadian language, using cuneiform script carved into the steel, today on display in the Louvre, in Paris.




posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by The Ghost Who Walks
 


they will guide us towards a suitable punishment for the offender that commits a crime or offence

so, you believe 'a suitable punishment' for abusing 5000 children for $$$$ is 28yrs jail time?
link

it's the ambiguity of it all. there is NO standard. not for the people, not for the criminals and certainly not for the victims. This must change if we are to make any progress forward.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   
The law that allows you an attorney even if you cannot afford one. We have zero defendants being put on trial without counsel now unless they want to rep themselves which is also their right.

Completely solved the problem of the 'accused' not being able to have the assistance of counsel for their defense.




top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join