On the contrary, it is our current system of allowing laws that are totally ambiguous that results in the poor situation we are in now. For example, the 2nd amendment is black and white. I have the right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringed. And yet how many laws are on the books making it an offense to bear arms?

  New rule: (forall ?X (implies (and (isa ?X USCitizen) \
 (locatedIn ?X UnitedStatesLegalJurisdiction)) (bearArms ?X)))
  - Rule 2 added.

  New rule: (thereExists ?X (isa ?X USCitizen) \
  (locatedIn ?X UnitedStatesLegalJurisdiction))
  - Rule 20 Added
  
  New rule: (implies (and (locatedIn ?X ?Y) (isa ?Y USState)) \
  (locatedIn ?X UnitedStatesLegalJurisdiction)) 
  - Rule 21 Added
  ...

  New rule: (isa California USState)
  -Rule 1850-342 Added

  ...

  New rule: >(forall ?Y (implies (locatedIn ?Y California) (not (bearArms ?Y)))
  - Error: New Rule #4422 conflicts with Rule #2

  Request Ruling:
  (locatedIn JamieBriant224112344 California)
  (bearArms JamieBriant22411234)
  - Data is consistent.

The problem with our legal system is that it is expected that it is ambiguous. Those in power tell us that it is good for the law to be ambiguous. Yet what are the results:

  1. You need a law degree to even practice - control.
  2. The government can selectively prosecute - corruption.
  3. Fear of losing, even when morally right.
  4. Everyone is a criminal.