Dueling as opposed to lawsuits...

[tod evans]

Seems as though two birds could be killed with the same stone...(pun intended)

Stop civil suits and give both parties a 6-shooter at 20 paces....no appeals court necessary...

20 cases settled a day instead of 10 per month...

Think of all the tax dollars saved.......Think of all the lawyers out of business.....Think how people might hesitate to file suit.....

[Kelly.]

do you have the right to take another life based on anything other then self defense?

[brushfire]

do you have the right to take another life based on anything other then self defense?

Its 2 consenting adults? Court, arbitration, duel... What's the difference?

Worked for Hamilton, right?

[Kelly.]

Its 2 consenting adults? Court, arbitration, duel... What's the difference?

Worked for Hamilton, right?
can you take a life without due process?

if so, you may consider a run for president ;)

[Icymudpuppy]

Not a good idea. Ultimately, it is "Might makes right". A conman who is a notorious cheat could consistently win by practicing his shooting skills.

[tod evans]

I've been mulling over how to halt some of the legislation and lawsuits by only repealing laws not enacting new ones.

Seems as though by repealing the law that outlaws dueling and repealing all the laws that permit civil suits lots of disagreements could be settled once and for all.

Those who oppose dueling could of course refrain from bickering and learn to get along.

Those left standing would be either lucky or a good shot.. both traits necessary to stand against the runaway criminal "just-us" system...

[azxd]

Think of how many people would be dead.

Late payment ... Bang !!!
Spilled milk ... Bang !!!

Yea, great idea !!! /sarcasm
Know someone you don't like, harrass them until they give into pressure ... Or shoot them, put the throw-down gun in their hand, claim it was a duel, and shoot anyone who saw what happened.
Better get a good supply of cheap guns ;) ;)

[tod evans]

Think of how many people would be dead.

Late payment ... Bang !!!
Spilled milk ... Bang !!!

Yea, great idea !!! /sarcasm
Know someone you don't like, harrass them until they give into pressure ... Or shoot them, put the throw-down gun in their hand, claim it was a duel, and shoot anyone who saw what happened.
Better get a good supply of cheap guns ;) ;)


Why not citizens too?

LEO can blast away with impunity...

We're a nation of warriors right? So let's thin the gene pool some...

Oh-wait........We're "peace-keepers".....yeah peace-keepers.

[fisharmor]

Cerebral Palsy
Rheumatoid Arthritis
Thalidomide
Amputation
Blindness
Old Age
Achondroplasia

Just a couple reasons why this idea is a little less than fair.....

[azxd]

Why not citizens too?

LEO can blast away with impunity...

We're a nation of warriors right? So let's thin the gene pool some...

Oh-wait........We're "peace-keepers".....yeah peace-keepers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEYR7Gw_uho

Do you actually want to kill someone ?

[Hyperion]

Bringing back dueling would be rather entertaining. I'm sure some legends would be created.

[azxd]

Bringing back dueling would be rather entertaining. I'm sure some legends would be created.
I always liked this guy.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C-fRdCmzDk

[KCIndy]

All challenges would be invalid unless and until both parties involved could agree to the terms of the duel. This would include the time, location, conditions, dress, and choice of weapons.

Personally, I would insist that anyone challenging me must be of clear understanding that we would be dueling nude on a cold wet muddy field using live squid for weapons.

:D

[kcchiefs6465]

Bringing back dueling would be rather entertaining. I'm sure some legends would be created.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym3PiN29VB0
Entertaining for who? Perhaps you aren't quite aware what a .454 will do when it hits flesh. Isn't as glamorous as the movies. (entertainment) Bob Munden could do whatever the hell he wants, in the OP scenario.

[azxd]

All challenges would be invalid unless and until both parties involved could agree to the terms of the duel. This would include the time, location, conditions, dress, and choice of weapons.

Personally, I would insist that anyone challenging me must be of clear understanding that we would be dueling nude on a cold wet muddy field using live squid for weapons.

:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p1OR-3xjfc
I'd be using a red dot ... Already got three of them :D

[azxd]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym3PiN29VB0
Entertaining for who? Perhaps you aren't quite aware what a .454 will do when it hits flesh. Isn't as glamorous as the movies. (entertainment) Bob Munden could do whatever the hell he wants, in the OP scenario.Got one ... I'll take any standard caliber semi-auto over that hand cannon (personal choice would be my G34 with 33 round magazines) ... See previous post.

[pcosmar]

It worked well when it was legal and practiced.

And though it might be abused by a few (very few) Their abuse would be quite short lived.

I am in favor of the idea.

[Danke]

Its 2 consenting adults? Court, arbitration, duel... What's the difference?

Worked for Hamilton, right?


Not very well...

[KCIndy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p1OR-3xjfc
I'd be using a red dot ... Already got three of them :D


Quit shooting my squid, dammit!



:D

[azxd]

It worked well when it was legal and practiced.

And though it might be abused by a few (very few) Their abuse would be quite short lived.

I am in favor of the idea.http://www.badhaven.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/knife-gun-fight.jpg

[kcchiefs6465]

Got one ... I'll take any standard caliber semi-auto over that hand cannon (personal choice would be my G34 with 33 round magazines) ... See previous post.
Me too. I love my G22.

[pcosmar]

Got one ... I'll take any standard caliber semi-auto over that hand cannon (personal choice would be my G34 with 33 round magazines) ... See previous post.

Really,,,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsLx5ISBXw4

My personal preference is a Single Six.

I would not feel at all under gunned with one in .45.

But then,, I had years of practice with black powder.
;)

[pcosmar]

http://www.badhaven.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/knife-gun-fight.jpg

:rolleyes:

I had a girl friend years back that carried a screwdriver in her purse.
She could sink it in your chest from across a room, in the blink of an eye.


Get good with what ya got.

[brushfire]

Not very well...

No, not too well at all.

Personally, I'd opt for the more "conventional" justice, myself.

[azxd]

Really,,,

My personal preference is a Single Six.

I would not feel at all under gunned with one in .45.

But then,, I had years of practice with black powder.
;)I take it you actually mean a revolver ... The Single Six is a Ruger 22 (typically) and has never been available in more than a 32 ;)

And YES, my G34 ... Damn fast and accurate with it.
Next in line would be my XD9.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS9uGktUCrY
It's the draw that matters.

[brushfire]

Really,,,


My personal preference is a Single Six.

I would not feel at all under gunned with one in .45.

But then,, I had years of practice with black powder.
;)

For a duel - revolver would be my choice, hands down. Heck, even a Ruger Blackhawk in 30 carbine.
For an all out gun fight, I'd opt for a reliable semi - if small caliber, give me lots of capacity. If short on capacity, make em big.

[TheTexan]

Cerebral Palsy
Rheumatoid Arthritis
Thalidomide
Amputation
Blindness
Old Age
Achondroplasia

Just a couple reasons why this idea is a little less than fair.....

Could let a champion fight your battles for ya... kinda like an attorney, but without the lying & cheating & infinite billed hours :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN30YMzja6Y

[Flugel89]

I'm not opposed to two consenting adults agreeing to a duel, done in a manner safe to others uninvolved.

The OPs idea of replacing all civil suits with duels is ridiculous.

However, if both parties agree to a duel, I don't see the problem.

[FindLiberty]

Since the camera is the new "gun"...

If "authorities" get to use their overt and covert cameras against us, the rest of us should be free to do likewise.

[TheTexan]

The OPs idea of replacing all civil suits with duels is ridiculous.

All civil suits? Ya, that's ridiculous. But if the escalation of arbitration is a duel to the death, I think they are more likely to be willing to work out an alternative arrangement amongst themselves.

As for "might is right"... that's how justice works. Any and all justice invariably comes down to that. Force. You can hide all that force behind juries & courts & the legal system, or any other anarchist legal system you may choose to devise, but at the end of the day... justice is force. Duels just skip the ceremony and get straight to the force.

[Flugel89]

All civil suits? Ya, that's ridiculous. But if the escalation of arbitration is a duel to the death, I think they are more likely to be willing to work out an alternative arrangement amongst themselves.

As for "might is right"... that's how justice works. Any and all justice invariably comes down to that. Force. You can hide all that force behind juries & courts & the legal system, or any other anarchist legal system you may choose to devise, but at the end of the day... justice is force. Duels just skip the ceremony and get straight to the force.

This is a great point. +Rep

[azxd]

The OPs idea of replacing all civil suits with duels is ridiculous.


All civil suits? Ya, that's ridiculous. But if the escalation of arbitration is a duel to the death, I think they are more likely to be willing to work out an alternative arrangement amongst themselves.

As for "might is right"... that's how justice works. Any and all justice invariably comes down to that. Force. You can hide all that force behind juries & courts & the legal system, or any other anarchist legal system you may choose to devise, but at the end of the day... justice is force. Duels just skip the ceremony and get straight to the force.I'm reminded of this :cool:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvlUURqF0Ts

[pcosmar]

I take it you actually mean a revolver ...

Single action, Six shooter..
Shootin' Iron

Yes the "Single Six" was one particular brand name..
I would be fine with any of the type,, and did carry one in Black Powder years back while on parole.

And learned to reload quickly (preloaded paper cartridges)

But I am confidant in my ability to first avoid confrontations,,to deescalate when appropriate. And my trust is in both God and my ability to place a ball where I want it..

I really don't see the need for massive firepower outside of full blown combat.

[Sam I am]

Seems as though two birds could be killed with the same stone...(pun intended)

Stop civil suits and give both parties a 6-shooter at 20 paces....no appeals court necessary...

20 cases settled a day instead of 10 per month...

Think of all the tax dollars saved.......Think of all the lawyers out of business.....Think how people might hesitate to file suit.....

So, If someone slashed your tiers, you think that an ideal system, would have you duel that person, (and maybe lose)

[pcosmar]

So, If someone slashed your tiers, you think that an ideal system, would have you duel that person, (and maybe lose)

NO.
You confront them and DEMAND they pay. And then you physically deliver them to the Sheriff for trial.

Dueling is another way to settle personal disputes and is mutually voluntary.

[tod evans]

So, If someone slashed your tiers, you think that an ideal system, would have you duel that person, (and maybe lose)

As things sit in the legal arena I certainly wouldn't sue over a set of tires.

Removing the temptation to to run to court over petty grievances and forcing the participants to either put-up or shut-up really doesn't sound like a bad idea.

We're pretty much all in agreement that there's too much government and the court system is government so if by repealing the laws that have permitted so much litigation we are left with duels to solve civil grievances what's the harm?

Stopping the cry to the government to settle problems is the goal.......So do you have a better idea?

[azxd]

Single action, Six shooter..
Shootin' Iron

Yes the "Single Six" was one particular brand name..
I would be fine with any of the type,, and did carry one in Black Powder years back while on parole.

And learned to reload quickly (preloaded paper cartridges)

But I am confidant in my ability to first avoid confrontations,,to deescalate when appropriate. And my trust is in both God and my ability to place a ball where I want it..

I really don't see the need for massive firepower outside of full blown combat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82h2hyM4DTM

I do ... It's fun to just spend some time with friends.

[Pericles]

No, not too well at all.

Personally, I'd opt for the more "conventional" justice, myself.

You always could - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Trial+by+combat

[kuckfeynes]

It takes one willing participant to murder, it takes two willing participants to duel. If two people are hot-headed enough that they both would rather risk their lives to rid the world of the other than go through market-based litigation, I say that's a win/win for the gene pool. Especially if those hotheads had political aspirations. Hamilton deserved his fate, and had Burr lost I would say the same of him. As long as it is clear that there were two consenting parties, I don't see why court should be involved. It's just like the Kevorkian argument, what business is it of yours to tell me when I can end my life and who can help me do so?

[pcosmar]

I do ... It's fun to just spend some time with friends.

:D

I meant as practical arm. I have a great appreciation for many firearms. For historical, esthetic and innovative reasons.
But, I like Single Action revolvers. I also like 1911s.

My favorite rifles growing up were a pump .22 and a 303 Brit,, though I shot many others.
I did like my K38, but it was a bit heavy.

Freedom of choice,,gotta love it.
;)

[tod evans]

It takes one willing participant to murder, it takes two willing participants to duel. If two people are hot-headed enough that they both would rather risk their lives to rid the world of the other than go through market-based litigation, I say that's a win/win for the gene pool. Especially if those hotheads had political aspirations. Hamilton deserved his fate, and had Burr lost I would say the same of him. As long as it is clear that there were two consenting parties, I don't see why court should be involved. It's just like the Kevorkian argument, what business is it of yours to tell me when I can end my life and who can help me do so?

But in the current court system both people aren't required to acquiescence to a hearing, the plaintiff subpoenas the respondent and off ya` go.

If that option was no longer available then what?

[edit]

Crying for less government without offering real options is just crying.

[azxd]

:D

I meant as practical arm. I have a great appreciation for many firearms. For historical, esthetic and innovative reasons.
But, I like Single Action revolvers. I also like 1911s.

My favorite rifles growing up were a pump .22 and a 303 Brit,, though I shot many others.
I did like my K38, but it was a bit heavy.

Freedom of choice,,gotta love it.
;)I hear ya, but do prefer a double stack semi-auto as a defensive carry weapon.

When adreneline is pumping, I want the extra rounds which will hopefully never be needed.

Rifles ... Saving up for a 308 on a Rem 700 action with a Kreiger barrel in a McMillian stock.
Always wanted to get into some take your time +1000 yard stuff

ETA:
PM me if you ever come to Arizona.
I'll let ya pull some triggers ;)

[Sam I am]

Let's say there are 2 people having a dispute.

Person A is adamant about settling disputes through some sort of arbitration.

Person B is adamant about settling disputes through dueling.

How does this sub-dispute get handled.

[flynn]

Han Solo vs Clint? LOL

[azxd]

Let's say there are 2 people having a dispute.

Person A is adamant about settling disputes through some sort of arbitration.

Person B is adamant about settling disputes through dueling.

How does this sub-dispute get handled.With a BANG

[tod evans]

Let's say there are 2 people having a dispute.

Person A is adamant about settling disputes through some sort of arbitration.

Person B is adamant about settling disputes through dueling.

How does this sub-dispute get handled.

Party B played the trump card........put-up or shut-up is A's option

Offer a "less government" alternative?


[edit]

Crying for less government without offering real options is just crying.

[kcchiefs6465]

Let's say there are 2 people having a dispute.

Person A is adamant about settling disputes through some sort of arbitration.

Person B is adamant about settling disputes through dueling.

How does this sub-dispute get handled.
Perhaps a duel is in order?

[kcchiefs6465]

Party B played the trump card........put-up or shut-up is A's option

Offer a "less government" alternative?
This provides justice how? I think the criminal constantly honing his skills would be "trumping" a lot. What if person A is of a certain religion that forbids taking life? They just put up and shut up, huh? Half of America would be "putting up" with those who have no qualms about taking life. You are normally pretty reasonable Tod. But this? Perhaps this thread was just started because of frustration with our legal system? Dueling is hardly the answer though.

[Sam I am]

Party B played the trump card........put-up or shut-up is A's option

Offer a "less government" alternative?


[edit]

Crying for less government without offering real options is just crying.


With a BANG


Perhaps a duel is in order?

So... Are you three saying that you don't really need mutual consent to settle by duel after all?

[tod evans]

This provides justice how? I think the criminal constantly honing his skills would be "trumping" a lot. What if person A is of a certain religion that forbids taking life? They just put up and shut up, huh? Half of America would be "putting up" with those who have no qualms about taking life. You are normally pretty reasonable Tod. But this? Perhaps this thread was just started because of frustration with our legal system? Dueling is hardly the answer though.

Of course I started it to stir the pot;)

And yes I'm thoroughly frustrated....

[kcchiefs6465]

So... Are you three saying that you don't really need mutual consent to settle by duel after all?
Just a little bit of sarcasm. Of course you can't settle whether or not to duel with a duel. If two consenting adults want to duel, in the saftey of a bomb range for example, by all means, let them duel. In modern times this would never happen.

[azxd]

So... Are you three saying that you don't really need mutual consent to settle by duel after all?All you would need is a lack of witnesses.

[pcosmar]

All you would need is a lack of witnesses.

Witnesses are required.
For your entertainment and education.
http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/education/dueling/origins.asp
Code Duello
http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/education/dueling/CodeDuello.pdf
THE CODE OF HONOR
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/6085/6085-h/6085-h.htm


Originally this was published by the author (1784-1849), a former governor of South Carolina, as a 22-page booklet, in 1838. Before his death he added an appendix of the 1777 Irish duelling code, but this second edition was not printed until 1858, as a 46-page small book, still sized to fit in the case with one's duelling pistols. This code is far less blood-thirsty than many might suppose, but built on a closed social caste and standards of behavior quite alien to today.

[tod evans]

Witnesses are required.
For your entertainment and education.
http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/education/dueling/origins.asp
Code Duello
http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/education/dueling/CodeDuello.pdf
THE CODE OF HONOR
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/6085/6085-h/6085-h.htm


+rep

[azxd]

A lack of truthful witnesses, then :D

[kcchiefs6465]

Witnesses are required.
For your entertainment and education.
http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/education/dueling/origins.asp
Code Duello
http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/education/dueling/CodeDuello.pdf
THE CODE OF HONOR
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/6085/6085-h/6085-h.htm
With all due respect, times have changed. You would be hard-pressed to find someone to adhere to the rules, let alone actually accept the challenge. While I could find myself on the side of; if they feel the situation is so offensive to said parties that one of them must go, by all means, duel. However, the OP is impractical. We would still settle 99.99% of the cases in court.

[ProIndividual]

And the anarchists here are called crazy?

http://www.toplessrobot.com/Stiles.jpg

I haven't seen any of us propose dueling to replace lawsuits, that I know of.

[Vanilluxe]

Instead of having old fashion duels we should use these mechas:

http://kofler.dot.at/40k/units/Mechanicus_Reaver_Titan.jpg

OR something that won't really kill the other person.

[tod evans]

Well I suppose it's a good thing to be called "nutty".........

A simple google search over coffee gave me this site (http://artofmanliness.com/2010/03/30/famous-duels-from-american-history/)...........I enjoyed the read.



The United States currently finds itself in a rancorous political moment, with partisan name-calling on the one hand and much hand-wringing about the classless nature of the debate on the other. Those in the latter camp seem to think that politics has devolved from an unspecified golden age in which politicians sipped tea and talked about their issues with solemn decorum.

In truth, politics has always been a rowdy arena, and if one looks to our founding period for a bastion of politeness, they will not find it there.

“Men in public life called each other, not just the traditional ‘liar,’ ‘poltroon,’ ‘coward,’ and ‘puppy,’ but also ‘fornicator,’ ‘madman,’ and ‘bastard;’ they accused each other of incest, treason, and consorting with the devil.” -Gentlemen’s Blood: A History of Dueling

Political tensions ran especially high in the 19th century because men found it difficult to separate political disagreement from personal insults:

“In our early years a man’s political opinions were inseparable from the self, from personal character and reputation, and as central to his honor as a seventeenth-century Frenchman’s courage was to his. He called his opinions “principles,” and he was willing, almost eager, to die or to kill for them. Joanne B. Freeman, in Affairs of Honor, writes that dueling politcos ‘were men of public duty and private ambition who identified so closely with their public roles that they often could not distinguish between their identity as gentlemen and their status as political leaders. Longtime political opponents almost expected duels, for there was no way that constant opposition to a man’s political career could leave his personal identity unaffected.’” -GB

Refusing a challenge to duel would effectively end a man’s political career. Dueling proved to a man’s constituents that he had the requisite honor, courage, and leadership to represent them in Washington.

And thus you had governors and legislators, Congressman and judges squaring off not through bumper stickers and robo-calls, but on the field of honor. Here are a few of the most famous of these single combats in American history:
http://content.artofmanliness.com/uploads//2010/03/burr3.jpg

More here;
http://artofmanliness.com/2010/03/30/famous-duels-from-american-history/

[Danke]

In truth, politics has always been a rowdy arena, and if one looks to our founding period for a bastion of politeness, they will not find it there.

“Men in public life called each other, not just the traditional ‘liar,’ ‘poltroon,’ ‘coward,’ and ‘puppy,’ but also ‘fornicator,’ ‘madman,’ and ‘bastard;’ they accused each other of incest, treason, and consorting with the devil.” -Gentlemen’s Blood: A History of Dueling

Political tensions ran especially high in the 19th century because men found it difficult to separate political disagreement from personal insults:



That would break the rules and get you banned on this political forum...

[azxd]

Well I suppose it's a good thing to be called "nutty".........

A simple google search over coffee gave me this site (http://artofmanliness.com/2010/03/30/famous-duels-from-american-history/)...........I enjoyed the read.



The United States currently finds itself in a rancorous political moment, with partisan name-calling on the one hand and much hand-wringing about the classless nature of the debate on the other. Those in the latter camp seem to think that politics has devolved from an unspecified golden age in which politicians sipped tea and talked about their issues with solemn decorum.

In truth, politics has always been a rowdy arena, and if one looks to our founding period for a bastion of politeness, they will not find it there.

“Men in public life called each other, not just the traditional ‘liar,’ ‘poltroon,’ ‘coward,’ and ‘puppy,’ but also ‘fornicator,’ ‘madman,’ and ‘bastard;’ they accused each other of incest, treason, and consorting with the devil.” -Gentlemen’s Blood: A History of Dueling

Political tensions ran especially high in the 19th century because men found it difficult to separate political disagreement from personal insults:

“In our early years a man’s political opinions were inseparable from the self, from personal character and reputation, and as central to his honor as a seventeenth-century Frenchman’s courage was to his. He called his opinions “principles,” and he was willing, almost eager, to die or to kill for them. Joanne B. Freeman, in Affairs of Honor, writes that dueling politcos ‘were men of public duty and private ambition who identified so closely with their public roles that they often could not distinguish between their identity as gentlemen and their status as political leaders. Longtime political opponents almost expected duels, for there was no way that constant opposition to a man’s political career could leave his personal identity unaffected.’” -GB

Refusing a challenge to duel would effectively end a man’s political career. Dueling proved to a man’s constituents that he had the requisite honor, courage, and leadership to represent them in Washington.

And thus you had governors and legislators, Congressman and judges squaring off not through bumper stickers and robo-calls, but on the field of honor. Here are a few of the most famous of these single combats in American history:
http://content.artofmanliness.com/uploads//2010/03/burr3.jpg

More here;
http://artofmanliness.com/2010/03/30/famous-duels-from-american-history/This dueling idea, sure seems like you're trying to justify killing someone that you disagree with ... The problem is, todays society would just call it premeditated murder, and add an additional 5 years to your sentence :D

And this post makes it now sound like the intention is to find disagreement with a politician, or political perspective ... Hmmm.

It's not the 19th century ;)

[azxd]

Will the idea of settling political differences via the duel be the undoing of this thread ?

[tod evans]

This dueling idea, sure seems like you're trying to justify killing someone that you disagree with ... The problem is, todays society would just call it premeditated murder, and add an additional 5 years to your sentence :D

And this post makes it now sound like the intention is to find disagreement with a politician, or political perspective ... Hmmm.

It's not the 19th century ;)

Twice in this thread you have attributed "thoughts of murder" to me...

I ignored the first.....

Get off it!

I have no intention of dueling with or murdering anyone!

This thread was started, as I stated earlier, "to stir the pot".

Our ancestors had courage and dignity, they didn't hide and try to entice strangers into verbal infractions of any law.

[HOLLYWOOD]

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”
― Robert A. Heinlein (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/205.Robert_A_Heinlein)

[azxd]

Twice in this thread you have attributed "thoughts of murder" to me...

I ignored the first.....

Get off it!

I have no intention of dueling with or murdering anyone!

This thread was started, as I stated earlier, "to stir the pot".

Our ancestors had courage and dignity, they didn't hide and try to entice strangers into verbal infractions of any law.So what's your point ?

That our political leaders are a bunch of wussies for not calling each other out into the streets to shoot it out LOL
Or is it everybody who is a wussy because they don't go around shooting each other ?

Where is the honor in killing ?

[Pericles]

So what's your point ?

That our political leaders are a bunch of wussies for not calling each other out into the streets to shoot it out LOL
Or is it everybody who is a wussy because they don't go around shooting each other ?

Where is the honor in killing ?

It becomes too easy to hurl insult when one faces no consequences for doing so.

"People will write stuff in emails that they would never say to you face to face."

[azxd]

It becomes too easy to hurl insult when one faces no consequences for doing so.

"People will write stuff in emails that they would never say to you face to face."And ... A duel will keep them from sending that email ?
Give me a break !!!

Screw dueling ... If you feel so dishonored as to take weapon to offender ... Do the deed before the offense is finished.
Death before dishonor, and all that jazz ;)

[tod evans]

So what's your point ?


My point sir is that it is criminal to even voice threats of bodily harm so please don't even suggest as you have that my intention is to challenge anybody to a duel or as you queried yesterday;

Do you actually want to kill someone ?

I have no idea who you are in real life but let me be perfectly clear; The subject of dueling instead of civil lawsuits was only brought up for the sake of discussion.

[azxd]

My point sir is that it is criminal to even voice threats of bodily harm so please don't even suggest as you have that my intention is to challenge anybody to a duel or as you queried yesterday;


I have no idea who you are in real life but let me be perfectly clear; The subject of dueling instead of civil lawsuits was only brought up for the sake of discussion.Understood, and I think I just made my point perfectly clear about this in post #67.

[Origanalist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEYR7Gw_uho

Do you actually want to kill someone ?

//

[Origanalist]

All challenges would be invalid unless and until both parties involved could agree to the terms of the duel. This would include the time, location, conditions, dress, and choice of weapons.

Personally, I would insist that anyone challenging me must be of clear understanding that we would be dueling nude on a cold wet muddy field using live squid for weapons.

:D

But that was standard practice. Both sides agreed on the terms. Remember, a armed society is a polite society.

[Christian Liberty]

Cerebral Palsy
Rheumatoid Arthritis
Thalidomide
Amputation
Blindness
Old Age
Achondroplasia

Just a couple reasons why this idea is a little less than fair.....


I'm not necessarily condoning this, but why couldn't the free market provide professional duelists for hire?

[Origanalist]

Got one ... I'll take any standard caliber semi-auto over that hand cannon (personal choice would be my G34 with 33 round magazines) ... See previous post.

Remember, both parties agree to the terms.

[Origanalist]

Let's say there are 2 people having a dispute.

Person A is adamant about settling disputes through some sort of arbitration.

Person B is adamant about settling disputes through dueling.

How does this sub-dispute get handled.

Both parties must agree.

[Origanalist]

Witnesses are required.
For your entertainment and education.
http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/education/dueling/origins.asp
Code Duello
http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/education/dueling/CodeDuello.pdf
THE CODE OF HONOR
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/6085/6085-h/6085-h.htm

Out of rep.

[Origanalist]

With all due respect, times have changed. You would be hard-pressed to find someone to adhere to the rules, let alone actually accept the challenge. While I could find myself on the side of; if they feel the situation is so offensive to said parties that one of them must go, by all means, duel. However, the OP is impractical. We would still settle 99.99% of the cases in court.

Ya, well, fuck court. No offense.

[Origanalist]

And ... A duel will keep them from sending that email ?
Give me a break !!!

Screw dueling ... If you feel so dishonored as to take weapon to offender ... Do the deed before the offense is finished.
Death before dishonor, and all that jazz ;)

What does that mean? When I grew up, if you dishonored someone with your talk you could count on having to back up your proclamations.

[Origanalist]

I'm not necessarily condoning this, but why couldn't the free market provide professional duelists for hire?

Because the dispute was between two supposedly honorable men. That would be an act of cowardice.

[KEEF]

Maybe we should do something like this. Timed public defenses, and if you can't get your defense in the allotted time then...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftsE4GwEDtU
Heck it would be great for the next Presidential debates instead of a stupid buzzer or bell that everyone ignores.

[Origanalist]

Ok, so we have dueling threads. Shouldn't they be merged?

[Philhelm]

The only weapon of refinement that should be used during a duel is the sledgehammer.

[heavenlyboy34]

The only weapon of refinement that should be used during a duel is the sledgehammer.
Weapons (in duels) are for wimps. Learn to fight barehanded. :cool:

[Origanalist]

The only weapon of refinement that should be used during a duel is the sledgehammer.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hqyc37aOqT0

[Origanalist]

Weapons (in duels) are for wimps. Learn to fight barehanded. :cool:

If you're able you would probably win anyhow.

[heavenlyboy34]

If you're able you would probably win anyhow.
Damn straight. :) :cool:

[pcosmar]

Weapons (in duels) are for wimps. Learn to fight barehanded. :cool:

"God created man, Sam Colt made them equal."

A firearm is a great equalizer.

[Origanalist]

"God created man, Sam Colt made them equal."

A firearm is a great equalizer.

It's great in a conflict if you are using your god given abilities. However, I know people able to overcome that unaided by firearms. Great friends to have.

[heavenlyboy34]

"God created man, Sam Colt made them equal."

A firearm is a great equalizer.
This is why I added (in duels) in the post you quoted. :)