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.

 

Should Duels be legal?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Ah, the good ol' days of Burr-Hamilton, bring'm back.It's a shame present day leaders tough talk now comes from behind the military/economic muscle at their disposal, rather than their personal willingness/boldness to settle the score face to face...think how much lives/time/money/resources it could save:

An Iraqi vice-president has proposed that Saddam Hussein and George W Bush should fight a duel to settle their differences.

Taha Yassin Ramadan suggested that United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan should referee the duel on neutral territory.

Mr Bush's spokesman Ari Fleischer rejected the idea saying, "there can be no serious response to an irresponsible statement like that".

Leader versus leader

"Bush wants to attack the whole [of] Iraq, the army and the infrastructure," the Iraqi vice-president said.

"The American president should specify a group, and we will specify a group and choose neutral ground with Kofi Annan as referee and use one weapon with a president against a president, a vice-president against a vice-president, and a minister against a minister in a duel."

news.bbc.co.uk...

Not to mention the pay per view revenue potential




posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vajrayana
Ah, the good ol' days of Burr-Hamilton, bring'm back.It's a shame present day leaders tough talk now comes from behind the military/economic muscle at their disposal, rather than their personal willingness/boldness to settle the score face to face...think how much lives/time/money/resources it could save:

An Iraqi vice-president has proposed that Saddam Hussein and George W Bush should fight a duel to settle their differences.

Taha Yassin Ramadan suggested that United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan should referee the duel on neutral territory.

Mr Bush's spokesman Ari Fleischer rejected the idea saying, "there can be no serious response to an irresponsible statement like that".

Leader versus leader

"Bush wants to attack the whole [of] Iraq, the army and the infrastructure," the Iraqi vice-president said.

"The American president should specify a group, and we will specify a group and choose neutral ground with Kofi Annan as referee and use one weapon with a president against a president, a vice-president against a vice-president, and a minister against a minister in a duel."

news.bbc.co.uk...

Not to mention the pay per view revenue potential



All joking aside, you are making some very good points.
Think of how often countries would actually go to war. But, now that I have thought about it. People would start electing Rambo for president
AAAAAAAAAA! There is no good answer is there
OK. We could make a weight limit in presidents to 120 pounds. That way, every one is on a level playing ground. But then that would require the NWO to come into effect. AAAAAAA here we go agian. I Give UP!



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 02:12 PM
link   

People would start electing Rambo for presidentAAAAAAAAAA! There is no good answer is there OK. We could make a weight limit in presidents to 120 pounds. That way, every one is on a level playing ground.


LOL...wishful thinking I know, ah if it could only be that simple...

As far as the Oil Wars saga it would never go down fairly: Darth Cheney & W Lietalker would be armed to the teeth like some futuristic Highlander fighting Saddam's doubles in Clone Wars II.
Yep, and Arnold the Barbarian would "Be Back" to play "Running Man II" reality style...



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 02:29 PM
link   
As a kid if two people had a beef with each other they'd drop the gloves and go at it. The winner won and that was that.

Now it seems that the loser comes back with friends, a knife, a gun and gets even "Can't have some punk showing me up" attitude.

I think dueling would lead to the same. The losers camp, regardless of a legal outcome, would come back to avenge them. Just a thought.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 03:06 PM
link   
If both parties are consentual in it, I do not see a problem since they both know the risks and what they are getting into. Its not like one party is forcing the offender or victim to fight to the death. Plus I don't think we a large number of people challenging others to duels. Duels are just an easier way to settle differances, except one party usually dies.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger

Originally posted by mwm1331
Well technically dueling is still legal in a few states, alabama off the top of my head.


Can you give some specifics on this? Do you still use pistoles?

He's lying(or grossly mistaken)!

dueling has been completely illegal( for all of america) since before he famous burr/hamilton duel.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by JediMaster
Duels are just an easier way to settle differances, except one party usually dies.


Duels would not have to be to the death. The offended party could chose the method, anything from boxing gloves to flame throwers...LOL

The offending party could just say no and the problem would be taken to court



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk

Duels would not have to be to the death.


Im tellin ya, A soft mat, body pads, head gear, and LETS GET IT ONNNNN!



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 01:00 PM
link   
I agree,

Sometimes nothing satisfies like sticking your boot up someones...well you know. I think a lot of court cases could be settled like this and could free up the system for more important issues



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger


This would be great for misdemeanors


Some ones dog crapping in your yard or your upstairs neighbors music to loud?


I have never heard of anything so absurd in my life.

Lets see upstairs neighbor complains about loud music and the weapon of choice for the duel is a gun.

Stereo owner manages to shoot first! Bang!!!!!! Upstairs Neighbor is dead.

Stereo owner turns it back on louder then ever, awaiting new upstairs neighbor.






posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

I have never heard of anything so absurd in my life.


Oh I am sure you have


Either party can refuse to duel and it doesnt have to be guns. Its also not something that would be done at the spur of the moment.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by shots

I have never heard of anything so absurd in my life.


Oh I am sure you have


Either party can refuse to duel and it doesnt have to be guns. Its also not something that would be done at the spur of the moment.



So lets it a sword, knife, baseball bat, whatever the end result is still death over a stupid stereo radio.

I prefer a common sense and legal approach. I or this neighbor call police you get sighted for disturbing the peace and a 250.00 fine and the neighbor gets a good nights sleep. Oh did I mention you also have to pay court costs.




posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:42 PM
link   
You know, if you had read the thread, you would realize that what Amuk and I have been alluding to was sparring in a ring, or taking a little fistacuffs outside. We are not saying that we want to murder someone, or even cause sever damage. We are just supporting consentual sparring between two disgruntelled individuals.

[edit on 12/14/04 by Kidfinger]



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
You know, if you had read the thread, you would realize that what Amuk and I have been alluding to was sparring in a ring, or taking a little fistacuffs outside. We are not saying that we want to murder someone, or even cause sever damage. We are just supporting consentual sparring between two disgruntelled individuals.

[edit on 12/14/04 by Kidfinger]


Excuse me with all do respect what are you talking about when you say WE? Take a close look several others made comments before you entered any comments. And No offece is meant I am simply trying to point out a few things to you, that you seem to have forgotten..............................

Here is what was stated in the very first post and YOUR NAME was not mentioned yet you now want to take credit for the first question asked. Why Is that? The question was not yours.................

Or are you assuming we are all mind readers and know you and Amuk are one and the same? I do not know but anything is possible.


Quoted text read

Being from the backwoods of Arkansas where we used to settle matters out of court if you catch my drift, I was wondering if allowing legal duels could be a way of cutting crime.

Just like the old days, the offended party would chose weapons, in that way THEY could determine how serious it got. Seconds or maybe a legal party could witness the process to determine that everything was legit. Duels were allowed for a long time in America and even longer in the South where it was on the sly. It would be a good way of saving the state money in Child molesting, Robberies, Rapes etc

What do yall think?

[edit on 8-12-2004 by Amuk]




[edit on 12/14/2004 by shots]

[edit on 12/14/2004 by shots]

[edit on 12/14/2004 by shots]



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Shots, I dont know if you havent read the entire thread, or what, but Amuk and I have been having a back and forth conversation about this since HE started the thread. I NEVER said it was my thread. I was simply stating that the ideas WE were convaying to each other were being misconstrued. Please check your coat at the door



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Shots, I dont know if you havent read the entire thread, or what, but Amuk and I have been having a back and forth conversation about this since HE started the thread. I NEVER said it was my thread. I was simply stating that the ideas WE were convaying to each other were being misconstrued. Please check your coat at the door


If you are talking this thread yes, I have and the very first post was

politics.abovetopsecret.com...

Kindly note no mention of you or any other thread. No Offence meant I am new to this forum and still learning, I can only base my replies to each post as they are made or where they are referenced too. In this case there were no referances nor were there any quotes.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 09:46 PM
link   
No problem
Just some general info. Some people tend to carry on many different conversations within long threads. In this instance, Amuk and I have been having our little back and forths. You will find this on most long threads. So, like I said, no problem



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Or are you assuming we are all mind readers and know you and Amuk are one and the same? I do not know but anything is possible.


Uh.....No


Let me clarify MY stand on the issue, the offended party is giving the choice of weapons and the offender has a right to just refuse and go on to court, no one would be forced to do anything.

I imagine most would be claims kinda like you said about the stereo and would be solved in a boxing ring, its doubtful that anyone would want to shoot it out over something that small and if they did the other man has a right to refuse.

If both thought they needed to kill the other party because of loud music than let them, the gene pool doesn't need idiots like that.

The MAIN thing to remember its ALL CONSENSUAL, no one is being forced to do anything



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 05:59 AM
link   
He's lying(or grossly mistaken)!

dueling has been completely illegal( for all of america) since before he famous burr/hamilton duel.

I am not lying nor was I mistaken as to the state. it is legal in alabama & mississippi though you have to go to the islands in the mississippi river to actually have the duel and I am sure that if a death or serious njury occured the authorities would find a way to prosecute you.

It is also still legal to duel on boston commons if the govenor is present

In addition the law against dueling in california was recently repealed during a purge of anachronistic laws.

The act of dueling is legal however the outcome of the duel (if death) would result in a felony charge, and if injury even if you an your opponent signed a waiver you could face a lawsuit.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join