• TootSweet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    157
    ·
    10 months ago

    If a senator’s honor is impugned by another senator to the point that it is beyond repair and in order for the offended senator to gain satisfaction, such senator may rectify the perceived insult to the senator’s honor by challenging the offending senator to a duel.

    The Republican who introduced this bill did so because his feelings were hurt. Wait, who are the snowflakes again?

    • Neato@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      And what happens when the Democrat tells him to fuck off?

      The first rule of dueling was that a challenge to duel between two gentleman could not generally be refused without the loss of face and honor

      “lol” said the Democrat, “lmao”.

      • OneCardboardBox@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        In truth, there were several reasons that one could decline a duel without loss of honor. For example if the duel challenge was issued with obvious quarrelous intent.

        Eg:

        “You’re a liar”

        “No I’m not. What are you talking about?”

        “Ah, so you deny being a liar?”

        “Yes, wtf are you getting at?”

        “Then by your denial, you accuse me of being a liar! This insult shall not stand. I demand satisfaction.”

        “Lol, fuck off”

        Another case would be if one duelist was not of sufficient station to match the honor of their opponent. A freshly-minted bourgeoisie vs a nobleman, for example.

        Lastly, duels might be turned down if it were obvious to all that that a significant skill mismatch were at play. For example, a military officer might not be allowed to duel a civilian with sabres. Guns, however, were generally considered more egalitarian.

        • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          To be fair only because pistols at the time were so innacurate that even the worlds best shot wouldn’t have been able to garauntee a hit. Modern pistols would be a different story.

  • magnetosphere@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    98
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    Politicians want to harm each other directly instead of harming millions indirectly? Fuck it, let em.

    • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      10 months ago

      More like they want to kill democrat or further left opponents we the people of the cities in Missouri (STL&KC) put up against them with impunity. They’ll just claim a duel was called and murder them

      • Thrashy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        In this case, it’s internecine conflict between the ordinary-grade-batshit Republicans that make up the majority of the Senate, and the weapons-grade-batshit Freedom Caucus weirdos who’ve been behaving with the sort of decorum and respect for good governance that we’ve all come to know and love from their fellow travelers in the national party, and I for one say we should let them fight.

      • Takios@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        It won’t be an “instead” though. Duelling will be used to get rid of those rare politicians that actually want to help people or improve the system.

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I can’t wait to see some senatorial rapier duels.

      Actually, scratch that, I want to see some senatorial molitov cocktail duels!

      Jason Mendoza said it best “just throw a molitov cocktail and then bang, right away, you have a different problem!”

  • HocEnimVeni@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    103
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    10 months ago

    Alexander Hamilton called out Aaron Burr for defrauding new york city and died in a duel as a result. Aaron Burr was justified having won the duel and used the money to start J.P. Morgan bank and now we all have to pay $30 for being $0.01 overdrawn.

      • Zorque@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        If it ever actually got used, it’d be bad guys killing good guys (yes, they exist despite boomer level “All government is bad” bullshit) instead.

        • Neato@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          10 months ago

          You can refuse a duel. If the other person persists, it’s straight murder. The penalty for refusing a duel is loss of “honor”. Which you can’t really lose if your opponent is challenging you to a fucking duel in 2024.

      • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s almost guaranteed that they’ll be calling duels only against the democrats we in STL or KC send to the state government. They probably won’t even bother trying to get witnesses to attest a duel was agreed by both sides, they’ll just murder Cori Bush or others for existing and claim a duel was called, then get away with it.

      • Neato@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Dueling is barbaric and can often start blood feuds: a cycle of violence. It’s also a bad way to settle a dispute. The person best at shooting others has no correlation to how well their position was or whether the fault or insult should stand. Also killing for an insult is juvenile. There’s lots of other real reasons history outlawed it, as well.

        • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          By the end of dueling, people weren’t even shooting at each other. It’s braver to be shot at and the point of dueling is to appear brave. They would fire into the air as if they were saying “I’m so brave I’m not going to shoot at you”. It was dumb, so we stopped the charade.

          • owenfromcanada@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            The duelers get to pick their weapons. Nothing in the rules says you can’t fight to the death with dildos.

  • FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I want to see two senators duel with a couple of trout as weapons, whoever gets knocked down first loses.

    No shoving, the knockdown must be accomplished with the trout and the trout alone.

    Just two grown adults slapping each other with fish.

    • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      Guarantee it’s just Jeff co fascists wanting to kill the politicians voted forth by those of us in STL or KC. I’d bet $100 they’ll kill a democrat and claim a duel was called but there will be no witnesses from both sides to back it up.

      Well I would bet but Missouri has fucking archaic gambling laws thanks to these fuckheads.

      • w3dd1e@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s weird. When I moved from KS to MO, MO was less crazy but now that I’m here it feels like KS is calming down and MO is now losing its shit with all this stupidity.

        Am I the problem?

        (I know KS isn’t perfect either but they just seem less bananas, lately; with the gambling and abortions and what not)

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      “If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you,”

      Senator Graham

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Wait, I don’t think that’s what he meant when he said he wanted to swordfight other guys.