Not sure if serious.DBBrinson1 wrote:
On topic...
I thought about this some more (which made me see the above reply). I would bring back dueling. Pistols at 10 paces. Fuck yea.
http://www.warwicks.com.au/images/weapo … _boxed.jpg
All it would take is a 2/3 majority and then you have a one party stateJohnG@lt wrote:
Yes, let's put peoples life in the hands of the mob like some good old fashion gladiator matches.Lotta_Drool wrote:
You get to write one simple law. What is it.
Mine would be that US politicians can be found guilty of treason by a 2/3rds vote in their state by a ballot initiative and the automatic penalty is death by public hanging at that states capitol.
Yes, trial by public opinion with automatic death sentence to hold these bastards accountable to the people they represent. Make people think twice about a career in politics, definately would want to get out quick when people start catching you getting greedy.
Idiot.
wooooooooo fascism!
Internet bullying isn't important. Make a real law, it can be anything. Yay hypotheticals.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Finish outlining laws against 'serious' electronic stalking and at least get a better legal grip on internet bullying.
What made you think I was kidding?Macbeth wrote:
Not sure if serious.DBBrinson1 wrote:
On topic...
I thought about this some more (which made me see the above reply). I would bring back dueling. Pistols at 10 paces. Fuck yea.
http://www.warwicks.com.au/images/weapo … _boxed.jpg
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
It was my answer to the OP, not yours. Laws as a nature arbitrarily establish limits upon behavior, but I think it can be agreed that many are necessary for a functioning society.jord wrote:
Internet bullying isn't important. Make a real law, it can be anything. Yay hypotheticals.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Finish outlining laws against 'serious' electronic stalking and at least get a better legal grip on internet bullying.
e: Why don't you come up with a serious answer?
I did, I said i'd take laws away not implement them. I especially wouldn't create any more lawws for the internet, the last place of freedom.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
It was my answer to the OP, not yours. Laws as a nature arbitrarily establish limits upon behavior, but I think it can be agreed that many are necessary for a functioning society.jord wrote:
Internet bullying isn't important. Make a real law, it can be anything. Yay hypotheticals.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Finish outlining laws against 'serious' electronic stalking and at least get a better legal grip on internet bullying.
e: Why don't you come up with a serious answer?
May I have the freedom to egg your car every morning?
You do know why dueling is banned like everywhere right?DBBrinson1 wrote:
What made you think I was kidding?Macbeth wrote:
Not sure if serious.DBBrinson1 wrote:
On topic...
I thought about this some more (which made me see the above reply). I would bring back dueling. Pistols at 10 paces. Fuck yea.
http://www.warwicks.com.au/images/weapo … _boxed.jpg
Real men duel with rapiers anyway.
If I could write one law, it would require lawmakers to review, every year, the laws that are currently on the books line by line. Hopefully this encourages them to streamline.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
As long as I have the freedom to get out and facestab you.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
May I have the freedom to egg your car every morning?
Not sure how you came from internet bullying to vandalism though, quite a stretch.
no why?Macbeth wrote:
You do know why dueling is banned like everywhere right?DBBrinson1 wrote:
What made you think I was kidding?Macbeth wrote:
Not sure if serious.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
DBBrinson1 wrote:
no why?Macbeth wrote:
You do know why dueling is banned like everywhere right?DBBrinson1 wrote:
What made you think I was kidding?
Because it's a waste of life, and the whole 'fight me to the death or you'll be branded a coward and socially alienated for the rest of your life' thing just isn't that great for law, order, and society.Duelling began to fall out of favor in America in the 18th century, and the death of former United States Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton by duelling—against the then Vice President—did not help its declining popularity. Benjamin Franklin denounced the practice as uselessly violent, and George Washington encouraged his officers to refuse challenges during the American Revolutionary War because he believed that the death by duelling of officers would have threatened the success of the war effort.
In 1820 the American naval hero Stephen Decatur was killed in a duel with fellow naval officer James Barron. Between 1798 and the Civil War, the US Navy lost two-thirds as many officers to dueling as it did in combat at sea. Many of those killed or wounded were midshipmen or junior officers. Despite prominent deaths, such as that of Decatur, duelling persisted because of contemporary ideals of chivalry, particularly in the South, and because of the threat of ridicule if a challenge was rejected.
Also doesn't make any sense. If you need to resort to violence in order to win an argument you didn't have a very strong case to begin with.Macbeth wrote:
DBBrinson1 wrote:
no why?Macbeth wrote:
You do know why dueling is banned like everywhere right?Because it's a waste of life, and the whole 'fight me to the death or you'll be branded a coward and socially alienated for the rest of your life' thing just isn't that great for law, order, and society.Duelling began to fall out of favor in America in the 18th century, and the death of former United States Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton by duelling—against the then Vice President—did not help its declining popularity. Benjamin Franklin denounced the practice as uselessly violent, and George Washington encouraged his officers to refuse challenges during the American Revolutionary War because he believed that the death by duelling of officers would have threatened the success of the war effort.
In 1820 the American naval hero Stephen Decatur was killed in a duel with fellow naval officer James Barron. Between 1798 and the Civil War, the US Navy lost two-thirds as many officers to dueling as it did in combat at sea. Many of those killed or wounded were midshipmen or junior officers. Despite prominent deaths, such as that of Decatur, duelling persisted because of contemporary ideals of chivalry, particularly in the South, and because of the threat of ridicule if a challenge was rejected.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Pot would be legal in all states up to an ounce. Pot would be sold from state dispensaries and have a 5% tax on it. Midies will be banned and only Headies will be sold, midies is shit anyways.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
spoken like a guy who's never dueledJohnG@lt wrote:
Also doesn't make any sense. If you need to resort to violence in order to win an argument you didn't have a very strong case to begin with.Macbeth wrote:
DBBrinson1 wrote:
no why?Because it's a waste of life, and the whole 'fight me to the death or you'll be branded a coward and socially alienated for the rest of your life' thing just isn't that great for law, order, and society.Duelling began to fall out of favor in America in the 18th century, and the death of former United States Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton by duelling—against the then Vice President—did not help its declining popularity. Benjamin Franklin denounced the practice as uselessly violent, and George Washington encouraged his officers to refuse challenges during the American Revolutionary War because he believed that the death by duelling of officers would have threatened the success of the war effort.
In 1820 the American naval hero Stephen Decatur was killed in a duel with fellow naval officer James Barron. Between 1798 and the Civil War, the US Navy lost two-thirds as many officers to dueling as it did in combat at sea. Many of those killed or wounded were midshipmen or junior officers. Despite prominent deaths, such as that of Decatur, duelling persisted because of contemporary ideals of chivalry, particularly in the South, and because of the threat of ridicule if a challenge was rejected.
Ban affirmative action and all other politically correct nonsense.
repeal the 19th amendment too, that one is useless.Stingray24 wrote:
Ban affirmative action and all other politically correct nonsense.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
The fact you see those issues as the same is amusing.
agreedStingray24 wrote:
Ban affirmative action and all other politically correct nonsense.
The fact that you thought i was serious is amusing as well.Stingray24 wrote:
The fact you see those issues as the same is amusing.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
Mac: Yea, I read the wiki page thanks.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
spoken like a guy who's never dueledJohnG@lt wrote:
Also doesn't make any sense. If you need to resort to violence in order to win an argument you didn't have a very strong case to begin with.Macbeth wrote:
Because it's a waste of life, and the whole 'fight me to the death or you'll be branded a coward and socially alienated for the rest of your life' thing just isn't that great for law, order, and society.
John: Who said I'd allow dueling over a petty argument? I merely recommended a law I'd bring back, I didn't draft specific situational legislation. Say some asshole stole your car. Not enough rage yet? How about that shit head used the cell you left in your car to find, pick up and rape your girlfriend/sister/mom... Then would you demand satisfaction? Would you really be happy with a 30 year sentence commuted to 14 for good behavior?
Hur: derp. I did laugh though. I've long thought I could market a set of paintball markers like the above set (safety glasses included of course).
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Oh, so you don't want dueling, you want the ability to round up a posse and string people up from trees. Gotcha.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Mac: Yea, I read the wiki page thanks.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
spoken like a guy who's never dueledJohnG@lt wrote:
Also doesn't make any sense. If you need to resort to violence in order to win an argument you didn't have a very strong case to begin with.
John: Who said I'd allow dueling over a petty argument? I merely recommended a law I'd bring back, I didn't draft specific situational legislation. Say some asshole stole your car. Not enough rage yet? How about that shit head used the cell you left in your car to find, pick up and rape your girlfriend/sister/mom... Then would you demand satisfaction? Would you really be happy with a 30 year sentence commuted to 14 for good behavior?
Hur: derp. I did laugh though. I've long thought I could market a set of paintball markers like the above set (safety glasses included of course).
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
as a librarian, shouldnt you be in favor of two adults willing to settle their differences by trying to kill each other when it doesnt bother anyone else?
Tu Stultus Es
Shouldn't you be out selling crack to gringos in OC?eleven bravo wrote:
as a librarian, shouldnt you be in favor of two adults willing to settle their differences by trying to kill each other when it doesnt bother anyone else?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat