I just read a bit of
this article on Huffington Post wherein Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky bemoaned the fact that he could not challenge someone to a duel and still be a United States Senator. You know what? I'd vote for a return to dueling in the United States and I swear to God, I MEAN it!
Dueling, as I understand it from history books and novels (mainly novels) was considered a gentlemen's activity. It was governed by strict rules of protocol. A man could lose his reputation for life if he cheated in a duel or shrank from an honorable challenge. I would not change all of this. However, there were some people who were so scorned by "gentle" society that it was permissible for a gentleman to ignore the challenge and not lose face. I would absolutely change this for the United States. We are, excuse me, we claim to be, a democracy. Therefore, I, as a lower middle class adult could be spurned by, say, Donald Trump if I challenged him to a duel. No, no, no. If I challenge Donald Trump or Rudolf the Red-Nosed Giuliani to a duel, and they refuse, they MUST possibly face a lifetime of humiliation - titters, giggles, averted eyes as they enter the five-star restaurant. Subtle insults from humble desk clerks as they check in to their over-priced hotel. Outright insubordination from underlings who are willing to face a duel with the proven coward. Oh, yes. I am serious as death on this.
As I am only recommending a return to dueling in the States, I insist that only guns be allowed in duels. After all, we are the Kings of Guns. Sure, we are also the Kings of Small Landmines, but what the hell - do we really want it legal to plant landmines on hiking trails and children's playgrounds? I mean within our borders, of course. Hell no!
We Americans probably provided every single gun that killed the tens of thousands of innocent Mexicans in their recent drug wars. Our drug habits and phony "War on Drugs" provided the gangsters with the motivation to use those guns. Yes, only guns for American dueling. It just makes sense. American pragmatism. What, we're going to stand by with our hands in our pockets while innocent children are slaughtered by guns and then say, no, no, Samuri swords are ok, too? Bullshit. That is unAmerican, and as the entire world BETTER Goddamn know by now, "Whatever America wants, America gets" (sing it to the tune of "Whatever Lola Wants.")
Now we DO have a few issues to address here with the use of guns in duels. I'll start with big clips and auto- or semi-automatic weapons. It is very distasteful to me to allow these, however, as they are American as apple pie, it's hard to think of the proper argument against them. How about this - any American hunter who went after an elk or deer with an AK-47 would be laughed out of Idaho, right? So, I think it is reasonable to put into law that no dueling gun is legal if it's use on an elk or a deer would tear up the meat of that game animal beyond respectable dining. Don't get me wrong, now. This is not an anti-Second Amendment essay. I understand that it is perfectly Constitutional to buy and use guns that could kill an entire elementary school population in under a minute. I'm not arguing that point. It's, what's the word? Generally accepted criteria? Settled law? Something like that. Anyway, this essay is NOT about protecting children for God's sake; it's about honor.
Another thing I find distasteful in this modern, enlightened era is the Old West-style facedown on the streets. You know, holstered six-shooters, men standing with their hands near the gun until one of them makes the move and then - BLAM. But then, you know, this is not the old West. This is modern America. We have laws here about the rights of handicapped people, and is that old style fair to the handicapped? No way. You can't run a business in the United States without providing a wheel chair ramp so why should the winning of a duel depend upon who can move the fastest? That's not the American Way. We're too civilized to allow any old able-bodied asshole to go around challenging paraplegics and racking up notches to impress the saloon girls. No, no, no. The speed of drawing the gun out of the holster must not come into play. However, one can't help the fact that SOME degree of physicality is involved, so let's just stay with the old-school single shot pistol held casually by one's side until the permission to fire is given. Then we can keep the drama of the drawn out battle of nerves. I love that. You know, the nervous guy raises his pistol and fires quickly, misses, and then must stand still while the better man takes careful aim and - Blooey! Yeah, one shot, but if both men survive they can always take off their gloves, slap the other's face lightly - whap, whap - and do it all over again! Now that's cool!
I do apologize to the ladies for my constant use of the masculine pronoun. I do believe in equal rights; I do! Therefore, any adult over the age of, say, 18, must have the right to challenge any other adult, male or female. And we must not only forgo sexism; we must also forgo ageism. For instance, just because Pat Robertson is an old fool, must I allow him to continually offend my sensibilities? NO!! Now, if I ONLY challenge old, feeble folks I risk a loss of reputation, so it behooves me to challenge Pat one day and Franklin Graham the next. Or, I can take on Laura Ingraham and then Ann Coulter.
There are no other rules of engagement then, other than the fact that one is offended and, if that offensive adult accepts the challenge, what will be will be. There will always be some people who will refuse the challenge without losing face among the people they care about. Damn Anabaptists! Damn hippies! You and your separate little peaceful loving communes! This is America! Love it or leave it!
I could go on about the economic benefits (a sky-rocketing use of gun ranges, etc.), population control, reality TV shows ... But the primary issue here is a free expression of Constitutional Rights, God Bless 'Em.
