If sodomy is a constitutional right then why not dueling?

>>131384240
false equivalency? straw man?

>>131384428
2 consenting adults

>>131384428
>false equivalency?
what is legal precedent

Dueling is legal under stand your ground as long as neither party leaves to prepare.

>>131384659
No its not
It might be harder to prosecute but it is still not legal

>>131384240
If murdering babies because you dont want to support it for 9 months is a right, why isnt killing all the welfare mooching niggers a right?

>>131384240
There would be a lot of dead idiots and the elites can't have only smart people running around doing things like living a life of liberty and pursuing happiness of their own doing.

>>131385020
why is dueling idiotic?

>>131385177
I'm saying a lot of idiots would be killed because they'd duel their life away which in my opinion is a good thing.

Not saying dueling is idiot. I also think trial by combat would be cool to bring back

why are rapiers so gay famamals?

>>131384240
>sodomy is a constitutional right
>constitutional
The Law of God is the only one that matters.

>>131385702
Because you're not practiced with one. Smallsword and parrying dagger is OP beyond belief.

>>131384240
Wat?

Why not dueling on intetnational water. No laws theare.

>>131385948
T. Darksouls player

>>131384240
according to Pierre Lacaze's From duel to fencing some 10,000 men from good families died during the two decades before 1608. It simply had to stop.

The numbers are for france only. It cost the King/Gov too much in manpower.

>>131384240
Because your life is given to you by a creator--it's not yours to give away.

>>131386257
Nah, started Demon Souls, but never finished it. I do practice Italian fencing (HEMA style), though. We learn a bunch of weapons, including zweihanders, but they all get rekt by rapier and dagger.

>>131386323
that would not be a problem if our birth rates were not in the toilet

>>131384510
the goal of the state is partially to protect its citizens, hence why dueling is illegal

>>131386525
then why is sodomy a right?

>>131386451
>if our birth rates were not in the toilet
Those birth rates are appropriate since your country is a toilet.

>>131384240
Have you never butt sexed a chick? Loser.

File: Satan-traditional-arms.svg.png (105KB, 716x900px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 716x900px

>>131386666

>>131386525
It only wants to protect you as long as you're a good tax paying meatbag.

>>131387278
Then why does the state protect niggers and spics?

>>131386666
>pretends his woman is a man
Feces in dickholes is for fags and spreads disease

>>131385177
Well it's only the best way to deal with something in super super super rare circumstances anymore. Dueling is far and from the most productive way to solve problems

>>131387389

>Import stupid brown people
>Promise gibs
>They vote for gibs
>Stay in power

not complicated

>>131384510

Interesting. I initially had the same 'straw man' thought as the anon that you rightfully corrected. As late as the early 1800s did a British subject attempt to invoke trial by combat (to no avail).

Here's a ABA short on the trial by combat: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/dispute_resolution/reilly_trial_by_combat.authcheckdam.pdf

I think that probably the best answer to your question is that one cannot consent to murder at the common law. There is a category of the law known as ultrahazardous activities (for which strict liability law is imposed). I've got court deadlines of my own looming or else I'd dig into the issue of whether one can consent to the effects of ultrahazardous activities. For example, one cannot consent to negligence....

never seen a bigger strawman