ofREH

A good Friend of mine recently commented that perhaps the GOP should revert to dueling, Hamilton/Burr style, to resolve differences and indicated how pleased he’d be with either result of such a meeting.

There are so many things wrong with what he believes was his little witticism, that I don’t know where to begin.

I’ll start here.
I don’t think he was serious for a number of reasons. Firstly, dueling is illegal, as it was when Burr shot and killed Hamilton, as it was when Hamilton’s Son was also killed in a duel a number of years before.
And we all know that legitimate laws will stop that kind of nonsense from happening.
My good Friend especially knows and supports that ideal.

Secondly, and more importantly, he’d likely be among the first to be eating grass before dawn.
This because the premise of dueling is to gain “satisfaction” after having been offended or for have given offence.

Now, just imagine.
The numbers of offence mongers laid waste on dewey, early morning fields for demanding “satisfaction”, would be handsome.

Liberals would finally be afforded the means to address the gross inequity perpetrated on them by bottom feeding, flat earthers, without needing to fiddle with my First Amendment rights.

Now, while my good Friend thought he was just being clever, I actually think it’s a capitol idea.
I mean, let’s be real for a second. There is zero chance that the greater percentage of my good Friends contemporaries would survive such a meeting and, consequently, after initial numbers calls for “satisfaction” begin to subside, so would outrage in general.
~crickets~

Though, if we’re being honest, I would naturally be inclined to give grave offence at every opportunity, if just to see Charlie Darwin prevail.

Glory be. There’s to be a reckoning.