Well, killing him/her first would certainly work out well for a person. I mean, you'd go to jail, lose everything you own and your life would be over, but you'd win because you hit first!

You don't sit back and wait to be killed- it's good to be proactive, but it's the degree that you operate on that's critical. A dangerous person or country is always going to be problematic- that's where creativity is really called for. Personally, I would try to work through all the legal channels, and pack my 9mm around just in case.

You make them your best friend.

Tell that to the kids at Columbine. One armed teacher? Who knows.

Bad example there, Scaeagles. Those kids were ignored, bullied and ostracized by the jocks and popular kids. Most school shootings are by loners, mentally ill and outcasts- one could argue that some form of intervention might have helped prevent many of these events. Before you go off on a tangent about libs just wanting to send terrorists into therapy, that is not my meaning or intent here. I think terrorists should be hunted down and neutralized before they harm anyone, but when dealing with states that sponsor or are suspected of supporting terrorism we first need to attempt to handle things diplomatically. At the very least, such attempts will cover our asses should we have to respond more forcefully later on, or should we happen to react violently and later discover our intelligence was faulty.:rolleyes:

Well, How about VA Tech?

My point involves the condition mentally of those that are a threat, but more than that.

I view the concept of the "gun free zone" as being rather optimistic that those who would violate it - for whatever reason - will be concerned that it is a gun free zone. Odds are the guy at VA Tech anyway wouldn't have listened to talk about it - he was mentally ill and had been released from mental care (if I recall this story correctly). No one was able to stop him because they were ill prepared and expected him to abide by the rules. No amount of talking would have stopped him....all that would have was physical restraint (or a bullet).

I regard terrorists (mean Ahmahdinejad as well) in that way. Reason plays no role with them. It is an issue of extremism that know no compromise, and going to the table with them without condition is a cultural sign of weakness.

What if you tell them at the table that they Do "X" or you're going to destroy their nation's "Y?"

Scaeagles,

Not that you had to, but I don't think you ever responded to my observation that you are not willing to live with the strictures--a greatly reduced speed limit--that would greatly reduce or eliminate traffic deaths, but you appear to be willing to live with the strictures--everyone armed to the teeth, the assumption that everyone is a potential threat--that you believe would reduce deaths at the hands of criminals.

Suppose the leader you are going to "sit down with" and chat has some pre-conditions before he will even do that much?

Using the above example about the lone deranged lunatic reading gun magazines......suppose he won't even talk unless we release some of his buddies from prison first?

Since post hoc ergo propter hoc seems to be the guiding view of the universe for that vast majority of people I think we now have evidence that supporting Obama causes brain cancer.

So I officially withdraw my support.

^It took me almost 10 minutes to figure out you were talking about Teddy....maybe I need a CAT scan.