1. Ok, they won't disarm you, I believe you. If army and police on your side by default... the point? Defend against tyranny? Done! What tyranny? It's teathless and the most pathetic tyranny I've ever heard. Besides another point to make, the whole idea "tyranny vs. the people" is fallacy, goverment (even tyrannical one if you want to call it that way, though the criteria to qualify are vague) if it exists have some social ground, i.e. support and defenders (well, not your imaginary one apparently, but in real life it is). So any kind of such huge inner conflict when some have an urge to "fight a tyrrany" will end up with bloody civil war in all kind of scenarios, if there're no guns they will spread like forest fire anyway.

2. My point is who is going to invade you? Nobody invade anyone in this age of technological advancement (well, almost), it's pointless and doesn't worth the effort. Not sure what about the others, we might just nuke you if that's really necessary. And if by some stupid coincidence you got invaded anyway the number of guns civilians have is one of the among less relevant factors, because for war there's an army = organized armed forces (strees on organized), if things are so bad and the army nowhere to be found = lost war.

3. Oh, use simplier English, I barely able to comprehend this :D Good you brought up confederacy or I'd have to do it. If it's "hard" for you, it's surely impossible for me. Seems like Chinece Mandate of Heaven (Tianming) to me, I never had a clue why one rebellion had aforementionedd Tianming and another didn't regardless of how hard my Chinese comrades were trying to explain it to me. But the pattern seems to be the same: if it's a win -- they had a Tianmin, if not -- they didn't -- now I CAN comprehend this, new authority need to somehow justify itself. In China it's Tianming, in the US it's... whatever you're referring to (never read anything written by Paine, probably a thinker in a post-Revolution (=French Revolution) kind of style, I'm familiar with those, though vaguely but I got an idea).

All in all I can see the reasoning behind these points 200 years ago, today they're just anachronisms and part of national mythos. Good to have one, but hard to justify it with logic, it'a sort of a religion to which I obviosuly do not belong to.

BTW what point you're trying to make citing Ruby Ridge case?

You're right, it was a useless wish.

Look, this may shock you, but I pain a lot more for these killings than you probably think. What hurts me also, however, is how the political class instantly jumped on this. Obama got on camera and cried, so attention was now on him... next thing, we've got all sorts of talk about how people should lose more of their freedoms.

The political class never took a moment's pause when it came to advancing their agenda, it's too dangerous for us to pause when they're already drawing up the Bills.

I would never talk to the NRA, precisely for the reason you just suggested

badgenome said: Mr Khan said: Too bad military bases are actually "gun free" zones (unless you, you know, don't care about the rules because you intend to murder a bunch of people), so they were as defenseless as those poor kids on Utøya until the police arrived.

That motherfu**er was a terrorist, plain and simple.  He just used guns as a means of killing others, and got paralyzed and a horrible life in prison for his effort.

All of the propaganda spin hurts this document which is a real shame because there's some really nice information in here.

For myself, the shooting was one state over, within 2 hours (probably 1 hour) of where I live now).  It is close and ends up being major local news.  It strikes home closer.  And add it to the list of the joker shooting and other things.  It was "Oh no, not again" to me, and wondering what is going on.  There is a breakdown of something, and I am not seeing people have answers.  As with others, I put the explanation somewhere, and come up probably as a traditionalist and can fault the lack of community here.  People are doing much more radical individualism, minding their own business, and not catching people with problem, and acting like community. What I happened to hear in all this, from argubaly the Libertarian side, when discussing this, is that "well there is a price for liberty".  The price I would have to ask is: Do you mean that we have childen in schools go get gunned down?  I could see this being spun then as an argument for home schools, and so on, so you don't have them in one spot.  Well, it is now that American socieity fails to maintain two family homes to make that possible.  And things have gone into a level of specialization needed, that normally parents won't be able to do it.  Something needs to be looked into here aand things need to get done.  A core principle of the second amendment, is the citizens having a right to protect themselves.  This principle has problems, when the means of citizens protecting themselves is turned against them, by what enables them to practive them.  It is a serious problem.  And I notice that around the same time, someone with a knife in China also went and assaulted over 20 children in China:

http://metro.co.uk/2012/12/14/man-wielding-knife-stabs-22-children-at-school-in-chengping-china-3316760/

We can't just say "this is the price of freedom".  And we can't also think under the delusion you can create a gated communities that are seen as safe.  I see this Ft. Hood shooter sign floating about saying how guns are floating about.  Well, a military base IS the ultimate gated community, and there is pretty strong gun control.  I am sure they don't let guns get in, and this guy does it.  I am going to go into a "think of one's freedoms a minute" here, and ask those who are saying "get rid of all guns" to think what happened at Ft. Hood.  More gun control isn't going to work on this either.  Outlawing firearms isn't either.  You will run into concerns the founding fathers said, why the second amendment is there.  I think SERIOUSLY people need to read it and see the context in which the founding fathers wrote it.  It isn't, first and foremost, about a PERSONAL liberty to individually carry arms, but one where individuald collectively could come together and defend themselves from all enemies foreign and domestic (This would include the government with a particular focus on the government).  It is about militias.  FROM this right, one can argue that individuals also have rights.  But it as about the basis of the need for "well run militias", and there aren't militias of one.  

So, we have people with approaches and so on, that aren't seeming to work, and a society calling for government to drive their ability defend themselves off a cliff in response.  You have people who think they can build gated communities away from others as an answer.   And you have individuals who say "We just need to be tough on criminals to deter them".  Well, what I see is the shooter guns down his mother, and then goes and shoots up the school, and then kills himself.  If individuals who end up gunning down others end up gunning down themselves in the process and kill themselves, I am curious how the death penalty is supposed to work here, when individuals who kill, kill others.  It is more of an acceptance of death as part of the needs of society.  I would argue this reasoning will end up leading to more people getting shot down.

This is all troubling.  Maybe people can stop and think about everyone is wrong here, and try to get something.  Again, this gets back to my wish, which isn't like to happen.  American society is set to go over a number of cliffs at this point.  Some may think this is a good thing, as it culls the herds in their mind of losers.  But it seems like "losers", on their way out, are more than willing to take out others.

Anyhow, that is about the extent I am going to speak now here on this.  I am tired of polticizing of everything.

Or maybe it's just because they have strict gun control laws nevertheless?

You see "guns everywhere" in Israel, but that's usually just soldiers. The number of privately owned guns in Israel is quite small, somewhere between 2 to 8 guns per 100 citizens (depending on source). The corresponding number for the USA is about 90.

Assault rifles are generally forbidden for normal citizens. Gun-owners can only buy 50 rounds of ammunition per year, and the requirements for getting a gun license are quite high (people must be >=21 years, pass physical and psychological examination and background check, qualify at a licensed shooting range and will be retested every three years). There are slightly different rules for West Bank settlers - but that's not Israel anymore of course.

And despite these rather strict gun control laws, they are currently considering making them even more strict - because of the Newtown massacre and a series of cases where Israeli security guards shot their wives.

So picking Israel as an example of liberal gun control laws is quite ridiculous.

That's because there is a large cultural gap, and why I don't try to enforce my cultural values upon Europeans by saying what I believe or what I did is more right than what you do. Having a strong opinion on something (that affects you in no way) happening across an ocean is very humorous.

No it isn't, It's not only the military that have guns. They do carry them around everywhere they go. Do you see our solders carrying their guns home? NO. In front of every building there is some one with a gun, School, hotel, bank, restaurants and even some stores. These people are citizens hired to protect the building. Next time try not to copy and past directly from a web site. Have a clue and go there.

And in that same world of yours those people, even with guns, won't use them to hurt others. However, thanks to having them, they can protect themselves from those who would.

I take it you don't have kids. If you did you might be thinking differently, especially when it comes to your capacity to protect them at all costs.

I don't own any firearms, but at some point I might. I have a little girl, a very beautiful one mind you. There are sick fucks out there and you know it. The world isn't as pleasant as you might like to believe.

Not sure if this was answered yet, but supposedly he suffered from an antisocial personality disorder. This kind of violent behaviour isn't exactly a shock.

Supposedly when the older brother found out what happened, he knew it was Adam who did it. That tells you enough. Boy was a sociopath. If he didn't have guns he would've used something else. I heard his mother was in the process of actually having him commited.

Edit - Actually just read a claim by a friend of the mother's that she wasn't going to have him committed. Still doesn't mean he did not fear it and in turn acted upon it.

Anyways, most of us understand that the gun wasn't the real issue here, it was Adam.