Wednesdays London Terrorism;No One In The Crowd Had A Gun To Save The Soldier?

[TheSeventhTiger]

I would guess that most brits are saying, bloody hell! if I had a bloody pistol on me, I would of blown their bloody F**#king Heads off those Bloddy F$#@kin Bastards !!!!

 

[JoeB131]

I would guess that most brits are saying, bloody hell! if I had a bloody pistol on me, I would of blown their bloody F**#king Heads off those Bloddy F$#@kin Bastards !!!!

Really?

I have to wonder why none of these bystanders grabbed a pipe or piece of wood or something like that and try to subdue these two guys.

Oh, that's right. Because they were probably too in shock.

300 Million guns in this country, and there are only 201 cases of civilians using guns in "justified" homicides. The chance of a gun preventing a crime is up their with being hit with lightening.

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

so what happens from this point on? will Brits be afraid to walk the streets?

 

[hazlnut]

Soldier gets butchered on the streets of London, crowd watches in Horror. And no one has a gun or weapon? No one attempts to prevent this vicious bloody act of terror on the streets?
What? No private citizen is allowed to carry a licensed weapon?
What happened Wednesday in London was a perfect scenario of what will happen if Liberals have their way! They better bring this up in the media.
What would of happened to the terrorists if they attempted this stunt in a busy town in Texas?

What if everyone had a gun? Then they could all start shooting at each other.

NRA wet dream.

 

[Jarhead]

The thing that stands out to me regarding the attack in London?

The Prime Minister had reason to believe the attack was related to jihadist terrorism and he immediately came home to London.

Our "leader" who cliams he always admitted Benghazi was likely an act of jihadist terrorism opted to LEAVE Washington and go to a fund raiser.

That is the difference between a leader and a selfish individual.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The thing that stands out to me regarding the attack in London?

The Prime Minister had reason to believe the attack was related to jihadist terrorism and he immediately came home to London.

Our "leader" who cliams he always admitted Benghazi was likely an act of jihadist terrorism opted to LEAVE Washington and go to a fund raiser.

That is the difference between a leader and a selfish individual.

only recently has it been a likely terrorist attack

until then it was a reaction to a poorly made youtube

 

[Sallow]

Soldier gets butchered on the streets of London, crowd watches in Horror. And no one has a gun or weapon? No one attempts to prevent this vicious bloody act of terror on the streets?
What? No private citizen is allowed to carry a licensed weapon?
What happened Wednesday in London was a perfect scenario of what will happen if Liberals have their way! They better bring this up in the media.
What would of happened to the terrorists if they attempted this stunt in a busy town in Texas?

Just when I think you folks can't get more cartoonish..you go ahead and do.

There were plenty of guns in the crowd when Gabby Giffords was shot.

Including the one held by the guy that shot her. Along with many other people.

It took UNARMED PEOPLE to bring down the shooter.

 

[deltex1]

so what happens from this point on? will Brits be afraid to walk the streets?

They already are...as confirmed in an email from my sister in law last night...she lives in London...

 

[Sallow]

The thing that stands out to me regarding the attack in London?

The Prime Minister had reason to believe the attack was related to jihadist terrorism and he immediately came home to London.

Our "leader" who cliams he always admitted Benghazi was likely an act of jihadist terrorism opted to LEAVE Washington and go to a fund raiser.

That is the difference between a leader and a selfish individual.

Benghazi took place in foreign country. And like the MANY attacks on the embassies and consulates before that..it was addressed. UNLIKE the MANY attacks before that..Conservatives saw fit to blame the American President for it.

The London attack took place in London.

I know it's hard..but there is a difference.

 

[Jarhead]

The thing that stands out to me regarding the attack in London?

The Prime Minister had reason to believe the attack was related to jihadist terrorism and he immediately came home to London.

Our "leader" who cliams he always admitted Benghazi was likely an act of jihadist terrorism opted to LEAVE Washington and go to a fund raiser.

That is the difference between a leader and a selfish individual.

only recently has it been a likely terrorist attack

until then it was a reaction to a poorly made youtube

Ahhh....but the President is claiming he ALWAYS referred to it as an act of terror.

The man has a way with words where he can say something....and give it any definition he wants down the road...depending on the outcome.

For example...

He referred to "acts of terror" in his rose garden speech.

If, in fact, it proved to NOT be a terrorist act he simply would have said "I used the term "act of terror" becuase anytime soemone is attacked unprovoked it is an act of terror....but I never called it a jihadist terrorist act....

If it proved to be a jihadist terrorist act, he would have said exactly what he iws now saying..."I referred to it as a terrorist act on the very first day..."

See how that works?

He is quite good at it.

And...he was allowed to go to his fund raiser...

Pathetic if you ask me.

 

[Jarhead]

Soldier gets butchered on the streets of London, crowd watches in Horror. And no one has a gun or weapon? No one attempts to prevent this vicious bloody act of terror on the streets?
What? No private citizen is allowed to carry a licensed weapon?
What happened Wednesday in London was a perfect scenario of what will happen if Liberals have their way! They better bring this up in the media.
What would of happened to the terrorists if they attempted this stunt in a busy town in Texas?

Just when I think you folks can't get more cartoonish..you go ahead and do.

There were plenty of guns in the crowd when Gabby Giffords was shot.

Including the one held by the guy that shot her. Along with many other people.

It took UNARMED PEOPLE to bring down the shooter.

and that was because the legal and responsible gun holders were quite aware of the dangers of shooting into a large crowd...even if the intentions were good.

You actually just supported the argument as to why l;egal gun holders should be allowed to legally hold guns. They are responsible in their use of it.

 

[candycorn]

Soldier gets butchered on the streets of London, crowd watches in Horror. And no one has a gun or weapon? No one attempts to prevent this vicious bloody act of terror on the streets?
What? No private citizen is allowed to carry a licensed weapon?
What happened Wednesday in London was a perfect scenario of what will happen if Liberals have their way! They better bring this up in the media.
What would of happened to the terrorists if they attempted this stunt in a busy town in Texas?

Innocent bystanders would have likely been shot by a trigger happy Texan.

 

[Jarhead]

Soldier gets butchered on the streets of London, crowd watches in Horror. And no one has a gun or weapon? No one attempts to prevent this vicious bloody act of terror on the streets?
What? No private citizen is allowed to carry a licensed weapon?
What happened Wednesday in London was a perfect scenario of what will happen if Liberals have their way! They better bring this up in the media.
What would of happened to the terrorists if they attempted this stunt in a busy town in Texas?

Innocent bystanders would have likely been shot by a trigger happy Texan.

Really?

Is that what happened when Gabby Giffords was shot?

Or are you assuming something despite evidence proving otherwise?

You know...in your typical hateful way you are known to indulge in.

 

[Sallow]

The thing that stands out to me regarding the attack in London?

The Prime Minister had reason to believe the attack was related to jihadist terrorism and he immediately came home to London.

Our "leader" who cliams he always admitted Benghazi was likely an act of jihadist terrorism opted to LEAVE Washington and go to a fund raiser.

That is the difference between a leader and a selfish individual.

only recently has it been a likely terrorist attack

until then it was a reaction to a poorly made youtube

Ahhh....but the President is claiming he ALWAYS referred to it as an act of terror.

The man has a way with words where he can say something....and give it any definition he wants down the road...depending on the outcome.

For example...

He referred to "acts of terror" in his rose garden speech.

If, in fact, it proved to NOT be a terrorist act he simply would have said "I used the term "act of terror" becuase anytime soemone is attacked unprovoked it is an act of terror....but I never called it a jihadist terrorist act....

If it proved to be a jihadist terrorist act, he would have said exactly what he iws now saying..."I referred to it as a terrorist act on the very first day..."

See how that works?

He is quite good at it.

And...he was allowed to go to his fund raiser...

Pathetic if you ask me.

Color me not shocked.

There's no right action for this guy with you folks.

Which is largely proven out by all the terrorist attacks on embassies and consulates during the Bush administration. With all those attacks..there may have been 6 inquires in total. And they were pretty low key.

Benghazi? I think it's up to 9. FOR ONE INCIDENT.

And you guys seem to know all about Chris Stevens?

David Foy?

Not a peep.

 

[candycorn]

Soldier gets butchered on the streets of London, crowd watches in Horror. And no one has a gun or weapon? No one attempts to prevent this vicious bloody act of terror on the streets?
What? No private citizen is allowed to carry a licensed weapon?
What happened Wednesday in London was a perfect scenario of what will happen if Liberals have their way! They better bring this up in the media.
What would of happened to the terrorists if they attempted this stunt in a busy town in Texas?

Innocent bystanders would have likely been shot by a trigger happy Texan.

Really?

Possibly

Is that what happened when Gabby Giffords was shot?

Not sure what happened--don't know the details of the case except she, a child, a judge (I think) were shot. I know the guy who shot her is behind bars as well. Seriously, I didn't follow what happened that closely.

Or are you assuming something despite evidence proving otherwise?

No more than the assumption being made that somehow, in Texas if this happened, a guy/gal with a gun would have aimed, shot, fired, saved the day with no collateral damage whatsoever.

You can't say what would have happened anymore than I can

You know...in your typical hateful way you are known to indulge in.

Pfft.

Whatever.

 

[Sallow]

Soldier gets butchered on the streets of London, crowd watches in Horror. And no one has a gun or weapon? No one attempts to prevent this vicious bloody act of terror on the streets?
What? No private citizen is allowed to carry a licensed weapon?
What happened Wednesday in London was a perfect scenario of what will happen if Liberals have their way! They better bring this up in the media.
What would of happened to the terrorists if they attempted this stunt in a busy town in Texas?

Just when I think you folks can't get more cartoonish..you go ahead and do.

There were plenty of guns in the crowd when Gabby Giffords was shot.

Including the one held by the guy that shot her. Along with many other people.

It took UNARMED PEOPLE to bring down the shooter.

and that was because the legal and responsible gun holders were quite aware of the dangers of shooting into a large crowd...even if the intentions were good.

You actually just supported the argument as to why l;egal gun holders should be allowed to legally hold guns. They are responsible in their use of it.

You missed the whole point.

Not unusual.

 

[Circe]

so what happens from this point on? will Brits be afraid to walk the streets?

They already are...as confirmed in an email from my sister in law last night...she lives in London...

Sure --- that's why Cameron hot-footed it for home. It is quite possible, and everyone knows it, that a bunch of rioting Muslims will start killing random people on the street. These things are very contagious and it could spread.

I doubt it will, but it could. And maybe not instantly, but like a couple more next week. That's what usually happens here: there's a big school or mall shooting and then the police stop a bunch of crazies from doing likewise within the next ten days here and there around the country.

 

[Katzndogz]

The terrorist had a gun.

If the British people are capable of good sense they will be arming themselves right now. Small arms dealers will be bringing them in through every inlet and cove.

That's sarcasm right?

I hope not!

The British people have a storm coming, not unlike the gathering storm in 1938. Except that the enemy is way beyond the gates. The killers will have guns, like this one had a gun. If the British people have any decent sense left, they will be preparing for what's coming now. They will be getting their guns and hiding them under the mattress.

 

[Jarhead]

only recently has it been a likely terrorist attack

until then it was a reaction to a poorly made youtube

Ahhh....but the President is claiming he ALWAYS referred to it as an act of terror.

The man has a way with words where he can say something....and give it any definition he wants down the road...depending on the outcome.

For example...

He referred to "acts of terror" in his rose garden speech.

If, in fact, it proved to NOT be a terrorist act he simply would have said "I used the term "act of terror" becuase anytime soemone is attacked unprovoked it is an act of terror....but I never called it a jihadist terrorist act....

If it proved to be a jihadist terrorist act, he would have said exactly what he iws now saying..."I referred to it as a terrorist act on the very first day..."

See how that works?

He is quite good at it.

And...he was allowed to go to his fund raiser...

Pathetic if you ask me.

Color me not shocked.

There's no right action for this guy with you folks.

Which is largely proven out by all the terrorist attacks on embassies and consulates during the Bush administration. With all those attacks..there may have been 6 inquires in total. And they were pretty low key.

Benghazi? I think it's up to 9. FOR ONE INCIDENT.

And you guys seem to know all about Chris Stevens?

David Foy?

Not a peep.

President Bush and his Secretary of State did not give reason for inquiries or hearings. They did not change talking pioints nor did they have conflicting explanations of what happened.

We had hearings regarding Benghazi becuase people oin the ground admitted to the press several things. First, there was no protest. Direct contradcition to what the administratioin told us. Reason for hearings. Second, the ambassador asked for more security many times over. None was given. Reason for hearings.

Let me remind you....I am a conse3rvative in many ways, but I am quite liberal as it pertains to issues. In early 2008, Hillary was a serious consideration of mine.

When Obama took the lead, I started to watch him and listen to him. I found him to be untrustworthy. He outright lied about public financing. Major turn off to me. He tried to paint the Clintons as racists. A major turn off to me. He allowed an ad to air in Spansih that outright lied about McCains stnace on the undocumented immigrant situation.

And if you review my comments on this board over the past several years....they are all about his dishonesty...his parsing of words.....his use of his uncanny gift of gab to say what he wants and define it to meet his needs later.

So you can attack me all you want....claim I am partisan and there is nothing he can do that I wont complain about.

But you are wrong. He did not earn my support becuase he capitalizes on the naevity of the electorate.

Fast and Furious....still dont know who allowed it without the president or the AG knowing about it....or did they?

Benghazi......still dont know who denied security without asking the SoS....still dont know who gave the order to not even try to help...still dont know where the president was....still dont understand why he felt it OK to go to a fundraiser the next day.

IRS...still dont know the truth....no one seems to know.....just lots of changing stories to accommodate the evidence as it comes out in public.

But folks like you?

You attack those that want answers....and seem to not give a crap about those you elect and refuse to give answers.

 

[Jarhead]

Let me give you an example...

Folks on the left applauded Hillary when she made her infamous "what difference now does it make"...."answer".

Why did you applaud it?

Dont you want an answer?

Notice what she said...

"whether a protest or a few men wanting to kill americans....."

Why that comparison? Sure...there is no difference between that....I agree...

But the issue was...

Was it a protest or a pre planeed well orchestrated attack....two COMPLETELY different scenarios.

So what difference would it make?

From preventing it from happening again....you NEED to know what prompted it.

Think about it. You got no answer....and you were happy about it.

Really?