...a nutcase with a meat cleaver can kill a British soldier. To stop said nutcase, people have to resort to pleading with them to stop. In the USA, our soldiers carry guns. No pleading required.
When someone comes to take your life, your only defense shouldn't be begging for your life.
-- Modified on 5/23/2013 1:42:58 PM
and Hussein's administration is still calling the Ft Hood shooting, a workplace violence..
It was just a nutty Muslim losing his shit while holding a meat cleaver. If this shit happened in Alabama, someone would have run him over with their pickup truck.
If some nutcase blows up a women's clinic in the name of Jesus, is that terrorism? Or is that just a religious lunatic losing his shit?
We throw around this word "terrorism" way too much. I say for something to be terrorism it has to involve an organized group of people. I mean really, if some Italian killed somebody with a pizza pan, that doesn't mean he's in the Mafia.
I'm just sayin'. If you can stop a terrorist attack with a pickup truck it shouldn't really count as terrorism.
that would most certainly be a terrorist attack. Although most terrorists are Muslims, it doesn't mean that only Muslims can be terrorists..
What was Timothy McVeigh's motive behind the OKC Bombings? I believe it was the Waco Siege.
In the Internet age, we need to redefine our definition of terrorism and terrorist attacks, as more and more people are self-radicalizing by downloading, "How to make bomb in kitchen of your mom" type articles..
Killing someone with Pan..LOL..Only Italians can do that..LOL 
STAFFY Infection is still hiding in the closet after seeing one of those Muslim scumbags work his trade and then talk to a woman like they were chatting at the market.
Ideological , political and religion beliefs
And fuck the pickup , in Alabama somebody would have shot those pieces of shit long before the cops showed up.
Tough price to pay for being a drummer in Army. Sad !
And the Saudi Puppet grins !
And the Saudi Puppet grins !
Traveling abroad Nut Sack.
What you won't find in there is hugging the Queen of England or bowing to your puppet master .
Can't stand that picture of your hero huh?
Totally chafes your nads. Diplomatic customs and courtesies, keep backpedalling, everyone can see you're spinning in your own shit.
You've been bitch-slapped and can't handle it.
Back to the topic:
The entire Bush family are Saudi puppets, but fucktards such as yourself just can't handle the truth.
Next.
There was an accomplice shot and arrested at the scene and two more suspected accomplices were arrested yesterday.
our soldiers do NOT carry guns when off base in the US.
You're Welcome
For God and Countr
That is totally different than the statement in your OP.
The conceal carry is, I'm sure, issued by civil authorities and has nothing to do with him being in the military.
You're Welcome
2014 = GOP Senate and House
Unless it is for official duty, US military can not carry a weapon on government property.
and I'm sure he is not in uniform when he carries.
The OP indicated/gave the impression that US military routinely carry a weapon while off base, in the USA, which in not true
I can't carry on US gov't property either, even though I have a conceal carry permit. Can't go into the Post Office with it. Or in a school. Or courthouse. Or military base.
Of course, this attack happened out on the streets in London, where nobody but the police can carry. Out in the streets in the good ole USA, you can.
...he said all soldiers carry their weapons at all times, but now he says he has a friend with a concealed carry permit. Way to man up willy!
No one, military or otherwise, can carry on federal property, including military bases. But you can carry out on the public street. In many states you don't need to pass a gun safety test to get a conceal carry permit if you're in the military.
Willy, 100% correct statement. When I was an active duty flyer, I had a gun card to carry concealed world wide, but only while on official duty. The primary objective of which was to prevent hijacking a military cargo plane. Standing orders were to shoot to kill. No warning shots authorized. If the need arose, the jet would be disabled, or in some situations, completely destroyed to prevent it being taken over by non-crew members. That always gave us incentive to shot the assholes and stop them from taking command. When we landed, the weapons were turned in to the Military Police, or if on a civilian airport, either secured in the aircraft mounted, hidden gun box, or turned over to the local police until we departed on the next flight. We had hollow point cartridges too, in violation of the Geneva Convention. That policy is still in effect.
...compared US soldiers to British soldiers, saying US soldiers carry guns. The British soldier was in civilian clothes on a city street. A US soldier in similar circumstances would also NOT be carrying a gun.
But you can't admit you're wrong so you throw in a red herring about concealed weapons. Way to move the goal post so you don't have to admit you were wrong.
They don't carry guns when they are on base either, (legally), other than the Military Police.
Soldiers have the right to carry firearms like anyone else, therefore, your argument is crap....
You're Welcome
For God and Country
I never said they do NOT have the right to carry guns like anyone else.
when off base and not in uniform they have the same rights as all US citizens, unless the UCMJ says otherwise.
My comment was in the context ,and in reply to the OP, that they do not carry a gun as they would if they were on duty since they do not patrol off base. Also as pointed out they do not carry a gun on base unless they are MP or the like.
This all assumes they are in the US.
You're Welcome
2014 = GOP Senate and house
Taking one incident and using it as justification for not having limits on gun ownership is ridiculous even, for you.
In London, it is criminal act by terrorist. In Connecticut, it is a criminal act by mentally deranged son and mother that killed little kids. This is what background check is all about. Would it stop mentally deranged from getting guns, probably not but it will keep some from getting guns.
...and that pretty much sums up the effectiveness of background checks.
So why have them?
while AF is looking up the meaning of the word "rhetorical" let's just say it makes stupid people feel better. There really is no other reason for the laws presently in effect.
what it is like in his "Peaceful Britain" to only have the ability to record a horrendous act like this with your phone and not have the means to stop it.
Piers is an idiot.
What makes this even more disturbing is the bystanders doing nothing. Yes, one woman did try to help but I wonder, would you just sit back, with no weapon and watch someone being hacked to death?