The few, the proud, the ... untrusted?

[Frosty]

The link wouldn't post so I copied and pasted the article found on examiner.com. I really wonder what he will do next, I love my country but fear my President/Government. Sorry photos didn't post but yup, they have no bolts!

Disabled Marine rifles at inauguration signal shift in administration policy.
USMC
February 9, 2013
By: David Codrea
Subscribe - examiner.com
Protocol prohibits flipping them off -- at least in a way the public will notice. Marines march to honor the president, who honors them in return by requiring them to march with clubs.

Note there are plenty of ‘trusted’ guns surrounding the president.

“Didn't know the Marines had to take the bolts out of their rifles for the Inaugural,” an email forwarded to Gun Rights Examiner from a United States Marine Corps source observed. “Wonder if someone can explain why [they] would be marching in the inaugural parade with no bolts in their rifles!”

The email linked to a YouTube video of the 57th Presidential Inaugural Parade, embedded in this column, featuring Bravo Company Marines from the Marine Barracks Washington. Sure enough, the observation in the email is confirmed by watching the video, with screen shots provided in the photo and slide show accompanying this article.

This prompted an internet search to see if others had also noticed, and the Blur-Brain blog had.

“The bolts have been removed from the rifles rendering them unable to fire a round,” the post stated. “Apparently Obama’s Secret Service doesn’t trust the USMC. Simply searching each guy to make sure he didn’t have a live round hidden on him wasn’t enough, they had to make sure the guns were inoperable.

Wondering if this may be an inauguration policy of long standing that transcends administrations, Gun Rights Examiner made a cursory search and found something even more curious. In the 2009 Inaugural Parade, the United States Navy marched with rifles that had not been so disabled (see 1:24 into that video plus the final slide).

This raises the question of why the administration felt it necessary to make this change now, particularly with concerns being raised about military involvement in domestic affairs, litmus tests on top brass willingness to fire on American citizens alleged by a heretofore prominent and credible Nobel Prize nominee, a "terrorism" policy that allows for assassinating Americans without due process, rising concerns over deployment of domestic drones, and publicized opposition among many in the USMC to presidential policies such as women in combat, as well as having been the most resistant military branch to ending “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Add to this concerns over administration agencies buying up ammunition in massive quantities, the renewed destruction of expended military ammunition brass in contravention of the Defense Appropriations Act, and Obama’s post-election confidence in dropping the mask on his previously “under the radar” citizen disarmament plans, and the change becomes another piece that fits in a puzzle that’s forming an increasingly disturbing picture.

Unsurprisingly, a Google news feed search finds no reports on inaugural Marine disarmament in the “Authorized Journalist” media. Chances are, most of them aren’t qualified to notice such things, and that it doesn’t serve the agenda of those who are to point such things out.

If you're a regular Gun Rights Examiner reader and believe it provides news and perspectives you won't find in the mainstream media, please subscribe to this column and help spread the word by sharing links, promoting it on social media like Facebook (David Codrea) and Twitter (@dcodrea), and telling your like-minded friends about it. And for more commentary, be sure to visit "The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance."
Marines Support the 57th Presidential Inaugural Parade

[crusader rabbit]

So, let's put a little perspective on this...

Say you are the Prez, and your party hierarchy has publicly stated as a matter of policy that the very same Marines who are marching in your parade will become suspected terrorists upon the completion of their enlistment.

Now, seriously, are you going to want suspected terrorist apprentices handling actual firearms.

This may just be the first thing Odamna has done that makes any sense.

I weep for my country,

Crusader Rabbit

[jnevis]

Is there a link to the pics?

Certain Ceremonial Gaurd units use M1903s, which would have an obvious bolt in most pictures, while others use M1 Garands, that depending on the angle and from a distance could be confused as an M1903 with the bolt removed.

Also dummy weapons without bolts is almost mandatory form ceremonial units since they typically weigh less are easier to maintain.  Unless they are doing a routine, there is no need for an actual bolt in the weapon.

[tombogan03884]

It has been policy for some time to prohibit armed troops from getting anywhere near "His Wonness" Obama I.
Guess they remember what happened to Sadat.
It's funny, the evil "W" never had to worry about that .

[Frosty]

Is there a link to the pics?

Certain Ceremonial Gaurd units use M1903s, which would have an obvious bolt in most pictures, while others use M1 Garands, that depending on the angle and from a distance could be confused as an M1903 with the bolt removed.

Also dummy weapons without bolts is almost mandatory form ceremonial units since they typically weigh less are easier to maintain.  Unless they are doing a routine, there is no need for an actual bolt in the weapon.

Try this -  http://wp.me/p1zsyr-4Dw

[Sponsor]

[MikeBjerum]

I once did extensive research into military ceremony for information concerning the "21 gun salute."  It is amazing the fiction out there, even within our own military organizations:

Did you know that the reason for 21 is because if you add up the digits in 1776 you get 21?
Then how do explain that this salute was used in the 16th century?

Dumbed down, the reason for the "21 gun salute" is to show your opponent that your arms are empty - unloaded, during a time of mourning or other ceasefire.  It is the only time our military is to be in ceremony with unloaded firearms.  This has been expanded to drill teams due to the safety issues with using a firearm as an ornament in display.

My research would support that Marines in parade with disabled firearms is incorrect.

[Solus]

Every member of the Armed Forces took the same oath  the vets and active duty troops among us took to defend the Constitution and country from enemies, but foreign and domestic.

It is likely the Administration has concern that members of the military might take that oath literally and seriously.

[lhprop1]

Did you know that the reason for 21 is because if you add up the digits in 1776 you get 21?
Then how do explain that this salute was used in the 16th century?

Not to mention that the 21 gun salute is used worldwide and most countries don't recognize 1776 as having any significance. 

[MikeBjerum]

Not to mention that the 21 gun salute is used worldwide and most countries don't recognize 1776 as having any significance. 

Tell many in your local VFW or American Legion yours or mine and you will be buying beers to end the fight you started 

[tombogan03884]

Gun salutes from ships originated from , as M58 says, showing the guns were empty by firing and not reloading.
Also, different individuals and events get a different number of guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_salute#United_States

It may be noted that the "Presidential" 21 gun salute is not SUPPOSED to be aimed at the reviewing stand.