Jump to content

Marines in inaugural parade had bolts removed from their rifles


1SG_1st_Cav
 Share

Recommended Posts

Don't know about your picture, but these Marines don't have bolts in their rifles. I think it says a lot about our Commander in Chief.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuJRf7HNVSo&feature=player_embedded#!

 

post-10825-0-83091700-1360946183.png

 

 

I know the pic I posted was from the inauguration.Hard to tell from your pic but is the bolt out or open?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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…

Unlike in 2009, in the 2013 inaugural parade,
someone in authority made the decision to change that and order the Marines to march with visibly disabled guns
.

Like TSO said, I think it’s more of an overreaction by the perpetual pants-wetters in the Secret Service than from the Administration. TSO emails that he had to remove his bolt from his weapon when the Clintons came to Tuzla while he was there. The one time I marched for a President was Gerald Ford on the Army’s 200th Birthday at Fort Benning and we had bolts in our M16s, so it’s been a long while for me to chime in with any experience on the subject.

EVERYTHING ABOVE WAS OFF THE WEB.BELOW IS A PICTURE OF THE MARINES MARCHING DURN THE GEORGE W. BUSH INAUGURAL PARADE. ENJOY!

 

parade_fnl.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about TSO, but I was in Tuzla in 1995 running the Assault Command Post. Clinton came to that CP, I briefed him on current Ops, and I was fully armed, loaded weapon, and with two full spare magazines. Everyone in the CP was likewise armed. At no time did anyone ever ask us to disarm.

 

At the Yorktown bicentennial ceremonies, I was there as well. Reagan and Mitterand were the VIPs present. Secret Service came through every unit's ranks - and inspected every weapon, bolt open. Other than that, all weapons were functional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cbd956446c3dd8b5da54664fffa80d10.jpg

 

Note the op rod is in the forward position.... NO bolt in the gun.........

 

 

I can see it now, thanks.I still don't understand the reasoning behind this order.If one Marine happened to 'lose' it I would think the other Marines around him would have him face down in a second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I can see it now, thanks.I still don't understand the reasoning behind this order.If one Marine happened to 'lose' it I would think the other Marines around him would have him face down in a second.

 

Institutions have their reputations and integrity, but at the end of the day institutions are comprised of people who are, so I've heard, not perfect. We've seen Army officers shoot up a crowded base facility, an ex-cop killing cops, Highway Patrol officers who were rapists and killers while on duty and all sorts of other examples of people in positions of trust going rogue.

 

The Secret Service (a hallowed institution whose ranks include serious party boys who stiff their hookers) sets protection policies, not the President. For them, the fact that someone's peers might have him face down after he fired a shot is not comforting. I am no friend of this administration but I think it is seriously wrong to see the Secret Service's actions as slighting the Corps. Wait until the next budget process: that's when the actual slighting begins :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do see it as a slight. There is a strict screening process and security clearance/background check for Marines entering the Yankee White Program (Presidential Security).and even 8th & I is well screened...the Marines are the President's security. I see it as a huge slight...who's to say a Secret Service Agent isn't going to go rogue and do something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The United States is technically a country at war (as is the UK) There are those who would do your citizens and your President harm, given the opportunity. I seem to remember a rogue US Army major firing on his comrades not too long ago. We might not like it, but tight security is a necessity these days....on both sides of the pond!

The Marines are Presidential Security...whose to say Secret Service won't go mental? They're not supermen, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Marines are Presidential Security...whose to say Secret Service won't go mental? They're not supermen, either.

 

 

I agree.Nobody is infallible.I do and I don't understand the reasoning.I kind of understand why the S.S. wanted to do this but why now?If they are that worried they should have given them cut out rifles with rubber bayonets. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I agree.Nobody is infallible.I do and I don't understand the reasoning.I kind of understand why the S.S. wanted to do this but why now?If they are that worried they should have given them cut out rifles with rubber bayonets. :wacko:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/US_Secret_Service_agents_face_investigation_for_Colombian_sex_scandal

I guess they forgot the old saw:"This is my rifle, this is my gun....."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we the picture of Maines marching in formation is from the inagural parade? The original poster said the Marines were carring M-14 rifles, but those in the picture are M-1 Garands.

 

BTW, I'm glad to see the Marines going back to narrow/thin grommets in their dress covers rather than that wide metal band. While they are not the same as the WWII ones, they still look so much better!!

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pictures I posted said they were from the inaugural parade.In the one picture you can see the Presidental flag behind them.The article about the Marines with no bolts in their weapons did state they were Garands and not M-14's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we the picture of Maines marching in formation is from the inagural parade? The original poster said the Marines were carring M-14 rifles, but those in the picture are M-1 Garands.

 

BTW, I'm glad to see the Marines going back to narrow/thin grommets in their dress covers rather than that wide metal band. While they are not the same as the WWII ones, they still look so much better!!

Steve

 

Watch the video in post #21. The video is straight from the Marine Corp. and it clearly shows the bolt-less M1 Garands in the 57th innaugural march.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do see it as a slight. There is a strict screening process and security clearance/background check for Marines entering the Yankee White Program (Presidential Security).and even 8th & I is well screened...the Marines are the President's security. I see it as a huge slight...who's to say a Secret Service Agent isn't going to go rogue and do something?

 

 

I have to agree with Brig on this one. I think it's going way overboard and totally agree that any agent or any DC police officer could lose it. I have worked security for Pres. Bush (the first one) and Reagan on local visits and was within arms reach of Pres Bush and was carrying my loaded service weapon and extra mags so I consider it a slight as well to those Marines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just curious as to whether or not the D.C. Police and the hundreds of Police Officers along the parade route were not carrying ammunition or had their weapons disabled for the Inauguration? I would be much more concerned about a rogue Police Officer than a member of the USMC. And that theory of a weapon being dropped and accidentally discharged is certainly a reach as well, because I've never known of any ceremonial parade participant being issued ammunition for their weapons - whether they are Marines, Sailors or Soldiers. This Commander in Chief is certainly fearful of his life, and rightfully so with the types of decisions he's been known to make and the disrespect he's shown for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone bothered asked the Marin Corps about this? Maybe all are getting their knickers twisted for no good reason. (I haven't because I don't give a rat's a** about th whole thing.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone bothered asked the Marin Corps about this? Maybe all are getting their knickers twisted for no good reason. (I haven't because I don't give a rat's a** about th whole thing.)

 

 

LOL!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure the Marine Presidential Security Detail is well screened, as is 8th & I due to their proximity to the President at numerous functions. Actually, I know they are

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the following incident -

 

http://en.wikipedia....t_Hood_shooting

 

Tim

 

Major Nidal Hasan is a domestic terrorist no matter if he wears the uniform of the United States or not. He had changed his views against the United States according to his cousin:

 

"Another cousin, Nader Hasan, a lawyer in Virginia, said that Nidal Hasan's opinion turned against the United States wars in the Mideast after he heard stories from people who returned from Afghanistan and Iraq.[68] Because of what he said was discrimination and deepening anguish about serving in a military that fought against Muslims, he told some members of his family that he wanted to leave the military"

 

Staff where he was stationed also noticed this:

 

"officials at Walter Reed Medical Center repeatedly expressed concern about Hasan's behavior during the entire six years he was there....In early 2008 (and on later occasions), several key officials met to discuss what to do about Hasan. Attendees of these meetings reportedly included the Walter Reed chief of psychiatry, the chairman of the USUHS Psychiatry Department, two assistant chairs of the USUHS Psychiatry Department (one of whom was the director of Hasan's psychiatry fellowship), another psychiatrist, and the director of the Walter Reed psychiatric residency program. According to NPR, fellow students and faculty were "deeply troubled" by Hasan's behavior, which they described as "disconnected," "aloof," "paranoid," "belligerent," and "schizoid."[69]

 

On top of this he even distributed literature with references to being a Jihadist:

 

Two days before the shooting, Hasan gave away furniture from his home, saying he was going to be deployed.[72] He also handed out copies of the Qur'an, along with his business cards, which listed a Maryland phone number and read "Behavioral Heatlh [sic] – Mental Health – Life Skills | Nidal Hasan, MD, MPH | SoA(SWT) | Psychiatrist".[73][74] According to investigators, the acronym "SoA" is commonly used on jihadist websites as an acronym for "Soldier of Allah" or "Servant of Allah", and SWT is commonly used by Muslims to mean "subhanahu wa ta'ala" (Glory to God).

 

And finally, he was conversing with a known terrorist:

 

Hasan expressed admiration for the teachings of Anwar al-Awlaki, the imam at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia between 2000 and 2002. Awlaki had been the subject of several FBI investigations, and had helped hijackers al-Hazmi and Hanjour settle, and provided spiritual guidance to them when they met him at the San Diego mosque, and after they drove to the east coast.[81] Considered moderate then, Al-Awlaki appeared to become radicalized after 2006 and was under surveillance. After Hasan wrote nearly 20 emails to him between December 2008 and June 2009, he was investigated by the FBI. In one, Hasan wrote: "I can't wait to join you" in the afterlife. Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, a military analyst at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies, suggested that Hasan was "either offering himself up or [had] already crossed that line in his own mind." Hasan asked al-Awlaki when jihad is appropriate, and whether it is permissible if innocents are killed in a suicide attack.[82]

 

 

All that being said, which I was already familiar with and just had to copy from the wiki item to make sure everyone could read it, Hasan was identified by staff, fellow soldiers and those within his community as not being right. He wasn't missed by the military or the FBI, he just wasn't taken in to custody nor was he removed from the military. If Hasan were in one of the units marching in the parade and these concerns were known, you had better believe he wouldn't be anywhere near the parade. As mentioned in earlier posts the security and background checks for these units are at a higher standard than other units within the military.

 

So please, take some time to familiarize yourself with a non-actioned upon terrorist as opposed to a highly screened service member who is in one of the most elite units in the military. The difference is stark and comparing the two doesn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What part of my original post and Bob's post below did some of you clearly not read or miss??? They note the exact issue.

 

But yep, some of you got it exaaaaaactly right. THE PRESIDENT HATES THE MARINE CORPS, NO, THE ENTIRE U.S. MILITARY! AND HE DOES NOT TRUST ANY ONE OF YOU!

 

MW

 

 

 

Institutions have their reputations and integrity, but at the end of the day institutions are comprised of people who are, so I've heard, not perfect. We've seen Army officers shoot up a crowded base facility, an ex-cop killing cops, Highway Patrol officers who were rapists and killers while on duty and all sorts of other examples of people in positions of trust going rogue.

 

The Secret Service (a hallowed institution whose ranks include serious party boys who stiff their hookers) sets protection policies, not the President. For them, the fact that someone's peers might have him face down after he fired a shot is not comforting. I am no friend of this administration but I think it is seriously wrong to see the Secret Service's actions as slighting the Corps. Wait until the next budget process: that's when the actual slighting begins :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I view it as a slight and it is probably politically motivated. This President is no friend to the Military. This is my opinion. Your opinion will probably vary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...