pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Marines Disarmed for Obama's Second Inaugural Parade
#31
My buddy is with the 82nd Airborne in NC. He said, at least in his platoon, they all hate the POTUS. I assume a lot of military personnel do.
[Image: pa_zps59e4c512.png?t=1379682235]
Reply
#32
thebearpack;78890 Wrote:I've asked questions too. Specifically:

If it was the administration, what does it prove if not mistrust?

JustinHEMI;78888 Wrote:Well, it proves nothing, except that they ordered the removal of the bolts, if they did order it. How can you be more unloaded, than unloaded? If they aren't carrying ammo, then what difference does removing the bolt make?

"What does it prove?" was poorly worded. The question should be "what is gained by the bolt removal?" If you take weight, cleanliness, and history out of the mix (and I know we can't for sure so I'm saying "if"), then what are you left with as motivation? In my opinion, it's what I said earlier: mistrust. I mean, as you pointed out, unloaded is unloaded. Why would anyone be concerned about Marines carrying unloaded weapons with the bolts locked open? Why would someone make them go a step further and actually disable their weapons? The only logical answer I can come up with is that someone was concerned about how quickly "unloaded" can become "loaded".

Philadelphia Patriot;78925 Wrote:My buddy is with the 82nd Airborne in NC. He said, at least in his platoon, they all hate the POTUS. I assume a lot of military personnel do.

I know an officer with the National Guard unit that was part of the security at the inauguration and they feel the same way. I don't think that animosity is lost on Obama and his cronies. That's why I find it easy to believe that an order was given demanding that the weapons be made inoperable.
Reply
#33
I'm reading that ceremonial honor guard rifles are always deactivated, and that previously, firing pins were removed. I'm still searching, but here's some info in the rifles;

"I was in the Old Guard, Honor Guard Co. for 3.5 years (all but basic and AIT). Unless things have changed Honor Guard would be doing the high profile funerals and ceremonies still. If this was a joint service funeral (I didn't watch it) then there would be an platoons of each service.

If not a big full honor funeral then the casket teams would be mixed between the branches of the service. I don't remember any joint service firing parties when I was up there.

We carried M14's. Plain Jane run of the mill M14's. The only shiny chrome thing on it was the bayonet. The M14's are in wood stocks and have nice clean white slings.

When I was up there (1976 to 1979) rifle wise it broke down like this:

US Army M14's (fully operational)
US Marines M1 Garands (deactivated)
US Navy 03A3's and 03's (deactivated and chromed - yechhh!)
US Air Force M1 Garands (deactivated)
US Coast Guard 03A3's and 03's (deactivated, seems like they were chromed but we didn't pay much attention to them)"

http://m14forum.com/m14/74089-military-c...specs.html

Justin
[Image: pafoasig.png]
Reply
#34
This seems to suggest that deactivating rifles is standard security protocol.

http://www.vmi.edu/Content.aspx?id=10737423536

“We had to go through security, which was probably the longest part of the day because all of our rifles had to be checked,” he said. “Every rifle had to go through … to make sure there weren’t any firing pins.”

Justin
[Image: pafoasig.png]
Reply
#35
This is interesting, from here;

www.ushistory.org/betsy/images/hgguide.pdf


"11.5.3.2. The inert M1 is used during any Honor Guard ceremony not requiring the 21-gun salute. The inert M1 has been rendered unable tofire any type of round, including blanks. The inert M1 should not be confused with a demilitarized M1, which is completely destroyed."

Yeah, that's a 12 year old USAF honor guard manual, but it's more evidence that "inerting" of rifles is SOP.


Justin
[Image: pafoasig.png]
Reply
#36
More evidence that this is "nothing new,"

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=34092&cpage=1

"2001 I was on my brigades color guard when Pres Bush came to Ft Stewart. We also had to remove our bolts. Well before he came, we had a formation in the gym and the Secret Service walked down the line checking everyones rifle, and my CSMs M9 to see if our bolts were removed. They also ran a magic wand over us to make sure we didn’t have anything else. I was told by an agent that one of the females on the Div Color guard set the wand off when they ran it across her crotch. When it chirped she blurted out “Oh that’s just my ring….I mean, uh…” So much for the no piercings policy in 670-1."

"I have a friend that is a retired Washington State Patrol Trooper. He was in a detail of troopers that was sent to D.C. for the Inaugaration of Jimmy Carter. He said they had to turn in their ammo for their .357mag service revolvers for the parade and ceremonies. I was lucky enough not to have a president visit my jurisdiction when I was sheriff. Colleagues that did have one said that it was common for the people nearby to not be armed. The Secret Service is a pain in the ass for local LE. I am not in any way sticking up for the dipshit in chief, I think the Secret Service has had the policy for some time. IMHO."

"This is nothing new. When we did a parade down Waikiki celebrating the anniversery of VJ day and President Clinton came, we had to remove the bolts from our M-16s. We even had bright orange stickers put on our collars to let the SS know that we had been cleared."




There's some in this thread that also say this is SOP;

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1438729...moved.html

"Not new at all, it happened under G.W. Bush, Clinton, G.H. Bush, and Reagan, and probably earlier. The Secret Service probably wishes they could disarm the cops as well... "


"Not new.

Sorry to buzzkill your butthurt. "


"While I normally appreciate Examiner articles, they are way off the mark if they think this has anything to do with the Obama admin."



"this isn't new, and it makes sense. the fewer guns around the president not being carried by the secret service the easier their job is and the happier they are."


"It's already been pointed out by several other posters, but I will still share my view. This is SOP now, and has been for a while. I was involved with the months of planning that went into the inauguration.

I'm not willing to say anything on here to hurt my security clearance, but rest assured, the reason has nothing to do with the President not trusting the military. The reason is simple. Different agencies are in charge of security that day. The .mil that you see are there to be part of the pageant. There are also units you don't see who are armed and tasked to be QRF/ search and rescue for events like that."



"Did honor guard duty back in the 70s for Nixon in Hawaii same thing no bolts."


"They just straight up took our rifles away in Afghanistan when Obama came to visit us. It's not a new thing. They also wouldn't let us leave until he left, and that took almost three hours.

See all the weapons around GWB when he went to visit Iraq?"

[Image: P36047-34.jpg]


"Clinton came to Lejeune while I was stationed there and not one single weapon was allowed out of the armories. Not for he Cpl of the guard or the officer of the day. All barracks had to have their blinds open. I don't hink the MPs were allowed to carry either."





And so on and so forth.

Nothing but a bunch of circumstantial and anecdotal evidence, but the picture is becoming clear to me. All of this, coupled with the old USAF honor guard manual, has me 98% convinced that his is nothing new, nor is it an escalation of "mistrust" by this administration. Basically, the SS doesn't trust ANYBODY, nor should they. *I* don't want the military armed, off base, in the homeland (personal sidearms carried when not on duty aside, of course).

To add my own personal anecdote, when GWB visited SUBASE Groton after the 2003 war broke out, there wasn't a weapon allowed out of the armory the entire time he was there.


I have nothing more to add.

Justin
[Image: pafoasig.png]
Reply
#37
JustinHEMI;78953 Wrote:Nothing but a bunch of circumstantial and anecdotal evidence, but the picture is becoming clear to me. All of this, coupled with the old USAF honor guard manual, has me 98% convinced that his is nothing new, nor is it an escalation of "mistrust" by this administration. Basically, the SS doesn't trust ANYBODY, nor should they. *I* don't want the military armed, off base, in the homeland (personal sidearms carried when not on duty aside, of course).

To add my own personal anecdote, when GWB visited SUBASE Groton after the 2003 war broke out, there wasn't a weapon allowed out of the armory the entire time he was there.

I appreciate the research but agree it's nothing more than anecdotal evidence. I've read as many accounts from guys who say they never had to make their weapons inoperable. As to your experience, of course no one would be allowed to remove weapons from the armory; there would be no reason to do so.

Here's a link to pics from Bush's 2005 inauguration.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123009660

If you download the first one in high res, you can see the M14s on the Air Force Honor Guards' shoulders. I could be wrong but it looks like the bolts are in place and closed to me.

Still no concrete evidence either way if you ask me.
Reply
#38
thebearpack;78965 Wrote:
JustinHEMI;78953 Wrote:Nothing but a bunch of circumstantial and anecdotal evidence, but the picture is becoming clear to me. All of this, coupled with the old USAF honor guard manual, has me 98% convinced that his is nothing new, nor is it an escalation of "mistrust" by this administration. Basically, the SS doesn't trust ANYBODY, nor should they. *I* don't want the military armed, off base, in the homeland (personal sidearms carried when not on duty aside, of course).

To add my own personal anecdote, when GWB visited SUBASE Groton after the 2003 war broke out, there wasn't a weapon allowed out of the armory the entire time he was there.

I appreciate the research but agree it's nothing more than anecdotal evidence. I've read as many accounts from guys who say they never had to make their weapons inoperable. As to your experience, of course no one would be allowed to remove weapons from the armory; there would be no reason to do so.

Here's a link to pics from Bush's 2005 inauguration.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123009660

If you download the first one in high res, you can see the M14s on the Air Force Honor Guards' shoulders. I could be wrong but it looks like the bolts are in place and closed to me.

Still no concrete evidence either way if you ask me.

I agree, and that has been me main point all along. I think the simpler, and most plausible explanation is, that simply, the military doesn't carry useful weapons in ceremonial parades. Whether the firing pin is removed (as in the picture you pointed out), they're demilled, the bolt is removed, whatever..., it just doesn't even make sense that they would.

I also don't believe, IMO, that BHO would even be aware of such a thing. He doesn't make SS security policy and procedure.

Justin

PS My anecdote was to point out that even the gate guards, patrols and the guards for each individual boat, were disarmed. Otherwise, after 9/11, we had two armed guys topside, one below decks, and armed patrols all over the base.
[Image: pafoasig.png]
Reply
#39
JustinHEMI;78937 Wrote:This seems to suggest that deactivating rifles is standard security protocol.

http://www.vmi.edu/Content.aspx?id=10737423536

“We had to go through security, which was probably the longest part of the day because all of our rifles had to be checked,” he said. “Every rifle had to go through … to make sure there weren’t any firing pins.”

Justin

UM, VMI is not a military unit. You know better than that Justin.
[Image: member955.png]
USAF (1976 -1986) NRA, GOA Anim_sniper2
"The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living." Dan Cofall
Reply
#40
We never had ammunition for our weapons issued on-base anyway, or for any off-base funtion we had to attend, at leat not while I was at Quantico or Camp LeJeune.

There is a big difference between an empty weapon and one that has been intentionally rendered non-functional.
A gun rack in a pick-up is not for holding guns. Its a place for women to hold on to. Smile
Reply








Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.