I don’t know enough to comment on this, but it seems interesting…
Disabled Marine rifles at inauguration signal shift in administration policy
“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.
Here’s the 2009 Inaugural Parade video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6Z5BIiBckvs
JIMSKI says:
Ask Sadat.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
10th February 2013 at 9:51 am
sangell says:
Clinton had US soldiers run through metal detectors and their firearms disabled before he would appear before them. Even in combat zones like Kosovo. Never heard that about either Bush but it seems to be pretty standard policy for Democrat presidents.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
10th February 2013 at 10:08 am
IndenturedServant says:
sangell said:
“Never heard that about either Bush but it seems to be pretty standard policy for Democrat presidents.”
So besides Clinton and Obama, which other democrat presidents did this?
I_S
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
10th February 2013 at 10:42 am
sangell says:
Strange as it may seem I can find no pictures of Jimmy Carter with US soldiers other than reviewing a color guard with the foreign leaders. The only picture of him I could find with a US soldier not in parade uniform was this.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
10th February 2013 at 11:11 am
Eddie says:
I’m just thinking…did they do some kind of survey or poll to determine the likelihood of having at least one mentally unstable soldier in a group of a few hundred? Could it be related to the Fort Hood shooting? Did that cause some changes in regs or policy? Of course that was Army.
I’ll have to say, that if I were in charge of security for such a large and historic event as a Presidential inauguration,that I would want to do anything I could do reduce the risk of mayhem. Maybe it’s a good policy, strictly from a safety protocol. I’d want to control absolutely every variable I could control, knowing that I could never control everything.
Like or Dislike:
1 
5
10th February 2013 at 11:47 am
Administrator says:
Fort Hood was so bad because none of the personnel were allowed to be armed on the base.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
0
10th February 2013 at 12:00 pm
Muck About says:
Sure did them a lot of good too….
MA
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
10th February 2013 at 1:40 pm
IndenturedServant says:
The military cops were armed at Fairchild AFB in 1994 when a nut went on a shooting spree. One cop used a 9mm pistol from 70 yds away to put one between the assholes eyes. Ding! Fries are done!
I_S
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
10th February 2013 at 2:50 pm
Gubmint Cheese says:
Fear the government that fears your gun…..
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14 
0
10th February 2013 at 5:52 pm
ecliptix543 says:
IS – One of the reasons I still stick with the 9mm over .40 or .45. For a pistol round, its velocity gives it a notable edge in attempting accurate shots at beyond normal pistol ranges. Also why I like the M9 pattern Beretta’s… 10-12″ targets at 100 yds aren’t very difficult to hit within the first couple of shots, 3″ at 25 is no problem, and it points well (for me, other opinions can and do differ, and that’s perfectly fine).
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
10th February 2013 at 6:33 pm
DAVID W. BAKER says:
Here’s a few things I would like to know. Who would belittle their men enough to make them carry a rifle that the bolt was removed? If you don’t want to take the chance of an accident, why march with rifles? If you don’t trust your finest, why would they want to MARCH IN YOUR PARADE? What kind of SO CALLED LEADER would allow his men be insulted to this magnitude and still participate in this DOG AND PONY SHOW? Sorry, I guess that is the reason I finished my career in the service at the level I did, but at least I hold my head high and know I never allowed my Men to be disrespected.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
10th February 2013 at 1:00 pm
flash says:
..a different view on the bolt less M-1s..may a been sign of disrespect?
It’s been my experience that Marines are actually a pretty bright bunch (maybe it’s ‘cuz I’m so fucking dumb in comparison) and have excellent bullshit detectors and are devious and sneaky and always somehow manage to get their message out.
They screwed this shit up on purpose, and that’s why I believe they removed the bolts from their weapons and fucked up the parade.
They de-milled their Garands on their own…not on the orders of the criminal and treasonous O’Vomit cabal.
I think they did it as a silent protest to the fucked up bullshit O’Vomit and his progressive minions are doing to their beloved God, Country, and Corps.
Gays…women in combat…the sacking of various generals…the list goes on and on. You know what I’m talking about.
The emasculation and destruction of a nation…
What better way to illustrate this than by marching with disabled rifles?
It’s a first as far as I know. Marines have always drilled with fully functional weapons.
I don’t think it’s a conspiracy thing.
It’s a Marine thing, and I like to think I kinda know a little bit about that.
Maybe not though, as I was a lowly shit-bag reservist communications puke…and therefore inconsequential.
Semper Fi any damned way…
http://walterzoomiesworld.blogspot.com/2013/02/some-thoughts-on-marines-bolt-less-m1.html
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
10th February 2013 at 1:22 pm
George says:
They did the same thing to the army when Clinton visited Germany.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
10th February 2013 at 4:57 am