Bob Owens

The saddest truth in politics is that people get the leaders they deserve

Dishonoring the Corps; Marines in inaugural parade had bolts removed from their rifles

Written By: Bob - Feb• 09•13
Dishonored and disarmed: President Obama's second inauguration marks the first know time in American history that a President has had military rifles disabled for a public parade.

Dishonored and disarmed: Bolts are clearly missing from these Marine rifles during President Obama’s inauguration parade. This is an unmistakable insult to the honor of the Marine Corps.

David Codrea has revealed that President Obama has so little regard for the United States Marines risking their lives under his command life that they were forced to dismantle their already empty parade rifles for his second inauguration parade. This is nothing less than a slap in the face of the Corps:

“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.

Obama doesn’t trust the very men who put their lives on the line to serve their country. I guess it shouldn’t be that much of a shock. Untrustworthy people find it very difficult to believe that other men have honor.

Update: Some are claiming that this is “standard operating procedure” carried out in inaugural parades for previous President’s as well. In the interests of balance and fairness, I’ll be happy to post verifiable photos of earlier inaugural parades that similarly show this practice is consistent among previous Presidents.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

144 Comments

  1. david7134 says:

    My son was in the parade so I was watching. It noted the lack of bolts and thought what kind of leaders do we have that they can’t trust their own military?

    • As a Marine with Ground Forces in Vietnam appears Mr. Obama fears his Marines. I wonder what he has done that would cause such in him.

      • Beepster says:

        Well, he has done everything he can except disband the Marines. I don’t think even the Demidogs would go along with that. He fears them more than any branch because they believe in, and adhere to, their oath to protect the Constitution. I’m AF, but I believe in the faith of the Marines.

    • David6565 says:

      Their actio says they know they can’t trust the military … so they’re building their own called DHS, TSA, FEMA, National Law Enforcement groups

  2. Comrade X says:

    How can Obama trust anyone who has taken an oath to “..support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…?

    Death before slavery!

    • Michael says:

      You can’t have it both ways. Again and again on this site, you guys have prattled on about how the military is going to have your back when the revolution comes because they are sworn to “support and defend” etc.; yet you see this as a slap in the face? If your army-man daydreams are correct–if what you think is true–then this would be a reasonable thing to do.

      Come down on one side of the issue or the other. Is the military full of incipient traitors, as you all repeatedly suggest, or is the precaution unfounded?

      • Comrade X says:

        I have found in life that to say that everything or everybody of a group is one way is rarely true but this poll of Marines shows;

        “A total of 61.66 percent, or 185, indicated that they were opposed to firing at citizens.

        Of the total, 42.33 percent, or 127, indicated they “strongly disagree” and 19.33 percent, or 58, indicated they “disagree.”

        http://www.ssrsi.org/Onsite/BBStext/shootus.htm

        I know this poll is almost 10 years old (haven’t seen anything newer) but IMHO the numbers would be better today to not too.

        Death before slavery!

      • brian says:

        How could it be seen as anything but? Clearly the President expects his military to take up arms against him.

        If he really does fear that, then maybe he ought to reconsider what he’s doing.

      • Klingonwork says:

        We have come down on one side…perhaps you need to read the posts, not wave your hand over them and acquire them via the force.

      • Michael says:

        “We have come down on one side…perhaps you need to read the posts, not wave your hand over them and acquire them via the force.”

        I’ve been reading Bob’s posts for years. So tell me: since it’s not clear, which side have you all come down on? The military has your back in the coming revolution, so taking the bolts out of the rifles was a reasonable act of caution,or the military is totally loyal to the government, so taking the bolts out is a slap in the face?

      • Bill says:

        @Michael: It’s not an all or nothing proposition.

        You know that. Stop trolling.

      • Mark Adams says:

        It is a simple observation of the character of the person who sits in Oval Office as the President of the United States. He would not have to worry about the protection afforded him by the USMC if he were honoring his oath to support and follow the Constitution of the United States of America.He (obama) is trying to subvert our Constitution and that is why he fears our military.
        For you to label any of our military as ‘incipient traitors’ shows your ignorance. You have obviously never taken the oath of service for our great nation otherwise you would know that by disobeying unlawful orders(which is what the others and myself are suggesting they would do)they are upholding that oath not breaking it.

      • Mudlark says:

        How long has Michael been off his lithium. Does he really understand that what has occurred is neither standard nor normal?

        Or is he just another Soros want to be?

  3. Comrade X says:

    Gun control or people control?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AdhXSj-DL1A

    Death before slavery!

  4. Klingonwork says:

    That’s astounding, but I’m wondering, if they are now sensing a real sense of rebellion.

    • Michael says:

      What I’m wondering is whether this is regularly done in the inaugural parade, and you guys are just latching onto it now because it suits your narrative.

      • Michael says:

        You are right! this has been done for years, Even when I was in the army in 1976, my unit marched in a july 4th parade. Our weapons were disabled.

    • Klingonwork says:

      If that’s true Michael, why would any president need that to happen, you are right and that’s a good point…we need not run away with our emotions.

      If it was only done with Obama…you’re a plant.

      • Michael says:

        “If it was only done with Obama…you’re a plant.”

        Is your tinfoil hat screwed on a little tight, my friend?

      • Veritas says:

        Michael seek help. The red diaper babies howl so much when the truth leaks out for all to see. No this is not standard operating proceedure.

    • Bill says:

      Micheal, depending on how reliable you find it, through the “War on aguns” is a link to the “Examiner.com” They post the 2009 inagural where the same was not removed.

      It’s odd and terrifying at the same time.
      If Marines cannot be considered trustworthy by “the regime” and need to be disarmed, I can imagine all sorts of really bad scenarios. Based on historical non-fiction.

    • Bill says:

      Jeez. Typos much, self? “Michael”, “the war on guns.”

      • NevadaSteve says:

        When you can’t refute someone’s argument, you obviously believe it is appropriate to sling mud. Some people have disabilities that make typing difficult and minor typos don’t get fixed. If you have a cogent argument you might try to trot it out and let the rest of us see what it is. Otherwise, if you don’t have anything to say, please don’t say it.

      • Justin says:

        NevadaSteve, Bill was correcting himself. Re-read the damn post AND note the poster, please.

        “Typos much, self?”

  5. Steve says:

    The antis like to say civilians don’t stand a chance against the military, so they don’t need scary looking rifles.

    Then this.

  6. Matt says:

    Back when Clinton was in office I understand that many of the toasts at formal military events changed from “to the President of the United States” to “to the Office of the President of the United States”. Since I don’t have any military in my curret social groups (not deliberately on my part), I don’t know what they are doing now.

    Alienating members of the military like this is just more encouragement for them to live “down” to expectations.

  7. Bill says:

    That can only signify everything bad.

  8. Jeff Hoser says:

    Does this mean President Obama is going to quit riding in “Marine One” as well ?

    Since this seems to be a documented fact beyond any serious doubt, perhaps those with more expertise/time can search examples of other tyrants’ doing the same ? Even Hitler didn’t demand his troops’ weapons be deactivated for his grandiose public events. ( I’m aware even General Officers had to surrender their sidearms to enter his presence beginning sometime in 1943. ) OTOH, I can’t recall anything similar to this Obama edict by any previous President. >JH

  9. Bill says:

    Is Obama going to outlaw “Book suppositories” soon? (I swear there’s some logic to this stretch. And it’s a JOKE.)

  10. chowthen says:

    If anything I blame it on the commandant and whoever is in command of the detachment in DC for allowing this insult. He would have just refused to be part of the ceremony. Not one in all the tyrants in the world did this to their own men what Obama has done to our own.

    • Michael says:

      “Not one in all the tyrants in the world did this to their own men what Obama has done to our own.”

      What, just out of curiosity, is that you think the president has done that “not one in all the tyrants in the world” has ever done before?

  11. C Sala says:

    I was in USMC from 91 to 95. I was in Somalia when Bush 1 came to visit. They did the same thing with us. I carried an M-249, since bolt was so big they made me take off barrel. If the Somalis would have known there were hundreds of unarmed Marines at the airport things could have gotten bad… Our elitist government regardless of party doesn’t trust the military.

    • Dennis Haben says:

      If our American government was pro-American, they would

      maintain no fear, if you follow.

    • Veritas says:

      Gee where were you based? I used to transit Somalia on supply flights. The place was a shithole. I never saw anyone unarmed there.

      • C Sala says:

        We were in the airport in Mogadishu. While Bush was there the only armed folks there were the secret service guys.

  12. louielouie says:

    at ft. hood …… about 1000 years ago ……. carter was passing through, i think all he was gonna do was do a walk through, not even considered a “visit”.
    the secret service had us turn all the turrets around to point away from where he was gonna walk. then we had to put a cable “lock” type device on the hatches.

  13. pat says:

    While I agree that disarming the Marines looks bad, I highly doubt it was Obama’s personal decision. More than likely it was either a) Some senior officer in the Marines who made the decision, or b) Some liberal parade-planning bureaucrat. If the President had direct input into such relatively minor and specific details of the parade I’d frankly be shocked.

  14. Randy says:

    A liar knows a liar, a theft knows and suspects a thief, A Communist dictator knows a communist dictator. What is our President. He is all of the above.

    • justadoc says:

      So.

      Since you know that he’s all these things, that makes you a liar, a thief and a communist dictator?

      By the way, a dictator wouldn’t bother with congress, at all.

      More executive orders were issued by Bush, and the latest ones on guns are innocuous at best.

      • Veritas says:

        Justaquack:

        As you noted a dictator would trample on the Constituion and ignore the Congress.

        What more be said of a lawless Marxist?

      • Chuck says:

        Even the Soviets held elections and had a legislature. Of course the elections were shams and the legislature was a rubber stamp joke. The real power was the Communist Party, but for the sake of going through the motions of democracy, even the most totalitarian of regimes will provide the window dressing of representative government. Progressives are either hopelessly ignorant of history or willfully obtuse when they say that you can’t have tyranny when you have elections. Elections are only meaningful when they are transparent and above suspicion. And even if a tyrant is elected in a free and fair election, it is his ACTIONS not the means of his acquisition of power that make him one.

  15. Zapp says:

    To whine about this is really pathetic. Remember what happened to Anwar Sadat in Egypt (he was assassinated by members of Egypt’s military during a parade). Remember what Lee Harvey Oswald was before he killed Kennedy (he was a Marine). All it would take is one nutjob with one round to assassinate our President if all those rifles were left capable of firing.

    You wouldn’t be complaining about this if the current President was a Republican. You shouldn’t be complaining about the efforts done to protect our President simply because he’s not the guy you voted for as to do so is to be opposed to democracy. Obama was legally and fairly elected; he won the most electoral votes and the popular vote so get over it.

    If some lunatic was able to assassinate Obama during the parade, the crackdown that would ensue would be monumental. If you care about protecting our freedoms (especially the 2nd), hope that the Secret Service is successful in preventing any harm from happening to Obama and all of our future Presidents.

    • Jim says:

      We would still be complaining about it regardless of who is president. I’d like to correct you on a few other facts too. First of all, Obama was NOT legally elected, he is NOT a Naturlized US citizen therefore he can not legally be elected. Secondly, he was not fairly elected either, there is ample proof of voter fraud that got him in office. Thirdly he did not win the most electoral votes or the popular vote. Voter fraud does not constitute “winning”, it constitutes theft!!! Personally as much as I hate Obama I’d hate to see him assassinated just because then Biden would take over and that guy is dumber than a box of hammers!!

      • Nana B says:

        jim…thank you! You are my hero!

      • Greg says:

        Jim’s points get to the ugly truths behind all these issues.

      • Mike says:

        Jim,
        You’re delusional.
        “Naturlized US citizen”? Funny that the Supreme Court doesn’t agree with you, but what do they know, anyway?
        “Voter fraud”? Can you provide any evidence?
        “few other facts”? You have given none.

      • Corpsmanup24 says:

        The official term is Natural Born Citizen. And the meaning was quite specific in Common Law when the phrase was put in the Constitution. I will let the Constitutionalist argue whether or not the President is a Natural Born Citizen. The criteria for that depended upon the citizenship status of the parents. A person born overseas to two United States citizens (even if the parents are naturalized) makes that person a Natural Born Citizen if they do certain things on their 16th birthday. So get off the name calling and let the stuff go. There have been many parades where the weapons/(pieces)were disabled. Removing the bolts is extreme though and detracts from the appearance of the weapons.

      • Comrade X says:

        Did someone question voter fraud:

        “Ohio election official voted for Obama…twice…

        ….Widespread voter fraud was alleged throughout Ohio, shortly after the election. In fact, it is believed that one out of every five voters in the Buckeye state is actually ineligible to cast a vote…..

        http://www.examiner.com/article/ohio-election-official-voted-for-obama-twice

        Death before slavery!

      • Shaun says:

        So where were your complaints when this EXACT policy was happening for George W, Clinton, George HW, Reagan, etc. etc. None of them had marines with bolts in during their inauguration. Keep on keeping on with that whiney echo chamber of Presidential denial though, that’s working for ya.

    • Gliderpilot says:

      Our M-! rifles in high school and college ROTC lacked firing pins – that was enough to render them inoperable, but you could still perform the manual of arms and inspection.
      An M-1 with the bolt removed looks really stupid and I’ll bet the Marines were pissed. An AR without a bolt would still look like an AR.

  16. Privateer says:

    Pulled up a link http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1438729_Marines_with_disabled_rifles_at_inaugural___bolts_removed.html

    … says this has been done for many years — not an “Obamba thing”. We need to be careful to speak truth.

    • Veritas says:

      BS. I have met the president and his crew and I have never seen the troops disarmed.

      • Michael says:

        Pics or it didn’t happen.

      • Mudlark says:

        Mike:
        Take a look at any of the published photos in Afganistan with Bush and you’ll see the weapons, mags and all. And I am sure that bolts were always removed-just the same way Kerry managed to get three purple hearts and not spend a day in hospital.

  17. Matthew Riehl says:

    This is not new. I was in the Air Force in the early eighties when President Regan came to visit our base, actually the DEA agency that used a part of it. We were all restricted to staying inside of the buildings while he was there. Additionally, the SPs were patrolling the base with their M16s locked and loaded. Anyone who ventured outside was at serious risk.

    It absolutely dismayed me at the time. Lots of our leaders have not trusted troops.

    Matt

    • Rob Crawford says:

      It’s not the leaders, but their security details. The Secret Service protective detail isn’t just paid to be paranoid, it’s the essence of their existence.

  18. Julie says:

    I was stationed outside DC for awhile back in the 80′s….couldn’t tell you if anything was removed from presidential visits as we didn’t have any, but nothing other than empty rifles were handed to us for the parades for the top generals we had – including four stars. Then, the first year Obama was in office, I heard that the Navy Graduating Class was not permitted to carry their swords during full dress graduation. This, I believe, had never happened in the past. Methinks Obama just doesn’t wanna be around folks who are armed with anything! If ya think about it long enough, it’ll give you nightmares!

    • Dennis Haben says:

      He does not trust our military because he knows everyone

      else knows that he is a Communist, and our military, hates

      Communists. It is as simple as that.

  19. Miley Duvall says:

    While removal of the bolts went mostly unnoticed by the public, it most likely spoke volumes to Obama’s Muslim and Socialist supporters. It showed them that he has disabled our military- made them defenseless. They want to bring us down and they may very well have had a big smile on their faces about that.

  20. Mike Masters says:

    It was a ceremonial march. The guns were symbolic. The real security was elsewhere. Not difficult to understand.

    • Veritas says:

      Its sad to see such ignorance displayed. Have you ever seen the military parade with their arms rendered useless?

      Pray tell us about your vast military experience.

      The Obamites are shaking in their boots. No wonder he needs to post bogus skeet photos.

      • Michael says:

        Veritas:

        Several members of the military in this very thread have described a variety of situations in which their arms were rendered useless when in the presence of presidents from both sides of the aisle.

      • Mudlark says:

        Several members of the military have said this is BS. If it is SOP there would always be no bolts. Simply not so.

  21. iconoclast says:

    Are those M1 Garands? They look like it to me. If so, they may have been deactivated long ago and only used for dress parades like this. After all, just how man .30-06 Garand clips are still around?

    • A. Muldoon says:

      There are many ways to render a weapon so that it cannot fire, deactivated Garands usually still have the bolts so the don’t look so obvious.

      “After all, just how man .30-06 Garand clips are still around?”

      Millions, I am guessing, as aside from all the surplus, they are still being made.

    • Dennis Haben says:

      For these types of parades, just issue light, plastic,

      in-operable weapons to suffice anyone fears of a military

      retaliation,if you follow.

    • Veritas says:

      Pathetic they are M-14s. If you can’t tell the difference between the two you clearly don’t know what you are talking about. If you can’t understand the difference between a bolt and clip then you might be the Secretary of Defense Obama has been seeking Ico.

  22. Paul N says:

    Who betrayed Jesus,? Who sold their own people into slavery,? It is called CAUTION!

  23. Man-Bear-Pig says:

    Respectfully, the same thing happened during George H. W. Bush’s presidency too. I was a young Marine and had the bolt carrier group removed from my M16 rifle.

    While I agree it’s disrespectful, it is SOP for the Secret Service.

    Semper Fi,

    Sgt. Man-Bear-Pig
    1986-1992

  24. Aaron Freeman says:

    If I were the CO of that detail, I’d tell the Secret Service to kick rocks, and that my platoon is better equipped to protect the President than you are! Then, I’d tell them to go write a parking ticket somewhere, and that they were overpaid meter maids! I’m sure I’d hear about it and probably face some disciplinary action… But, I stand my ground! That’s what we Marines do! Semper Fi!

  25. STUART KAUFMAN says:

    It seems to me that Obama realizes the degree of contempt in which he is held by the armed forces under his command. He was probably thinking of the fate of Anwar al Sadat, and since Obama has so little respect for the American military, he is incapable of seeing the difference between them and the Muslim Brothers who murdered Sadat.

  26. Bruce W. Covell, Jr., LTC, USA (Retired) says:

    The Marines weren’t dishonored…we should
    applaud our Intelligence Agencies for this prudent action. While I did not vote for our current commander in Chief, I find the prospect of him being assasinated abhorrent.
    We just have to remember what happened to President Anwar Sadat of Egypt during a military parade in his honor; the horrific
    murder of Israel’s Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin
    by a right wing Jewish radical in Tel Aviv; and the murder of our soldiers at Fort Hood,
    Texas, by a demented,fanatical Army psychiatrist to unstand the necessity for this
    action. “Hail to the Chief”!!!!

    • Veritas says:

      I guess our intelligence agencies have accurately determined the loyalty of the armed forces to the president. Or we have a president so insecure that he fears the men sworn to protect him.

      So I can clearly understand Obama’s fears. Dictators exhibit this type of behavior all the time.

  27. James Flores says:

    I see no problem with this… How is it a slap in the face to the Corps or dishonoring them? People act as if because someone wears the uniform and take the oath that they cannot pose as a possible threat. That is not the job of the president, but of the secret service whom deal with potential threats. The last 10 years of my Marine Corps career was guarding and counseling Marines and Sailors in the brig some of which were convicted of murder, rape, assault, having an arsenal of explosives in their barracks room just to name a few of the many charges dealt with.

  28. Howard Terry says:

    As an old U.S.Marine of world war two I can say that I know this To0 me it was an insult and if the people in the Government do not trust the Marines they have a damn good reason bhe casue as a very young Marine I swore I would up hold the Constitution. Now it wasn’t Marines th at MURDERED thos students that were not armed but againjst the war in NAM Marineas will never fire on anyone exvcept those that are destorying our way of life, that is the ConStitution If the powes that be will obey what they swor to there would be no contention Marine Corps 7/15/42 to 715/46 Semper Fidelis to OUR Constitution.

  29. Michael says:

    So several people have posted to this thread relating that, in their person experience, this and similar things have been done before by previous presidents from both sides of the aisle. Will Bob post a correction or update? Will the conspiracy nuts walk back their blather?

    • Michael says:

      Oops. “Personal.”

    • Rob Crawford says:

      You’d get more respect if you didn’t immediately resort to insults. Try to act like an adult.

      • Michael says:

        “You’d get more respect if you didn’t immediately resort to insults.”

        I’ve been commenting on Bob’s posts for years and years. This isn’t “immediately.”

      • Michael says:

        “You’d get more respect if you didn’t immediately resort to insults. Try to act like an adult.”

        Also: I can’t seem to get the tinfoil-hat brigade to come down on one side of the issue, even though I’ve been assured that it has come down on one side of the issue.

        Have the courage of your convictions, you guys.

      • Comrade X says:

        Tin foil brigade, no name calling there!

        Stupid is as stupid says, don’t ya know!

        Death before slavery!

      • Michael says:

        “Tin foil brigade, no name calling there!”

        I never said that I wasn’t calling names. But if the shoe fits, my friend…

      • Comrade X says:

        Isn’t that more like the hat?

        Death before slavery!

  30. Big Boy says:

    Neither Stalin nor Hitler felt the need to do this.

    It says something unflattering about Obama’s character. He fears his own troops. That means HE must think they have reason to act. What could that be?

  31. Kimberley says:

    While I do not like our current POTUS or his policies, I’m not certain this has not been done with previous presidents. If the bolts have been removed in the past this is a non-issue. It seems rather hysterical to make a blanket statement that the POTUS is dis-honoring the Corps when it may be a rule that has been in place for decades. I would like more information and verification before I drink this kool aide.

  32. mrbill says:

    BS, they have been doing this for years for presidents of all stripes. STFU and move on.

  33. Doubting Rich says:

    After only a few months in the Service I was on parade passing out as an officer in the Royal Navy. Her Majesty The Queen took the salute, and passed within a couple of feet of each of us for the inspection. Each of us, even those who were not from the UK (Middle East, Africa, Southeast Asia and the Caribbean mostly) had a sword held in hand. No sharp edge, but the point was plenty sharp enough.

    This small, 70-year old (at the time) lady has far more courage and confidence than Barack Obama. Far more class too.

    • Veritas says:

      I saw the Queen Mother many years ago. She was very impressive and had more respect than the Kenyan Commandante could ever hope for.

  34. daviddavid says:

    Geez, you guys. The Marine Corp is a global force for good that kicks tyranny in the head where ever it goes but any large group of men is going to have its share of malcontents, jokers and glory hounds. It would be incredibly stupid for the SS to do anything other than disable rifles in the hands of marksmen parading past and I would be appalled if they didn’t. Talk about dereliction of duty.

  35. Michael J. Moore says:

    No Comment Now

  36. Ken_in_SC (@Ken_in_SC) says:

    How far are we from a coup? The military are more trusted than any other institution.

  37. Ken_in_SC (@Ken_in_SC) says:

    I saw the Queen shoot a machine gun on line, she was an ambulance driver in WWII. The Queen is OK by me.

  38. Ken_in_SC (@Ken_in_SC) says:

    The origin of the command ‘present arms’ is for military personnel to present their arms to the leader for surrender. Modern people don’t understand the term ‘traitor’.

  39. Pepper says:

    I do not understand… I cannot fathom the stupidity of the current President. The World is seeing this, how much fear the President has towards the military, the United States Marine Corps in particular, and how he disables them so much, showing the world weakness. This is not strength, this is weakness. If you do not have confidence enough in your men to have bolts, and even magazines in the rifle, then why are you trying to lead them? Leaders in truth do not fear their own men, unless they have done something to warrant an uprising.

  40. tom says:

    So, then lets see the verifiable photos of other inaugurations showing the Marines holding weapons with the bolts in them? Also, prove that the Secret Service did not inspect the weapons before every inauguration. Seems like standard operating procedure to me. Prove it is not before I believe this crap.

  41. Combaticron says:

    This is the rehearsal for the 2009 parade. Note that bolts are present. (Yes, it’s just the rehearsal. But still.) http://www.iraqwarnews.net/2009/01/full-dress-marines-u.html

  42. Alexander Zvyagin says:

    I think it’s a disgrace, but what the F**K does this have to do with Obama?? Are you really that stupid to think that OBAMA had a hand in deciding whether the bolts should be removed or not??? FFS, it’s the Secret Service, and with the stink and fear-mongering raised by the radicals in each party, it’s no surprise. You breed hate and fear, this is what you will get.

  43. Rachel Carney says:

    The Commander-in-Chief doesn’t trust his own troops. Sounds alot like Stalinesque paranoia

  44. beb says:

    No Obama fan here but ginning up hysteria over a procedure that is evidently commonplace is really bad form. There are plenty of logical reasons to disable firearms in such a situation.

    I don’t want to give Obama any excuses for his stupidity but jumping up and down at every little inconsequential item just turns you into Chicken Little.

  45. David Codrea says:

    I’d like to clear up some of the common threads appearing in comments under my article and on blogs discussing it.

    My attention to this story came from an email list run by and for Marines.

    The rifles are NOT being carried in bolt open position. The bolts have been removed. You can tell because the operating rods are in the forward position.

    The rifles in the 2009 inaugural, as shown in the last slide show photo, did not have the bolts removed.

    The issue of parade rifles carried by honor guards being disabled in a different fashion under previous administrations, such as having their firing pins removed, is not being argued here, although it should be—not that it didn’t happened, but that it does. But that’s not the thrust of this article. Here’s what is:

    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.

    • Gliderpilot says:

      Second that. Removing the bolts in an M-1 not only looks stupid, it seems designed to humiliate the Marines forced to carry it.
      Removing the firing pin is just as easy and yet the weapon still looks intact and not like a useless piece of junk.

  46. MM says:

    I really cannot believe the stupidity of this claim. So President Obama, twirling his mustache, has the marines (just the marines?) ordered to remove the bolts from their rifles–all part of his evil plan…?

    If you think the President had any hand in making this decision–do you think he personally handled the management of the parade floats and the concession stand, too (I joke, of course, about their being a concession stand)–then you are deluded. Or, maybe you are looking for another (manufactured) outrage–the “outrage” of the week?

    The Secret Service handle the security. They make decisions like this. Any decision they made along these lines has to do with securing the safety of the President of the United States, nothing more. Is any security measure made a “slap in the face” of the people involved? (I might add, I’m sure they are working overtime these days, because “Americans” like you have whipped up a frenzy of manufactured hatred so strong against this president, unstable individuals may be induced to commit crimes against him and his family. I bet you’d call them “patriotic”).

    In the comments above, a marine who marched in George W. Bush’s inaugural parade states that he and his fellow marines were issued the exact same order.
    Instead of weakly stating “In the interests of balance and fairness, I’ll be happy to post verifiable photos of earlier inaugural parades…”, perhaps you should actually have verified your baseless accusation before you made them?

    But that would have disrupted the “Evil Obama” narrative you’ve created (and you wouldn’t get as many page clicks, would you?).

  47. HD Heavy Duty says:

    Maybe ol’ Obama is smarter than we give him credit for….

    Maybe he saw the film clip of the president of Egypt getting shot during a parade of his military in the 70′s….actually this could be a good idea….HD

  48. This isn’t new. Dear Leader did the same at his first coronation.

    Hey, it’s to be expected when the masses elect a subversive socialist.

  49. Paul Glover says:

    Lee Harvey Oswald!

  50. Don Laird says:

    The United States is much closer to a coup d’etat and a civil war than many are either comfortable with or are willing to admit….

    Consider this….

    The Department of Homeland Security have topped up their purchase of ammunition to a total of 1.624 billion rounds of .40 cal and 5.56mm rounds. Much of this is hollow-point kill and maim ammunition.

    During the height of the Iraq war the US military was going through a maximum of about 5.5 million rounds of ammunition per month…..

    Even if you multiply this by a factor of ten, the Department of Homeland Security has just purchased enough ammunition to fight a war in America lasting over 32 months……

    Add to this the recent statements made by hundreds of Sheriff’s departments that not only will federal gun laws and federal attempts to subvert the US Constitution and Bill of Rights be defied and ignored but attempts by federal authorities to enforce them will be met with lethal force.

    The Utah Sheriffs Association has issued a warning that “war” and the “loss of lives” will result from any further attempts by Obama to destroy the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Now I want you to give some thought to this…..these are law enforcement officers who are spitting in the face of a treasonous president……..an act that is long overdue.

    Even former president Bill Clinton, with a word to the wise, stepped in and issued an stern warning to Washington to be extremely careful how it treads with respect to gun owners and the 2nd Amendment.

    I wager there are senior commanders in the US military who are now putting the finishing touches on a coup d’état. Personally, were I to turn on the television and see that conniving piece of excrement and his band of treasonous thugs dragged from the Oval Office, bloodied and in chains, marked to stand trial on charges of high treason and sedition…..well ladies and gentlemen I would be simply overjoyed……and the next day, were I to turn on the television and see Obama’s lifeless corpse, inverted, as a charming “Mussolini-esque” lamppost decoration…..well ladies and gentlemen, “party-time” wouldn’t even begin to describe the celebrations that would ensue.

    There are storm clouds gathering…..should it begin to rain……the Left, in our universities, in the media, in our courts, in the legal industry, in the government, should understand very clearly that, as with Lucy…..there will be a lot of “splainin” to do……..

    This is as close to civil war as you can get……..Obama and his crew know this….

    The reality is that patriots all across America are standing up and a further reality is that Obama and his crew face a future festooned with Grassy Knolls…..

    Regards, Don Laird
    Edson, Alberta, Canada