Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
  1. #81
    It's remarkable how they don't feel they can trust their own military. Though it brings to question why did we have the tradition to have them march through with loaded guns in the first place?

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Powerogue View Post
    It's remarkable how they don't feel they can trust their own military.
    It's more remarkable that people are able to make the mental leap from this to "they don't feel they can trust their own military".
    It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning.

    -Kujako-

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Powerogue View Post
    It's remarkable how they don't feel they can trust their own military. Though it brings to question why did we have the tradition to have them march through with loaded guns in the first place?
    As was already stated, they DON'T march with active loaded firearms. Their normal "dress M1's" are inoperable, they cannot be fired, but they possess all the characteristics of the firearm otherwise (in that the bolt works, the trigger works, it just lacks some parts required to fire a bullet).

    So, I don't know who ordered that these rifles be rendered obviously inoperable via removing the bolt entirely. They were always inoperable, but someone went the extra step of saying "no, we need to make sure you couldn't have switched it out for a real one, that you could have loaded and used!".

    In which case, why bother inviting the marines at all?

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    As was already stated, they DON'T march with active loaded firearms. Their normal "dress M1's" are inoperable, they cannot be fired, but they possess all the characteristics of the firearm otherwise (in that the bolt works, the trigger works, it just lacks some parts required to fire a bullet).

    So, I don't know who ordered that these rifles be rendered obviously inoperable via removing the bolt entirely. They were always inoperable, but someone went the extra step of saying "no, we need to make sure you couldn't have switched it out for a real one, that you could have loaded and used!".

    In which case, why bother inviting the marines at all?
    Or there could be a totally different reason why they were all removed. It would be pretty bad for the guy and I doubt it would ever happen because they take such good care of the weapons but what if one of the rifles was just missing a bolt, like it was lost. In this case they would have taken the others out so all the rifles matched. Its about as reasonable a reason as "it was removed so one of them couldnt shoot the president."

    It really doesnt matter unless we find out the real reason it was done. All this article does is point to the rifles having no bolts and then makes stuff up.

  5. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Prokne View Post
    Or there could be a totally different reason why they were all removed. It would be pretty bad for the guy and I doubt it would ever happen because they take such good care of the weapons but what if one of the rifles was just missing a bolt, like it was lost. In this case they would have taken the others out so all the rifles matched. Its about as reasonable a reason as "it was removed so one of them couldnt shoot the president."

    It really doesnt matter unless we find out the real reason it was done. All this article does is point to the rifles having no bolts and then makes stuff up.
    If a marine lost his rifle bolt, I don't think they'd take them all out so they matched...

    But yeah, we don't know if this was a "protect the president" thing, or some other reason, I'm just commenting that it is a step beyond the normal way in which they do things.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •