'Where do we draw the line? Do you allow these soldiers to be armed? I think that could cause a greater problem.
...
These Guardsmen carry rifles equipped with bayonets but as a rule their rifles are not loaded with live ammunition.
The Guardsmen may carry up to six rounds in a belt pouch and may load their rifles in event of a terrorist attack, but that would take valuable time.
Pardon my dropping into bad language:
The elite Guards, chosen from the very best, are allowed SIX FUCKING ROUNDS, and they're not allowed to have them in the magazine, oh no. Because troops chosen from the best can't be trusted to be armed when guarding the palace...
4 comments:
Same reason that the Secret Service routinely orders soldiers and Marines disarmed when the President visits an armed camp overseas (in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example): they fundamentally distrust even their own people. They believe that one of them will go berserk and kill elites. And, judging it strictly on cases of green-on-blue violence - - Afghan Army "allies" that suddenly go Jihadi and start killing Americans - - they are right to do so.
The Guardsmen are ceremonial more than anything else, and are there primarily for tourists to gawk at. Tactically they resemble cops more than soldiers.
The "best of the best" are carefully kept out of sight and are loaded for bear. In fact, I would bet security measures there surpass those around the Whitehouse. The faggotified Brits fear and loathe guns which is another reason why the real firepower is kept under wraps.
That nation is a growing shit hole and it is my scholarly opinion that immigrants from Britain should be turned away and/or torpedoed 20 miles off shore. They are all socialists now, and tend to smuggle their stupidity in with them when they emigrate.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/02/11/obama-disarmed-marines-for-inaguration-parade-n1509511
Yeah, I know; we've got a bunch of the same backstabbing little bastards here, too
Post a Comment