Why Britain is so screwed: they don’t even trust the Royal Guard with loaded weapons…‘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…
Bob said…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.
It was reported one reason so many of the White House interlopers were able to get as far as they did (last year) were the standing orders regarding those inside was they were not to possess loaded firearms.
If that is the case, how stupid are we to emulate our British cousins? Whether or not we agree with the demeanor or policies of any particular White House resident should have no bearing on how efficient the protectors of the Seat of Government are.
Talk about setting us up for failure – from the top down. The line troops to those tasked with protection of the Executive.
And all those regular folks at military installations, worldwide. Largely unarmed.
And don’t even get me started about the Fort Hood ‘workplace violence’.
We should be ashamed.