you're reading...
common sense, concerns, crime, customer service, dangerous, dysfunction, errors-in-judgement, guns, handling, law enforcement interaction, military, political correctness, preparation, rant, The President, vigilance, weapons

Executive Protection

Firehand wrote:

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…
And one of his post commenters replied:
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.


About guffaw1952

I'm a child of the 50's. libertarian, now medically-retired. I've been a certified firearms trainer, a private investigator, and worked for a major credit card company for almost 22 years. I am a proud NRA Life Member. I am a limited-government, free-market capitalist, who believes in the U.S. Constitution and the Rule of Law.


8 thoughts on “Executive Protection

  1. I don’t claim any qualifications to inside knowledge, just observations…
    If the Guardsmen mentioned in the article are the guys in the scarlet unis with the big furry hats, they are mostly ceremonial.
    I can assure you, that having been to Buckingham Palace on 12/31/2011, there are plenty of “real” military guys with big, big guns that I’m pretty sure are loaded.
    No doubt in my mind that the Redcoats are sitting ducks in case of terrorist attack, but they’d probably get cover from the guys with the real weapons and fatigues. I’ve got lots of photos from the Changing of the Guard ceremony that show both the ceremonial guards and what I believe are the REAL guards.

    The White House issue is different, as I don’t believe we keep any ceremonial guards for tourist shows.
    From what I understand of the recent happenings, the dogs are the real heroes.
    Maybe they need some back-up… a herd of Heck cows grazing on the White House lawn?
    (Cows from Heck?)

    Sorry, I just found out about these critters and I’m going to work them into every subject I touch for the next week or so!!!!

    Posted by Tomi | January 6, 2015, 8:39 am
    • Regardless of their appearance they are the first (physical) line of defense. And to leave them effectively unarmed is like cows to the slaughter.
      That insurgence of the WH a few months back had the intruder besting a female SS agent, who was unarmed, inside the residence. Had she been armed, things might have ended differently.

      Cows, eh?

      Posted by guffaw1952 | January 6, 2015, 9:41 am
  2. “We should be ashamed.” Yeah, we should know better. But our self-appointed and -described “betters” know that they don’t trust each other with firearms … and consequently, they don’t trust us either. You see, they can’t trust themselves, and by projection, can’t imagine anyone else having the judgment not to use them improperly.

    Emulating the losers, because acting like winners wouldn’t be polite, don’tcha know. Wouldn’t be proper.

    Morons, one and all.

    Posted by Rev. Paul | January 6, 2015, 9:34 am
  3. They fundamentally distrust even their own people… nuff said…

    Posted by Old NFO | January 6, 2015, 1:23 pm
  4. Seems to me that one determined fence jumper with a suicide belt could take down most of the White House. If that unarmed woman who tackled the last one is the usual situation, it seems like a pretty easy operation.

    Posted by SiGraybeard | January 6, 2015, 4:33 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

"Round up the usual suspects."

In Loving Memory…

%d bloggers like this: