Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ca. Soldier Ambushed by Islamic Held EMPTY Gun 'cuz Guarding Monuments Deemed Purely 'Ceremonial'
Reaganite Republican ^ | 27 October 2014 | Reaganite Republican

Posted on 10/27/2014 4:46:51 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican

When I first heard of Nathan Cirillo being shot at Ottowa's unknown-soldier monument, I just assumed he never saw it coming and couldn't resist simply due to the element of surprise...

Then I heard on Fox yesterday that he was 'unarmed because the posting was ceremonial'... really? Turns out the gun slung-over his shoulder wasn't even loaded.

Anybody out there know if our monument guards are armed with live ammo here in the US? After a bit of research, I've yet to find the answer.

If not, seems insane- such a public target, just a sitting duck standing there on a busy public street as a representative of all the ISIS-sympathizing maniacs hate.

Maybe somebody should have seen this coming up there, esp. in a place like Canada with THE highest immigration rate on the planet (and Muslims coming out the wazoo in most urban centers).

It was bad enough watching unarmed US warriors getting mowed-down while unarmed on-base at Fort Hood, etc... but a guy in full dress uniform standing guarding a military monument sure ought to be ready to defend themselves these days, doncha think?

It is really quite negligent to leave him exposed like that, how do you guard anything -even symbolically- without a real, live gun on you, anyway?

Next we need to take a hard look at all our military bases... why on Earth are our people in uniform being kept from protecting themselves, I'd sure like to know- there is ZERO reason to allow Fort Hoods to happen again: as is so often the case these days, the answer is plenty simple, just not one the left can learn to accept. - See more at: http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/2014/10/canadian-soldier-ambushed-by-islamic.html#more


TOPICS: Government; Military/Veterans; Politics
KEYWORDS: cirillo; monument; ottawa; unarmed
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-26 last
To: Reaganite Republican
The Tennessee NG was sent out into the streets with criminals shooting at Firemen, Policemen and civilians during the Fireman's Strike of 1978 in Memphis. We were sent out without ammunition for our M-16s.
21 posted on 10/27/2014 6:23:11 AM PDT by vetvetdoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

Thank you for this thread and for your hard work. FRegards ...


22 posted on 10/27/2014 6:23:37 AM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (The D.isease Party gets along better with satanics than with Christians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

I have 2 civilian friends who work on military bases. Not only can they not legally conceal carry, they can’t even lock weapon in car in parking lot for protection to and from work.


23 posted on 10/27/2014 6:32:19 AM PDT by bravo whiskey (we shouldn't fear the government. the government should fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: riverrunner

Traditionally the practice of keeping soldiers away from ammo was a class thing.

Soldiers (and sailors) were lower class and officers were upper class. The rule of the officers was often enforced with great brutality. The officers were therefore always concerned (and quite rightly) about mutiny or revolution. So keep the soldiers or sailors basically unarmed except right before contact with the enemy. That way you could be relatively sure they’d shoot at the enemy rather than you. On ships the arms locker was carefully guarded by officers, or on those ships which had a detachment, Marines.

Officers, of course, went armed at all times, so if necessary they could shoot down an insubordinate ranker. That was, in fact, one of the main distinctions of being an officer and a gentleman. Officers and gentleman could be, and often were, armed. Rankers were not. This applied in all European countries.

The English Bill of Rights, the precursor of our own, said something along the lines of, “The people will be allowed to keep and bear arms as appropriate for their station,” or the social status. Which mostly meant “gentlemen.” The US Bill of Rights, of course, got rid of that and changed it “the right of the people,” full stop.

The reasons for keeping soldiers unarmed, of course, made little logical sense in America from the beginning, and even less now.


24 posted on 10/27/2014 7:03:22 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

They are unarmed and it would be terrible if a gun went off during inspection.


25 posted on 10/27/2014 10:00:19 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mogger

This web site is community approved and he respects that.

The others are self serving jackasses and not welcome.


26 posted on 10/27/2014 10:01:52 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-26 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson