Posted on 02/17/2013 5:51:58 AM PST by NamVet71MP
He's gutted their healthcare, plans to cut their pay and apparently, doesn't trust them either. David Codrea over at Gun Rights Examiner points out that Marines marching in President Obama's second inaugural parade recently were caring rifles without bolts, meaning they were removed.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
How about his security detail? Do their weapons have loaded magazines or are they just human shields?
Leni
“””Heck, we don’t even know he’s foreign or domestic!
Yes he is, in fact I’d bet good money that he’s foreign or domestic. “””
How can you be so sure?
The same way I can be sure that someone accused in a trial is innocent or guilty.
They are mutually exclusive terms which cover all possibilities, therefore he must be one of them.
Actually nobody is found innocent at a trial, they are found to be guilty or not guilty.
But as to the original post, I was joining you in kidding the original poster.
5.56mm
Certainly ammo is severely restricted in the Military, but it is easily purchased off base.
That is if someone wanted to get it.
It’s been a lot of years since I was in the military, but when we paraded we just drew our regular weapons.
There was no need for ammo so we got none, but we didn;’t take the bolts out.
Sorry, didn't catch that.
Actually nobody is found innocent at a trial, they are found to be guilty or not guilty.
They actually are found to be innocent: [1] a : free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil : blameless
b : harmless in effect or intention ; also : candid
c : free from legal guilt or fault; also : lawful
Just because the standard term is "not guilty" does not mean that is substantially different than the phrasing "was found to be innocent."
In a perverse way, I find this kind of hopeful.
“Civil war is on the horizon.”
And sunny days lie on the other side of that! Too long we’ve suffered intrusion into our personal lives. Every day is a new poke in the eye with this guy and his minions.
In the not too distant past, anyone espousing and advancing these types of impositions on personal liberty would be unable to walk the streets in the country, protected or otherwise.
They either need to back off or let’s get it on. I’m tired of the non-stop with these people.
“””Actually nobody is found innocent at a trial, they are found to be guilty or not guilty.
They actually are found to be innocent: [1] a : free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil : blameless
b : harmless in effect or intention ; also : candid
c : free from legal guilt or fault; also : lawful
Just because the standard term is “not guilty” does not mean that is substantially different than the phrasing “was found to be innocent.”
I have served on several juries. There is a huge difference between innocent and not guilty.
Presumed innocent until proven guilty
And, as I recall, she’d given him (said favorite bodyguard being a Sikh) good reason to be angry by instigating a massacre at a Sikh holy site.
A good rule to remember for high government officials: Do not piss off those who protect you. Someday, they may not do so.
(Do I honestly think a Marine would do such a thing? No. They have too much integrity and honor to do anything like that. Now, if the usurper were put in front of a firing squad of Marines....that’s another story.)
Juries don’t look for innocence, they look for quilt. Big difference.
Correct circa 1971. Then a much different path.
AND beyond a reasonable doubt. So even though we may think the perp is guilty as all get-out, they have to prove it explicitly.
SOP for inauguration parades since Sadat was ambushed.
“Juries don’t look for innocence, they look for quilt. Big difference.”
I’m doomed - can’t sew a stitch to save my life.
;-)
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.