redaction.
Civilian police officers take note - you are welcome to join this distinguished group.
If only the Ohio National Guard had taken such an oath before Kent State!
What?
Orders are given, and orders will be followed.
If it comes down to you keeping a gun, and someone sworn being discharged, and watching their kids go hungry, bet your ass your gun will get smelted.
Sure some will buck the bosses, but a great many more have a natural aversion to breadlines, so don’t expect too many badges to be in your corner.
I believe you are correct.
If I may add,
our Oath also states that, “and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
The key is, I must obey all “lawful” orders, even if I don’t like them. The article, I feel, didn’t make a clear distinction on that level. In some cases, it may even be setting some Soldiers up for failure. I hope it never comes to that.
I just can’t invision this…nor do I want to. This is the one that would get ‘ugly’. I don’t think any red blooded patriot would knowingly break their duty to defend the constitution.
I know…I’m naive and have too many leo / military buddies who state they will not follow this order.
Man, I just don’t like this thread:(
Well, the president takes an oath saying “and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. So help me God.”
So technically, he cant even give such an order. He took the oath. So the soldiers should not have to worry about carrying out such orders. 
Forget the article…if the Heller decision says it is an individual right then what sort of hypothetical situation are we even talking here and where would the warrior have issues to follow orders that do not coincide with the U.S. constitution??
I personally do not think they will ever knock on the door to take them back…the tactic is keeping our kids from getting what we can legally get today.
I agree with you guys. I think we need to be cautious, but also watch the conspiracy theorists. They can be just as dangerous as our perceived enemy…
If those soldiers don’t take 'em, the .gov will find someone who will…
I don’t believe most military and peace officers would willfully follow such an order nor refuse and disobey it. I suspect there would be a whole lot of looking the other way and tipping off Americans, especially if I were in that position.
This is what I believe also, now it wont be all, but most IMO
I cant see anyone giving up their protected 2A status or their income, benefits and insurance etc if they are ordered to do something or else
I hope Im wrong, but after NO I dont think i am
Im surprised how many people are unaware of Katrina and how many people’s rights were taken during those months.
WND does a good part, but Katrina was a glaring example of what did and would happen again in the future.
Derek, true dat.
In MY State, that kind of bs is now statutorily prohibited 
Katrina ring a bell?
I would like to say that you are wrong, but most likely you are correct. However I do think that a great many will not be to zealous in doing so.
The Stewart Rhodes the article is referring to is the same guy who writes the “Enemy at the Gate” column in SWAT magazine. He’s local to Las Vegas, I’ve been to several of his lectures, and the man is very knowledgeable about the Constitution and Bill of Rights. A good guy all around.
This. Don’t kid yourselves people.
I’ve said it before and I will say it again: If anyone seriously thinks that some 18-19 year old private is going to question or hesitate when he is ordered to fire on “domestic terrorists” you live in fantasy land.