If the order was given for the US military to confiscate your guns and you refused, do you think they would fire upon their own countrymen?

Poll choices
Posted 10 years.


  • Defender - 9 years ago

    A relative is going into the military. I told her it would be interesting to see what her training would say about refusing illegal orders. She instantly replied "Obey 'em anyway. Following orders is MY JOB."
    She's reasonably politically aware for an 18-year-old, too.
    That's frightening.
    Another question arises. If our military and poice were to try to confiscate our guns or our persons by force -- as they did in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina five years ago -- would we be willing to fire on them, even relatives and friends?
    The lessons of history PLEAD that we would have to do so. In "The Sound of Music," Hitler Youth member Rolf, who is in love with one of the Von Trapp daughters, nevertheless blows his whistle to alert searchers that they are escaping. Similar things must have been done hundreds of thousands of times. The Milgram experiment repeatedly demonstrates that even good and decent people will do horrible things to another when social and moral constraints are waived and an authority figure encourages them.

  • Mark - 9 years ago

    This issue is really dependent on how many "Perfumed Princes" are in the military, especially at the Company level. "Perfumed Princes" are officers who got their position for other than military reasons. Colin Powell being a prime example. THOSE leaders would instruct their troops to fire on US citizens. However, as the order rolls down the chain of command, there may be other HONORABLE leaders who would not forward it to their troops. I fully expect that there is SOME sewage in the officer corps at Company level, which is why I believe that some troops will indeed fire on US citizens. However, I believe that the bulk of the services would refuse to do so. On the OTHER hand, you have "Law Enforcement" in this country. THERE, the stench is overwhelming...

  • SteveInSD - 9 years ago

    If TSHTF, which I consider more and more likely, the military will not be immune to it. As for who will shoot at who, it will come down to the individual, and the situations they find themselves in. I take some comfort in the fact that they all took the same oath I did, and I believe that given the chance most will adhere to it.

  • Ed Rathbun - 9 years ago

    Whether or not the military will simply "follow orders" will depend on whether the individual trooper will honos the oath taken when putting on the uniform, or simply follow orders from the officer corp. I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of these United States; I did not take an oath to blindly follow any particular "leader" as did Hitler's military and government police. As long as there is ANY question concerning the legitimacy of our"Head Mullato what's-in-charge" he CANNOT issue LAWFUL ORDERS as required by the U.C.M.J!

  • webmaster - 10 years ago

    Mr Heathcote's comment is not accurate, in fact - the rumor circulating based on IRS taxation was a bill concocted in 2000 - it has not moved from its initial submission. It was referred to a sub-committee where it is gathering dust. The bill has nothing to do with filing your guns on tax returns. That is another common urban myth. There are no proposals in either House or Senate for such a bill. All that said there are still plenty of genuine plans to be very aware of.

  • Hector Heathcoat - 10 years ago

    We have a new law passed without our general knowledge : Blair/Holt firearms registration, using the I.R.ASS (IRS) as the bastards to try and enforce this on the 2010 tax form requiring #!. Thumb Print #2. $50.00 per weapon tax, and #3. a list of all weapons that you have . WILL WE AS CITIZENS ALLOW THIS TREASONOUS ACT TO HAPPEN , OR WILL WE TELL THEM TO SHOVE IT. AS AN OATHKEEPER , I WILL TELL THEM TO SHOVE IT !

  • Brian - 10 years ago

    As an active duty member of the armed forces, I take my oath to the Constitution seriously. Ergo, the conflict of upholding my oath or just shutting up and coloring. We have limited free speech and thus cannot comment too much on our elected "leaders."

    I know of a few officers, SNCOs and JNCOs that would not follow these orders. Some of use are just fuming mad at congress and the president as they are domestic enemies.

    If it ever came to it, I believe there would be mutiny. Soldiers, Marines, Sailors and Airmen would be split and battle would ensue. Some would also chuck their uniforms and fight back.

  • Matthew - 10 years ago

    Oh, to amend my above comment about taking on the military being a foolish move, I only meant directly. We've seem in Iraq/Afganistan that a determined insurgency can do to a military, and most importantly, to the people back home. With close to 100 million gun owners in the US owning almost 300 million firearms, an insurgency here would be a complete and utter nightmare for any time of occupying authority.

  • Matthew - 10 years ago

    I recently spoke with a friend who serves as an EOD in the AF. I asked him the same question, and his response was "They'll have to take away MY gun first!" So I don't think you guys are giving credit to the younger military members, as he is only 26. Still, I voted that many would, because ultimately, I think the desire not to cause waves trumps misgivings over certain orders. Taking on the military in a head on fight would be foolish. I also think many patriotic Americans would have severe misgivings about shooting their own military members, even during a gun confiscation. Maybe I'm wrong. But we saw in Katrina that most of the personnel doing the confiscating were either federal officers, or big city policemen. Neither of which seem to have much regard for the constitution or personal freedoms.

  • Bill Gantt - 10 years ago

    What has been missed in these comments is the aspect that gun ownership will be deemed ILLIEGAL and therefore trump the Constitution in the minds of the enforcers. Remember Waco and the kidnapping by Janet Reno of Elian Gonzalez (the Cuban refugee kid)

  • Theodore A Sames II - 10 years ago

    I voted "Yes, the military would" because I conversed with many young troops about this and they seem very ignorant about the Constitution and American history. I interviewed one prominent E-8 and he said, "Of course, Kick ass and take names!" stating he would do anything the Army said to do. I can not disclose his name or unit or the part he played in a certain battle...but he was featured in the news. The military has been breaking down doors and confiscating weapons illegally in Puerto Rico for years. Theodore A Sames II, Sames Instinctive Shooting School

  • G - 10 years ago

    No one has mentioned Douglas MacArthur, in 1932, firing on WW I vets, camped on the Washington mall waiting for the bonus promised in 1924 but never extended. How about a government herding people into concentration camps because of race/ethnicity, such as was done to Japanese-Americans, German-Americans in WW II? It has happened, and will happen again if power-hungry politicians and bureaucrats are allowed to continue in office.

  • MetaCynic - 10 years ago

    Militaries all over the world have throughout history fired upon and otherwise brutalized their own people. The American military will be no different, especially if the order to fire is preceded by a period of media demonization of gun owners equating them with terrorists and thus softening resistance to fire upon American civilians. During the War for Southern Independence, Federal troops eagerly fired on Southern American civilians for the "crime" of daring to leave the Union.

    The media campaign can also be accompanied by false flag operations linking gun owners to atrocities. Check out Operation Gladio in Europe which blamed the militant left for terrorist activities committed by Europe's security services.

    Foreign troops will certainly have no qualms about firing on American civilians just as most American troops in Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan had not lost any sleep over firing on nonwhite races. The Soviets deployed more reliable non-Muslim troops to Afghanistan to fight Muslim militants, and the Chinese Communists used Chinese troops speaking a different dialect to breakup the Tiananmen Square demonstrations.

    Unfortunately there is plenty of precedent for troops firing on what they perceive to be the "other" even if that "other" is not so different from themselves. We shall see if perhaps there is just enough respect for liberty left in the American military culture to prevent an outbreak of such atrocities.

  • bill Stephenson - 10 years ago

    Why do so many commentators think the military and or police will overwhelm an armed citizenry? Cruize missiles against the citizenry you say? How effective has that been in Afghanistan? If the US military were to blow up a hundred patriot houses in America there would still be millions more left. And what military commander would justify the expense of a cruise missile to take out individual combatants?Where would the US military personnel releasing these missiles then go to hide when there are millions of armed Americans hunting them? The same goes for armor. You cannot live in a tank forever. When you climb out, you can be shot.

    Another question: How does a citizen "peacefully refuse to give up their his firearms?" Not giving them up, peaceful or otherwise, is going to provoke a violent military response. Why sit there passively to be shot when you can respond as our ancestors SUCCESSFULLY did at Lexington and Concord? By the way, isn't that essentially the first time in this country's history that our own government (we were British subjects at the time) used force in an attempt to disarm us?

  • DallenVet - 10 years ago

    Capt. Boscoe in correct. If you want to know what Hussein and the other Marxist/Leninist/Communist bastards are up to I suggest reading a new pamphlet written by David Horowitz. Its entitled BOs Rules for Revolution,the Alinsky Model. Mr. Horowitz was a 60s Radical and has first hand knowledge of Husseins buddies like Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dorn, avowed anarchists who tried to take down the US Govt. during Vietnam War. I served 3 back to back tours on station Tonkin Gulf while these assholes were putting bombs in police and sheriffs stations, burning down National Guard Amorys, and the Black Panthers and Huey Newton of Oakland, CA, threatening to kill a cop everynight in Marin City. Now they have finally have the Muslim Hussein and through the use of thousands of illegal voters(ACORN anybody?)in the White House to push their Radical agenda. Contact Elizabeth@horowitzfreedomcenter.org if you want a copy or copies of Rules for Revolution(a must read for anybody concerned about their loss of freedoms) You can also call 1-800-752-6562 and order the booklets. Now, finally to the question: I as a Vietnam Vet who got called a baby killer and spit on by the Left when I got home, can only hope that if push comes to shove there is a Combat Veteran NCO or Officer who understands The Posse Comititus Act of 1878 and knows it is his or her DUTY not, I repeat not, to obey an order which is unlawful!! US troops ordered to fire on civilians because they will not give up there weapons in an unlawful act(Read the Act)

    If there are no "right thinking" people in charge then GOD HELP US ALL~!!!

  • Boscoe, Ph.D. - 10 years ago

    In my opinion the U.S. military would NOT fire upon its own citizens. Let me offer a caveat to that -- unless fired upon first. Then, they would react in self defense.

    Intentionally firing upon civilians is a war crime, whether here in the U.S. or anywhere else in the world. Most officers also know of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which says:

    "From and after the passage of this act it shall NOT be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section. And any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment."

    In other words, Congress would have to expressly act to specifically employ the U.S. military to act upon U.S. civilians. I don't think that's going to happen. EVER!!!

    Having said that, let me offer two other points:

    1. I am an officer in the U.S. Army. Although I retired from Active Duty in 1994, I chose to retain my commission. Therefore, I am still, technically, a captain. I am placed in a control group called the U.S. Army Retired Reserve (USARR). I am subject to recall in accordance with the needs of the Army until I reach the age of 62 even though I have been receiving retired pay for the last 15 1/2 years. At that time, on February 23, 2013, I will be fully retired. As a friend of mine once told me, "You're not retired yet. You're only on retainer." Therefore, I have a vested interest and a possible future responsibility regarding this question.

    2. I have absolutely, positively no trust whatsoever in Barack Obama as the president of the United States. I know that's a horrible thing for an Army officer to say of the CINC (commander-in-chief), but it's true.

    During the Great Depression, President Roosevelt enacted many things where government grew and had more control in order to get us through a huge financial crisis. When some people wanted to make everything that he did permanent, others got worried that there would be too much government control over peoples' lives and there would be a slide to a communist/socialist type of government. While I do not condone Senator Eugene McCarthy's tactics, I am starting to appreciate his concern. That is, in part, why we fought the Cold War. It was, as I have said many times on Facebook, a "War of Ideas" (just as the GWOT -- the Global War on Terrorism -- is also a "War of Ideas").

    While FDR did all of these things out of necessity, I think Obama is doing them with intent for their own sake. Due to Obama's association with Saul Alinsky and his indoctrination with the Cloward-Pivan strategy (let's break it so we can fix it), I think he's intentionally trying to eliminate the American mindset (capitalism, individual freedom and control of one's life, etc.).

    If left to his own devices with absolutely no resistance, I firmly believe Obama would prefer to eliminate America with no civil war. He would cede part of our landmass to Mexico, sell part to the Chinese and make a portion part of the worldwide Islamic caliphate under Shariah Law. And in the end, I believe he would be convinced that he helped made the world a better place by fracturing the United States and making it less powerful, if not non-existent.

    In my opinion, if Obama's ideas win, we would have fought the Cold War for naught.

  • DB - 10 years ago

    Hide some of your guns and ammo now, its just a matter of time before they
    come up with a reason why they need to take our guns for our own good.
    Look what happened in Canada, they were ordered to turn in most of their guns and did so without a whimper. Keep your powder dry boys, because the
    MAN is guna come a knockin on YOUR door!!!

  • Still a Marine - 10 years ago

    Will a majority of police and military use arms against the people ? Yes in a head to head confrontation would be my answer.It is up to intelligent people not to force the issue head on if it comes to a temporary loss of our Constitution. A determined population WILL prevail over a long term against overwhelming force. Ireland is a good example ! They started out as a totally unarmed and "helpless" country.I remember kids throwing rocks at British troops shooting back with firearms.The US will have at least 50,000,000 guns go under cover if the Govt turns on us.Every Glass bottle & can of gasoline,every alarm clock & electric detonator and every stashed firearm when mixed with a brain can and will be a means of resistance.

    Europe is tiny in comparison to this country . It is much easier to protect compact infrastructure.We have tens of thousands of miles of pipe lines,electric transmission lines,RR and highway bridges in very vulnerable places. Thousand of civilian patriots work in places that can and will be used to disrupt and block illegal govt. operations. I believe in a very determined population that believes in the constitution and our obligation to keep and protect it against ALL enemy's foreign and domestic.My body is shot but my brain can and will teach other younger bodies if needed. The tree of LIBERTY might need natures manure soon.I pray daily it will not !

  • Donald L. Cline - 10 years ago

    The reason the U.S. Military will fire on civilians if ordered to confiscate firearms is that the scenario will not be presented as simply a gun confiscation. It will be presented to them as an insurgency poacification operation. It will be pursuant to martial law imposed as a result of violent civil unrest, and the more armed resistance the military encounters, the more willing they will be to shoot civilians.

  • BP - 10 years ago

    There will always be that few that will. I had a small taste of what it feels like back in 2005 during hurricane Katrina. There were rogue police. And contract soldiers all over the city. THE GOVERNMENT QUICKLY COVERED UP THE SHOOTING OF 5 OR 6 ALLEGED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES ON THE LEVEE THAT GOT INTO A FIREFIGHT WITH NOPD OFFICERS AND died!!! Had the mayor afraid for his life. He was overheard saying that the CIA might try to kill him,
    That levee was blown. People heard it and if you look ay the pictures. And films, IF THAT LEVEE BROKE WHY WAS it BLOWN INWARD INSTEAD OF OUTWARD FROM BEING OVER STRESSED.

  • Minnesota Mom - 10 years ago

    Thinking "aloud": I notice that the "state of emergency" which used to be reserved for conditions clearly dangerous to life & limb, have been applied to situations in which it's only a danger to buildings or even mere "potential" danger that hasn't formed yet (like the recent snowstorm). I think this is only partly to get "federal funds"; also meant to cause a gradual dependency on gov't, & esp. de-sensitising of people to the idea of an "emergency"; so that when a non-emergency event occurs, "they" can declare it an emergency and suspend our rights. We can lose our Constitutional rights VERY easily these days. Oh, sure , "they" will assure us it's "temporary"; we'll get our rights back "as soon as all the terrorists are rounded up." but they won't ever finish rounding us up. It will be to their advantage to keep the "emergency" in place.

    Also: lawyers & judges have been re-applying the Constitution for many decades now. Due to the Theory of Evolution that swept the nation in the 1850's, the idea of a fixed & unchanging law (or Constitution) has been tossed out, and the idea that "in certain cases" the Constitution (or Bill of Rights) might not apply, has become common. This approach to law is popular because it logically applies also to morals...so, even if something is said to be "wrong", maybe I'll get away with it if I can persuade some people that it doesn't apply to me; it's not "wrong" for me, at least not right now.

    Many laws are on the books, AND are enforced, despite the fact that they are unConstitutional. (the IRS, for example.)

    So, some people especially will be attracted to the idea that in some cases, the Constitution does not apply. Superiors who are pro-UN, pro-globalist, or just plain old corrupt, will encourage this view & reward the ones who follow orders that are unConstitutional. So, when troops are sent by squads to our neighborhoods to "receive" our firearms, our gently reminding the troops that this action is unConstitutional will probably not faze them. They'll reply that they understand but orders are orders, there's a good reason for it, & would you please comply sir/ma'am. When we say 'do you have a warrant ?' they will reply that no warrants are needed.

    Perhaps if we plead that "I've heard rumors of (whatever) & I just don't feel safe without some kind of firearm in my possession", the more reasonable among them will let us keep our guns. The more ambitious won't. They'll want the reward for confiscating the most guns that day.

    Maybe asking "wouldn't you prefer a populace that's ready to assist you in repelling enemies?" might make some agree...but I wouldn't bet my gun on it.

    When it does happen, I plan to have my gun hidden and refuse to allow a search. Maybe I can claim we have swine flu (or whatever's the fashionable disease at the moment). But if they're foreign troops, they will NOT know or care about our Constitution, & may not have enough English for a decent logical conversation.

    So, yes, Jim McCoole's idea of simply taking the Capitol Building for a while, to make a point, appeals greatly to me ! But I wonder how would we force "them" to honor any promises they may make (such as amnesty for the protesters) ? Strategic withdrawal would be a "given", to give the clear indication that we are in charge (& let us go back to work & family).
    We might need an Army of our own people to pull it off. Not sure, but isn't withdrawal more dangerous than attack?

    yes, the best approach is, I think, to fight now to keep our rights. I hate the thought of firing on my fellow Americans, so I can believe "they" will use US troops for that very reason. But when it comes down to it, if troops (US or other) are trying to invade MY home & take MY essential things, I won't permit it. If possible I'd shoot to wound, not kill, but it may not be possible. That troubles me.

    Sh*tty scenario no matter how one slices it.

    Thanks for tolerating the len

  • Mimi - 10 years ago

    15 years ago and again last summer, I had the opportunity to be told first by a young airman at Tyndall AFB and by a sailor at Naval Weapons System, that given an order, they would absolutely fire on Americans.

    I asked, because I was discussing the Constitution by which they were uncomfortable and affronted by the subject, "What if it's an unconstitutional unlawful order?" Same answer. All orders are to be obeyed.

    I was horrified.

  • Michael Korotky - 10 years ago

    For all the veterans who have served in any branch of the military and have undergone hardship fighting for the United States of America to fire on its own people would be outrageous. If the government ever decides to confiscate all firearms I feel it will result in a war. The government has no right to take away firearms from the people. Exactly the opposite should be done. Like the state of Oklahoma, it should be REQUIRED that the people carry guns and have the right to transport them in their cars. All states should require this so anyone may openly carry a gun. This would GREATLY REDUCE the amount of all types of violence. Think about it. If the guns are taken from the people (the good citizens) only the robbers, rapists, gangsters, etc. etc. will have guns. They will possess them illegally regardless of the laws in this United States. It's not rocket science and doesn't take a genius to realize this.

  • Dwain - 10 years ago

    If past history teaches us anything it is that if tension gets high enough the order will be given to open fire and the order will be followed. If my memory serves me correctly the vets march on Washington, action taken was directed by Gen, McArthur. The Detriot riots in world war 11. National Guardsmen at kent state. Then you think about the BATF at Ruby Ridge and Waco. The actions of troops at New Orleans after Katrina. You can expect the order to be given and it will be followed. If questioned the response will be " Iwas just following orders!"

  • Robert McKay - 10 years ago

    The "old corps" troops would not, but the younger ones, and some of the foreign troops in our service probably would just "follow orders".

  • MSgt Mike--USAF - 10 years ago

    I am fighting back NOW before it is too late. I will continue to fight back in the future! In the words of the late, great Charlton Heston--"From my cold, dead hands!" This will be the only way that anyone takes my firearms and ammunition.


    Oathkeepers (www dot oathkeepers dot org) is working hard to prevent just this scenario. One method to get the word out about the Oathkeepers is this business card: oathkeepers dot org/oath/wp-content/uploads/OK-PUSH.pdf (front side) and oathkeepers dot org/oath/wp-content/uploads/10-orders-back.pdf (back side).

    Use the Avery 8871 double sided business cards. You can print out 200 cards to pass out to any and all police, sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, EMT, firefighter, Guard, Reserve, and Active Duty personnel that you meet, wherever you meet them. You can also download this flyer (oathkeepers dot org/oath/downloads/10_orders_Flier.pdf) for posting at all local gun and outdoor equipment stores.

    All of our local gun shops were more than willing to post the flyer especially those that have been harassed by the BATFE. The business cards have been well received at the local military base by the troops, young and old. One Saturday morning while at a local off-base supply store I had one troop ask me for 100 after I gave him just one.

    Semper Vigilo, Semper Fortis, Semper Paratus et Fidelis! -- Always Vigilant, Always Brave, Always Ready and Faithful!


  • Chuck Klein - 10 years ago

    In 1956 the Russians found out their soldiers were reluctant to fire upon Hungarians with whom they've lived and controlled for some time. The solution was to bring in troops from another area who did not know the locals. These "new" soldiers had no problem putting down the Hungrian revolt.

    This is why many want to have a world police/military force - to bring in foreign troops to put down local rebellions. In addition, if the press (controlled by either the political powers or the military- under martial law) convinces the soldiers that it is necessary to disarm/kill certain persons, they will have no reason not to.

    The key is communication. If the soldiers can be made to beleive (propaganda) it is necessary to disarm and/or kill persons identified by their leaders as the enemy, they will follow orders. It only has to happen in one town - then with the media spreading the word . . . .

  • Bill roberts - 10 years ago

    Lots of dreaming going on here. I am 76 years old and have seen a lot. When things get heated up we'll see guided missiles, both air and ground launched. These are totally impersonal. The people launching/firing them will have no feeling of personal interaction with the targets. Your house, my house or any meeting plasce we choose can and will be vaporized at the impersonal touch of a switch. I am well armed a n an accurate shooter. But for me to think that I could effectively fight back would be proof of insanity.

  • Peter Caroline - 10 years ago

    I am 73 years old, and I have had a good and prosperous life. If I have to give up my life in defense of my constitutionally-protected rights, so be it. I am well armed, Army-trained and practiced in the use of arms. Bring it on. I am ready.

  • Phil - 10 years ago

    It has already been done -- Kent State University, Ohio, 1970. And active duty would have even less connection to the community and thus even fewer restraints.

  • Mikegiiver - 10 years ago

    I would like to think that the American Military wouldn't fire on it,s own country men but....
    I worked for the government for a very short time once in another life and some of the things we were orderd to do were if done in the states would be very questionable at best! Todays young military don't have the committment to the country or the belief in the constitution like the older generation military. I think the younger ones will follow orders and fire and then they will be executed the same way by the older generation military people. But who really knows?? Maybe I have under estimated where their beliefs and training has taken them and their moral compass is pointing towards America and it's people. I do know that if it comes down to a fight with the military, the military will find it's losses extremely high. They had better not underestimate the will and committment of the American people. We have been there before and it's said that history always repeats it's self... let's hope it doesn't.

  • LARRY NMN BURNS JR. - 10 years ago


  • Peter - 10 years ago

    I suspect that a greater percentage of the younger troops - versus older troops - would, but the ensuing melee would be within the military commands, and will result in many deaths within the fractured command structures, as well as many deaths among the general population.

    Many of the older Americans, with Constitutional knowledge, and a broad understanding of past history, would be abhorred by such orders - clearly illegal, morally and statutorily speaking - thus, for American citizens, an old adage should be revisited and adhered to, “ Forewarned is forearmed.”

    If, G-d forbid, we even approach such a situation, the fracturing would include the Bureau, Central Intel, municipal police agencies (SO & PD), and just about every “first responding” organization in the United States, as well as immense destruction within federal, state and local entities.

    To put it crudely, “When the **** hits the fan, the blow back will cover us all,” and that will result in a scenario - which heretofore was viewed as impossible -with an ever increasing possibility, fueled in large part by the Left’s terroristic actions, as they seek to usurp Creator endowed rights.

  • Aaron - 10 years ago

    Read my commit above. This young National Guard Office was deployed to New Orleans after Katina. His answer, and I quote "I would fire on Americans"!!!

    The Southern States are changing firearms laws daily. Most people that I have discussed our National move toward Socialistic-Nazi style government feel we will have to fight for our Constitution and Rights granted.

    My opinion is that our leaders have followed similar steps that Adolf Hitler used to become the dictator Chancellor of Nazi Germany. Step 1nationalized and took over the banks, Step 2, Took over manufacturing via the Socialist Nazi Party Unions, Step 3 Consolidated the boy scouts, girl scout and other young people organizations into the Hitler Youth. Need we say more?

  • Joe or Harry - 10 years ago

    KATRINA. No civilians were shot, but all the civilians complied. The NRA has footage of this. If they wouldn't given up their privatly owned firearms, the National Guard probably would have preformed a WACO on them.

  • Mike Boitnott - 10 years ago

    My brother spent 16 yrs in the Navy,he retired in 2000.He told me the majority would not fire on their countrymen,that was 15 to 20 yrs ago.I believe that the majority would follow orders today.

  • Dutch - 10 years ago

    First, let me say I find the "dissection" of available responses a bit "unusual". The question seems to elicit a "yes" or "no" response. And, indeed, there are three possible "yes" answers, along with one "no" and one "not sure". As I write, fully 83% (487 out of 584) of respondents believe military personnel will fire on (shoot!) their countrymen if their countrymen refuse to obey orders given by the military.

    There it is, folks! You know in your heart that once the first round is fired, it will be a firefight. Perhaps not long, perhaps not engagement by all the forces depolyed, but a firefight, nonetheless.

    Be advised and govern yourselves accordingly. And may G-d have mercy on all of us.

  • Colonel Bob - 10 years ago

    For those of you not actually in the military today, most of us will not. Current military officers are still politically consertive, despite liberal laws and political correctness, and typically strong supporters of the 2nd Amd. Don't think we don't talk about this all the time. Obama is not well loved and has disrespected us and our national values, life style, and traditions more than once. We still serve with honor to protect the nation we love and bring our soldiers home safely because that is who we are! Besides, BO, like Wild Bill, is in a temp job. There will be a few soldiers who will abuse the power to settle a personal score if an order like this is ever given, but god help a godless US government that uses us to attack gun owners. I've been told by old vets that once the government kills a few thousand who will not give up their guns, these millions of old vets, with thousands of rounds of ammo and telephone call trees, will be there to fight back. On a sad note, there is some truth to this as the new kids come in, completely brainwashed by the left-wing school system, politically correct rather than honest living, demographically correct rather than competitively earned, and trained by the progressive anti-US and anti-bill of rights movement, you are probably right that us older soldiers and Vets will be shot and killed by someone just following orders... but not today! If we vote correctly in 2010 and 2012... maybe not for a while.

  • X - 10 years ago

    They most definetly would without hesitation. Soldiers, especially in the Marine Corps are trained so that they have absolute obedience to orders period. When I was at boot, if they told me to kill my family, I would follow orders. Its brainwashing. Our current military brainwashes you. They break you down so that you are an animal. Then like a good animal you do everything your told.

  • The past is the lesson we ALL should heed well. The Germans had many honorable soldiers who were family men that went to church on Sundays. Those same men were at Nuremberg (sp?) claiming they were "..just following orders". They were sentenced to death!

    So shall it be with this new NAZI takeover that our own "countrymen" military will be melded into the "gestapo". You watch and see if it doesn't come to pass. I'm no prophet but I read history and it DOES repeat itself.

    That's exactly what we are witnessing with our own eyes. A NEW Nazi threat/takeover. We have an admitted Marxist follower in the oval office and he's hellbent on totally giving us up to the World Government being formed as we write our complaints about this future incident (martial law) about to befall us.

    Our politicians are OLIGARCHS and We the People are nothing more then We the SHEEPLE lately. Look at Obama the liar - as the most recent PROOF of my statement. Unless we return government to THE PEOPLE we will have totalitarian despots ruling over us with an iron fist. Their "Velvet Glove" has been removed and the Iron Fist exposed.

    We got "Change" alright!

  • Aaron - 10 years ago

    The non-veteran officers will give the order to fire on their fellow Americans. I have discussed this subject with a young officer in the National Guard Unit deployed in New Orleans. His answer was yes!!!! I'm a veteran officer and firmly believe the true vets will not follow such an order. In the early 60s the results was called "fraggin".

    I believe that the Constitution makes it clear that NO U.S. troops are be used on American Soil against Americans!

  • Jason - 10 years ago

    Being a former service member, I do not believe US service members would fire upon civillians unless they felt that they their lives were in danger. Then it would be self defense and that is to be expected. If this situation ever comes to fruition; there would be enough senior enlisted that understand they are not expected to nor permitted to follow an unlawful order. These senior members would rein in any "loose cannons". Peacefully refusing to turn over your firearms would not likely result in hostilities. The worst possible actions a person could take is to fire upon the military. This would be met by overwhelming force and many lives unnecessarily lost. Remember, it is not Joe Private that has an agenda and this is not his idea. He is a patriotic American that swore an oath to The Constitution of The United States of America and to follow all LAWFULL orders.... Many service members are just as displeased (if not more) with the way our country is headed as are civillians.

  • JPFO Webmaster - 10 years ago

    Response has been good and thank you to all. Comments are well received and we hope for more. I sense a feeling of some resignation with many - and as said in my first comment I hope this is not put to the test.

    However, many older folks in particular, myself included, probably cannot help but remember "Live free or die" and so the chances are if this final test comes to be, there will be many going down fighting.

  • Gary - 10 years ago

    I was in Detroit during the 67 and 76 riots. If the soldiers heard a shot they would immediately fire back in the direction of the sound with weapons up to and including .50 cal. machine guns. They never knew where the shot came from or what they were shooting at.

  • Walter - 10 years ago

    I am a military veteran. Military men shall obey all orders or else the officer in charge will immediately execute the soldier who refuses to obey. This is military law, no if's or buts. Read the UCMJ. It spells it out without any doubt. If you are a loyal American in the military and refuse to shoot your fellow countrymen, then you have to suffer the consequences. Sorry, thats just the way it is.
    Just stay out of the military and you will be a free man.

  • becaz - 10 years ago

    Many will fire....now.....but there are more and more that will NOT. Check out the following organization....


    They have sworn an oath that they will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people, among other things. And this organization is growing like wildfire. Check them out!

  • Bill Hart - 10 years ago

    I pray to God that it never comes to that. I have more faith in my fellow countryman.
    I have also joined Oath Keepers. org, their motto is "Not on our watch".
    This is a group that is for those who took an oath to uphold the US Constitution. Their pledge is; 10 Orders we will not obey! Google them and see for your self.
    We are All Americans, we follow the rule of law, Constitutional law!

    ...against all enemies, foreign and domestic ...so help me God!

  • Michael G. - 10 years ago

    Military personnel (me among them) have had very little regard and/or knowledge of the Constitution if we served anytime after 1945. That was the end of our last war justly authorized by the Constitution, yet, how many have gone to fight in this country's wars since that date? Why now would we even question the military's regard for our constitutional rights? We have been duped into fighting the government's wars that have taken our lives and made the military/industrial/congressional complex very wealthy for decades.

    President Truman stated the Constitution did not give him the authority to send troops to Korea but the United Nations did. CMH recipient, Admiral James Stockdale claimed in his book the Gulf of Tonkin Incident never occurred; does anyone still believe the weapons of mass destruction lies that have bankrupted this country but made government contractors and political allies wealthy beyond imagination?

    Two time Medal of Honor recipient, Major General Smedley Butler put it all on the line in his work "War is a Racket" yet he has been ignored, even by his own beloved Marine Corps. Ignored also has been President Eisenhower's admonition concerning the military/industrial complex and Randolph Bourne's work. "War is the Health of the State."

    Do we believe for a minute the present generation with their dumbed down "no child left behind" educations and video games are intelligent enough to see what we could not?

    How can we realistically believe the military will suddenly grow a conscience when all they will hear about those of us who cherish the Constitution is we are Terrorists, supposedly the same as those they have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for years? The government defined us as their enemies long before the Homeland Security document of April of 2009 did so formally.

    I recently had a conversation with an active duty Marine with several tours of duty in the sandbox. When I posed this question to him he said he believed well over 80% of those he knew would do as ordered. In a telling statement he said the Marines have turned from "Semper Fi" to "Semper I."

    Forgotten in most discussions on this subject is the number of felons and gang members that are now in the military because the government had problems recruiting in the past 6 or so years because of constant deployments. Take a look at the rising crime rates around the major military installations in this country. Gang presence in the military is a real issue the media will not touch. How hard is it going to be for a felon or gang member to follow the order to seize private property and relocate us to FEMA camps? Yeah, Massa, please don't throw me in the brier patch.

    Last of all, what about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? Did the military, private contractors and police seize firearms? Did they relocate people against their will? There are several youtube videos available if you have any doubts. Question answered as far as I am concerned.

    While I would hate to ever have to look through my sites at US military personnel, I would hate being made a slave, killed, or placed in a detention camp worse. Damn this government for ever even making this a discussion.

  • W. D. Lockaby - 10 years ago

    Sadly I expect many will follow orders without questioning their Constitutional validity. Most US Citizens age 18 - 30 have little knowledge of our Constitution or our history; I don't imagine the military does much to rectify this deficiency in its recruits. Of course the troops would be deployed away from their home States so it would be unlikely they'd encounter people they know.

  • Jim McCoole - 10 years ago

    Any order to disarm lawfully armed civilians would be an illegal order, and would therefore not have to be obeyed.

    Anyone who flies an American flag from a flagpole, please note: We should all be flying it at "half-staff" because our Constitution is deceased, and the rest of the country is on "life-support."

    I have been flying my flag at half-staff for several months now, and I would like to see everyone who agrees that we should be mourning over our deceased Constitution, do the same. Who knows, maybe it will catch on and become a national symbol of rebellion. For you bleeding hearts, no, it is not illegal to fly your flag at half-staff. If marxist punks can burn their flags, we can certainly fly ours as a "free speech expression" of our contempt for this president and this "gangster government."

  • Thomas J. - 10 years ago

    I recently talked to an career enlisted Ranger & asked how many would fire on civilians. He replied that about 20% would. He also said that immediately the remainder would turn & kill the 20% graveyard dead. He said they were trained over & over on how to treat civilians. There is some hope.

  • Jim McCoole - 10 years ago

    I am a 70 year old vet and I voted that I didn't think many would shoot, even if ordered to. However, I don't want to wait to see what they would do - I want to be a part of an effort to take our country back now.

    At some point I think it would be possible, maybe even during a holiday recess, if we could get enough of us together, to occupy the Senate and House office buildings, preventing even security or military personell, for a long enough period of time, to send a serious message to everyone, including the citizenry, that we will not tolerate any more of this nonsense.

    This government serves with the "consent of the governed." They work for us, and we have the numbers on our side, especially when we also have the Constitution on our side. The 2nd Amendment was, and is, a part of the Bill of Rights, so that we can take back this government when they overstep their rightful and lawful bounds. And they have been "overstepping" for a long time.

    Every member of this, and every Congress for the past fifty years have been violating their oath of office. No one intended for politicians to get full pay for life after only one term, or for them to be exempt from the laws they pass for the rest of us. We need to FORCE them to live with the life they FORCE on us.

    How are we going to do that? By asking them nicely? They hold us in total contempt. They laugh at us and our ideas. We can't rely on the Supreme Court to rule against them when they overstep. It's up to us. We need to go to them and take it from them. Sooner or later, that is what will happen. Sooner of later things will get so bad, so out of control, that there will armed insurrection in the streets, and a lot of us will get killed.

    Anybody out there willing to die for their country? Willing to die to ensure freedom for our Grandkids? Or will we wait and make our Grandkids do the fighting? Because, sooner or later it is going to happen.

    Obama wants to destroy everything sacred that we all have fought for, just to pay back for the alleged injustices of the past. And his ancestors were not even slaves. His mission is to bring down every American institution until there is nothing but rubble left, and then he, and his communist/socialist/marxist czars plan to take control of everything, and we will no longer have an American country.

    I will not sit by and let that happen! The "miracle" of 1776 could never be duplicated in 2009. So if we lose this country now, it will not ever be created again. Please help me, and tens, and hundreds of thousands of patriots save this country, by getting outraged, and acting outraged with these people. We need to fight them every minute of every day, month after month, until we restore what we once had.

    And if the Secret Service comes for me, I expect all of you to come to my defense. Thank you.

    Strength and Honor!

  • Joe or Harry - 10 years ago

    I was just writting a bunch of letters to some (anti-gun) Politicians. {I hope all you Pro-2-A Supportors do to} I couldn't help but notice that in some of their Bios, that many of them were in the Military, And here they are writing the very laws that would turn a licensed gun owner into an enemy of the state if he or she doesn't abide by the newest law that he never heard about, most likely because he or she is busy working extra shifts so he can afford 'the Kings' property taxes.

  • Jek Silberstein - 10 years ago

    I believe some would. In some units, almost all would(blue helmets),--in some others, nobody would. I would THEN expect the blue helmets/foreign officers... to shoot/threaten to shoot some of the youngest, among...those shooting.../refusing...to shoot, at which time, I HOPE (especially in the case of Foreign/U.N. officers) somebody remembers the noble tradition of fragging/restraining, with prejudice, those "over-exuberant" officers (--justing kidding, of course...).

  • GCKarcher - 10 years ago

    I believe the younger troops would if given the order. I saw many civilians killed in Vietnam when the order was given. Older more knowledge soldiers would probably question the orders but if told they will follow the orders they would also fire. It becomes a them or us thing when you are in the Army. (26 years US Army)

  • Karl J. Schubert - 10 years ago

    I would like to think they would uphold the Constitutional right to bear arms, but I'm not at all confident that they would. An 18-year-old soldier has been trained to obey orders, not give thought to whether those orders are lawful or moral and should be obeyed.

    Even plenty of those who are quite mature don't understand gun rights and think the founding fathers threw in 2A to defend deer hunting!

  • Joe or Harry - 10 years ago

    Count on them doing it. There would be a small percentage that wouldn't. Most of the under 30 year old crowd does not believe that citizens should have the right to keep & bear arms. Oh yeah, they would say for hunting only. Alot of the troops maybe 1 st generation Americans & think that the gun laws should be like in their former country

  • Ron - 10 years ago

    I am a Marine from the V.N. era and I was young at that time. I blindly followed orders at that time, that still haunt me to this day. None the less, I followed those orders at that time. So I believe that the younger, less history oriented pumped up and brain washed, would fire on their own countrymen if they were ordered to do so. However, the older and more Constitutionaly oriented would immediately fire on these younger ones and it would be all over within a day or so. The Constitution Lives!!

  • Ed - 10 years ago

    The troops would have to fire in this old Veteran because that's the only friggin way BO and his gang of thieves will EVER GET THEM and i won't be going alone.....

  • Jerry A. Stein - 10 years ago

    Hopefully the "good" ones would stop the "bad" ones. It was one Warrat Officer who stopped Lt. Calley.

  • Ray - 10 years ago

    Sadly this issue is a matter of history. Starting with the whiskey "rebellion" and up through Kent State (yes I know it was national guard - but still military). Place soldiers in a confrontation where they feel their lives are "threatened" and training kicks in - OBEY THE ORDER TO FIRE. Some, perhaps many, will think about the consequences and the lawfulness of the order, but too many will still pull the trigger. Their thoughts will be of little consolation to the dead and wounded CITIZENS.

  • Richard - 10 years ago

    They would, they want that paycheck and will not go to prison. They are brain washed to do what they are told. I worked with the military as a civilian, they take orders and do not question

  • R. Cavolo - 10 years ago

    American Troops are not the problem. There are foreign troops here in America" training " along side our troops under Northcom. The troops wearing Blue helmets would not hesitate to fire on American citizens any mor than the police in Iran hesitate to kill and wound protesters. This country must avoid this confrontation at all costs. We must argue with these evil forces and defeat them with words, printed and spoken.

  • R. Cavolo - 10 years ago

    American Troops are not the problem. There are foreign troops here in America" training " along side our troops under Northcom. The troops wearing Blue helmets would not hesitate to fire on American citizens any mor than the police in Iran hesitate to kill and wound protesters. This country must avoid this confrontation at all costs. We must argue with these evil forces and defeat them with words, printed and spoken.

  • Mike B. - 10 years ago

    It would depend on the military unit involved. Some units are mission-oriented to the nth degree and they wouldn't hesitate to use deadly force to complete their mission. I would put SEALs, Special Forces, Rangers, and units of those type in that grouping. The media would hype it as "right wing nutjobs" and "terrorists" so the public sympathy would already be against gun owners. Not a situation I look forward to by any stretch.

    Note that they would NOT use local Guard or Reserve units to enforce the confiscation. They would import out-of-state units to nullify any "neighbors" misgivings among the troops. The military has already practiced this scenario repeatedly. It will be nothing new to them.

  • Lane - 10 years ago

    The officer corps, though well educated, is at its heart very political. This may indicate a willingness at the top to follow irregular or illegal orders. The ground pounders will not move to kill their neighbors and countrymen.

  • Webmaster - 10 years ago

    Much would depend on ages and origins of military personnel. Older members with an allegiance to the constitution would not shoot. Younger members and those with hard backgrounds could well be the "I am only following orders" category. To assume that none would fire on their countrymen would be naive. It is to be hoped this is never put to the test.