October 21, 2014

In the News::

Illinois Governor Wants Weapons Ban -

Monday, October 20, 2014

Shaneen Allen is Finally Out of the Woods -

Monday, October 20, 2014

Gaston Glock Meets His Match: The Ex-Wife -

Monday, October 20, 2014

The Wonderful World of .45′s -

Monday, October 20, 2014

GunAuction.com Imports ATF FFL Database for Sellers -

Thursday, October 16, 2014

Lt. Col. Robert Bateman Against 2nd Amendment

lt-colonel-modern-moron

Lt. Col. Robert Bateman–a modern-day moron–recently wrote an article for Esquire magazine lamenting the Supreme Court’s decision that a “well-regulated militia” wasn’t the only group eligible for protection under the 2nd Amendment. I have read many articles and posts on the internet calling this man a traitor. I will reserve that judgment for history, but I will say that he is not as educated as he purports to be in his article. I am not referring to his credentials–I’m speaking of his common sense and reasoning skills.

Bateman makes several points, all with the goal to eliminate the Second Amendment, and to take away a right which I believe to be inherent, not granted. Bateman makes references to several historical events which he claims prove that the founding fathers intended the Second Amendment to be for a militia, and not for all citizens. I want to explore each of his claims to expose his lies and intentional bending of the facts.

He starts his article by relating the story of a sports fan after the Auburn-Alabama game last Saturday. She was so upset over Alabama’s loss that she shot and killed another fan for not being as upset as she was. Bateman implies that if handguns had been banned, and if the Second Amendment was interpreted his way, then this killing would not have happened.

I guess Bateman doesn’t pay attention to the killings that have happened at baseball games this year—none with guns.

Bateman now resides in England, a country from which my ancestors came. I guess he doesn’t pay much attention to the riots that happen at their “football” matches. Does this man not realize that violence is an issue of humanity—not guns?

He makes fun of Justice Scalia for what Bateman claims is an “…attempt to rewrite American history…” but ignores actual history in his arguments. Apparently, Bateman thinks that violence started with guns and will end with guns. I find this interesting, coming from what appears to be a career soldier. Any soldier with half of a brain knows that violence takes many shapes and forms. Guns are simply a tool. If they aren’t available, then a different tool will be used.

Bateman wants to trade guns for some other tool of violence. What Bateman fails to address in his article is the role that firearms play in self-defense. He completely ignores this fact. My belief is that he does this with the ludicrous idea that once guns have been, in effect, banned, the criminals will simply participate in his proposed “gun buyback.” His buyback program is a thing of beauty.

His idea is that the government needs to buy back all guns that are not on his proposed “acceptable” list. These guns would be purchased for 200% of book value, and the best part–the piece de resistance–the money will come from the Department of Defense. That is exactly what America needs—an even larger DoD budget!

Where exactly does he think this budget money will come from? My only guess is the tax increase on ammunition that he is proposing. He wants all ammo to be taxed at 400% to begin with, then increase at a rate of 20% per year–forever. He is gracious enough to not tax the “approved” ammo at these rates.

So what are the approved guns? I’ll let him speak for himself. According to Bateman,

“Smoothbore or Rifled muzzle-loading black powder muskets. No 7-11 in history has ever been held up with one of these. Double-barrel breech-loading shotguns. Hunting with these is valid. Bolt-action rifles with a magazine capacity no greater than five rounds. Like I said, hunting is valid. But if you cannot bring down a defenseless deer in under five rounds, then you have no fking reason to be holding a killing tool in the first place.”

So, Bateman is pro-hunting, but that is all a gun is allowed to be used for. He thinks that the Second Amendment was intended to establish what we know today as the National Guard. He goes to great lengths to explain that state militias were all the rage during the Revolutionary War as well as the Civil War.

He is right, state militias played a big role in these wars. Interestingly enough, one of the main reasons that the Second Amendment was implemented was that the founding fathers didn’t want to see a standing army in the United States, which this man is a part of. He also completely ignores that the impetus to the Shot Heard Around the World was the British seizure of powder houses and firearms from the colonists.

Bateman speaks of the Civil War, but what he does not mention is what happened immediately after the war. The Union seized the weapons of the losing side. If he had his way, this is exactly what would happen in today’s world.

Bateman also wants to get rid of all gun manufactures, except those that make guns for the U.S. Government. Isn’t that interesting? The citizens who have a god-given right to keep and bear arms won’t be able to buy guns, but a standing army will be–and he makes fun of Scalia for not paying attention in history. Where was he during history class?

Another question that I have for him is this: If the Second Amendment applies only to militias (National Guard), then do the members of the National Guard get to take their firearms home with them? Are they allowed to keep and bear these arms? The answer is heck no! These arms are kept locked in an armory and only given out when approved by the government.

All in all, Bateman is simply another liberal who is trying to sway favor by being politically correct. Simply because he wears a uniform does not make his opinion any more valid than it would be if he chose a different career. He feels that he knows what is best for you and me, and that means disarming America.

My advice for Lt. Colonel Bateman is simple: If you like the anti-gun laws of England, then by all means, retire there. If you don’t feel safe in America because there are so many guns, please feel free to live your life in Europe, where gun laws are strict. Just keep in mind that the European rate of violent crime is just as bad, if not worse, than that of America.

Comments
31 Responses to “Lt. Col. Robert Bateman Against 2nd Amendment”
  1. Hickok says:

    And shame on Esquire magazine for giving this libtard a forum on which to display his idiocy. What kind of “Lt. Colonel” is he supposed to have been anyway?, not that it matters. Having served in any sort of armed services doesn’t give him any greater knowledge or insight than others.

    • jaella veteran says:

      you gunporners are sick-inducing – when you castigate an honorably serving US Army officer and pretend that he’s some kind of “liberal,” you not only reveal your own treasonous bents, you show how utterly moronic your thinking is. when children are being slaughtered weekly at their own schools, you clutch your firearms like masturbatory devices. what infantile behavior.

  2. Barker62 says:

    Wonder if the Light Colonel is there to take advantage of socialized medicine for getting psychiatric care….? (and of course the psychotropic meds also!)

    Maybe VA hospitals aren’t good enough?

    • XXLegion says:

      I think that this guy is bucking for promotion by kissing the ass of any anti-gun politician that he can find.

    • David says:

      I really don’t think he is a Light Bird Colonel at all. An Officer that high up should know that weapons are an everyday thing and being in the military he should be used to them by now. If he feels this way, maybe he should retire in England and stay there. I’m a retired GI and I own a few of these weapons for sport and fun at the range.

      • Gray says:

        It is either a Light Colonel or a Bird Colonel, there is no Light Bird Colonel, a LT COL wears a silver leaf, a full Colonel wears an Eagle (Bird).

  3. Brett Barbaro says:

    Sir, I object to you calling a member of our armed forces a “moron” without further explanation. He has taught military history at the U.S. Military Academy. On what basis do you make this assertion? I would think that Mr. Bateman deserves at least a modicum of respect, and that if his ideas disagree with yours, he should be at least given the courtesy to disagree without the use of attacks on his person.

  4. Coalhillbill says:

    How did this guy ever get to be a Light Bird? Definitely a Desk Jockey with connections. Like we had a saying in the Old Army back in the 50′s ” Aint what you know. It’s who you Blow”.. And what is he doing living in England of all places? Won’t they let him back into the USA?

  5. cal says:

    Another DUMB ASS LIBERAL DEMOCRAT!!!!!!! I can’t imagine what goes on in his “brain????”…..

  6. faultroy says:

    As someone who is a staunch supporter of gun rights, I want to address one element of the author’s screed that seems insufficiently illuminated. That element is the issue of individual rights versus “collective rights” as per the Second Amendment.

    The author’s position is the current majority position of the Supreme Court of the United States–that is the 2nd Amendment Right is a right given the individual as opposed to a right reserved for the States and the Federal government via the militia, National Guard or a standing military.

    One argument rarely presented is that during the time of the Founding Fathers, the armament of the individual was inextricably connected to his ability to survive in his environment. That means, a rifle, shotgun and pistol were necessary for the survival of the individual in a hostile land.

    For example, if our current environment included protections from roaming Lions, Tigers, Leopards, Bears, Wolves and Hyenas AND roaming bands of hostile tribes committed to insuring ones demise, then a reasonable argument could be made on this basis. But unfortunately, that is not the case.

    Furthermore, it makes no sense to project what the Founding Fathers would have thought because they did not have to live in our coddled society. For them to attempt to project would have been futile.

    And, we know the right to bear arms is NOT an unlimited right. That is under the current law, you do NOT have a right to own a working tank, large amounts of explosives nor access to automatic weaponry and anti tank/ anti aircraft weaponry. The courts have ruled that states can and should control and limit access to weaponry that has the capacity to do serious collective harm. No one disputes these reasonable measures.

    Why? Because government and the people–i.e. “Society” has the right to be free from violence and intimidation and threats to both themselves, their offspring and the community at large. And furthermore to live in peace and safety.

    The point is the latter “right” which is not specifically stated as an “amendment ” to the Constitution supersedes all other amendments.

    What we know for a fact is that ALL the Amendments to the Constitution have controls and caveats. For example, the First Amendment gives us the right to free speech, but it does not allow one to go into a crowded movie theater and yell “fire” just for amusement purposes–why? Because people can cause serious injury and even death when they become panicked and fearful.

    The point is that there is an element of common sense to the Constitution. And even the idea of the Right to Bear Arms has the requisite common sense requirement behind it. The point is that both the Federal Government and the State government has a compelling interest in tempering Constitutional Rights with an eye on the best interests of the collective–that is Society at large.

    The problem with so much of the current dialogue on the part of current gun advocates, writers, pundits and talking heads and is that this reality is forgotten and buried in their zeal to make their points.

    Gun Advocates need to keep reality in mind. Yes, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual right, but that right is not open ended. If Gun advocates abuse that right, the Supreme Court will have no choice but to invoke the “unwritten amendment” that supersedes all others–the right to protect the people from the bizarre and unintended consequences of their actions.

    The best example that I know of is the refusal of the people of the USA to ratify the ERA Amendment so pushed by Feminists. The ERA Amendment was wildly popular. It received a total of 35 states willing to ratify the ERA Amendment guaranteeing women full equal rights to men. It needed a total of 38 states for ratification and thus was only three states away from ratification.

    However there was kink in the amendment–by giving women their equal rights, the courts could no longer discriminate in FAVOR of women either–which the courts had consistently done so because of the peculiar nature of the female gender. It was this fact alone that made women think twice. Many women were not comfortable with the idea of giving up their historically held advantages and having to legally compete directly with men on all levels–without the protection of the law, the courts and the government.

    So what happened? What happened was that even though women had not received constitutional equality, the courts stepped around the constitution and gave women “legal statutory” rights while still invoking and retaining historical female privilege. This has caused a severe imbalance within the male/female dynamic that hundreds of thousands of men have found out the hard way in domestic disputes. Women were able to use the power of both government and the courts to further their own agendas.

    The same thing can easily happen with respect to gun rights. Contrary to current gun advocates, there is nothing written in stone. The current increase in psychotic usage of guns in horrific crimes can and will ultimately either severely curtail or completely eliminate gun rights as we know them. The special interest group that has the most to loose by the efforts of anti gun advocates is those wanting the right to bear arms.

    What we are seeing by pro gun advocates is a mindless focus on the right to bear arms, but without the necessary foresight to aggressively advocate for responsible gun laws that they feel they can live with that will effectively deal with the plethora of gun violence we see today.

    In the past, the most aggressive attempts to preempt gun control was the passage of the “Three Strikes and You Are Out Act” this was promoted by the NRA to stop the constant “revolving door” of criminals going to prison, then being released back into society. While certainly well intentioned, it has caused some dramatic and severe problems in which the overwhelming majority of today’s incarcerated prisoners happen to be non violent criminals. Consequently there is a concerted effort to overturn these injurious and non productive laws to give judges further discretion.

    The point is rather than be completely reactionary, gun advocates need to look at the bigger picture and help society find proactive ways of dealing with problems and coming up with intelligent and thoughtful solutions that deal with the specifics of those problems while at the same time protecting their individual rights.

    The mission of the Courts (from their perspective) is to control the ability of society to leave in peace and harmony. It will do whatever it must to achieve that goal. If it means violating the constitution–it will do so. After all, that is only common sense–from their perspective.

    Hiding behind the Constitution is both dangerous and futile. American gun owners have to be smart enough to not only fight laws meant to curtail their individual rights, but also ANTICIPATE potential attacks by those completely opposed to their individual right by people who believe that the 2nd Amendment pertains to a collective right.

    Sadly, just the opposite is taking place today. Too many gun owners are acting hysterically, illogically and irrationally. We need cooler heads at the helm. We need enlightened leaders in the gun advocacy community that can preempt laws and discuss ways to insure peace and safety for our citizens while at the same time protect gun rights.

    • Lotsa words. No common sense. When they come for you, do you want us to help or just watch? Keep your hands where we can see them and step away from the Kool-Aid!

    • Le Snelson says:

      I get a kick out of folks who try to trot out their superior understanding of history and constitutional law on this and many other such issues.

      The fact is that many much more capable people have worked this issue before the Court. Do you really think you would prevail in any of the prior Supreme Court decisions? How arrogant can you get?

    • Highlander says:

      You do have a job don’t you? Or do you just like to sit there and regurgitate the tripe from the guy at Guns and Ammo who was fired over his last work. You sir, think much to highly of yourself.

    • Steve says:

      faltroy,
      I agree some in the pro second amendment camp are over reactionary however you may be an over reactionary to them. Most advocates are well thought and often are misquoted by the biased media to seem extremist. And many of your assertions about what can and cannot be owned is erroneous. I personally own a military armored car, I know people who own modern and vintage battle tanks with working main guns, military aircraft including some recent jet models, permits for explosives, destructive devices, machineguns, cannon are not impossible to get and many hundreds of thousands are owned in the United States. Yes, the average person at best can buy a military semi automatic rifle (the optimal arm of the militia) but it is not out of the reach of a US citizen to legally own and possess what you state is not. That brings questions to the veracity of your statement since you are obviously not well informed on this subject. LTC Bateman is a moron, no doubt a ruling class elitist wannabe and toadie to the wealthy ruling elites who would disarm us in order to better control and rule us rather than represent us or treat us as equals under the law. Having had my rights and property threatened here in California I don’t think I am acting hysterically when I am trying to sound a clarion call to defend our rights.

    • Terry says:

      If any one of the “responsible” gun laws would have done anything to stop the senseless gun crimes of the past years gun owners and 2nd Amendment proponents would have jumped to implement them. The fact is that the “laws” proposed would have done nothing but hassle law abiding citizens and would have not deterred criminals at all. All of the weapons used in the mass shootings since Columbine have been done with weapons purchased with background checks. In one case it was a “straw” purchase (which is illegal ) and in one case the weapons were stolen (which is illegal ). Magazine size limits would have done nothing. The criminal would have ignored the law or used smaller magazines. With only a little practice a magazine can be changed in 2 seconds or less. The end result would have been a large number of casualties. As I said give us a workable law that does deter crime and the gun public will support it 1,000 percent.

    • Gray says:

      Interesting, I know someone who owns a fully operational tank, including two fully functional .30 caliber machine guns and a fully functional .50 Caliber machine gun. ALL LEGALLY OWNED!

  7. DavidG says:

    This debate over the Second Amendment would be interesting if it weren’t so tired. There has been much drama and arm waving but it all really comes down to this. The Constitution and Bill of Rights was written for us, We the People, not to grant rights because they are inherent, but to enumerate them to prevent them from being trampled by the government WE put in place. It is not written for the government except to put limits on what the government can do to us. Freedom and liberty is a function of individual rights and liberties. Therefore, based upon some pretty simple logic, the idea that the Second Amendment refers to a governmental militia and not the individual is ridiculous.

    Many of us today have grown up with this statist point of view that the government grants and the government provides so Sir Bateman’s arguments are somehow compelling and thought provoking. They are not. The arrogant rantings of Comrad Bateman are essentially saying that he knows what is best for you and how you should live your life. And he is implying that the unwashed masses are unworthy of the responsibility required for a free people. Sir, to you we say, you fit right in over in the UK. Please feel “free” to stay there.

  8. Dominiator says:

    All this is here nor there! The fact is the people are to rule and the Government works for the people! The Government has no right whatsoever to dictate what we do and can have. That would be like a entry level employee at a very large company telling the company what to do and that just does not happen! Wake up people and demand that the Government do the JOB that they are PAID to do! Take back our country and say enough!

  9. Larry Mandrell says:

    A military officer who thinks like this, reason enough for Citizens to be armed!

  10. Art Cannon says:

    I took a course in 1973 at the University of New Mexico: Constitutional History of the U.S. from the Magna Carta through 1930. I wish I could remember the name of the Professor. He was an older gentlemen in his mid 60′s, from Louisiana. He spoke about the founding fathers with some formidable knowledge. as if they were his buddies.

    The reason for the first 10 amendments was that our founding fathers believed that the Constitution was slanted in favor of the government. They wanted clear protection for themselves, their families and the citizenry against the government. They had just fought our Revolutionary war and didn’t ever want to have to do so again. They wanted us to be able to protect ourselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Freedom of Speech and Religion; the right to bear arms. The first and second amendments to the Constitution.

    Remember that our present Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, which were considered too weak for our Federalist Republic. In correcting the oversight of the Articles of Confederation, they overshot their mark a bit and realized that not enough protection was present in the new Constitution for the citizens of this country (We the People).

    The second amendment has never been about ones right to hunt or self protect oneself from others. It has always been about the ability to protect oneself from the government, all governments… foreign and domestic. Protection from dangerous animals, hostile natives, criminals and placing food on the table, were all ancillary benefits.

    I believe that Lt. Col. Robert Bateman position and interpretation are wrong.

  11. former dea miami says:

    His family was not among those that had to throw out a government, mine moved here in the 1600s to get away from oppressive laws and chased the king out when the laws started to follow them here, second amendment is about our right to defend ourselves from people who think they have a right to DICTATEor how we live, remember the oath the military takes is to uphold and protect the constitution, not con-gress or president or courts ., from all threats DOMESTIC and foreign

    • Barker62 says:

      Agreed. Ancestors on both sides of my family had to ‘emigrate’ or die in what was almost ‘ethnic cleansing’ in Scotland. Among those of Scots ancestry it’s called “The ’45′” after the year(1745) most of it occurred. Like yours my ancestors proudly risked their lives to send King George a message that they weren’t about to be killed and hounded any more!

    • On the Mayflower says:

      My ancestors came to Plymouth Rock and Jamestown in the 1620s to get away from lords saying what weapons one might have and what game one might be permitted to kill. We are all for law, but not for lords who arbitrarily decide who is able to do what. My family fought in the French and Indian War, the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War (both sides), and every American war since. He, General Benedict Arnold Bateman, does not know our history very well. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has nothing to do with hunting or self-defense against buglers and muggers, it has everything to do with defense against foreign attacks and domestic tyranny. I think I shall write some pointed remarks to my Representative and Senators concerning your commission—.

  12. Military officers are NOT all created equal. LtC Bateman obviously must have been a bureaucrat. Remember the “Peter Principle”? “A person in a career path will be promoted until he/she reaches his/her level of total incompetence.”

    With regard to “faultroy”‘s comment:

    I once helped manage a kennel housing about 150 security dogs (Dobermans, Shepherds, Rottweilers, etc.). Occasionally, we encountered a dog that could not be controlled, attacking any/all of the other dogs at every opportunity. We did not respond by applying muzzles to all 150 dogs, we sent the offender out for remedial training. The commenter’s response to the issue of the “psychotic usage of guns”, who comprise a tiny fraction of 1% of gun owners is to impose restrictions on the 99.999% who are law-abiding, posing no threat to anyone. The percentage that have given lifesaving assistance to others, even to law-enforcement officers, exceeds the psychotic percentage by a wide margin.

    Regarding the “Three Strikes and You Are Out Act” and the NRA, the NRA has NEVER promoted its’ application to nonviolent criminals. Their efforts have been directed against those who employ the use of firearms while committing a violent crime.

    “The mission of the Courts (from their perspective) is to control the ability of society to leave in peace and harmony.” My guns, and the guns of tens or hundreds of millions of lawful gun owners have never posed ANY threat to the peace and harmony of society. New laws cannot improve upon this statistic, nor will any conceivable law preempt the lawless. The only rational approach is to focus on the mentally violence-prone segment of the population with appropriate mental health programs, and to impose draconian punishment on those who willfully use firearms (or other weapons) in acts of violence against their fellow citizens.

    • Ray Marotta says:

      These days all that’s required to become a Military Officer is a four year college degree in any subject from an accredited college or university, a clean criminal background check, and, the ability to pass a physical examination with drug screen.
      This clown could be considered by some to be in violation of his oath to preserve and protect the constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic. I admittedly did not read all of the article thoroughly as I quickly tired of his liberal pseudo intellectual blather.
      The Second Amendment is a God Given Right. As far as I’m concerned, that’s the end of the story…However, I probably wouldn’t object to a 2nd Amendment postscript such as: With the right to possess deadly force comes deadly responsibility. ie ANY CRIME committed with a firearm becomes a capital offense with sentence carried out immediately upon conviction. Self defense excepted.

  13. Bob says:

    As to whether Bateman is a moron- I believe a better description would be “arrogantly stupid”. He is, however, either a liar or a very poor history professor. I taught US History, and US Military History(a required course for the ROTC cadets) for several years, before switching careers (I am now a lawyer). Having read Bateman’s rant, I can assure you he displays a limited knowledge of the history he attempts to use to justify his scheme, and an even poorer understand of that history. He fails to even mention several Federal (including at least one SCOTUS) cases that directly deny his basic claim- that the National Guard is the Constitutional/Historical militia, and his reasoning for the “Collective Right” interpretation relies upon ignoring any fact which contradicts his pet theory.
    In short- the only difference between Bateman and the usual anti-2nd Amendment “liberal professor” is his uniform.

  14. Gray says:

    The lie that the National Guard is the reason for the Second Amendment know nothing. Richard Henry Lee and John Smilie both warned against the National Guard, or rather the type of force the National Guard is, a select militia.

    Lee – The constitution ought to secure a genuine [militia], and guard against a select militia

    Smilie – Congress may give us a select militia which will, in fact, be a standing army — or Congress, afraid of a general militia, may say there shall be no militia at all. When a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.

    Gun grabbers of today are proving Smilie’s point that the Second is necessary, with their argument that we don’t need the Right to Keep and Bear Arms since we have the National Guard.

    • On the Mayflower says:

      The original militias, mentioned in colonial, state and federal laws were comprised of all the able bodied men of a town or county. Any able bodied man could be considered part of the militia.

  15. James Long says:

    Our rights are NOT granted by the Constitution. We are born with the right to do anything we want. Governments can only restrict those rights. I believe that the Federalists were right. The ‘Bill of Rights” was a mistake. They predicted that people would eventually interpret that those rights listed in the “Bill of Rights” were the only rights “granted” to the people. I appreciate what the people who wanted the first ten Amendments were trying to do, but they were misguided in how they tried to do it. The Constitution had already stated that the power of the federal gavernment was limited to those powers EXPLICITLY granted it in the constitution. No firther clarification was necessary. Having said all that, it doesn’t really matter now that we have a president who chooses to ignore the Constitution and takes the “progressive” view that it is an outdated document that no longer serves a purpose (unless, of course, that purpose serves his needs). The only thing that prevents the government from legislating away our right to keep and bear arms is a congress who know their political future depends on them preserving that right. When the day comes that politicians believe that there are more voters who want more anti-gun legislation than there are who don’t, we are doomed!

  16. Kosh75287 says:

    Makes me wonder if Bateman’s middle name shouldn’t be changed to “Master”.

Leave A Comment

CAPTCHA Image
*


IFrame Widget