Lt. Col. Robert Bateman Against 2nd Amendment
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.